State Interference as Economic Sabotage

[Rosa Provokateur]

State Interference as Economic Sabotage

How Regulation is creating a Centralized State




As we move into the fifth month of 2009, the United States is held psychologically hostage by the false threat of economic collapse. Our deficit is high, loans are becoming increasingly difficult to attain, and businesses are running left and right to the government for a hand-out in hopes of making up for their mistakes. 401k are losing people’s money and as the populous holds their breath captivated with fear, a shining star, President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress dominated by the so-called “Democratic” Party, rises to provide a solution.

This solution however, is a façade, designed to make more resources reliant on the State, that ugly and vicious enemy of freedom. As countless billions are poured into President Obama’s new stimulus package we are seeing increased State control of health-care, more funding of so-called “public” projects that no one desires save for the politicians whose reputations will prosper as they deliver money to their state-governments.

As the stimulus package is given the final touches and passed into law (Charles Dickens was right, “the law is an ass”) the continued giving out of money to failing businesses is creating a devastating chaos on the economic scene. Just recently, the U.S. government took over total ownership of General Motors who was on the verge of collapse. Why was it about to collapse? Because no one wants their products!

Consumerism is an election, the market is the voting booth, and money is the vote; when a product is desired by the populous it will be bought in high quantity and the owners of said product will prosper, continuing to prosper so long as they meet the consumer demand. Consumers want the best quality for the lowest price and where they get it from is un-important, nationalism is a dead idea and especially so in the free-market.

Taking GM for example it is no secret that the American auto-industry has failed in delivering quality product, rather they’ve designed their cars to break so they can make a profit off of people getting repairs. The competition in Japan, Germany, etc. has done the opposite and is on top of the industry because of it. This being the case, why would anyone keep around a business that nobody wants? There is the argument of job-preservation and I sympathize but in allowing obsolete business to fall we allow cutting-edge technologies to flourish, creating new industries and new jobs along with them.

This way of doing things doesn’t take peoples jobs away; it creates new jobs for our children and gives them incentive to succeed. I’m 18 and only just recently got an iPod; we have 12 year olds with iPods who can work them intelligently and by the time they’re my age the 12 year olds of that time will be toying with even newer technology. The incentive then is not only the new technology that will be made but the education required using it; multiple skills are needed to succeed in the market and as we progress, our youth naturally pick it up. As a kid the internet was new to us and not many knew how to use it. Now virtually the entire world is net-savvy.

Going back to government regulation, when the State keeps un-successful business alive it keeps un-wanted product in circulation. Suppose that when the car was first going mainstream the government subsidized the horse-and-buggy industry; jobs would be saved, a good business would be kept alive. However in doing so, the State would be allocating finances toward a no-longer desired method of transport while at the same time consumers would be trying to spend on cars. The conflict comes in that to do this the State must use the consumer’s money, through taxation, and thus coerce people into supporting something they don’t want.

History shows that two things always go hand-in-hand; economic liberty and social liberty. They’re inseparable and to try and support one while opposing the other is not only contradictory but morally and ethically wrong. By allowing greater market freedom we allow consumers to further take their lives into their own hands and make responsible decisions for themselves about what they want and what they want to do with it. State interference is not only harmful to the economy but is harmful to our individual liberty; when they limit our ability to fully support and advance the things we want, they limit our ability to freely live without coercion. Taxation limits what we can buy and the propping up of un-wanted product diverts our spending from creating more of what we want.

Liberals and Conservatives have failed. We do not need Republicans or Democrat. We do not need a republic or a democracy. We need liberty, pure and un-regulated. Anything less is a spit in the face.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I wrote this last week in one of my classes; I know I'm gonna be criticized, ostracized, and have my ass handed to me for it but I believe in what I've written so what's done is done.

[Kronos]

Not bad for an eighteen year old.


This solution however, is a façade, designed to make more resources reliant on the State, that ugly and vicious enemy of freedom.

But what if the point here to to beat out of business the very capitalists who require the stimulus to maintain employment opportunities for the consumer, working classes who are no longer buying anything because they are broke?

Do you see the vicious circle emerge here? The problem is the dead capital....not the state. Without the option to redistribute this wealth, the state has to find a way to put money back into the capitalists so that the working classes will have jobs since capitalists do not employ workers to produce commodities that have no market value. But they have no market value because broke consumers don't buy them.

That is the circle.

The issue is the capitalists- the "dead weight", the "third leg" in economy. There are two options for the government concerning "stimulus". One, redistribute all the wealth from the capitalists back into the working classes, or two, inflate, print money, and give it to the capitalists (who are the cause of the problem) so that they can continue to invest in markets and employ people. This second alternative is merely a temporary fix. It doesn't solve the problem. However, the state cannot seize power like they did back in the day- the days of old revolutions are over. Today, socialism occurs through a series of gradations.

Let the state invade the private sectors and the capitalists will finally fold.

Do you understand why consumers are broke and the market is floundering? Because the capitalists have all the money. If you redistributed every cent owned by the capitalists back to the consumers, and liquidated all private business, you would "reset" the economy: now you have a flourishing market circulating between the working classes and the state, who own all the means of production, and we live happily ever after.....as long as Smurf doesn't interfere.

[Delirium]

The essential effect of this economic bailout is to maintain the status quo. The majority of money has gone to the banks and other speculative financial institutions. A small amount of money has gone to the automotive institutions. The plan for both of these is to fix the corporations and then sell them back to private buyers, not to nationalize them.

I disagree that this is a power grab by the state. The obama administration is not putting any major conditions attached to these loans even though he could. This is essentially a transfer of public wealth (tax dollars) into private hands. All of social spending proposed is minuscule compared to the multi trillion dollar giveaway to the capitalist elites.

[Bud Struggle]

I wrote this last week in one of my classes; I know I'm gonna be criticized, ostracized, and have my ass handed to me for it but I believe in what I've written so what's done is done.

Freakin' great! And you make sense, really--in a left handed way.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"State interference is economic sabotage?" Well, lets not forget that just about every single society on Earth had to industrialize through state intervention, and many state-owned programs work pretty well like in Cuba, Venezuela, and even in "social-democratic" capitalist countries like France and England. So really the entire premise of your argument is bunk if your going to try and convince someone that state-ownership is nothing but grabs for power by ruling elites, because that simply isn't true in every case.


History shows that two things always go hand-in-hand; economic liberty and social liberty. They’re inseparable and to try and support one while opposing the other is not only contradictory but morally and ethically wrong. By allowing greater market freedom we allow consumers to further take their lives into their own hands and make responsible decisions for themselves about what they want and what they want to do with it. State interference is not only harmful to the economy but is harmful to our individual liberty; when they limit our ability to fully support and advance the things we want, they limit our ability to freely live without coercion. Taxation limits what we can buy and the propping up of un-wanted product diverts our spending from creating more of what we want.
What history would that be if you don't mind me asking? Providing examples of this theory would be helpful for your argument.

By allowing "greater market freedom" your basically allowing businesses, to do whatever the hell they want. When you strip away any and all regulation, what is their to stop a corporation from plundering the natural environment or exploiting workers to an even greater degree? What if enterprises lower their standards for their products/services in order to make more profit? It certainly isn't a good idea to advocate such a wild unregulated, decentralized economy, because there are no hopes of developing socialism that way.

How is state interference harmful to economic development and sustainability? I'd say state-owned health care works a hell of a lot better than privatized, un-regulated health care like in the US for example; where millions of people don't have health insurance or simple access to medical clinics. Taxation get's people universal health care, improved transportation, etc in countries where taxes aren't used in such a perverse manner as in the US (because almost all tax money in the US goes straight to the military).



Liberals and Conservatives have failed. We do not need Republicans or Democrat. We do not need a republic or a democracy. We need liberty, pure and un-regulated. Anything less is a spit in the face. Good luck feeding 7 billion people with a completely unregulated economy and fetishes for "de-centralization".

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some of your vague conclusions are correct, but you seem to be under the influence of neo-libertarian logic that the state isn't a tool for capitalists, primarily because you argue against the welfarist concept of our state being owned by "everyone."

Your concluding remark is also fairly naive. With the exception of intra-liberal ideologies like fascism, everyone - conservative, liberal, right-libertarian, or left-libertarian, preaches for "liberty." What constitutes "liberty" is hotly disputable, and there is no perfect situation where it can be fully expressed. If an individual can't admit that his or her ideology has some authoritarianism built into the concept, he or she is full of shit.

For example, American Libertarians believe in the principles of "negative liberty," or freedom from restraint. However, socialists couple "freedom from restraint" with "freedom to accomplish."

[RGacky3]

The State IS NOT the only source of authoritarian rule, or even the dominant one. The state stops you from doing things, like smoking weed or sleeping in a public park. The Capitalist, controls your life 8 hours a day, and controls who has and who does'nt have a livelyhood, they also control what is produced and where Capital and resources go.

Not only that, but you can't vote for the Capitalist class.

Don't fool yourself, Capitalism is not economic liberty, its economic tyranny.

[GracchusBabeuf]

History shows that two things always go hand-in-hand; economic liberty and social liberty. Such idiotic definitions of "liberty", that include the right to exploit others, can be extended to the "right to kill", "right of rape" etc. Capitalist definition of freedom does not include freedom from exploitation. In short, you have accepted the ruling class definition of freedom. :glare: Enjoy your reactionaryism.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Not bad for an eighteen year old.



But what if the point here to to beat out of business the very capitalists who require the stimulus to maintain employment opportunities for the consumer, working classes who are no longer buying anything because they are broke?

Do you see the vicious circle emerge here? The problem is the dead capital....not the state. Without the option to redistribute this wealth, the state has to find a way to put money back into the capitalists so that the working classes will have jobs since capitalists do not employ workers to produce commodities that have no market value. But they have no market value because broke consumers don't buy them.

That is the circle.

The issue is the capitalists- the "dead weight", the "third leg" in economy. There are two options for the government concerning "stimulus". One, redistribute all the wealth from the capitalists back into the working classes, or two, inflate, print money, and give it to the capitalists (who are the cause of the problem) so that they can continue to invest in markets and employ people. This second alternative is merely a temporary fix. It doesn't solve the problem. However, the state cannot seize power like they did back in the day- the days of old revolutions are over. Today, socialism occurs through a series of gradations.

Let the state invade the private sectors and the capitalists will finally fold.

Do you understand why consumers are broke and the market is floundering? Because the capitalists have all the money. If you redistributed every cent owned by the capitalists back to the consumers, and liquidated all private business, you would "reset" the economy: now you have a flourishing market circulating between the working classes and the state, who own all the means of production, and we live happily ever after.....as long as Smurf doesn't interfere.

Employment can still be available with the advent of new industry; what's needed is for the un-desired businesses to collapse and desired businesses to rise. Americans have money but because there's no telling who the government will bail and who it will let die, investors are unsure of what to do and the fear of spending is harming the market.

Why would anyone want to produce anything without market-value in the first place? To make these bail-outs work the State has to print more money, thus causing inflation, thus making any jobs saved practically worthless. By allowing money to regain its value and un-wanted prouction to die, wealth can be redistributed.

They're folding on their own. GM would be gone if the State didnt take it over.

Its floundering because businesses arent doing their job and providing for consumewr demands. By bailing them out they've no reason to inivate and try to do better than their competition since they know the State will just prop them up again.

[Rosa Provokateur]

"State interference is economic sabotage?" Well, lets not forget that just about every single society on Earth had to industrialize through state intervention, and many state-owned programs work pretty well like in Cuba, Venezuela, and even in "social-democratic" capitalist countries like France and England. So really the entire premise of your argument is bunk if your going to try and convince someone that state-ownership is nothing but grabs for power by ruling elites, because that simply isn't true in every case.

What history would that be if you don't mind me asking? Providing examples of this theory would be helpful for your argument.

By allowing "greater market freedom" your basically allowing businesses, to do whatever the hell they want. When you strip away any and all regulation, what is their to stop a corporation from plundering the natural environment or exploiting workers to an even greater degree? What if enterprises lower their standards for their products/services in order to make more profit? It certainly isn't a good idea to advocate such a wild unregulated, decentralized economy, because there are no hopes of developing socialism that way.

How is state interference harmful to economic development and sustainability? I'd say state-owned health care works a hell of a lot better than privatized, un-regulated health care like in the US for example; where millions of people don't have health insurance or simple access to medical clinics. Taxation get's people universal health care, improved transportation, etc in countries where taxes aren't used in such a perverse manner as in the US (because almost all tax money in the US goes straight to the military).


Good luck feeding 7 billion people with a completely unregulated economy and fetishes for "de-centralization".

You know its working because of how politically free Cuba is and all the people not trying to leave:p As for France and Britain, the taxes are ridiculously high and nothing is worth that kind of state-coercion.

Russia nationalized and all political freedom was lost, China was nationalized and all political freedom was lost, Cuba, North Korea. The most extreme examples in ending privatization ended up in one-party totalitarian dictatorships.

Exploitation and environmental abuse is bad business; look at the "go green" fad, its a consumer demand to be environmental and businesses have followed suite. If one business lowers its standards then it loses consumers who will go to a superior competitor.

Government always does a shitty job, just go to the DMV or look ar FEMA when Katrina hit. The State has no reason to give good quality because it'll make money regardless with taxes and has no threat of going out of business. With a private provider you can find a plan that meets your price-range and your health demands and they'll be motivated to do a good job because they can lose profits. Health care would be easier to get if we werent paying so much in taxes; cutting government in-take and spending would free up money for everyone and if you wanted something you'd have a better time of getting it.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The State IS NOT the only source of authoritarian rule, or even the dominant one. The state stops you from doing things, like smoking weed or sleeping in a public park. The Capitalist, controls your life 8 hours a day, and controls who has and who does'nt have a livelyhood, they also control what is produced and where Capital and resources go.

Not only that, but you can't vote for the Capitalist class.

Don't fool yourself, Capitalism is not economic liberty, its economic tyranny.

You dont HAVe to go to work, you CHOOSE to. You want more then go for a promotion, or another job, or a second job. Start your own business or invest in a business. They produce because people want it; the iPod was made because they thought it'd sell, not to fuck you over.

You cant because class isnt a ballot choice. You gotta work for it.

If its a tyranny, its a tyranny freer than communism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

look at the "go green" fad, its a consumer demand to be environmental and businesses have followed suite. If one business lowers its standards then it loses consumers who will go to a superior competitor.

You must be very impressionable if you buy into corporate advertising schemes. Please continue to insist that Wal-Mart's "green" products are environmentally-savvy options.


The State has no reason to give good quality because it'll make money regardless with taxes and has no threat of going out of business.

Sounds eerily similar to the capitalist enterprises you cherish so much. Well, that's of course an obvious statement - since capitalists are states.


Russia nationalized and all political freedom was lost, China was nationalized and all political freedom was lost, Cuba, North Korea. The most extreme examples in ending privatization ended up in one-party totalitarian dictatorships.

Pinochet.

Discussion over.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Such idiotic definitions of "liberty", that include the right to exploit others, can be extended to the "right to kill", "right of rape" etc. Capitalist definition of freedom does not include freedom from exploitation. In short, you have accepted the ruling class definition of freedom. :glare: Enjoy your reactionaryism.

Its not exploitation if you CHOOSE to work there. Nobody puts a gun to your head and says: work or die. You choose, everybody in this country chooses. Its time we take responsibility for our choices and stop *****ing that we're not all getting a stroke-job. Because thats what the communist ideal is, an economic stroke-job.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You dont HAVe to go to work, you CHOOSE to. You want more then go for a promotion, or another job, or a second job. Start your own business or invest in a business. They produce because people want it; the iPod was made because they thought it'd sell, not to fuck you over.

You cant because class isnt a ballot choice. You gotta work for it.

If its a tyranny, its a tyranny freer than communism.

The irony being the person you quote in your signature was a communist.

[Rosa Provokateur]

You must be very impressionable if you buy into corporate advertising schemes. Please continue to insist that Wal-Mart's "green" products are environmentally-savvy options.



Sounds eerily similar to the capitalist enterprises you cherish so much. Well, that's of course an obvious statement - since capitalists are states.


Pinochet.

Discussion over.






Maybe not but if people still shop there then the only one to blame is the people themselves.

No, look at Enron. They did bad business and fell because of it. The State does bad business all the time and yet nothing happens.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Its not exploitation if you CHOOSE to work there. Nobody puts a gun to your head and says: work or die.

You choose to reside in the country that you do. Why do you continue to *****? Take responcibility. Move. Hell, buy your own island and start a nation-state in the Pacific. After all, what makes you so special? If I was born in an apartment complex, according to you I shouldn't complain about eventually having to pay fees. So why do you?

Could it be that sometimes, maybe, a choice between three tyrants is still exploitive?

Nah.


No, look at Enron. They did bad business and fell because of it. The State does bad business all the time and yet nothing happens.At the behest of whom?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Its not exploitation if you CHOOSE to work there.Nobody "chooses" to get murdered or robbed.:lol: Thats a myth. We only "choose" to work there because otherwise we'd die of starvation. Thats not a voluntary "choice".


You choose, everybody in this country chooses. Nope. What about the millions without job/homes, not only in this country but in all capitalist countries, all thanks to capitalist disasters? Did they "choose" their personal disasters?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I hear Somalia has some good condos for "libertarians" to choose from. No "state" involvement at all. Just pure, unadulterated capitalism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You know its working because of how politically free Cuba is and all the people not trying to leave:p

What a terrible strawman. The health care system in Cuba is one of the best in the world, and happens to be a very democratic society; but of course Cuba must suck because the TV says so.



As for France and Britain, the taxes are ridiculously high and nothing is worth that kind of state-coercion.Really? So being able to receive universal quality health care isn't worth paying taxes? The poorest Britains are likely to outlive well-off Americans solely due to the difference in the quality of healthcare. When people pay taxes in these countries, they are mostly paying for services like healthcare, transportation, worker's compensation, etc; unlike taxes in the US which go to the military.

And wtf does state coercion have to do with anything? If anything people have more "freedom" in nationalized health systems than in privatized, un-regulated programs.

There's a whole fucking movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6646340600856118396&ei=7DIMSvOpL6SkqgKri5H_AQ&q=Sicko&hl=en&client=firefox-a) about how much state-runned healthcare programs are better than the kind of shit you advocate.


Russia nationalized and all political freedom was lost, China was nationalized and all political freedom was lost, Cuba, North Korea. The most extreme examples in ending privatization ended up in one-party totalitarian dictatorships. Strawman (again, I'm not surprised). It's so easy to just quickly right off these countries because of your lack of historical and political analysis, but when you get down to it, these systems work better than capitalist private enterprises.

Just look at how each of these countries (with the exception of China) provides social programs that greatly improve the quality of life for the people living there.

http://koreantruth.awardspace.com/faq.html (Korea isn't a 'one party dictatorship')
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-22-cuba_N.htm




Exploitation and environmental abuse is bad business; look at the "go green" fad, its a consumer demand to be environmental and businesses have followed suite. If one business lowers its standards then it loses consumers who will go to a superior competitor.


Government always does a shitty job, just go to the DMV or look ar FEMA when Katrina hit. The State has no reason to give good quality because it'll make money regardless with taxes and has no threat of going out of business. With a private provider you can find a plan that meets your price-range and your health demands and they'll be motivated to do a good job because they can lose profits. Health care would be easier to get if we werent paying so much in taxes; cutting government in-take and spending would free up money for everyone and if you wanted something you'd have a better time of getting it.Yeah yeah yeah it all works out in the capitalist market, we've all heard this shitty non-argument before; but we all know that it doesn't (cue global financial crisis). Jeez, you really ramble on and on without any real substance. All you provide to back your arguments, is simply your word. Which isn't very convincing.

[RGacky3]

You dont HAVe to go to work, you CHOOSE to. You want more then go for a promotion, or another job, or a second job. Start your own business or invest in a business. They produce because people want it; the iPod was made because they thought it'd sell, not to fuck you over.

You cant because class isnt a ballot choice. You gotta work for it.

If its a tyranny, its a tyranny freer than communism.

You don't choose to work, people don't choose to work, they have too, they have bills to pay, food to buy and so on. To invest in a business you have to have disposible income first, to start one you not only need disposible intrest you have to be able to take a loan. They produce because people BUY it, theres a reason they made the iPod, which is'nt relaly nessecary in the world as opposed to try and feed the millions starving.

Most people don't have to work for class, most people are either born into it, or they have other people work for it. Either way its unjust.

You can say the same defence for monarchies, "You wanna be a king? Find your own kingdom"

Capitalism is a tyranny, and not its not more free than real communism. Having a boss is less free than being your own boss, equal control of capital and resources is more free than oligarchial control.


No, look at Enron. They did bad business and fell because of it. The State does bad business all the time and yet nothing happens.

They did'nt to "Bad" business, they did'nt play by the rules. Walmart does bad business, but still makes money because they are cheap, Capitalism REWARDS bad business.


If one business lowers its standards then it loses consumers who will go to a superior competitor.

Thats funny, sweatshops are on the rise, unionized, relatively civilized factories in the west are getting shut down ...


Health care would be easier to get if we werent paying so much in taxes; cutting government in-take and spending would free up money for everyone and if you wanted something you'd have a better time of getting it.

health care in the US vrs heath care in every other industrialized nation, case closed.

Oh and your right the governmetn does'nt have to compete, but remember, if we live in a democracy, the its public control.

[Rosa Provokateur]

You choose to reside in the country that you do. Why do you continue to *****? Take responcibility. Move. Hell, buy your own island and start a nation-state in the Pacific. After all, what makes you so special? If I was born in an apartment complex, according to you I shouldn't complain about eventually having to pay fees. So why do you?

Could it be that sometimes, maybe, a choice between three tyrants is still exploitive?

Nah.

At the behest of whom?


I've got no problem with the country, the country is great. The problem is that the government is exceeding its power. You should only complain if the land-lord violates his side of the contract, so long as he up-holds his and you up-hold yours there should be no problem.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Such idiotic definitions of "liberty", that include the right to exploit others, can be extended to the "right to kill", "right of rape" etc. Capitalist definition of freedom does not include freedom from exploitation. In short, you have accepted the ruling class definition of freedom. :glare: Enjoy your reactionaryism.

I'm not a reactionary, I advocate the elimination of State power so that people can work their lives and business freely. To have State hamper that is reactionary, there's nothing conservative in my beliefs.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Nobody "chooses" to get murdered or robbed.:lol: Thats a myth. We only "choose" to work there because otherwise we'd die of starvation. Thats not a voluntary "choice".

Nope. What about the millions without job/homes, not only in this country but in all capitalist countries, all thanks to capitalist disasters? Did they "choose" their personal disasters?

There are always other options; you could work somewhere else, you could steal, you could beg, you could grow your own food. Theres always alternative options.

[Rosa Provokateur]

What a terrible strawman. The health care system in Cuba is one of the best in the world, and happens to be a very democratic society; but of course Cuba must suck because the TV says so.


Really? So being able to receive universal quality health care isn't worth paying taxes? The poorest Britains are likely to outlive well-off Americans solely due to the difference in the quality of healthcare. When people pay taxes in these countries, they are mostly paying for services like healthcare, transportation, worker's compensation, etc; unlike taxes in the US which go to the military.

And wtf does state coercion have to do with anything? If anything people have more "freedom" in nationalized health systems than in privatized, un-regulated programs.

There's a whole fucking movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6646340600856118396&ei=7DIMSvOpL6SkqgKri5H_AQ&q=Sicko&hl=en&client=firefox-a) about how much state-runned healthcare programs are better than the kind of shit you advocate.

Strawman (again, I'm not surprised). It's so easy to just quickly right off these countries because of your lack of historical and political analysis, but when you get down to it, these systems work better than capitalist private enterprises.

Just look at how each of these countries (with the exception of China) provides social programs that greatly improve the quality of life for the people living there.

http://koreantruth.awardspace.com/faq.html (Korea isn't a 'one party dictatorship')
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-22-cuba_N.htm


Yeah yeah yeah it all works out in the capitalist market, we've all heard this shitty non-argument before; but we all know that it doesn't (cue global financial crisis). Jeez, you really ramble on and on without any real substance. All you provide to back your arguments, is simply your word. Which isn't very convincing.

That plus the Cuban refugees, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, etc. As fot the health-care; I dont think not being allowed to sue for mal-practice or refuse treatment is the utopianism you're looking for.


I dont know, I've never been to Britain so I cant say but I think the British work in Afghanistan proves they pay for military too.

No. In nationalized health-care you only get the treatment they offer and that can be shitty quality. Medicare proves it, they take forever to ship out supplies where-as if it were private I could probably get it quicker and better quality.

You say I use a strawman because of TV then you use a movie... point taken:laugh:

North Korea provides for its people, what are you high!?

Just look at how more advanced we are than Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea plus the fact that Cuba and Vietnam are freeing up their markets. I wonder why? Couldnt be because they wanna get rich, that'd be silly;)

[mykittyhasaboner]

That plus the Cuban refugees, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, etc. As fot the health-care; I dont think not being allowed to sue for mal-practice or refuse treatment is the utopianism you're looking for.
What are you talking about?


I dont know, I've never been to Britain so I cant say but I think the British work in Afghanistan proves they pay for military too.The movie I provided covers the issue extensively, I would recommend watching it. Of course British citizens pay for the military too, but nowhere near as much as in the US. The point is that taxes in Britain and most parts of Europe mostly pay for social programs.


No. In nationalized health-care you only get the treatment they offer and that can be shitty quality. Medicare proves it, they take forever to ship out supplies where-as if it were private I could probably get it quicker and better quality.Your whole entire argument is flawed because you only take American health care into account. I couldn't care less how much Medicare sucks because that's not an institution that resembles nationalized health care; because there is no nationalized, free, universal health care in the US (for citizens at least, military hospitals are obviously different). In fact the only type of coverage people get is through programs like Medicare which only cover 27% of the population.

If you would take a look at other countries universal health care programs its quite clear that they work pretty well in comparison, considering that the US program is one of the worst. Nationalized programs even cost less, in France for example:
In 2005, France spent 11.2% of GDP on health care, or US$3,926 per capita, a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_France#cite_note-1)

While the US:
Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product), second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) member nations.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#cite_note-WHO_2008-0) The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#cite_note-NHE_Fact_Sheet-18)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#cite_note-19)


Wiki, emphasis is mine of course.


You say I use a strawman because of TV then you use a movie... point taken:laugh:I'm sure you didn't even look at the movie. Plus I never said you use the TV as your source for argument, that's just most likely how you came across such common slanderous hearsay about Cuba.


North Korea provides for its people, what are you high!?
Good argument! That one really got me!

Now if your done fucking around you could provide an argument, but clearly you lack the ability to do so.


Just look at how more advanced we are than Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea plus the fact that Cuba and Vietnam are freeing up their markets. I wonder why? Couldnt be because they wanna get rich, that'd be silly;)

Advanced in what ways?

Vietnam has always had a "freed up market" and as a result cannot provide as many state-owned programs that would benefit the people of Vietnam. Cuba on the other hand only has a small portion of market activity in the tourist sector; and if you weren't so callous and actually researched the subject you would realize that the majority of Cubans are employed by either state-owned enterprises or municipal urban farming (both features of Cuba's planned economy). So your suggestion that they are trying to "get rich" is absurd.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I advocate the elimination of State power. so you say.


you could steal, you could beg, you could grow your own food. Theres always alternative options.:rolleyes: :laugh:

[Rosa Provokateur]

What are you talking about?

The movie I provided covers the issue extensively, I would recommend watching it. Of course British citizens pay for the military too, but nowhere near as much as in the US. The point is that taxes in Britain and most parts of Europe mostly pay for social programs.

Your whole entire argument is flawed because you only take American health care into account. I couldn't care less how much Medicare sucks because that's not an institution that resembles nationalized health care; because there is no nationalized, free, universal health care in the US (for citizens at least, military hospitals are obviously different). In fact the only type of coverage people get is through programs like Medicare which only cover 27% of the population.

If you would take a look at other countries universal health care programs its quite clear that they work pretty well in comparison, considering that the US program is one of the worst. Nationalized programs even cost less, in France for example:

While the US:

Wiki, emphasis is mine of course.

I'm sure you didn't even look at the movie. Plus I never said you use the TV as your source for argument, that's just most likely how you came across such common slanderous hearsay about Cuba.

Good argument! That one really got me!

Now if your done fucking around you could provide an argument, but clearly you lack the ability to do so.



Advanced in what ways?

Vietnam has always had a "freed up market" and as a result cannot provide as many state-owned programs that would benefit the people of Vietnam. Cuba on the other hand only has a small portion of market activity in the tourist sector; and if you weren't so callous and actually researched the subject you would realize that the majority of Cubans are employed by either state-owned enterprises or municipal urban farming (both features of Cuba's planned economy). So your suggestion that they are trying to "get rich" is absurd.

I'm talking about Cuba. According to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders Cuba is guilty of countless human-rights violations, media-censorship, political imprisonment, etc. There is nothing democratic about a one-party State with no elections. As for the health-care it's illegal in Cuba to sue for mal-practice or refuse treatment.

Because I'm an American I give American examples, its what I know. Medicare is an attempt at nationalized health-care and it proves that nationalization requires beuracracy all over and cant provide for consumer's demands.

That was France in 2000, I want current information. The EU has expanded since and so has French nationalization with it; much more recently in 2006 France was only 40% in compliance with waste-water management. You leave that to a private business with financial incentive and success is almost guaranteed.

Cuba doesnt need me to slander, her people speak for themselves.

Theres nothing to argue with concern to North Korea except the number of labor camps it's government is using.

Advanced in technology, communications, resources, entertainment, etc. I agree that Cubans are employed but not in anything that creates wealth. It's like FDR's New Deal; yeah he employed people but not in anything that people wanted, just projects the State propped up for the hell of it.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Wow, I become more and more amazed at how shallow and impotent your arguments are.


I'm talking about Cuba. According to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders Cuba is guilty of countless human-rights violations, media-censorship, political imprisonment, etc. There is nothing democratic about a one-party State with no elections.
Your just plain inaccurate here. Cuba is a worker's state, owned and democratically controlled by the workers. I don't need to explain this over and over again, so I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjcub.txt
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-54437-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html




As for the health-care it's illegal in Cuba to sue for mal-practice or refuse treatment.This is pitiful. Mal-practice isn't an issue because the hospitals and clinics are regulated and controlled by the state in the first place, so mal-practice is almost impossible.

And of course its illegal for doctors to refuse people treatment! That's the whole point!




Because I'm an American I give American examples, its what I know. Medicare is an attempt at nationalized health-care and it proves that nationalization requires beuracracy all over and cant provide for consumer's demands.Medicare is not an attempt at nationalized health care, if so, it would cover more than 27% of the US population. Your trying to argue that nationalized health care is bad, by using an example of non-nationalized, universal system. :lol: I don't think that's a very good way to build an argument.

Nationalized health care "bureaucracies" do a better job at providing care to people, than privatized systems, sometimes at an even lower cost than the expense of shoddy health services in the US, as I have proved in this thread. Nationalized systems don't reject people for treatment because of they can't afford it; however in the US, this happens all the time. That in itself proves your (made-up) claim that universal systems can't provide for people's demands, dead wrong.



That was France in 2000, I want current information. The EU has expanded since and so has French nationalization with it; much more recently in 2006 France was only 40% in compliance with waste-water management. You leave that to a private business with financial incentive and success is almost guaranteed.Actually that was France in 2005. Can you read?

Your assumption that private business would do a better job provides no merit, because its simply that, an assumption.


Cuba doesnt need me to slander, her people speak for themselves. I'm really getting sick of your attempts to misinform people with this kind of crap. If you are so damn keen on proving that the Cuban people speak for themselves, that the Cuban socialist economic system is a failure, then why don't you prove it?


Theres nothing to argue with concern to North Korea except the number of labor camps it's government is using.
Yeah, I've heard that one before.


Advanced in technology, communications, resources, entertainment, etc. I agree that Cubans are employed but not in anything that creates wealth. It's like FDR's New Deal; yeah he employed people but not in anything that people wanted, just projects the State propped up for the hell of it.That is one of the most vile and gross comparisons I've ever seen. If you honestly think that Cuban employment in the public sector doesn't create wealth (even when this wealth is owned and operated by the working class, and receive the full value of their labor), then I can't help you (nor do I want to even try), your simply lost in your arrogance.

[trivas7]

Cuba is a worker's state, owned and democratically controlled by the workers.
You're just plain inaccurate here. Cuba is not a democratically controlled socialist state. You should look at some of the more accurate threads posted by you fellow communists in the politics section re this.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You're just plain inaccurate here. Cuba is not a democratically controlled socialist state. You should look some of the more accurate threads posted by you fellow communists in the politics section re this.
Nice! You've managed to call me out on something, without even giving an argument. I stand behind the sources I've provided.

[Bud Struggle]

Nice! You've managed to call me out on something, without even giving an argument. I stand behind the sources I've provided.

FWIW: Cuba is a monarchical dictatorship with the trappings of both Socialism and Nepotism. The economy is definitely on the Socialist side--but the politics is similar to anything you'd find in 17th century Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[mykittyhasaboner]

FWIW: Cuba is a monarchical dictatorship with the trappings of both Socialism and Nepotism. The economy is definitely on the Socialist side--but the politics is similar to anything you'd find in 17th century Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Another load of bullshit. Why even bother making such comments? Especially when its off topic.

[trivas7]

Nice! You've managed to call me out on something, without even giving an argument. I stand behind the sources I've provided.
Here's a typical post I found in Learning:


I don't think that Cuba is in transition to capitalism - I think it's capitalist, and has been all through the Castro years (and obviously before). It's true that Castroism is a fig-leaf used by the regime, but then many such 'fig-leafs' have been used by many capitalist regimes in history.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Here's a typical post I found in Learning:

OK, and? You've posted someone's opinion.

[RGacky3]

I'm not a reactionary, I advocate the elimination of State power so that people can work their lives and business freely. To have State hamper that is reactionary, there's nothing conservative in my beliefs.

Then what will stop me from taking and keeping every single apple I pick on the farm I work on? Even though someone else claims ownership on it? Without a government?


There are always other options; you could work somewhere else, you could steal, you could beg, you could grow your own food. Theres always alternative options.

Yeah, heres a good option, end Capitalism, eliminate private Capital and land, thats the best one actually.


No. In nationalized health-care you only get the treatment they offer and that can be shitty quality. Medicare proves it, they take forever to ship out supplies where-as if it were private I could probably get it quicker and better quality.

Well the pretty much every single study about health care in the industrialized world is wrong.


You're just plain inaccurate here. Cuba is not a democratically controlled socialist state. You should look at some of the more accurate threads posted by you fellow communists in the politics section re this.

If you have nothing to back up your statements don't make them.


Cuba is a monarchical dictatorship with the trappings of both Socialism and Nepotism. The economy is definitely on the Socialist side--but the politics is similar to anything you'd find in 17th century Austro-Hungarian Empire.

You too.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

You dont HAVe to go to work, you CHOOSE to.

If i don't work i don't eat. If i don't eat i die.
It is no different than if the capitalists held a gun to my head and said "Work or we shoot you."


You want more then go for a promotion, or another job, or a second job. Start your own business or invest in a business.

That isn't an option for most people. If you don't realize that you are an elitist living in an ivory tower.


They produce because people want it; the iPod was made because they thought it'd sell, not to fuck you over.It doesn't take a massive conspiracy for capitalism to fuck people over. It only takes people who's best interest is served by fucking people over.


History shows that two things always go hand-in-hand; economic liberty and social liberty.

Child labor.
Illitaracy.
Workers dying.
Slavery.

Read some history. This is the face of your so called economic liberty. It is only the liberty of the aristocracy to exploit.

Also why do norway and sweden have the highest quality of life again?
Why is social mobility in the USA shrinking while it's rising in the social democracies again?


You're just plain inaccurate here. Cuba is not a democratically controlled socialist state. You should look at some of the more accurate threads posted by you fellow communists in the politics section re this.

And yet it has better healthcare.....

[Kamerat]

You're just plain inaccurate here. Cuba is not a democratically controlled socialist state. You should look at some of the more accurate threads posted by you fellow communists in the politics section re this.
Just because some fellow communist have been brain washed by fox news into think that Cuba is not a democratically controlled socialist state. Do not mean that Cuba is not a democratically controlled socialist state.
Here is a short description of the Cuban democratic stystem, as you can see there are a larger percentage of the population who perticipate in the democratic process then in any other contry.
The system for electing representatives to seats in the municipal and provincial assemblies and to the National Assembly (Cuba’s parliament) is based upon universal adult suffrage for all those aged 16 and over. Nobody is excluded from voting, except convicted criminals and people with mental disabilities.
Municipal elections take place every two and a half years and elections to the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly take place every five years.

Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties. Indeed, no political party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any given candidates. Instead the candidates are nominated individually by grass-roots organisations and by individual electors. When a person is nominated, no election campaigning is permitted; instead, his or her biography and other personal attributes are posted in public places. The successful candidate is chosen by secret ballot.

The Electoral Law of 1992 stipulates that delegates to the municipal and provincial assemblies and the 601 deputies to the National Assembly are all elected by popular suffrage using a secret ballot. The Head of State and the Council of State are elected from among the deputies.
Once elected, a delegate or deputy has to inform electors about his or her work and, as in other countries, can be contacted by people in the constituency.

Unlike the case in other states, which invariably criticize Cuba for being ‘undemocratic’, voter turn-out in Cuba is high. In April 2005, 97.7% of electors came out to vote for their deputies to the municipal assemblies.

[GPDP]

Not to dispute what has been said about Cuba in its favor, but some people, notably my parents, make the argument that people will say good things about Cuba or will participate in its electoral system out of fear of being punished by the state, kinda like people would say good things about Saddam Hussein when interviewed by the press, and he would get 100% of the vote.

Is there any reason at all to believe this? Has there been any history of political repression in Cuba? Obviously there has been against people wishing to overthrow the regime, but is there any semblance of a chance that dissenting in Cuba will land you in jail, even if the nature of that dissent is to better the system already there for the benefit of everyone, and not rich Cuban exiles? Or is absolutely all of this unsubstantiated?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Your just plain inaccurate here. Cuba is a worker's state, owned and democratically controlled by the workers. I don't need to explain this over and over again, so I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjcub.txt
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-54437-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html



This is pitiful. Mal-practice isn't an issue because the hospitals and clinics are regulated and controlled by the state in the first place, so mal-practice is almost impossible.

And of course its illegal for doctors to refuse people treatment! That's the whole point!



Medicare is not an attempt at nationalized health care, if so, it would cover more than 27% of the US population. Your trying to argue that nationalized health care is bad, by using an example of non-nationalized, universal system. :lol: I don't think that's a very good way to build an argument.

Nationalized health care "bureaucracies" do a better job at providing care to people, than privatized systems, sometimes at an even lower cost than the expense of shoddy health services in the US, as I have proved in this thread. Nationalized systems don't reject people for treatment because of they can't afford it; however in the US, this happens all the time. That in itself proves your (made-up) claim that universal systems can't provide for people's demands, dead wrong.


Your assumption that private business would do a better job provides no merit, because its simply that, an assumption.

I'm really getting sick of your attempts to misinform people with this kind of crap. If you are so damn keen on proving that the Cuban people speak for themselves, that the Cuban socialist economic system is a failure, then why don't you prove it?


Yeah, I've heard that one before.

That is one of the most vile and gross comparisons I've ever seen. If you honestly think that Cuban employment in the public sector doesn't create wealth (even when this wealth is owned and operated by the working class, and receive the full value of their labor), then I can't help you (nor do I want to even try), your simply lost in your arrogance.

If it where truly democratic as you say it is then there'd be other parties aside from the Communists, freedom of press would exist, and Fidel wouldnt have been able to just hand power over to his brother.

No, its ridiculous that the State would go that far to prevent criticism from its own people.

I mean that its illegal for a patient to refuse treatment; the treatment is forced and any forced medical activity isnt trust-worthy.

It cant because the U.S. isnt a dictatorship and people arent stupid; freedom is a valued thing in America and if the State moved too quickly to nationalize something as personal as health-care there'd be a backlash and rebellion. The State is moving slowly, legislation by legislation, towards nationalized health-care and its in the interest of personal liberty that we should prevent it.

An assumption based on common-sense. Private business has more reason to do a better job than does government.

Mkay, how about Cuba's economic crash after the Soviet Union fell. Ooh, ooh, or the more than 2 million Cubans who've emigrated to the U.S. since Castro's revolution.

You know what, you're right. I dont know why I ever doubted North Korea's leadership for even a second.
http://beconfused.com/images/2007/10/North-Korean-leader-Kim-Jong-Il.jpg

The only wealth I've seen in Cuba is Fidel Castro's adidas jogging-suits. Where it otherwise, I dont think Cubans would be stuck having to keep 50 yr. old cars running in order to get around. Where it otherwise, they'd be able to buy new ones.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If it where truly democratic as you say it is then there'd be other parties aside from the Communists,
This is based on your perception, and your perception alone on worker's democracy. The Communist Party of Cuba isn't some party alienated from the people in the country and run's the country for their own sake; the the PCC is the vanguard of the working class, and has built, and so far maintained a political and economic system that is run by and for the workers. Your half assed assumptions about Cuba needing to conform to western capitalist type "parliamentary democracy" is disgustingly reactionary.




freedom of press would exist,http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/cuba-supports-press-freedom/

Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution of 1992 (http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm), describes the law regarding Cuban's freedom of speech and press. Freedom of the press was established in Cuba after the implementation of the Constitution of 1940, which was re-established after by the 1959 revolution (after the Constitution had been suspended by Batista).




and Fidel wouldnt have been able to just hand power over to his brother.Raul Castro was unanimously elected by the National Assembly of People's Power.


No, its ridiculous that the State would go that far to prevent criticism from its own people.What in the world are you talking about?


I mean that its illegal for a patient to refuse treatment; the treatment is forced and any forced medical activity isnt trust-worthy.
Again, what are you talking about? Cubans aren't forced to get medical attention; like people need to be forced to recieve quality healthcare. Your claim is absurd, stop pulling them out of your ass.


It cant because the U.S. isn't a dictatorship and people arent stupid; freedom is a valued thing in America and if the State moved too quickly to nationalize something as personal as health-care there'd be a backlash and rebellion. The State is moving slowly, legislation by legislation, towards nationalized health-care and its in the interest of personal liberty that we should prevent it.First, the US is a dictatorship of the bourgeoise. Every country is a dictatorship; the only difference between bourgoeis and proletarian dictatorhip is whether or not this dicatorship is implemented in a of manner applying democracy, not destroying it, for the working classes (to loosely paraphrase Luxembourg).

There is no way that the majority of people in the US (you know those poor people that cant afford healtcare) would deny nationalized health institutions. Your claims that they would "rebel" is based in some idealist folley of "decentralization" and "un-regulation", as usual. But now your adding a new spin to it! Your claiming that americans would rebel against nationalized healthcare because of some rubbish sense of "valued freedom" (your such a petty nationalist); that is absolute nonsense. I'd bet, that if healthcare was declared universal tommorow, there would be lines for miles waiting to finally get medical attention.

You might want to take a look at page 4 of this (http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7893.pdf).


An assumption based on common-sense. Private business has more reason to do a better job than does government.Once again, your incredibly skewed and incorrect opinion has no backing in reality. Private businesses (especially multi-national corporations) have a long history of mal practice, poor standards, environmental destruction, etc. These affects were curtailed of course, but not entirely. By whom? That's right that state. The state (even the american bourgeois state) has been a source for increased regulation and improvement of health and product standards in US corporations and private businesses. Case n' point, the Chicago meat packing factory as described by Sinclair's The Jungle; which managed to receive enough attention for government regulation to ensure that meat was produced at a better quality, and worker's were given better working conditions.

Another bright example of how great private business is at providing for their consumers and their workers, Coke! Coke hires a paramilitary in Columbia to murder and kidnap union leaders, but hey its all fair game with private enterprise right?

Another huge flaw in your argument that Western capitalist economies are somehow more "advanced" than socialized, publicly owned enterprises (you even go on to claim that privatization is better than working class owned and controlled economy! :rolleyes:) is that all of these advances in "communications, technology, and resources" were pretty much all done by NASA; so what that means is all of these advances were being made by government funded programs anyway!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff


Mkay, how about Cuba's economic crash after the Soviet Union fell. Ooh, ooh, or the more than 2 million Cubans who've emigrated to the U.S. since Castro's revolution.:lol: Source for two million? And what of the economic crisis? Cuba emerged out of it more felxible and versatile, with a still growing and developing economy.




You know what, you're right. I dont know why I ever doubted North Korea's leadership for even a second.
http://beconfused.com/images/2007/10/North-Korean-leader-Kim-Jong-Il.jpgQuick! Use a picture for shock value!!! That will derail any hopes of actual productive debate!! Your so clever.


The only wealth I've seen in Cuba is Fidel Castro's adidas jogging-suits. Where it otherwise, I dont think Cubans would be stuck having to keep 50 yr. old cars running in order to get around. Where it otherwise, they'd be able to buy new ones.You are officially, a moron. As well as a reactionary, privatized capitalism sympathizer.

[RGacky3]

The only wealth I've seen in Cuba is Fidel Castro's adidas jogging-suits. Where it otherwise, I dont think Cubans would be stuck having to keep 50 yr. old cars running in order to get around. Where it otherwise, they'd be able to buy new ones.


Mkay, how about Cuba's economic crash after the Soviet Union fell. Ooh, ooh, or the more than 2 million Cubans who've emigrated to the U.S. since Castro's revolution.


mhm, because countries like haiti, Dominican republic, Mexico, El Slavador, and so on and so forth (i.e. the countries that follow the Capitalist neo-liberal model) are doing sooo much better right?


An assumption based on common-sense. Private business has more reason to do a better job than does government.


its comparing apples to oranges, Private business only has to please its costomers, and really only the customers that have enough money to make it worth their while. government has to worry about everyone that can vote.


something as personal as health-care there'd be a backlash and rebellion. The State is moving slowly, legislation by legislation, towards nationalized health-care and its in the interest of personal liberty that we should prevent it.


I guess all the polls and statistics taken about public opinion and health care are wrong then.


If it where truly democratic as you say it is then there'd be other parties aside from the Communists, freedom of press would exist, and Fidel wouldnt have been able to just hand power over to his brother.

No, its ridiculous that the State would go that far to prevent criticism from its own people.

Do you know the history of any other countries in the carribian and central America? Seriously, Cubas human rights abuses (serious as they are) pale in comparison to a country like say .... El Salvador, or haiti, or even Mexico.

Now i'm not one to support psudo Socialist states, but to say that its worse than YOUR alternative is ignoring reality.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Then what will stop me from taking and keeping every single apple I pick on the farm I work on? Even though someone else claims ownership on it? Without a government?



Yeah, heres a good option, end Capitalism, eliminate private Capital and land, thats the best one actually.





The owner has the right to monitor his employees if he feels theft is going to be a problem.

Why eliminate private land? If a farmer and his family own a piece of land and use it to produce food so they can make a profit then who are you to deprive them of it?

[mykittyhasaboner]

The owner has the right to monitor his employees if he feels theft is going to be a problem.

Why eliminate private land? If a farmer and his family own a piece of land and use it to produce food so they can make a profit then who are you to deprive them of it?

Wow, you are a straight up capitalist.

[Rosa Provokateur]

If i don't work i don't eat. If i don't eat i die.
It is no different than if the capitalists held a gun to my head and said "Work or we shoot you."



That isn't an option for most people. If you don't realize that you are an elitist living in an ivory tower.

It doesn't take a massive conspiracy for capitalism to fuck people over. It only takes people who's best interest is served by fucking people over.



Child labor.
Illitaracy.
Workers dying.
Slavery.

Read some history. This is the face of your so called economic liberty. It is only the liberty of the aristocracy to exploit.

Also why do norway and sweden have the highest quality of life again?
Why is social mobility in the USA shrinking while it's rising in the social democracies again?



And yet it has better healthcare.....

You're perfectly capable of growing your own food or starting your own business. Even so, if you willingly dont work and end up in poverty then why should you expect any sympathy.

It's an option for those willing to push for it. Our economy is only in danger because consumers arent spending money and the government is bailing out unwanted businesses. If you have desirable skills or can do the job at optimal performance then theres no reason for it to not be an option.

Right, as if the totalitarian states of North Korea, Cuba, and the USSR never ever fucked anyone over.

Child labor was optional, not required; I put the blame on the parents.
Literacy is a skill you can choose to learn but arent obligated to know, an option not a right.
People die every day.
Slavery was wrong in that is forced people to work without pay, without the option to quit, etc. It deprived humans of the rights to life, liberty, and property and is anti-free market and anti-libertarian.

Exploitation happens in every society, more so under the centralized State than anywhere else.

It's only able to do so well because they tax people ridiculously high. Taxation is coercion and therefore fascist in principle, nothing is worth using fascism for monetary support.

[Invariance]

Funny, when economic crises occur, 'anarchists' jump into the same boat as Austrians and libertarians, raising the terror of the state as an apology for inaction and an excuse for the demise of living standards for workers.


Originally posted by Green Apostle
History shows that two things always go hand-in-hand; economic liberty and social liberty. They’re inseparable and to try and support one while opposing the other is not only contradictory but morally and ethically wrong. We've heard it before (http://jim.com/hayek.htm).


You're perfectly capable of growing your own food or starting your own business. Even so, if you willingly dont work and end up in poverty then why should you expect any sympathy.

Slavery was wrong in that is forced people to work without pay, without the option to quit, etc. It deprived humans of the rights to life, liberty, and property and is anti-free market and anti-libertarian.

Exploitation happens in every society, more so under the centralized State than anywhere else.

It's only able to do so well because they tax people ridiculously high. Taxation is coercion and therefore fascist in principle, nothing is worth using fascism for monetary support. In no uncertain terms you should be restricted. It's remarkable that you haven't been already.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You're perfectly capable of growing your own food or starting your own business. Even so, if you willingly dont work and end up in poverty then why should you expect any sympathy.
How can you grow your own food, or start your own business with out coordinated, centralized means of distribution of seeds (and other garden materials) or capital? You need to acquire all of these things from somewhere, and there needs to be institutions in order to get these products to you, hence the capitalist state. The notion that you can just simply start your own business, or supply your family with food without the initial labor and monetary value to support it is absurd. How many people do you know started a business with out taking out a loan? How many gardeners have grown fruits and vegetables by using just what they have (with out buying products, that were already labored over and created by other people)?

As if one could live simply buy growing food, but I'm trying to bend my sense of reality in order to be on the same plane as you.


It's an option for those willing to push for it. Our economy is only in danger because consumers arent spending money and the government is bailing out unwanted businesses. If you have desirable skills or can do the job at optimal performance then theres no reason for it to not be an option.
"Our" economy is in danger because it is inherently contradictory. People can't by products because their already in debt due to the high cost of living; so when people can't buy products its the fault of the people who control and live off the exploitation and oppressive reality of capitalism. When the government bails out "unwanted businesses" they are trying to protect their industrial, banking, and financial systems, in order to prevent the failure of the system in general, which would dialectically (that is obviously) lead to revolutionary worker's movements threatening the capitalist state's power. "Our economy" is certainly in much more danger than the simple fact of 'consumers' not buying products.


Right, as if the totalitarian states of North Korea, Cuba, and the USSR never ever fucked anyone over.

As if the state guided development created by the revolutionary proletariat, and peasantry of these countries never hyper developed their economic foundations and rose the standard of living, equality, freedom, as well as economic and political power of the masses. See I can be cheap and snide too.

Your still talking out of your ass; because you have absolutely no evidence nor any information that details or supports the claim that Cuba and North Korea are "totalitarian states". Totalitarianism itself is complete nonsense, because it is by definition a grouping together of different political tendencies that are "authoritarian" or oppose western capitalism.

On the other hand, I have provided information that proves Cuba is a democratically controlled workers state, and North Korea isn't a one party dictatorship, but in fact a multi-party system.




Child labor was optional, not required; I put the blame on the parents.
Yeah, because it was so easy to live off of just what parent's made when child labor was still used. :rolleyes:


Literacy is a skill you can choose to learn but arent obligated to know, an option not a right.
Literacy isn't a right? Your despicable.


People die every day.
Fantastic observation, that is completely irrellevent.


Slavery was wrong in that is forced people to work without pay, without the option to quit, etc. It deprived humans of the rights to life, liberty, and property and is anti-free market and anti-libertarian.
Wage slavery isn't much different; excpet they are paid. The problem is this payment usually isn't enough to live on, and should be a lot more if the bosses wouldn't hog most of the money.


Exploitation happens in every society, more so under the centralized State than anywhere else.

Another cheap generalization, how surprising.


It's only able to do so well because they tax people ridiculously high. Taxation is coercion and therefore fascist in principle, nothing is worth using fascism for monetary support.
What a joke....taxation is a coercive, fascist principle? That is the most rediculous thing. For like the 3rd time (you've claimed coercion is inherently fascist before in other threads) coercion =/= fascism. Get it through your head.

Taxes in countries with nationalized health care may be high (of course you haven't provided any evidence, so I'm just winging this assumption) but taxes you pay in countries like the US (which are high too) don't go to you, they go to the military.

Oh yeah, and Somali's get great health care because they don't have a centralized state to pay taxes too. I think you should move there.

[RGacky3]

You're perfectly capable of growing your own food or starting your own business. Even so, if you willingly dont work and end up in poverty then why should you expect any sympathy.

So does the right to emegrate justify a king ruling over a kingdom? People willing to work or not has nothing to do with anything, we are talking about power structures that lead to exploitation here.


It's an option for those willing to push for it. Our economy is only in danger because consumers arent spending money and the government is bailing out unwanted businesses. If you have desirable skills or can do the job at optimal performance then theres no reason for it to not be an option.

Of coarse, but Capitalism does'nt reward desirable skills perse, it rewards marketable skills.


Child labor was optional, not required; I put the blame on the parents.

No dumbass, it was optional, no one put a gun to their or their parents head and told them to work, (optional in your sense), also in these cases the parents wern't just sitting back wiating for money, its EXTREME POVERTY we are talking about.


Literacy is a skill you can choose to learn but arent obligated to know, an option not a right.

Have you ever been to the third world? Or at least seen a documentary or something? You wanna know in Latin America the people that have done the most for literacy? Socialists.


It deprived humans of the rights to life, liberty, and property and is anti-free market and anti-libertarian.

Capitalism depriveds 90% (moderately speaking) of humans of life liberty and property, just as slavery does, only in a different way with dismal mobility (really just in theory).


Taxation is coercion and therefore fascist in principle

Great reductive reasoning aristotle, property laws are coercion and therefore fascist in principle. You clearly don't know what fascism is.


It's only able to do so well because they tax people ridiculously high.

And yet people live much better, have more freedoms, higher wages and so on and so forth.


The owner has the right to monitor his employees if he feels theft is going to be a problem.

Under the law yes, in the same way a king has a right to monitor his "people". I'm saying if the workers produce it, in principle, its theirs, so if they take it, its not theft.


Why eliminate private land? If a farmer and his family own a piece of land and use it to produce food so they can make a profit then who are you to deprive them of it?

How much agriculture is "a farmer and his family"? A "farmer and his family" don't NEEd the capitalist private property laws that big agri buisiness does (maybe they need it FROM big agribusiness), and most communists have no problem with a family and his farmer farming land.

Heres the problem, most of your argumetns have nothing to do with the real world, like most libertarians, its all hypothetical and theoretical and ignores concrete reality.