How many free markets are too many free markets?

[Dan]

In your opinion how much should the state intervene in life? Should the government take control of all businesses and corporations, or should it only get involved in necessities such as healthcare and welfare?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

To answer your question: one.

[Night Ripper]

In your opinion how much should the state intervene in life?

The state shouldn't exist.

[#FF0000]

The state shouldn't exist.

who enforces property rights then?

[Zav]

who enforces property rights then?
Private militaries.
http://adamthinks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/b2_bomber_mcdonalds.jpg

[Blake's Baby]

The state shouldn't exist.

Give Night Ripper his due, this is the one post I've seen by him that actually makes sense.

[Night Ripper]

who enforces property rights then?

I'm reminded of religious freaks that say, "if there were no God I'd be out raping and killing people". To those people I say, "keep the faith brother", while I slowly back out of the room.

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise. If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.

[pax et aequalitas]

I'm reminded of religious freaks that say, "if there were no God I'd be out raping and killing people". To those people I say, "keep the faith brother", while I slowly back out of the room.

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise. If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.

I'd love to violate all your property rights all fcking day and I ain't the only one trust me.

[Prinskaj]

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise.
Well, I am not particularly scared of regular people breaking laws and things like them, people have moral which they uphold whether there is a law or not.

If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.
But the prospect of giant corporations and international firms, already infamous for breaking any law that makes their business less profitable, being allowed to do whatever they please..

[Night Ripper]

But the prospect of giant corporations and international firms, already infamous for breaking any law that makes their business less profitable, being allowed to do whatever they please..

A business can't do anything it pleases. It still has to answer to its customers.

[Thirsty Crow]

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise. If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.
People, do notice that s/he didn't answer the question, who would enforce property rights, and instead went on to make this idiotic analogy which only makes sense as part of guilt by association debating strategy.

And there's a good reason why NR wouldn't answer directly, because we had this discussion before and it's become painfully obvious that we're dealing with a person who has no clue whatsoever about the phenomena they're talking about. The sole answer is private protection companies, and when you raise the point of possible racket then you're only going to get the chorus of "but that's impossible due to consumer choice", and if you dare to suggest that there might be no choice left, then we're back to "but that can't happen". Why? Because libertarians say so.

You've been warned.

[Night Ripper]

People, do notice that s/he didn't answer the question, who would enforce property rights...

You're right, sorry. But I've said this many times, private courts and private security firms would enforce property rights. If there is a demand for such a thing then the market will supply it.

[Das_ALoveStory]

You're right, sorry. But I've said this many times, private courts and private security firms would enforce property rights. If there is a demand for such a thing then the market will supply it.
I love how the backbone of capitalist theory according to people like you is always "the market will fix it".

[#FF0000]

I'm reminded of religious freaks that say, "if there were no God I'd be out raping and killing people". To those people I say, "keep the faith brother", while I slowly back out of the room.

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise. If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.

Except that property rights aren't the same as cultural mores against rape and murder. I mean, you do realize that states emerged alongside the establishing of private property, don't you? There's a reason for that. How to establish who owns what is far, far, far less cut and dry than 'don't hurt people'.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The state shouldn't exist.

move to recommend all anarchists be restricted over this/POLICYDECISIONS

[Night Ripper]

I mean, you do realize that states emerged alongside the establishing of private property, don't you?

That's simply not true. Many American Indian tribes (Yurok, Hupa, etc.) had only private property, no public property, yet there was no central authority. In fact, private property is quite common in primitive stateless societies. When the English colonized America, there were private property claims before any form of state.

[NewLeft]

That's simply not true. Many American Indian tribes (Yurok, Hupa, etc.) had only private property, no public property, yet there was no central authority. In fact, private property is quite common in primitive stateless societies. When the English colonized America, there were private property claims before any form of state.

How was this private property and not personal property?

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm going to have to see a citation for that, nightripper. It sounds like you're just talking out of your ass.

... or you're just using a wildly unorthodox definition of private property: which would be typical of lolbertarians.

[Night Ripper]

I'm going to have to see a citation for that, nightripper. It sounds like you're just talking out of your ass.

... or you're just using a wildly unorthodox definition of private property: which would be typical of lolbertarians.

http://mises.org/document/1826/Enforcement-of-Private-Property-Rights-in-Primitive-Societies-Law-without-Government

[Revolution starts with U]

Ugh... missed.org...

Ill check it out and get back to you, tho

[Prinskaj]

A business can't do anything it pleases. It still has to answer to its customers.
To some degree you are right.. But this predisposes that markets are unable to use coercive force, like demanding protection money (Like the mafia did) or disallow competition (Forming a cartel).

[Deicide]

One is far too many.

[DinodudeEpic]

Dan, free markets are great. And, no sane and principled socialist would even dare to have the government control the economy.

My socialism is in the cooperative, not in the government.

[RGacky3]

Capital markets REQUIRE state intervention, and Labor markets require capial markets.

Commodity markets I don't see anything wrong with.

So at most, 1, which is commodity markets (in the marxist sense), and the one consumers are familiar with.

[Blake's Baby]

And you still claim not to be a propertarian? How do you have 'commodities' without property?

[RGacky3]

Goods and services, I don't think you need property laws to have a market in those things, unless of coarse your dealing in huge bulk, also I would'nt have for-profit markets, more just as a way to get information about supply and demand.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'm reminded of religious freaks that say, "if there were no God I'd be out raping and killing people". To those people I say, "keep the faith brother", while I slowly back out of the room.

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise. If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.

Except that is obviously false. The majority of people do not respect the kind of property rights a libertarian society would entail. To be sure, they respect some property rights, but you find a large body of disagreement with others. You are basically stating that people are naturally good, and will behave in a utopian manner if only they were freed of statist brainwashing. I'd ask you to consider how credible you'd find it if a communist argued people would naturally behave as communists, if only freed of capitalist brainwashing, since your argument is the same.

[Night Ripper]

The majority of people do not respect the kind of property rights a libertarian society would entail.

What do you think that is?


To be sure, they respect some property rights, but you find a large body of disagreement with others.

What others? Be more specific.

[Blake's Baby]

Goods and services, I don't think you need property laws to have a market in those things, unless of coarse your dealing in huge bulk, also I would'nt have for-profit markets, more just as a way to get information about supply and demand.

Goods like what?

If you have no 'property' why do you need a market?

You set up your 'goods market', I walk past and go, 'oh, right, I need one of those', I take it, what do you do?

[Night Ripper]

Goods like what?

If you have no 'property' why do you need a market?

You set up your 'goods market', I walk past and go, 'oh, right, I need one of those', I take it, what do you do?

I take it back. What do you do?

[RGacky3]

Goods like what?

If you have no 'property' why do you need a market?

You set up your 'goods market', I walk past and go, 'oh, right, I need one of those', I take it, what do you do?

The same thing that would happen is you try and hoard limited capital or resources.

BTW, this is not communism (in the puritanical sense everyone here likes to discuss it as), its a form of socialism, I say property rights are not fundemental, but that does'nt mean you could have a limited form of a market that is protected in a socialist system do get info on demand.

Richard wolff writes about this. Most (if not all) the contradictions of capitalism come from capital and labor markets, which both entail profit (in the marxist sense), so its perfectly compatible to have commodity markets with socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

But not property rights?

Great. I'm coming to your 'market' and taking what I need. Nothing you can do about it, there is no 'property'.

Welcome to free access communism.

[Night Ripper]

I'm coming to your 'market' and taking what I need. Nothing you can do about it, there is no 'property'.

When I take it back there's also nothing you can do about it?


Welcome to free access communism.

Brilliant system you've got, everybody grabbing stuff back and forth from each other.

[Blake's Baby]

Good luck trying. I've eaten it.

The difference is that RGacky has already gone 'hey this is surplus stuff I don't need'. That's why it's on his 'market stall'. I've taken it because I need it.

I need it, he doesn't. See the difference there?

Don't worry, RGacky's got plenty to go round. You can have one of his, if you need one.

[Night Ripper]

Good luck trying. I've eaten it.

The difference is that RGacky has already gone 'hey this is surplus stuff I don't need'. That's why it's on his 'market stall'. I've taken it because I need it.

I need it, he doesn't. See the difference there?

Don't worry, RGacky's got plenty to go round. You can have one of his, if you need one.

There's no such thing as "needs".

[Blake's Baby]

Fine. Prove me wrong by not eating for 10 days. Or not breathing for ten minutes. Your choice.

[Revolution starts with U]

There's no such thing as "needs".

Ok :lol: it is official...

You trolling homie:thumbup:

[Night Ripper]

Fine. Prove me wrong by not eating for 10 days. Or not breathing for ten minutes. Your choice.

You don't need to live. You want to live.

If I want to go to Disney World does that suddenly mean that I "need" to buy tickets?

[Prinskaj]

You don't need to live. You want to live.
You don't need freedom, you want freedom. Therefore I am now allowed to control the amount of freedom, and price thereof.

If I want to go to Disney World does that suddenly mean that I "need" to buy tickets?
There is quite a big difference between something unessential and purely for entertainment, and not starving..

[Night Ripper]

You don't need freedom, you want freedom. Therefore I now allowed to control the amount of freedom, and price thereof.

Non sequitur.


There is quite a big difference between something unessential and purely for entertainment, and not starving..

There is a difference just like there is a difference between a greyhound and a chihuahua. That doesn't make them different species though.

[Prinskaj]

Non sequitur.
Do you mean that freedom cannot be compared to food or that an external authority cannot control food or freedom?

There is a difference just like there is a difference between a greyhound and a chihuahua. That doesn't make them different species though.
So the people in third world countries should just be happy that they can have the "luxury of living"?

[Night Ripper]

Do you mean that freedom cannot be compared to food or that an external authority cannot control food or freedom?

I mean that just because something is a want rather than a need doesn't mean you get to stomp all over it.


So the people in third world countries should just be happy that they can have the "luxury of living"?

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Use the quote feature to avoid making strawman arguments.

[Prinskaj]

I mean that just because something is a want rather than a need doesn't mean you get to stomp all over it.
Yet the capitalists control the food product..

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Use the quote feature to avoid making strawman arguments.
You said that life is optional and the necessities for it a want, rather then a need. Which makes these necessities luxuries..

[Night Ripper]

Yet the capitalists control the food product..

And? I control my living room. You need to say something more than that.


You said that life is optional and the necessities for it a want, rather then a need. Which makes these necessities luxuries..

Everything is a luxury. I'm very aware that words like need and luxury have different meanings in colloquial English but we need to be precise here.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

What do you think that is?



What others? Be more specific.

For instance, most would argue theft was justified in some cases.

But there are literally dozens of examples of people favouring actions that violate individual property rights libertarians support that you can see every day?

[Night Ripper]

But there are literally dozens of examples of people favouring actions that violate individual property rights libertarians support that you can see every day?

Name one I support.

[Prinskaj]

And? I control my living room. You need to say something more than that.
You don't want me to "stomp all over it" by making a specific group of people (In this case me) to control the production of a commodity that you need. Yet you see no problem in allowing another group (the capitalist) to control it.

Everything is a luxury. I'm very aware that words like need and luxury have different meanings in colloquial English but we need to be precise here.
No.. Different words have different meanings, you can't just pick any word you would like in a sentence.
"A need is something that is necessary for organisms to live a healthy life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life). Needs are distinguished from wants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Want) because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome, such as dysfunction or death." - Wikipedia

[Night Ripper]

You don't want me to "stomp all over it" by making a specific group of people (In this case me) to control the production of a commodity that you need. Yet you see no problem in allowing another group (the capitalist) to control it.

That's because there are legitimate ways to obtain control of something.


No.. Different words have different meanings, you can't just pick any word you would like in a sentence.
"A need is something that is necessary for organisms to live a healthy life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life). Needs are distinguished from wants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Want) because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome, such as dysfunction or death." - Wikipedia

Who says death is a negative outcome?

[Revolution starts with U]

That's because there are legitimate ways to obtain control of something.?

Says you.

[Blake's Baby]

So what your saying is my 'want' for communism is no less important than your 'want' for oxygen?

[Night Ripper]

So what your saying is my 'want' for communism is no less important than your 'want' for oxygen?

Important to who?

[Blake's Baby]

The human species.

As a whole and/or (if you're going to claim 'the human species doesn't have opinions') as an aggregate of all opinions of all people.

[Night Ripper]

The human species.

As a whole and/or (if you're going to claim 'the human species doesn't have opinions') as an aggregate of all opinions of all people.

Might makes right?

[Revolution starts with U]

Most of the time, in practice, yes. That's why idealism is so naive.

[Prinskaj]

That's because there are legitimate ways to obtain control of something.
So what makes them "legitimate"?

Who says death is a negative outcome?
For a species of animals death is very negative..
I can see that you are trying to turn this into an argument about the existence of "objective needs", but to determine whether such needs exist, we must first set our own subjective measures of this. Such as: People naturally and instinctly try to avoid being killed, therefore death is unwanted occurrence in "normal" human being. This is about as close as you can get to a objective definition.
But you are right in one respect, outcomes are subjective, but supporting people in, at very least, the mere act of survival, is seen by very few people(Of those who need help), as an evil act.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm reminded of religious freaks that say, "if there were no God I'd be out raping and killing people". To those people I say, "keep the faith brother", while I slowly back out of the room.

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise. If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.
Well the only problem with that analysis is that even if God doesn't exist the state still does. And if they go around raping and killing people the state will surely put an end to it.
Now if the state doesn't exist there really isn't a deterrent for this type of thing. Sure, I don't think that most people will go around killing each other, but certainly the inequality in capitalism makes for some conflicts.

Who is going to shut down a strike? Private Police?
And what are they going to do with the workers? Throw them in private prisons?

Now upon hearing this, I hope you realize how utopian and altogether useless anarcho-capitalism is.

Hint: If you take the word private out of the last few sentences, you are left with something that sounds a lot like what already happens. So in effect what you are creating is a coercive rule.

[Blake's Baby]

Might makes right?

So in aswer to the question, 'is my 'want' for communism as important as your 'want' for oxygen', and after you asked for the clarification of 'to whom is it more important?', your response is 'might makes right'?

So, what you seem to be saying is that as long as there are more communists than there are you, we should be able to do what we want?

Cheers, don't mind if I do.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Name one I support.

Well, taxes?

[Night Ripper]

Well, taxes?

No.

[Ocean Seal]

Who says death is a negative outcome?
Says the guy who was appalled at the posts about hating the rich.

[Night Ripper]

Says the guy who was appalled at the posts about hating the rich.

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. I'm simply saying that there are no intrinsic values. You can't say that death is a universally bad outcome because "bad" is nothing more than a subjective opinion. What you think is bad, some other person from another culture might think is good. Anything at all can be seen either way depending on the established norms.

Of course, this is something that anyone who's taken introduction to sociology knows but by all means let's pretend that I'm advocating death and while we're at it, let's grind up all the poor people and use them to lubricate the machines in my capitalist factory. Muahahaha! *pinky*

[Prinskaj]

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. I'm simply saying that there are no intrinsic values. You can't say that death is a universally bad outcome because "bad" is nothing more than a subjective opinion. What you think is bad, some other person from another culture might think is good. Anything at all can be seen either way depending on the established norms.
This is just plain avoiding the issue.. This question is basically just pseudo-intellectual philosophical masturbation.. There is no point in determining that the universe doesn't care about your or my existence. Secondly, if we follow this strain of though, then murder is perfectly acceptable since there is nothing objectively bad about being dead and therefore nothing bad about bringing others into this state.
Thirdly, I already gave you a definition of "needs", which is the goods and services needed to sustain your own life. Which is what we, in the community, define as needs. So you can stick your theoretical bullshit up your arse..

[ColonelCossack]

To answer your question: one.

You beat me to it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No.

so you don't support getting rid of taxes? Mabye your not understanding me. I said that most people support things that are in violation of libertarian property rights. You asked me to you you specific examples, so I said taxes.

[Night Ripper]

Mabye your not understanding me. I said that most people support things that are in violation of libertarian property rights.

Oh sorry, I did misunderstand you. I agree with you.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Oh sorry, I did misunderstand you. I agree with you.

In which case, can you respond to what I said earlier, now that it is clear you acknowledge that the majority of people have a large series of disagreements with libertarian property rights.



Originally Posted by Night Ripper
I'm reminded of religious freaks that say, "if there were no God I'd be out raping and killing people". To those people I say, "keep the faith brother", while I slowly back out of the room.

I am working under the assumption that most people don't want to be rapists or violent thugs, regardless of whether or not someone is watching over them, God, state or otherwise. If that's not the case then we're fucked no matter what. No, I assume that most people respect property rights and it's only a minority of people that need to be dealt with.



Except that is obviously false. The majority of people do not respect the kind of property rights a libertarian society would entail. To be sure, they respect some property rights, but you find a large body of disagreement with others. You are basically stating that people are naturally good, and will behave in a utopian manner if only they were freed of statist brainwashing. I'd ask you to consider how credible you'd find it if a communist argued people would naturally behave as communists, if only freed of capitalist brainwashing, since your argument is the same.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, it's basically my argument for the practicality of communism.

Except, I think 'it's the class system' is a materialist analysis whereas 'it's the government' is a idealistic one (and therefore I'm right).

[Doflamingo]

One, one is far too many.

[Drosophila]

who enforces property rights then?

thats wut we have blackwater 4 dum dum

[Night Ripper]

In which case, can you respond to what I said earlier, now that it is clear you acknowledge that the majority of people have a large series of disagreements with libertarian property rights.

They don't disagree. They are being inconsistent. Much like black slave owners that declare all humans equal while misidentifying blacks as not being human. Most people respect property rights and disagree with theft but have misidentified taxes as not being theft but rather dues owed to the "country club". Obviously, a libertarian society won't exist until that confusion is cleared up.

[RGacky3]

I'd love to violate all your property rights all fcking day and I ain't the only one trust me.

I doubt you would, this guy is not wealthy.

Which I suppose he would attribute to his own ineptness or laziness, given his own ideology.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

They don't disagree. They are being inconsistent. Much like black slave owners that declare all humans equal while misidentifying blacks as not being human. Most people respect property rights and disagree with theft but have misidentified taxes as not being theft but rather dues owed to the "country club". Obviously, a libertarian society won't exist until that confusion is cleared up.

The reason they believe taxes are okay, and not theft, is because they disagree with libertarian property rights. In this case, the libertarian arguments for what constitutes just ownership or unjust ownership. When I spoke about libeterian property rights I did not just mean to say that most people agree with theft, but that they also disagree with libertarians on what constitutes just or unjust ownership (amoung many other things.)

[Lucretia]

Socialism is not just "state intervention" into an otherwise "free" market. If that's your starting point, you're already framing your thinking in terms that will lead to a very specific answer.

[Revolution starts with U]

They don't disagree. They are being inconsistent. Much like black slave owners that declare all humans equal while misidentifying blacks as not being human.
Ah, yes; the "if you disagree with me it's because you're stupid" fallacy. :thumbup1:



Obviously, a libertarian society won't exist until that confusion is cleared up.

So what you're saying is... a libertarian society won't ever exist? :rolleyes:

You try to create your "neo hominid," your "homo economicus," and tell me how that works out.

[Night Ripper]

The reason they believe taxes are okay, and not theft, is because they disagree with libertarian property rights. In this case, the libertarian arguments for what constitutes just ownership or unjust ownership. When I spoke about libeterian property rights I did not just mean to say that most people agree with theft, but that they also disagree with libertarians on what constitutes just or unjust ownership (amoung many other things.)

In all the people I've talked to about taxes not a single one of them said it's because they disagree with property rights. They've usually just argued that taxes are owed due to use of public services. They in fact agree with me on property rights because they claim I'm stealing public services if I don't pay my taxes.


Ah, yes; the "if you disagree with me it's because you're stupid" fallacy. :thumbup1:

I'm sure they're not stupid but humans have a tendency to avoid seeing things they don't want to see, if they can get away with it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

They in fact agree with me on property rights because they claim I'm stealing public services if I don't pay my taxes.


Surely the fact that they argue that use of public goods without paying for them is theft shows that they believe that, in contrast to libertarian ideals, a state can have some legitimate claim?

Ask yourself why people would say it was wrong to take goods from a shop without offering them what they said was the price for the good? They'd say it was stealing.

[RGacky3]

Night ripper, why arn't you rich???

Why are you not upper class???

(repost this)

[Prinskaj]

Night ripper, why arn't you rich???

Why are you not upper class???

(repost this)
and

Given his idealogy he's got 3 choices.

1. He does'nt want to be rich.
2. He's lazy.
3. He's just not talented.
You're welcome.

[RGacky3]

Given his idealogy he's got 3 choices.

1. He does'nt want to be rich.
2. He's lazy.
3. He's just not talented.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

UHH GUIYZ HE'S GONNA BE RICH!!

(honestly, thats what every internet libertarian says.)

[Dean]

A business can't do anything it pleases. It still has to answer to its customers.

Right, and when you can't purchase private security, you inevitably become the target of private security firms which realize that the most profitable mode of security is one which actively robs those with no such security.

The problem with consumer dictatorship is twofold: one, imperfect knowledge means that consumers cannot make purchases that effectively reflect their interests, and what effect they can have on the production process is limited to their discretionary budget.

This last bit is important because you can't even expect people to make "morally enforced" decision like not purchasing from industries whose practices they disapprove of when the alternative is missing out on basic necessities of life.

This power that consumers have, already limited by imperfect knowledge and their respective places in the process of production, is further limited by the consumer's available funds. In this way, businesses and the super-rich can, in fact, "do as they please" since the process of production responds to one thing ultimately: moneyed interests. Be that a broad consumer base with lower incomes (WalMart) or highly centralized systems of political enforcement (Xe Services), the relative funds that actors bring to the table is the ultimate measurement of the power they exert there.

[Ocean Seal]

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. I'm simply saying that there are no intrinsic values. You can't say that death is a universally bad outcome because "bad" is nothing more than a subjective opinion. What you think is bad, some other person from another culture might think is good. Anything at all can be seen either way depending on the established norms.

Of course, this is something that anyone who's taken introduction to sociology knows but by all means let's pretend that I'm advocating death and while we're at it, let's grind up all the poor people and use them to lubricate the machines in my capitalist factory. Muahahaha! *pinky*

You said that death wasn't a bad outcome necessarily. So in effect people don't have needs right? So what exactly did the revolutionaries do which was wrong in your eyes? Maybe the rich only wanted to live and didn't need it. Just food for thought at how ridiculous your argument is, and moreover, what a subjectively moralistic fool you are.

[DinodudeEpic]

Who are the consumers!

Tell us that if they would be the driving force of your society.

[Night Ripper]

Right, and when you can't purchase private security, you inevitably become the target of private security firms which realize that the most profitable mode of security is one which actively robs those with no such security.

The problem with consumer dictatorship is twofold: one, imperfect knowledge means that consumers cannot make purchases that effectively reflect their interests, and what effect they can have on the production process is limited to their discretionary budget.

This last bit is important because you can't even expect people to make "morally enforced" decision like not purchasing from industries whose practices they disapprove of when the alternative is missing out on basic necessities of life.

This power that consumers have, already limited by imperfect knowledge and their respective places in the process of production, is further limited by the consumer's available funds. In this way, businesses and the super-rich can, in fact, "do as they please" since the process of production responds to one thing ultimately: moneyed interests. Be that a broad consumer base with lower incomes (WalMart) or highly centralized systems of political enforcement (Xe Services), the relative funds that actors bring to the table is the ultimate measurement of the power they exert there.

You just explained how free markets aren't ideal, which they're not. But at what point does any of this imperfect knowledge, imperfect competition, etc justify violence? If consumers don't shop around, refuse to boycott, etc then the system doesn't work as good for them.

As for businesses doing as they please, I don't know what world you live in but anywhere I go, I get what I want. I want no cheese on my hamburgers. Sometimes they put cheese but when I complain they apologize and replace it. They certainly don't say "too bad, we can do whatever we want".

[Night Ripper]

Night ripper, why arn't you rich???

Why are you not upper class???

(repost this)

I drive a $60,000 car. I own rental property. I vacation in Europe. I pay some lady that can barely speak English to clean my toilets. I'll let you decide what class that makes me. I'm not too concerned with accumulating wealth as long as I have enough to be comfortable and can work at what I enjoy doing.

[hatzel]

As for businesses doing as they please, I don't know what world you live in but anywhere I go, I get what I want. I want no cheese on my hamburgers. Sometimes they put cheese but when I complain they apologize and replace it. They certainly don't say "too bad, we can do whatever we want".

Well even you would have to admit that that's a rather limited choice, and it is determined entirely by the eatery in question, what they offer on their menu. Cheese or no cheese...great. But what if I have ethical concerns about how exactly that cheese is produced? Or the burger itself, or the bun, or anything else? What if I want to know about the living conditions of the cows that provided the milk or the beef, or what farming techniques were used to grow the wheat to make the flour to make the bun. Is it sustainable? Was poisonous fertiliser used? Were 'illegal' labourers exploited at any time in this process, paid below minimum wages? I can't ask all these questions before I do or don't buy the burger, and even if I dedicated myself to researching the answer, contacting all their suppliers, I'd probably still be none the wiser, because that burger has come from such a wide range of suppliers that identifying the exact sources of the burger and the production process if effectively impossible.

And what if I disapprove? Then I can refuse to buy my Big Mac and go for a Whopper instead, maybe, hoping BK is a more acceptable company. Same shit, different pictures on the front of the building, last time I checked, so I wouldn't have much hope there. So then maybe I'd have to go to some little independently owned organic café attached to some magic farm that has dairy cows and beef cows and also grows wheat and lettuce and tomatoes and cucumbers to pickle and so on and so forth and let you examine the farm and the entire production process. But a) something tells me my burger would be prohibitively expensive from such a place; and b) no actually that kind of place doesn't really exist. So the production process remains a mystery to me. It's broken up into so many parts - this from here, this from here, this made here, and all put together here - that I could never truly approach it. I could never make a truly informed ethical decision on whether to buy my burger at McD's or BK or somewhere else (paying five times the price). I can 'shop around' all I want, but the workings of the company remain entirely unknown to me, and if I am lucky enough to know every little detail of the company's workings and 'approve' of it, I probably can't afford to eat there.

The point being that this perfect little dreamworld wherein people know when this or that company does something 'naughty' and therefore choose not to shop there is totally unrealistic. I think there are a lot of people who would boycott shitloads of companies...if they knew what they got up to. But they don't know, and that's precisely the issue here. Nor do they have the money to shop at these 'ethical' companies who...wait for it...can't sell stuff as cheaply as your average firm precisely because they don't cut corners and underpay supplies and labourers and engage in dubious practices.

[Night Ripper]

Well even you would have to admit that that's a rather limited choice, and it is determined entirely by the eatery in question, what they offer on their menu. Cheese or no cheese...great. But what if I have ethical concerns about how exactly that cheese is produced? Or the burger itself, or the bun, or anything else? What if I want to know about the living conditions of the cows that provided the milk or the beef, or what farming techniques were used to grow the wheat to make the flour to make the bun. Is it sustainable? Was poisonous fertiliser used? Were 'illegal' labourers exploited at any time in this process, paid below minimum wages? I can't ask all these questions before I do or don't buy the burger, and even if I dedicated myself to researching the answer, contacting all their suppliers, I'd probably still be none the wiser, because that burger has come from such a wide range of suppliers that identifying the exact sources of the burger and the production process if effectively impossible.

Do you have to call up every supplier to find out if food is kosher or halal? No, because there is a market demand for that and therefore independent agencies operate to supply it. Your argument is so full of fail that I actually feel bad you spent all that time typing it out. The fact is, because there is no market demand for the kind of food you speak of, that means you're in a minority. You're not going to get what you want from appealing to some common good or whatever communist bullshit you believe in. The only system that will supply your demand is the free market because even though it is expensive, you could buy a hamburger made from cloned beef where no animal was ever mistreated or from a farm where cows get to sleep on feather beds with 200 thread count sheets.


The point being that this perfect little dreamworld wherein people know when this or that company does something 'naughty' and therefore choose not to shop there is totally unrealistic.

What a complete strawman. You have to do your research as a consumer. The only person talking about Utopia is you. What exactly do you mean to conclude from all this criticism anyways? Are you really trying to argue that since markets aren't perfect, that because there are informational asymmetries that what, you get to just use violence to get your way and enforce your will on others? What point were you trying to make with the above refuted argument?