LearnLiberty.com

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

http://learnliberty.com/videos/does-capitalism-exploit-workers

Learn Liberty is a group that promotes "free markets, voluntary exchange, individual rights, and peace". I first noticed their video defending Ayn Rand. Then I saw this one, and I have to watch their video on "Top Three Common Myths of Capitalism". They seem to be one of those groups that is always *****ing about how capitalism is liberty, and "crony capitalism".

Discuss.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Verbal warning for use of derogatory term ("*****ing")

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Verbal warning for use of derogatory term ("*****ing")

Seriously? I've neer heard anyone say that was derogatory.

[Althusser]

:crying:
Verbal warning for use of derogatory term ("*****ing")

really?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Seriously? I've neer heard anyone say that was derogatory.

It is sexist and demeans women by reference and negative connotations. It is Rev-Lefts rules and what is considered politically correct.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

It is sexist and demeans women by reference and negative connotations. It is Rev-Lefts rules and what is considered politically correct.

Hmm, I never even considered that. It seems that by now, it wouldn't even be considered sexist, but who knows?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It is sexist and demeans women by reference and negative connotations. It is Rev-Lefts rules and what is considered politically correct.

Really, politically correct? Political correctness is a ridicule of actual realities, so long capitalism exists racism and sexism will exist and banning the words will not change the material conditions that made it so. Either way, banning certain slang words that are a part of every day proletarian life is counter-revolutionary.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Really, politically correct? Political correctness is a ridicule of actual realities, so long capitalism exists racism and sexism will exist and banning the words will not change the material conditions that made it so. Either way, banning certain slang words that are a part of every day proletarian life is counter-revolutionary.

Regardless of what you think it ism it is against Rev-Left's rules. End of discussion (for me anyway).

[Veovis]

Really, politically correct? Political correctness is a ridicule of actual realities, so long capitalism exists racism and sexism will exist and banning the words will not change the material conditions that made it so.

That's not the goal here. The goal is to create a discussion board where everyone can feel welcome and not be subect to racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language.


Either way, banning certain slang words that are a part of every day proletarian life is counter-revolutionary.

No, using words that demean other sections of working people is counter-revolutionary.

[Althusser]

You are a self-proclaimed "queer" liberationist. I think the word queer, in reference to homosexuals, is offensive. These things are subjective, and it's all about context. He didn't use it to degrade anyone, and I highly doubt The MZA will leave any of our female users sulking in the corner. Either way, leftists shouldn't be so thin-skinned anyway.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, but this isn't the first time I've seen you warn people for reasons similar to this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Today, many define “exploitation” as taking unfair advantage of others’ vulnerability. Based on this definition, many suspect that capitalism exploits workers. Professor Matt Zwolinski examines whether this is accurate and finds two points against it:

1. Capitalists may not want to pay workers close to the value of what they produce, but they do because competition requires it.

This is sheer assertion, nothing more. In fact I would say it is contrary to what actually happens, which is that capitalists always try to lower labour costs. If this means moving the factory to somewhere with no worker protections, no minimum wage and/or no environmental regulation worth speaking of, then that is what they'll do. That is what they have done. It is why I cannot get jobs in my country such as assembling iPhones.


2. Exchanges in free markets are voluntary. This means that even when “exploitative” transactions take place, the institutions of a free market ensure they are mutually beneficial.

More bald, unsupported assertions. Capitalists know it is more profitable to attempt to monopolise markets or to collude with competitors if they think they can get away with it.


Markets may not be perfect, but what’s the alternative? Many believe that to prevent exploitation we need more political regulation and control, but Professor Zwolinski explains the problems with this solution. Bureaucrats, lobbyists, and elected officials are tempted to exploit citizens for the benefit of the politically well connected. Transactions between people and the state aren’t voluntary, so they may not be mutually beneficial either. When politics is involved, one party’s gain usually comes at someone else’s expense.

The radical idea of abolishing markets is not even considered.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Stupid article. Anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that competition within the labor market drives wages DOWN not UP, duh. Also it's always fun to see liberals rail against socialism as an government intervention in the marketplace, because the idea of moving past the world of monetary exchanges and commodities into one of genuine liberty is too much for their tiny heads.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You are a self-proclaimed "queer" liberationist. I think the word queer, in reference to homosexuals, is offensive. These things are subjective, and it's all about context. He didn't use it to degrade anyone, and I highly doubt The MZA will leave any of our female users sulking in the corner. Either way, leftists shouldn't be so thin-skinned anyway.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, but this isn't the first time I've seen you warn people for reasons similar to this. But as he said: it's against the rules. It's not a personal ruling, he just has to punish for it.
So may as well drop the whole thing.

On topic, I don't really see the point of discussing this particular group. I could find this same content really anywhere else on the internet.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Maybe start a new thread about political correctness? Let's not derail the thread.

[Dean]

Markets may not be perfect, but what’s the alternative? Many believe that to prevent exploitation we need more political regulation and control, but Professor Zwolinski explains the problems with this solution. Bureaucrats, lobbyists, and elected officials are tempted to exploit citizens for the benefit of the politically well connected. Transactions between people and the state aren’t voluntary, so they may not be mutually beneficial either. When politics is involved, one party’s gain usually comes at someone else’s expense.
The radical idea of abolishing markets is not even considered.
What's more ridiculous here is the childish notion that politics can be criticized for collusion by the "well connected" in the context of apologism for a system that quite deliberately promotes a centralized system of power meant to be manipulated toward the interests of those who control it.

If politics is malleable to moneyed interests (here they try to distance themselves from this obvious fact by saying well-connected but the two are intertwined) then a private police and regulatory force will be worse because there is no pretense of responsibility to a democratic structure or the people at large.

I pointed this out to some libertarian who asked me to sign a petition to get them on the ballot when I was in line at a movie, and he actually admitted that libertarianism "might be one of those ideas that look good on paper even if they don't work in practice."

Its weak, petty idealism in the context of a global system that has more pressing matters - namely, ending the murderous military system where the president is allowed to indiscriminately fire into crowds of civilians while Coloradans are called crazy for doing the same, and securing water and food rights for those who don't have the privilege of living in an advanced society with time to dream about markets that don't exploit people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I pointed this out to some libertarian who asked me to sign a petition to get them on the ballot when I was in line at a movie, and he actually admitted that libertarianism "might be one of those ideas that look good on paper even if they don't work in practice."

What would you say prompted him to say that?

[Positivist]

You are a self-proclaimed "queer" liberationist. I think the word queer, in reference to homosexuals, is offensive. These things are subjective, and it's all about context. He didn't use it to degrade anyone, and I highly doubt The MZA will leave any of our female users sulking in the corner. Either way, leftists shouldn't be so thin-skinned anyway.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, but this isn't the first time I've seen you warn people for reasons similar to this.

Queer is used in a derogatory manner, but so is gay, lesbian, bisexual, fagit, and homosexual. So there really is no win as far as identification goes for the LGBTQ community, and queer is the most inclusive.

[#FF0000]

guys, can we stay on topic here

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

That's not the goal here. The goal is to create a discussion board where everyone can feel welcome and not be subect to racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language.



No, using words that demean other sections of working people is counter-revolutionary.

Words only, singularly get their meaning from their usage. So if i for instance call a white guy a nigger, regardless of the historical racist usage of the term, I abuse the term, make it useless. If i call my male dog a *****, i abuse the term.

Following a certain path of "Political Correctness" is absolutely petty-bourgeois; i understand and accept if you have problems with persons making use of the various historical meanings and usages of certain words on RevLeft, but words have no other meaning than they are given. It used to be that ***** was a name for female dogs a few decades ago until people used it in derogatory ways how they felt like; if you are going to make no attempt to win back certain words or strip them of any real hurtful meaning, you are going to end up with a long fucking list of words if you live long enough. If you come along in real life with an assembled list of choreographed letters that you find counterrevolutionary (while only ideas can be counter-revolutionary!; such as racism, homophobia, sexism etc.) or should be banned, you are going to have a lot of problems defending your politically correct position not to mention recruiting the masses of homophobic, racist, sexist workers (which sadly not a lot of people here seem to be interested in).

[Comrade #138672]

Words only, singularly get their meaning from their usage. So if i for instance call a white guy a nigger, regardless of the historical racist usage of the term, I abuse the term, make it useless. If i call my male dog a *****, i abuse the term.

Following a certain path of "Political Correctness" is absolutely petty-bourgeois; i understand and accept if you have problems with persons making use of the various historical meanings and usages of certain words on RevLeft, but words have no other meaning than they are given. It used to be that ***** was a name for female dogs a few decades ago until people used it in derogatory ways how they felt like; if you are going to make no attempt to win back certain words or strip them of any real hurtful meaning, you are going to end up with a long fucking list of words if you live long enough. If you come along in real life with an assembled list of choreographed letters that you find counterrevolutionary or should be banned, you are going to have a lot of problems defending your politically correct position not to mention recruiting the masses of homophobic, racist, sexist workers (which sadly not a lot of people here seem to be interested in).I used to think the same way. It may change the meaning of the word for the better, but only slightly. Refraining from using the word and replacing it with another word is much more effective in my experience. Discouraging its use; which is implied by the replacement. It's there for an obvious reason.

However I do not believe that enforcing political correctness is a good idea. People should decide for their own whether they want to use political incorrect words or not. Reminding people of the importance of being politically correct is necessary though.

[Rafiq]

I wish anonymous weren't a bunch of useless assholes, as they would probably close down this site.

[Positivist]

I wish anonymous weren't a bunch of useless assholes, as they would probably close down this site.

... you don't have to participate here...

[rylasasin]

... you don't have to participate here...

He was (probably) talking about LearnLiberty. You know.... What this thread SHOULD have been about?

[JPSartre12]

Why watch Comedy Central when you have Ayn Rand?

In all seriousness, I lost all respect for her when the words "selfishness is man's highest virtue" came out of her mouth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why watch Comedy Central when you have Ayn Rand?

In all seriousness, I lost all respect for her when the words "selfishness is man's highest virtue" came out of her mouth.

Thing is, if you were properly selfish, wouldn't you want an egalitarian communist society, simply because statistically you're more likely to end up as a worker than a CEO or whatever?

Unless of course you're under the delusion that you're part of some special class of Objectivist Übermenschen who will inevitably rise to the top of a libertarian-type society.

[Dean]

What would you say prompted him to say that?

I said something to him that was basically a paraphrase of what I just posted, about how libertarianism ignores the influence of money. I think I came on so strong that he felt he had to defer to my point to some extent to be reasonable.

As a side note, I mentioned this to my brother and he has encountered the same guy before in Richmond. He said he (my brother) is "always mean" to him :lol:

[Dean]

Why watch Comedy Central when you have Ayn Rand?

In all seriousness, I lost all respect for her when the words "selfishness is man's highest virtue" came out of her mouth.

This is some common bullshit, and yeah, I guess its a justified pretext for completely disrespecting someone.

But with things like her admiration for a serial killer (http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/) because he had "no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred," it doesn't take her slavish, tired capitalist propaganda to find the really abhorrent, preposterous positions which guaranteed her irrelevance to anyone in academia.

[Positivist]

He was (probably) talking about LearnLiberty. You know.... What this thread SHOULD have been about?

My apologies then. And also in that case I totally agree. (Not that they ever would because of there fetish about being all inclusive or something along those lines.)

[hatzel]

In all seriousness, I lost all respect for her when the words "selfishness is man's highest virtue" came out of her mouth.

But what's to say selfishness isn't man's [sic] highest virtue...?

[Commiekirby]

Ayn Rand and her little movement don't even deserve to be recognized as "thinkers" as all they seem to consist of is people that need a justification for their greed and selfishness. Every little statement of what I'd call Anarcho-Liberalism at that point is just twists and turns to make them not look bad and give them reasoning to exploit others while having a clear and cowardly conscience. It's disgusting and even totalitarians seem like better options with the Rand's ridiculous laissez-faire ideals. I probably sound harsh and angry but I can't give any respect to that Neo-Con thinking.

Also, words are words and things happen. Can people get back on the topic?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You are a self-proclaimed "queer" liberationist. I think the word queer, in reference to homosexuals, is offensive. These things are subjective, and it's all about context. He didn't use it to degrade anyone, and I highly doubt The MZA will leave any of our female users sulking in the corner. Either way, leftists shouldn't be so thin-skinned anyway.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a pain, but this isn't the first time I've seen you warn people for reasons similar to this.

Indeed. My girlfriend is bisexual and she finds 'queer' an offensive term, too. She prefers 'gay'.

[NewLeft]

I wish anonymous weren't a bunch of useless assholes, as they would probably close down this site.
Well, you know.. We're all anonymous..

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Really, politically correct? Political correctness is a ridicule of actual realities, so long capitalism exists racism and sexism will exist and banning the words will not change the material conditions that made it so. Either way, banning certain slang words that are a part of every day proletarian life is counter-revolutionary.

Arise! Revolt! Reject the oppression and censorship of the moderators!

We shall end the opportunism, and restore our principles!

PS. Just being a jackass. But you can't deny, its good practice.