The long term effects of Libertarianism/Conservati

[Lardlad95]

I've always been interested in how ideologues view the end result of their plans to better society or in the case of conservatives restore it to a better time. So I'm wondering what would be the long term effects on society, Western society in particular, if the conservatives and libertarians got their wishes.

I often find when skimming through conservative platforms and arguements that they somehow wish to return America to a more pure and wholesome time that never really existed. So let us pretend that the libertarians suceeded in removing nearly all government involvement in economics and buisness, all social programs, eliminated income taxes, estate taxes, and any other tax that the right is opposed to. Government no longer has any say in the running of buisness, and we return a lassiez faire society.

In addition for the religious conservatives, prayer back in schools, no gay marriage, no more abortion, and end to unemployment and welfare benefits, and a helluva lot of privitization.

Now when I say they get everything they want, I mean everything, removal of everything from the first anti-trust laws to the lastest social program.

So libertarians, conservatives, and leftists, through your eyes, carry out this scenario to it's logical end.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lardlad95
...prayer back in schools...

Actually, no public schools at all. If your parents can't pay, you stay ignorant.


So libertarians, conservatives, and leftists, through your eyes, carry out this scenario to it's logical end.

I don't believe it's something that libertarians/conservatives really want to talk about very much.

At least not in public. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 12:41 PM
Actually, no public schools at all. If your parents can't pay, you stay ignorant.
People nowadays walk out of public schools dumber than when they walked in. Getting rid of them can only be a good thing.

What's wrong with homeschooling ?

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 17 2004, 06:51 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 17 2004, 06:51 AM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 12:41 PM
Actually, no public schools at all. If your parents can't pay, you stay ignorant.
People nowadays walk out of public schools dumber than when they walked in. Getting rid of them can only be a good thing.

What's wrong with homeschooling ? [/b]
lol! home schooling is the educational equivalent of incest...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 17 2004, 01:57 PM
lol! home schooling is the educational equivalent of incest...
Don't be daft.

[RedAnarchist]

Why do you need capitalist exams anyway? The real world will not be enjoyed in a calculator or a textbook!

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 17 2004, 01:51 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 17 2004, 01:51 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 12:41 PM
Actually, no public schools at all. If your parents can't pay, you stay ignorant.
People nowadays walk out of public schools dumber than when they walked in. Getting rid of them can only be a good thing.

What's wrong with homeschooling ? [/b]
Well aside from the fact that the average person has niether the time nor the resources to educate their children. Most people aren't qualified to teach the numerous amount of subjects that their children need to learn.

Also public schools would be better if more funding went into them...instead of the military.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:33 PM
Why do you need capitalist exams anyway? The real world will not be enjoyed in a calculator or a textbook!
Any education is better than none.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 12:41 PM
I don't believe it's something that libertarians/conservatives really want to talk about very much.

At least not in public. :D
I concur

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In the United States, there would a massive revolt long before it got to that point. In fact, the economy would collapse and some major reforms would have to take place if they even wanted capitalism to continue existing.

The libertarians who advocate libertarianism (not the ones who would actually benefit), would say that the result of the enactment of laizes-faire capitalism would be peace, freedom, etc. The ones who actually would benefit from libertarianism know better.

[Individual]

You obviously have a misinterpretation of libertarian hopes...

First off, the Libertarian party within the US distances itself from the Republican Party. The differences are obvious; Legalization of drugs, major decrease in military funding, no wars, personal freedoms, small government, pro-choice.

Do not try and loop Conservatism to Libertarianism as closely as you do. The differences are far greater than you think.

It is ignorant of you to deny that libertarianism would provide many more freedoms than would Marxism, or present US politics.

When will you all not realize that with Marxism comes a lack of many freedoms.

You cannot support freedom while supporting liberal ideals. You cannot support freedom by supporting any form of Socialism.

If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business.

It always gets me when you Marxists get off about freedom while denouncing capitalism. Make up your mind.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What are you babbling about?

[Munchimoniam]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Nov 18 2004, 12:18 AM--> (Lardlad95 @ Nov 18 2004, 12:18 AM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 12:41 PM
I don't believe it's something that libertarians/conservatives really want to talk about very much.

At least not in public. :D
I concur [/b]
...how profound.

[LSD]

It is ignorant of you to deny that libertarianism would provide many more freedoms than would Marxism, or present US politics.

Really?

So any disagreement with your contentions is "ignorance"?

It couldn't be that you're just wrong?

I adamently "deny" that "libertarianism would provide many more freedoms than would Marxism", depending, of course, on how one defines "marxism" and "libertarianism".

From your comments, I take it to mean that you are defining "libertarianism" as a form of capito-anarchism, that is unrestrained "free market" capitalism.


When will you all not realize that with Marxism comes a lack of many freedoms.

I agree.

But the same is true of "libertarianism".

It's true of every society.

The question that must be answered is are the freedoms that are taken away a fair price for that which is being offered in return. Under the kind of "libertarian" society you speak of, the freedoms that are taken are quite fundamental:

Food, shelter, dignity...

The freedoms that anarchism or "marxism" take away are, effectively, the freedom to exploit others and some rather meaningless economic terms.

It prevents individuals from entering into "commerical relationships", it prevents mass property owenership. Ethereal, theoretical, conceptual ideas.

There is no "innate" right to any of those. There is nothing "nescessary" about capitalist exchanges. There is something innate about eating and drinking and living, and therefore if I had to choose between sacrificing the right to money and the right to food, I know it wouldn't take me long to decide.


If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business.

....um.....why?

Capitalism, and more specifically the institution of "business", is one of the most undemocratic forces on the planet today. It is a force of oppression and inequality.

How does supporting the present framework, let alone a less regulated one, in any promote "freedom"?

If anything it does the opposite.

Sure, the present model is better than the one of, say, 500 years ago, but to claim that it is anything but a rung on the ladder is ludicrous. We have a ways to go before we develop a system that is truly "free".

Business is not synonimous with "freedom", and despite the propagandistic claims of the "free world" capitalism is not synonimous with democratic.


You cannot support freedom while supporting liberal ideals. You cannot support freedom by supporting any form of Socialism.

"Just watch me".

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 12:45 AM
In the United States, there would a massive revolt long before it got to that point. In fact, the economy would collapse and some major reforms would have to take place if they even wanted capitalism to continue existing.

The libertarians who advocate libertarianism (not the ones who would actually benefit), would say that the result of the enactment of laizes-faire capitalism would be peace, freedom, etc. The ones who actually would benefit from libertarianism know better.
Ignoring the pathetic argumentum ad baculum, I don't see how anyone other than the economic parasites would be worse off under LFC.

[Professor Moneybags]

It couldn't be that you're just wrong?

He's actually right this time.


I adamently "deny" that "libertarianism would provide many more freedoms than would Marxism", depending, of course, on how one defines "marxism" and "libertarianism".

Command economics does not result in freedom. Is that really difficult to understand ?


From your comments, I take it to mean that you are defining "libertarianism" as a form of capito-anarchism, that is unrestrained "free market" capitalism.

"Unrestrained" generally means free and capitalism is the just the freedom to trade and associate with others.


But the same is true of "libertarianism".

In which way ?


It prevents individuals from entering into "commerical relationships",

In other words, it prevents individuals trading and associating with one another. Really "free" isn't it ?


There is something innate about eating and drinking and living, and therefore if I had to choose between sacrificing the right to money and the right to food, I know it wouldn't take me long to decide.

This argument has been covered several times. The right to goods and services is nothing more than a right to steal and enslave (from) those who have them and/or provide them.


Capitalism, and more specifically the institution of "business", is one of the most undemocratic forces on the planet today. It is a force of oppression and inequality.

This presupposes that inequality is a bad thing and that democracy would somehow remove it. Oppression is just a misused buzz-word.


"Just watch me".

I'll watch you fail like everyone else.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 08:20 AM


Command economics does not result in freedom. Is that really difficult to understand ?


Oppertunity to excerise a right is a nescessary part of a freedom.

So economic equality gives the most people the greatest amount of oppertuntiy a society can provide. Capitalism = a few with a great deal of freedom and oppertunity, the poor the majority, have freedom but no oppertunity to express it.

They thus lack the freedom, to say acheive an education to buy a home, to raise healthy children, to travel.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 09:08 AM
Ignoring the pathetic argumentum ad baculum, I don't see how anyone other than the economic parasites would be worse off under LFC.
A vast majority of people living in the capitalist world already don't earn enough money to cover food and other essential goods. If we were to remove public healthcare and education, then these people would pretty much have nothing.

Even in the United States, poverty would ensue for the working class. Less consumers and less "middle class" would mean less billionaires.

And people simply wouldn't stand for it.
The third world is very stauchly left-wing for American standards. Public healthcare is regarded as basic as public education.

Americans also wouldn't stand for it.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 05:13 AM
You obviously have a misinterpretation of libertarian hopes...

First off, the Libertarian party within the US distances itself from the Republican Party. The differences are obvious; Legalization of drugs, major decrease in military funding, no wars, personal freedoms, small government, pro-choice.

Do not try and loop Conservatism to Libertarianism as closely as you do. The differences are far greater than you think.

It is ignorant of you to deny that libertarianism would provide many more freedoms than would Marxism, or present US politics.

When will you all not realize that with Marxism comes a lack of many freedoms.

You cannot support freedom while supporting liberal ideals. You cannot support freedom by supporting any form of Socialism.

If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business.

It always gets me when you Marxists get off about freedom while denouncing capitalism. Make up your mind.
FIrst of all where did I mention the republican party? Secondly everything I mentioned, libertarians want, unless I denoted as to other wise. Which I did when I started talking about religious conservatives and conservatives in general.

IN addition I didn't say anything in regards to freedom. But if you wish to bring this into the equation then we can. You right wingers like to assume that your definition of freedom is the correct one. Freedom is liberation from coercion and from slavery. Both coercion and slavery exist under lassiez faire capitalism, so in essence your ideology negates freedom.

Your ideology is opposed to freedom because it allows for trusts, and monopolies, and cartels. Institutions that seek only to gain wealth for themselves at the expense of others. Your ideology allows for the capitalists to take both economic and political control over society, lowering wages, and turning the average person into a slave, forced to work with no benefits for relatively little money.

Your entire dream of personal struggle becomes harder and harder when we discover what is at the heart of lassiez faire economics. How will one be able to achieve their dreams when a large corporation controls the entire idustry and several related industries?

This ideology that you champion results in nothing more than a corporate dictatorship.

When will you realize that libertarianism results in "freedom" and power for a few, and opession and destitution for many. History has proven your grand vision to be nothing more than a trap, with the attractive appeals of "liberty" and "individualism" when all that lies beneath is the gnashing teeth of the elite.

The reason that capitalism has bastardized it's self is because it was headed towards an immenent collapse if it didn't steal socialist ideals and implement them.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Nov 18 2004, 08:49 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Nov 18 2004, 08:49 PM)
Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 09:08 AM
Ignoring the pathetic argumentum ad baculum, I don't see how anyone other than the economic parasites would be worse off under LFC.
A vast majority of people living in the capitalist world already don't earn enough money to cover food and other essential goods. If we were to remove public healthcare and education, then these people would pretty much have nothing.

Even in the United States, poverty would ensue for the working class. Less consumers and less "middle class" would mean less billionaires.

And people simply wouldn't stand for it.
The third world is very stauchly left-wing for American standards. Public healthcare is regarded as basic as public education.

Americans also wouldn't stand for it. [/b]
IN addition, history has shown the effects of "pure capitalism" has on society. Unsafe working conditions, poverty, low wages, practically no public education, no worker benefits, trusts and monopolies. People were mad at capitalism for a reason, go take a history course and find out why.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 05:13 AM
You obviously have a misinterpretation of libertarian hopes...

First off, the Libertarian party within the US distances itself from the Republican Party. The differences are obvious; Legalization of drugs, major decrease in military funding, no wars, personal freedoms, small government, pro-choice.

Do not try and loop Conservatism to Libertarianism as closely as you do. The differences are far greater than you think.

It is ignorant of you to deny that libertarianism would provide many more freedoms than would Marxism, or present US politics.

When will you all not realize that with Marxism comes a lack of many freedoms.

You cannot support freedom while supporting liberal ideals. You cannot support freedom by supporting any form of Socialism.

If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business.

It always gets me when you Marxists get off about freedom while denouncing capitalism. Make up your mind.
It depends on your definition of "freedom".

I believe we are talking about "theory" here aren't we?

In theory lebertarianism, places you at the whim of the economy or more importantly, it's wheelers and dealers. It doesn't matter about material conditions because monopolies (which will undoubtedly previal in a truely free market) control how many people do what, when. You can go on and on about pro-choice, legalization, blah blah. Because in truth individuals don't matter as individuals.

Anarchism/Communism, allows you the freedom to control your own destiny as far as material conditions will allow. Anarchism/Communism creats an environment were individuals have say within groups, aswell groups support individuals, thereby allowing us to control our lives.

We are group animals, therefore only groups matter. And individuals only matter within groups.

Freedom shmeedom, if I have to give up smoking weed,and drinking beer in order to live more comfortably, and be educated more comfortably, then so be it.

[Professor Moneybags]

In theory lebertarianism, places you at the whim of the economy or more importantly, it's wheelers and dealers.

Bearing in mind that fraud is illegal, I don't see how that will be a problem. The economy is just people exchanging goods and money.


doesn't matter about material conditions because monopolies (which will undoubtedly previal in a truely free market) control how many people do what, when.

For goodness sake. Another commie whining about monopolies while trying to put in place the most extreme form of monopoly imaginable. How can a society that has forcibly appropriated the means of production be anything other than a monopoly ?

[Professor Moneybags]

A vast majority of people living in the capitalist world already don't earn enough money to cover food and other essential goods.

Such as where ? (And no, the marxist/fascist dictatorships that currently rule most of Africa are not capitalist.)

How many people in the west are genuinely starving ?


If we were to remove public healthcare and education, then these people would pretty much have nothing.

If we were to remove the taxes, they probably would.


Even in the United States, poverty would ensue for the working class. Less consumers and less "middle class" would mean less billionaires.

Not the "capitalism causes poverty" lark again. When are you people going to learn ?


And people simply wouldn't stand for it.
The third world is very stauchly left-wing for American standards. Public healthcare is regarded as basic as public education.

Americans also wouldn't stand for it.

Tough.

[Professor Moneybags]

Both coercion and slavery exist under lassiez faire capitalism, so in essence your ideology negates freedom.

Neither slavery not coercion exist, or it wouldn't be laissez faire.


Your ideology is opposed to freedom because it allows for trusts, and monopolies, and cartels.

Read my reply to RedCanada.


Institutions that seek only to gain wealth for themselves at the expense of others.

The idea is that a government enforcing the NIF principle will prevent this.


Your ideology allows for the capitalists to take both economic and political control over society, lowering wages, and turning the average person into a slave, forced to work with no benefits for relatively little money. Your entire dream of personal struggle becomes harder and harder when we discover what is at the heart of lassiez faire economics. How will one be able to achieve their dreams when a large corporation controls the entire idustry and several related industries?

*Yawn*

How does "the capitalist to take both economic and political control over society" ?


This ideology that you champion results in nothing more than a corporate dictatorship.

Ever took a look at the kind of ideology you champion ?

[Professor Moneybags]

IN addition, history has shown the effects of "pure capitalism" has on society. Unsafe working conditions, poverty, low wages, practically no public education, no worker benefits, trusts and monopolies.

Can you cite evidence for any of this (in the appropriate historical context) ? (Apart from the public education. Enslaving teachers/taxpayers to the needy is not something you will find under LFC.)


People were mad at capitalism for a reason, go take a history course and find out why.

Which people an what reason ?

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 19 2004, 04:53 PM

In theory lebertarianism, places you at the whim of the economy or more importantly, it's wheelers and dealers.

Bearing in mind that fraud is illegal, I don't see how that will be a problem. The economy is just people exchanging goods and money.


doesn't matter about material conditions because monopolies (which will undoubtedly previal in a truely free market) control how many people do what, when.

For goodness sake. Another commie whining about monopolies while trying to put in place the most extreme form of monopoly imaginable. How can a society that has forcibly appropriated the means of production be anything other than a monopoly ?
Even Adam Smith would have thought you naive!

Who is gonna make sure that fraud is illegal, your small government with little to no power? :lol:

"The economy is just people exchanging goods and money."- Professer Moneybags

You ask how forcibly appropriated means of production could possibly lead to monopoly?

Simple, one fish ends up eating more and getting bigger. So big, the natural predators can't even eat them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Such as where ? (And no, the marxist/fascist dictatorships that currently rule most of Africa are not capitalist.)

How many people in the west are genuinely starving ?

There are a handful of allegedly socialist countries in Africa. The rest are all capitalist. Plus Latin America, and Asia.

The living conditions in all of those places are sub-par, by any standards. There is not enough food, enough medical assistance, enough educators, or enough shelter.

The only third world country in the world that managed to effectively and permanently end poverty was Cuba. Capitalism has never done so. Never. And not even gotten close. I think I know what the solution is.

And I don't advocate the policies of China, North Korea, and Vietnam, but the living conditions of these countries prior to socialism, reminiscent of those of the middle ages, increased tremendously due to some form or another of socialism. Industrial technology was introduced for the first time and real improvements took place for the people of these countries.


If we were to remove the taxes, they probably would.

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?
$200 dollars a year isn't enough for even primary education or basic healthcare, even in the Congo.

[LSD]

Not the "capitalism causes poverty" lark again. When are you people going to learn ?

No capitalism did not cause poverty, but it does maintain it.

Poverty was around long before Adam Smith, but to deny that poverty is an essential part of capitalist economics is ludicrous. There can't be rich unless there are poor, from nothing but a theoretical perspective it is nescessary for there to be someone to "have more than", otherwise that "incentive" you capitalists go on about doesn't exist.


Neither slavery not coercion exist, or it wouldn't be laissez faire.

"A rose by any other name..."?

Just because it's called "laissez faire" doesn't mean that the people can actually "faire ce qu'ils veulent faire"!

"Laissez faire" was coined because the market is left alone, but that means that the market is left free to coerce and enslave.

It's capital that is shielded from government intervention. Well great, considering that the government is at least theoretically democratic whereas the market is blatantly not, it should definitely be the undemocratic one that is free to do as it wants.

And before you "remind" us that the market is just "people exchanging goods and money", keep in mind that insitutional forced are always larger than there individual members.

The fact that a market is ostensibly an entirely voluntary affair completely ignores that anyone living in a capitalistic or "laissez fair" environment has no choice but to engage in "voluntary transactions".

Not so "voluntary" anymore, eh?

There is nothing "nescessary" about business!

Disallowing people from engaging in economic transactions is not an immoral restriction because the action that there are being prevented from engaging in is one which creates systemic oppression.

That's it.

Much as we condemn slavery because it nescessitates oppression (that would be the slaves) so should capitalism be condemned because it nescessitates oppression (that would be the workers).

Now, I am not saying that there is parity. Capitalism is not slavery. It is much better to be a worker under capitalism than a slave.

...but.... capitalism is oppressive nonetheless. It institutionalizes inequality and requires elitism.


For goodness sake. Another commie whining about monopolies while trying to put in place the most extreme form of monopoly imaginable. How can a society that has forcibly appropriated the means of production be anything other than a monopoly ?

I think you are missing the point.

A capitalistic monopoly is a problem solely because it exists within the confines of a market system.

Simply put, a market monopoly is able to "charge what it wants". The equilibirum point is disconnected from demand.

The consumer is therefore hurt.

The kind of "monopoly" that you're talking about, is a non-market one. It is a situation in which the people have taken the means of production, the kind of economics I just mentioned no longer exist.

So in a manner of speaking you're correct, yes, we are supporting a monopoly of sorts, but who cares?

The only dangerous monopoly, is one that charges.


Such as where ? (And no, the marxist/fascist dictatorships that currently rule most of Africa are not capitalist.)

"Fascist dictatorship" and "capitalist" are not mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is an economic system, Fascism is a political one, and a political one which promotes capitalism!


How many people in the west are genuinely starving ?

"the west"?

I take it you mean the Western Hemisphere....well....been to South America lately?

Lots of starving people there:

Haiti, Mexico...

People are starving all over "the west".

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 09:15 PM

How many people in the west are genuinely starving ?

"the west"?

I take it you mean the Western Hemisphere....well....been to South America lately?

Lots of starving people there:

Haiti, Mexico...

People are starving all over "the west".
Don't forget mast inner-city people, in England ans the US. And don't forget Appalachia.

[LSD]

Don't forget mast inner-city people, in England ans the US. And don't forget Appalachia.

Absolutely.

This myth that somehow "poverty no longer exists" is belied everytime you walk down the street of any city in the world.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 09:15 PM
I think you are missing the point.

A capitalistic monopoly is a problem solely because it exists within the confines of a market system.

Simply put, a market monopoly is able to "charge what it wants". The equilibirum point is disconnected from demand.

The consumer is therefore hurt.

The kind of "monopoly" that you're talking about, is a non-market one. It is a situation in which the people have taken the means of production, the kind of economics I just mentioned no longer exist.

So in a manner of speaking you're correct, yes, we are supporting a monopoly of sorts, but who cares?

The only dangerous monopoly, is one that charges.


Hmm, I expected a better explanation.

You simply assume that somehow in the capitalist world prices are always inelastic and no such thing as substitution exist. Furthermore, larger companies in your view always have larger economies of scale, so therefor entry is never possible.

Also, consumer will only purchase products if the product itself is valuable in some way to him. If company A provides products which many people value, it is possible that it will have a large marketshare, possibly the whole market. But that is not a monopoly, since this position is based on consumers individual preferences and not on force (like real government monopolies).

So unless you can actually claim that your assumptions hold in the real world, you can't prove that the consumers will be hurt (which they will in planned economies).

Now, with respect to the second answer. Your "economy" is not different from our "economy". Even if somehow the "mind" is transformed you are still faced with the same problem as we have, namely what would be the correct action required to achieve economic optimality and thus the social good, ie economic calcution.

[Professor Moneybags]

Even Adam Smith would have thought you naive!

Who is gonna make sure that fraud is illegal, your small government with little to no power? :lol:

That's called equivocation. "Small" implies "limited in function", not "small" as in "powerless". As usual, you can only refute my ideology by misrepresenting it as anarchism. I am not an anarchist.


You ask how forcibly appropriated means of production could possibly lead to monopoly?

No I didn't ask that. I was pointing out that yours is the most extreme form of monopoly imaginable. Read it properly.

[Professor Moneybags]

I need a new mouse.

[Professor Moneybags]

Poverty was around long before Adam Smith, but to deny that poverty is an essential part of capitalist economics is ludicrous.

Why is it essential ?


There can't be rich unless there are poor, from nothing but a theoretical perspective it is nescessary for there to be someone to "have more than", otherwise that "incentive" you capitalists go on about doesn't exist.

:lol: WTF ? The "incentive" is based on bettering in your own life, not trying to make other people jealous of it.


"A rose by any other name..."?

Just because it's called "laissez faire" doesn't mean that the people can actually "faire ce qu'ils veulent faire"!

"Laissez faire" was coined because the market is left alone, but that means that the market is left free to coerce and enslave.

You are fighting a straw man; I am not an anarchist. Coercion and slavery are an initiation of force and are contrary to LFC, which should be banned by law.


It's capital that is shielded from government intervention. Well great, considering that the government is at least theoretically democratic whereas the market is blatantly not, it should definitely be the undemocratic one that is free to do as it wants.

Perhaps you would like every aspect of your existence democratically determined, but I prefer to keep the government out of my personal life and out of my wallet.


And before you "remind" us that the market is just "people exchanging goods and money", keep in mind that insitutional forced are always larger than there individual members.

What "institutional forces" ? The only body capable of making any difference to this is the government. The market isn't run by the government and neither should it be.


The fact that a market is ostensibly an entirely voluntary affair completely ignores that anyone living in a capitalistic or "laissez fair" environment has no choice but to engage in "voluntary transactions".

How can you have a "forced", "voluntary transaction" without misusing the word "forced" ? Are so you concrete-bound that you can't tell the difference between the metaphysical forces and man-made ones ?


Not so "voluntary" anymore, eh?

Yes it still is, you haven't proven otherwise.


Disallowing people from engaging in economic transactions is not an immoral restriction because the action that there are being prevented from engaging in is one which creates systemic oppression.

Disallowing people from engaging in economic transactions is systemic oppression. You are dictating how people may or may not consentually interact with one another.


Much as we condemn slavery because it nescessitates oppression (that would be the slaves) so should capitalism be condemned because it nescessitates oppression (that would be the workers).

And I condemn yours because a need-based economy puts the needy in the place of masters and the producers in the place of slaves. I've explained why capitalism is not guilty of the charges you put to it.


...but.... capitalism is oppressive nonetheless. It institutionalizes inequality and requires elitism.

I don't know what context you are using elitism in, but inequality ? Economic inequality is unimportant.


A capitalistic monopoly is a problem solely because it exists within the confines of a market system.

So if a corporation took over as government there would no longer be a problem ? I think there would be.


Simply put, a market monopoly is able to "charge what it wants". The equilibirum point is disconnected from demand.

I love the way you people think they can just "do" these things without anyone putting up some sort of competition. The only way this could occur is if the government somehow banned competition (i.e. turned to socialism).


So in a manner of speaking you're correct, yes, we are supporting a monopoly of sorts, but who cares?

I don't see how your system removes the problem, in fact, as I have said before, it is the most extreme form of monopoly in existence. Not only will the state (or whatever) have an monoply enforced by law, it will also have a monopoly enforced militarily, too. Now try to stop it charging whatever it wants. Any attempt to question or challenge that monopoly by providing some rival source of supply will be seen as "sabotaging" the state's economic "plan", which will no doubt evoke a police/military response.


"Fascist dictatorship" and "capitalist" are not mutually exclusive.

Capitalism is an economic system, Fascism is a political one, and a political one which promotes capitalism!

Defacto capitalism is not capitalism. Nazi Germany's economy was not controlled by supply and demand, but solely by the government.

[Professor Moneybags]

There are a handful of allegedly socialist countries in Africa. The rest are all capitalist. Plus Latin America, and Asia.

Prove it.


The living conditions in all of those places are sub-par, by any standards. There is not enough food, enough medical assistance, enough educators, or enough shelter.

But they do not practice capitalism, unless you can prove it.


The only third world country in the world that managed to effectively and permanently end poverty was Cuba. Capitalism has never done so. Never.

"Ending poverty" was never the primary intention of capitalism, only secondary. Plus, I don't buy the claim that Cuba has ended poverty. Cuba is a dictatorship that allows no dissenting views and little economic freedom, so I wouldn't want to live there even if it had.


And I don't advocate the policies of China, North Korea, and Vietnam, but the living conditions of these countries prior to socialism, reminiscent of those of the middle ages, increased tremendously due to some form or another of socialism.

This same could be said about capitalism, in fact, the same was true about capitalism.


Industrial technology was introduced for the first time and real improvements took place for the people of these countries.

Industrial techonology was not possible prior to capitalism, except on a very limited scale.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2004, 01:29 PM

1Prove it.


2But they do not practice capitalism, unless you can prove it.


3"Ending poverty" was never the primary intention of capitalism, only secondary. Plus, I don't buy the claim that Cuba has ended poverty. Cuba is a dictatorship that allows no dissenting views and little economic freedom, so I wouldn't want to live there even if it had.

4This same could be said about capitalism, in fact, the same was true about capitalism.

5Industrial techonology was not possible prior to capitalism, except on a very limited scale.
1. Hey, buddy, you were actually the one who claimed these countries were not capitalist. Therefore, you are the one who should support this claim. These countries will be considered capitalist otherwise.

2. See the above post.

3. I would say, ending poverty has never been the intention of capitalism, who would work for you cappies if there were no poor people and/or threat of immediate poverty? As for Cuba, I once talked to one student of the Havana University. He said that most of the things in the media (poverty, dictatorship- related as well as the Human Rights) were generated by the American Government, as they are really keen on getting this richest island of the Caribbean back to their empire. Brainwashed, you would say. No, I would reply. He in fact was from the Dominican Republic, and studied in Havana for an engineering degree- for free, I might add- and had no interest in distorting the information, unlike some of the US guys here.

4. Examples? I'm not trying to get to you here, I'm just curious.

5. Many social benefits were not possible prior to socialism, and I'm not sure which is more important. Most of the perks that the workers have in the US now (working hours, conditions, child labor restrictions) are the result of the struggle of the Populists, Muckrakers and other socialism- oriented movements in the XX century. I would really like to see you personally work in those conditions. I am sure you would turn your back on the Laissez Fair policies.

[Osman Ghazi]

LFC, which should be banned by law.

I agree. LFC should be banned by law. ;)


But they do not practice capitalism, unless you can prove it.


If you say that, then you admit that capitalism has never existed and has never done anything for anyone.

As a follow-up, how do you LFers intend to bring about your ideology? I mean, you can't have a revolution. Do you intend to petition the government to simply stop being kleptocrats?


What "institutional forces" ? The only body capable of making any difference to this is the government.

That's naive. The only people who can influence politics are politicans, huh?


How can you have a "forced", "voluntary transaction" without misusing the word "forced" ?

Okay, which transactions you make is up to you, that's true. But to transact or not to transact is not up to you, (unless you choose death, which no rational human would do.)


Are so you concrete-bound that you can't tell the difference between the metaphysical forces and man-made ones ?


What is with 'metaphysical'? That implies a certain amount of spirituality, whereas hunger and starvation are very real, very physical forces.

In fact, you clearly don't even know what the word means, unless you think starvation is supernatural or theoretical.


Nazi Germany's economy was not controlled by supply and demand, but solely by the government.

And what controlled their decision to make certain products over others? Supply, and demand.

[LSD]

Hmm, I expected a better explanation.

You simply assume that somehow in the capitalist world prices are always inelastic and no such thing as substitution exist. Furthermore, larger companies in your view always have larger economies of scale, so therefor entry is never possible.

Also, consumer will only purchase products if the product itself is valuable in some way to him. If company A provides products which many people value, it is possible that it will have a large marketshare, possibly the whole market. But that is not a monopoly, since this position is based on consumers individual preferences and not on force (like real government monopolies).

So unless you can actually claim that your assumptions hold in the real world, you can't prove that the consumers will be hurt (which they will in planned economies).

My point was only that a "monopoly" exists only within the framework of a market economy.

I was intentionaly oversimplifying.


Now, with respect to the second answer. Your "economy" is not different from our "economy". Even if somehow the "mind" is transformed you are still faced with the same problem as we have, namely what would be the correct action required to achieve economic optimality and thus the social good, ie economic calcution.

Economics won't disappear, but the market will.

So, yes, there will still be similar problems to be solved, but the concept of a monopoly will not be one of them.


Why is it essential ?

You can't have rich unless you have poor.


WTF ? The "incentive" is based on bettering in your own life, not trying to make other people jealous of it.

Please, tell me you're not that superficial.

Poverty is nescessary for there to be rich. The principle of inequality is indeed fundamental to capitalism.

"Bettering your life" in capitalism means buying things and owning things and by doing so it means that someone else must not own those same things. If "everyone" had "everything" what would be the "incentive to work".

I never implied it was about "jealousy", I merely pointed out that inequality is a key element of any market economy.


Perhaps you would like every aspect of your existence democratically determined, but I prefer to keep the government out of my personal life and out of my wallet.

Perhaps, but you're replacing it with business!

The "government" isn't the enemy, the government is nothing but people. Likewise corporations and businesses are nothing but people. Neither has any more legitimate right to control than the other.

You seem to somehow feel that the government, which is the more democratic of the two should be more restrained than the more totalitarian one!


What "institutional forces" ? The only body capable of making any difference to this is the government. The market isn't run by the government and neither should it be.

The market isn't run by the government, if it were it wouldn't be a "market economy" would it?

But to deny that insitutional forces exist is ludicrous.

Clearly as a member of a "market", one is required to participate in that market. This means that although specific transactions are nominally voluntary, in effect they are forced by the inherent structures of that economy.

You have to sell your labour or you don't get "money" and you don't eat.

Institutional forces.


And I condemn yours because a need-based economy puts the needy in the place of masters and the producers in the place of slaves. I've explained why capitalism is not guilty of the charges you put to it.

But since everyone "needs" and everyone "produces", everyone is both "master" and "slave".

Thereby we create a truly equal society in which, in effect, there become no masters and no slaves because everyone is interdependent.


Economic inequality is unimportant.

Not to the people who starve because of it.

To the poor, it's very important, but I guess that doesn't concern you...


I love the way you people think they can just "do" these things without anyone putting up some sort of competition. The only way this could occur is if the government somehow banned competition (i.e. turned to socialism).

um...are you claiming that monopolies can't exist under capitalism?!? :blink:


I don't see how your system removes the problem, in fact, as I have said before, it is the most extreme form of monopoly in existence. Not only will the state (or whatever) have an monoply enforced by law, it will also have a monopoly enforced militarily, too. Now try to stop it charging whatever it wants. Any attempt to question or challenge that monopoly by providing some rival source of supply will be seen as "sabotaging" the state's economic "plan", which will no doubt evoke a police/military response.

Again, you assume that capitalism will still exist!!

You seem incapable of imagining a world in which people aren't "charged" for things.

I am not advocating the kind of state-capitalism you describe, but the abolishion of markets entirely, even the state-controlled kinds.


Defacto capitalism is not capitalism. Nazi Germany's economy was not controlled by supply and demand, but solely by the government.

But they do not practice capitalism, unless you can prove it.

What countries, in your oppinion, then do practice "capitalism"?

Let me guess.... only the successful ones? :lol:

If you define capitalist countries as only those countries who have bennefitted from capitalism then of course capitalism bennefits countries!! You defined it that way!! :P


Disallowing people from engaging in economic transactions is systemic oppression. You are dictating how people may or may not consentually interact with one another.

We're not "disallowing" anything, merely elminating the institutional structures that allow for those kind of transactions.

I'll explain.

If there is no money and no medium of exchange and everythign is freely and publically available, there is no need for economic transactions. In fact, they become meaningless.

No one wants to engage in such transactions, because there's nothing they can gain from it! Trading or bartaring wouldn't get them anything, because they already can get whatever it is they want!

So there wouldn't be any need for the kind of oppression you fear, people wouldn't have to be "forced" into refraining from "economic transaction", hell if they want to symbolically trade publically available items....good for them. It is an entirely meaningless gesture as both of them have access to this item regardless, but if it gives them a thrill to "trade", fine....have fun with that.

No oppression is nescessary.

All that needs to be controlled by the collective is the abuse of public resources, but that isn't an "economic transaction", it's certainly not "consentual interaction".

Despite your fears, I am not planning for a secret police force breaking down doors at any hint of "trading".

[Hoppe]

My point was only that a "monopoly" exists only within the framework of a market economy.

I was intentionaly oversimplifying.


Well, I always assumed the majority socialist economists acknowledged the fact that a market is necessary. Have I missed a new insight?

Monopoly is not really the problem, lack of calculation is.


Economics won't disappear, but the market will.

So, yes, there will still be similar problems to be solved, but the concept of a monopoly will not be one of them.

Again you assume that a monopoly is a problem. A view which is entirely based on shaky premises.

Btw, if the market disappears and you have a sole provider of a good (ie. cooperative A), which people therefor have to purchase, you have a real monopoly.


Poverty is nescessary for there to be rich. The principle of inequality is indeed fundamental to capitalism.

Economics is zero-sum, isn't? :lol:

[Osman Ghazi]

People here have to drop all that monopoly stuff. In capitalism, it's true, monopolies are rare. What are common as ing dirt however are oligopolies. They are worse too becuase they appear to be harmless while having the same exact effects as a monopoly.


Well, I always assumed the majority socialist economists acknowledged the fact that a market is necessary.

Well it's certainly made an ass out of you, hasn't it?


Btw, if the market disappears and you have a sole provider of a good (ie. cooperative A), which people therefor have to purchase, you have a real monopoly.


That's the whole point. They don't have to purchase anything. There is no purchasing. Thusly, they can't raise prices, because no one is paying them anything.


Economics is zero-sum, isn't?

The fact that it isn't doesn't change that poverty always has been and always will be part of capitalism.

[Hoppe]

People here have to drop all that monopoly stuff. In capitalism, it's true, monopolies are rare. What are common as ing dirt however are oligopolies. They are worse too becuase they appear to be harmless while having the same exact effects as a monopoly.

Same old tired equilibrium fiction.


Well it's certainly made an ass out of you, hasn't it?

Not really. Oskar Lange even said that socialists should raise a statue for Ludwig von Mises.


That's the whole point. They don't have to purchase anything. There is no purchasing. Thusly, they can't raise prices, because no one is paying them anything.

Oh, I am sorry. I forgot you are talking about the Garden of Eden.


The fact that it isn't doesn't change that poverty always has been and always will be part of capitalism.

Yes, and my uncle actually is my aunt.

[LSD]

Same old tired equilibrium fiction.

Clarify something for me, Hoppe.

Are you denying that monopolies and oligopolies are bad for consumers?


Oh, I am sorry. I forgot you are talking about the Garden of Eden.

So you believe it impossible for there to be an economy not based on value exchange?


Well, I always assumed the majority socialist economists acknowledged the fact that a market is necessary. Have I missed a new insight?

If I were a "socialist", I'd give a damn.


Economics is zero-sum, isn't?

Maybe not, but if everyone is "well off" capitalism can't really function. Beyond the obvious communist points on the nescessity of the exploitation of workers, simple logic shows that there's no other choice.

Look at it this way, even if we accept every tennant of liberal thought, what about people who don't work? Or can't work?

Clearly these people don't "deserve" to be paid. They are, by definition, poor.

In actuality, of course, things are always more complex, aren't they? People who can't get the right jobs, don't live in the right places. Whatever the case may be, capitalism cannot ensure that every member of its society is taken care of, in fact it overtly stipualtes that it can't!

So denying that poverty is a part of capitalism is like denying that violence is a part of war. We may not like to talk about it, but it's there nonetheless.


Yes, and my uncle actually is my aunt.

That would explain your warped view on the world.

[Lardlad95]

Alot of the capitalists have missed somthing. When I first started talking about monopolies I also mentioned trusts, which have existed and will exist under lassiez faire capitalism.


In addition America in the late 1800's and early 1900's is a perfect example of how pure capitalism or damn near pure capitalism really works. Rockerfeller, , Andew Carnegie those guys did exist, in addition to people who ran other industrial trusts. And guess what they didn't give worker's benefits, they did employ young children, they did pay low wages, their workers did work in horrendous conditions.

I mean has no one even considered what took place before the anti-trust laws?

For example Rockefeller's switch from being the largest to the only oil refiner came in secret agreements with the Erie, Pennsylvania, and New York Central railroad "pools" whereby he and refiners invited to join the Standard Oil Trust (they received half the real value of their assets) had freight rates reduced by up to 50% whereas competing refiners had their rates increased by 100% with half of this being paid straight back to Standard Oil (drawback) by the railroads. Within three months his remaining 25 competitors surrendered to him and he fixed all U.S. oil sales at a new high price.-The Robber Barons by Matthew Josephson

I'm seriously wondering how you guys justify what happened during the days of the robber barons, when Unions were declared illegal, when there were no anti-trust laws, when there were no child labor laws, when Rockerfeller owned 95% of the oil industry, etc.

Did those things just not happen? Or were they just fine with you?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] 20 2004, 03:08 PM
These countries will be considered capitalist otherwise.
So getting hold of evidence should be no problem for you then.

[Hoppe]

Are you denying that monopolies and oligopolies are bad for consumers?

Nope, but I don't agree with the theory.


So you believe it impossible for there to be an economy not based on value exchange?

Nope, people have lived for ages without the use of a medium of exchange. However, a complex society such as ours will be impossible.


If I were a "socialist", I'd give a damn

In the economic sense you are, I presume.


Look at it this way, even if we accept every tennant of liberal thought, what about people who don't work? Or can't work?

Clearly these people don't "deserve" to be paid. They are, by definition, poor.

So, under capitalism they would starve just as under communism.....

What's your point?


So denying that poverty is a part of capitalism is like denying that violence is a part of war. We may not like to talk about it, but it's there nonetheless

Poverty is a part of society. I have never claimed that capitalism would end poverty, as opposed to you who thinks that under capitalism all people are egocentric maniacs.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 21 2004, 08:43 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 21 2004, 08:43 AM)
Not Yet a [email protected] 20 2004, 03:08 PM
These countries will be considered capitalist otherwise.
So getting hold of evidence should be no problem for you then. [/b]
P.Moneybags. YOU made the clame, not me, right? If YOU made the claim, YOU need to support it with something more substantial than that. Otherwise your claim can and will be considered just a lie. I challenge your position, and I would really like to challenge your facts, which is kind of difficult because your posts show you have none. So. Prove your claim or give at least some of the evidence that could possibly show it's justified. After that, I will present my facts. If you act chicken, it will show you don't care about justifying your position, just like the person you probably voted for, JWB.

[Not Yet a Commie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:37 AM
So, under capitalism they would starve just as under communism.....



Poverty is a part of society. I have never claimed that capitalism would end poverty, as opposed to you who thinks that under capitalism all people are egocentric maniacs.
1I need to mention that in the USSR, which was just one step closer to socialism than the US, such people didn't starve (well, except at the Leningrad siege, but it wasn't just them then, right? It's also true, that other people all over the union starved then. If nazis came to the US, all people would starve as well). To the contrary, my aunt, whose height is just over one meter, and who could barely walk, received a good pension and other benefits such as free tickets for the public transport (many disabled people actually got cars from the government for free). She could travel all over the USSR, and she has been to all but two or three republics as well as many places within the Russian Federation. She scrapes a living now, under what you would definitely call liberal economic system (don't say it's not, it was masterminded by liberal Harvard professors, who probably knew the fastest way to ruin the economy was to make it liberal when they pretended to be Russia's friends back in the 1990s).

2Is equality still one of the major principles in the US (and western at large) democracies? Or has it somehow been distorted to serve the rich?

[LSD]

In the economic sense you are, I presume.

You presume wrong.


Poverty is a part of society. I have never claimed that capitalism would end poverty, as opposed to you who thinks that under capitalism all people are egocentric maniacs.

Poverty is a part of this society, claiming that it is a part of every comcivable society is clearly ludicrous.

And what is this society economically? .....capitalist.

Poverty is a part of capitalism, that's all I was saying.


So, under capitalism they would starve just as under communism.....

What's your point?

Hardly.

Someone who is incapable of work would not starve under communism, nor would one who, to cite my own example, "can't get the right jobs" or "[doesn't] live in the right place".

[Hoppe]

Poverty is a part of this society, claiming that it is a part of every comcivable society is clearly ludicrous.

I wouldn't have expected a different answer from someone who claims everything will be "provided" for in his Walhalla.


Someone who is incapable of work would not starve under communism, nor would one who, to cite my own example, "can't get the right jobs" or "[doesn't] live in the right place".

Since when people who are incapable of working starve to death? The average retarded person has a pretty decent life here in capitalist Holland.

"The right jobs" or "doesn't live in the right place" is stupid nonsense. It would be fun to watch all people doing simply what they prefer. Maybe a nice slogan for your revolution: "join us if you want to be an astronaut".

[Osman Ghazi]

"The right jobs" or "doesn't live in the right place" is stupid nonsense.

Really?

It seems to me that these people 'live in the right place', that is to say, Holland, by all accounts a very liberal constitutional monarchy. If they lived in a poor country, like 3 out of 4 people, they would at least have a very low quality of life, if any at all.

And PM, has capitalism existed or not? Answer please.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Not Yet a [email protected] 21 2004, 11:33 AM
P.Moneybags. YOU made the clame, not me, right? If YOU made the claim, YOU need to support it with something more substantial than that.
I did not make the assertion that African countries were capitalist. Capitalism must be accepted and enforced by choice, as it is not a default socio-economic system. The burden of proof is yours. Prove that African countries are capitalism, (which should no doubt be easy) and I'll concede the point. Proofs are verified by proving, not disproving.

[Professor Moneybags]

In the economic sense you are, I presume.

You presume wrong.

Liar. You're an advocate of command economics, collective ownership and zero-sum economics. You are a socialist.


Poverty is a part of capitalism, that's all I was saying.

What kind of poverty ? Real or relative ?


Someone who is incapable of work would not starve under communism,

The state would be empowered to confiscate food/property to feed them. No permission would be asked of those to whom property/food belonged or whose labour will be used to produce it. Force will be used on anyone questioning/failing to comply with this dictat. Slavery and dictatorship, in other words.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 21 2004, 04:09 PM
And PM, has capitalism existed or not? Answer please.
Not consistently.

[LSD]

What kind of poverty ? Real or relative ?

Both, actually.


The state would be empowered to confiscate food/property to feed them. No permission would be asked of those to whom property/food belonged or whose labour will be used to produce it. Force will be used on anyone questioning/failing to comply with this dictat. Slavery and dictatorship, in other words.

Again you assume the existance of a property based ecnomy and of a state run society.

There won't be any "force" used because there is no state to use force!

It is the producers themselves who will make this decision, the people "whose labour is used to produce it".

You seem incapable of understanding that I am not promoting state-capitalism.


You're an advocate of command economics, collective ownership and zero-sum economics. You are a socialist.

You're an advocate of market economics, private owenership and limited state control over industry. You are a fascist.



...oh wait....no you're not..:blink:..but..... those are some characteristics of fascism....

Wow, do you thing that maybe different ideologies can have similar tennants?

Just because you share capitalistic sentiments with fascists doesn't make you a fascist, and just because I share communist sentiments with socialists doesn't me a socialist.

[Osman Ghazi]

Not consistently.

So what, it existed in certain countries at certain times, or in parts of certain countries at both times? Or both? Basically, elaborate a little.

Also, what countries were capitalist and when and why(as in what defining aspects made it capitalist)?

[Individual]

You obviously have a misinterpretation of libertarian hopes...

First off, the Libertarian party within the US distances itself from the Republican Party. The differences are obvious; Legalization of drugs, major decrease in military funding, no wars, personal freedoms, small government, pro-choice.

Do not try and loop Conservatism to Libertarianism as closely as you do. The differences are far greater than you think.

It is ignorant of you to deny that libertarianism would provide many more freedoms than would Marxism, or present US politics.

When will you all not realize that with Marxism comes a lack of many freedoms.

You cannot support freedom while supporting liberal ideals. You cannot support freedom by supporting any form of Socialism.

If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business.

It always gets me when you Marxists get off about freedom while denouncing capitalism. Make up your mind.

I take it I've been narrowed into being a Libertarian now..?

However any one of you took this as some sort of admittance to being non-leftist sure beats the hell out of me..

Can I get an exact quote, just one, that would lead to any indication that I am infact a right-winger.

I'm not going to moan, *****, and squeal like a pig now that I've been restricted. But honestly guys, couldn't you actually have a reason this time?

I got off on pointing out ignorance, once again, and one of you finally construed up some bullshit about how I must have admitted that I am in some way-shape-or-form not a left-winger.

Using my psychic powers, I predict that my restriction will not be lifted due to some inane reason or another, but hopefully someone with half a brain will realize that this would never equate to "I am a right-wing nutjob"..

Don't use "He must be a libertarian because he... he... uhh.. pointed out an ignorant statement" as an excuse.

Did any of you forget about Enigma? :huh:

If wishing upon the legalization of drugs, decreased military spending, no war, personal freedoms, and pro-choice makes me a libertarian. Then we might as well restrict the whole damn message board.

Throw me a fucking bone here, you guys outdid yourselves with this one.

[Professor Moneybags]

Again you assume the existance of a property based ecnomy and of a state run society.

There won't be any "force" used because there is no state to use force!

Here we go again. "The "people" are not a state if they refuse to acknowledge themselves as such". Guess what : They still are, regardless.


You're an advocate of market economics, private owenership and limited state control over industry. You are a fascist.

Those are not essential characteristics of fascism. The market was pretend market, like today's. Private ownership did not exist de jure. "Limited" control over indutry ? You're having a laugh, right ? You mean total control of everything, don't you ? Sorry, it ain't sticking.


Just because you share capitalistic sentiments with fascists

Fasicsts don't have capitalistic sentiments. Hitler was a vegetarian, does that mean all vegetarians are fascists ? :rolleyes: No, because vegetarianism isn't an essential characteristic of fascism. Neither is private property, nor market economics (neither of which existed de jure in Nazi Germany anyway), neither racism or anti-semitism. Fascism is is just the government having total control over industry, economics and social issues.

So what are the essential characteristics of socialism ? Collective ownership, (justified by zero-sum economics) which necessarily entails a command (planned) economy (as opposed to an unplanned, free one). What would it be without that ?


doesn't make you a fascist, and just because I share communist sentiments with socialists doesn't me a socialist.

It makes you a socialist. If not, then what are you ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here we go again. "The "people" are not a state if they refuse to acknowledge themselves as such". Guess what : They still are, regardless.

Police, army, centralisation, authority to murder. all characteristics of a state which are absent in communist society.

Want to try again?

[Individual]

Are we all just going to keep twiddling our thumbs here..

Or have one of you actually spent enough time thinking of an actual reason as to why I was restricted?

[LSD]

I'm no Admin, AlwaysQuestion, but I imagine it was this:


When will you all not realize that with Marxism comes a lack of many freedoms.

or


It always gets me when you Marxists get off about freedom while denouncing capitalism. Make up your mind.

or


If you are an advocate of freedom, than it seems you would be an advocate of capitalism and free business.

[Osman Ghazi]

Are we all just going to keep twiddling our thumbs here..

Or have one of you actually spent enough time thinking of an actual reason as to why I was restricted?


Personnally, I voted against your restriction. As long as you are willing to say it in a polite, respectful manner, it doesn't matter to me what you say (barring some things that are simply unacceptable like racism, sexism, homophobia etc.).

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:38 PM
Police, army, centralisation, authority to murder. all characteristics of a state which are absent in communist society.

Want to try again?
That doesn't stop the collective, unaccountable mob that's left granting themselves the authority to murder, though, does it ?

[LSD]

That doesn't stop the collective, unaccountable mob that's left granting themselves the authority to murder, though, does it ?

I don't understand, Professor.

Accountable to whom?

Clearly a decision made by an entire collective is more "accountable" than the "business" decision of a corporation!

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 23 2004, 03:16 PM
I don't understand, Professor.

Accountable to whom?


To no one. That is why it is so dangerous.


Clearly a decision made by an entire collective is more "accountable" than the "business" decision of a corporation!

Not when the collective holds power over everything, including life and death.

[RedAnarchist]

Why is having noone to be accountable to dangerous? Actions have consequences, and these consequences are the authority that will hold them accounmtable.

[LSD]

o no one. That is why it is so dangerous.


No, I mean who should they be responsible to?

You critisize direct democracy for being a "collective, unaccountable mob that's left granting themselves the authority to murder".

So...who do you want them to "be accountable" to?

The "State"!?

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2004, 12:44 PM

Even Adam Smith would have thought you naive!

Who is gonna make sure that fraud is illegal, your small government with little to no power? :lol:

That's called equivocation. "Small" implies "limited in function", not "small" as in "powerless". As usual, you can only refute my ideology by misrepresenting it as anarchism. I am not an anarchist.

No I didn't ask that. I was pointing out that yours is the most extreme form of monopoly imaginable. Read it properly.
Hmmm.....

Powerless.... limited in function....... yep, sounds the same to me.

You may not be an anarchist, but communists bassicly are, this monoply shyte is only when we are competing with imperialism, it's not like we really have a choice.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To no one. That is why it is so dangerous.

And how exactly in your objectivist paradise can corporations be accountable to the small (Or 'limited in function') government when it can simply buy it off?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:35 PM
Actions have consequences, and these consequences are the authority that will hold them accounmtable.
Consequences in terms of metaphysical justice do take effect eventually (Nazi Germany would have collapsed if left long enough), but there is also the man-made justice, which will be largely absent. That is why a dictatorship of the majority is so much more dangerous than one of a minority- a minority is relatively easy to dispose of, a majority almost impossible.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:20 PM
And how exactly in your objectivist paradise can corporations be accountable to the small (Or 'limited in function') government when it can simply buy it off?
Thay can't. Compare the absence of this in 19th Century to today. That is what you get when you put the government in charge of the economy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 23 2004, 06:14 PM

o no one. That is why it is so dangerous.


No, I mean who should they be responsible to?

You critisize direct democracy for being a "collective, unaccountable mob that's left granting themselves the authority to murder".

So...who do you want them to "be accountable" to?

The "State"!?
I can take it from your response that you don't want them held accountable to anyone. Regardless of their actions too, so it would seem.

[LSD]

I can take it from your response that you don't want them held accountable to anyone. Regardless of their actions too, so it would seem.

Don't back off now, Professor, answer the question.

You've made it clear that you believe that democracy isn't "accountable enough":

"a collective, unaccountable mob that's left granting themselves the authority to murder"

So, WHO SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE RESPONSIBLE TO?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2004, 03:07 PM
Don't back off now, Professor, answer the question.
Why ? It's your dumb ideology, not mine.

[RedAnarchist]

Backing down already, Professor?

Seems to me that you will never be able to answer that question with a clear and logical answer.

[DaCuBaN]

Moneybags, answer the question in your own time: I would rather see an eloquent response than mindless dribble posted in anger.


I can take it from your response that you don't want them held accountable to anyone. Regardless of their actions too, so it would seem.

I can't speak for "the mob", but I don't think there is any need for an authority period. We're all accountable to one another for our actions, it's merely the fear and apathy in many that stop them from standing up to those who attempt to enforce their will in whatever fashion. One cannot ignore the voice of the mob though; it's your head if you do.

[LSD]

Why ? It's your dumb ideology, not mine.

Actually, I'm asking about your ideology: "who do you want them to "be accountable" to?"

What authority do you feel should supercede democratic determniations?

This is a question about your oppinions and your world view, not mine.

But, please, as DaCuBaN said, take your time.

I'll wait.

[Lardlad95]

I've still yet to hear the cappies justify the Monopolies, Trusts, child labor, anti-unionism, horrible working conditions, low wages, and corporate control of workers, cities, etc.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:40 PM
Backing down already, Professor?

Seems to me that you will never be able to answer that question with a clear and logical answer.
Repeat (for the benefit of the mentally retarded) :


Why ? It's your dumb ideology, not mine.

[Professor Moneybags]

I can't speak for "the mob", but I don't think there is any need for an authority period. We're all accountable to one another for our actions, it's merely the fear and apathy in many that stop them from standing up to those who attempt to enforce their will in whatever fashion. One cannot ignore the voice of the mob though; it's your head if you do.

Thanks for being so honest. It is mob rule you advocate, then.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 07:06 PM
I've still yet to hear the cappies justify the Monopolies, Trusts, child labor, anti-unionism, horrible working conditions, low wages, and corporate control of workers,
Seeing as none of these are a product of capitalism, I don't think you're likely to get one.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 25 2004, 04:20 PM
Actually, I'm asking about your ideology: "who do you want them to "be accountable" to?"
The law. Not just any old law, but a law based on individual rights. No one based on the whims of politicians.

[LSD]

The law. Not just any old law, but a law based on individual rights. No one based on the whims of politicians.

Again, that's a cop-out.

I asked who they should be responsible to, not what.

Someone has to write the law and someone has to enforce the law.

If these laws were democratically decided than it would be no different from the "mob rule" you fear.

"a collective, unaccountable mob that's left granting themselves the authority to murder"

Well, if such a "mob" were democratically deciding the laws they would have exactlly those powers and would be unaccountable to anyone else!

So, who should make the laws?

In other words, since you don't trust the people to rule themselves, "who do you want them to "be accountable" to?"

[Professor Moneybags]

Again, that's a cop-out.

I asked who they should be responsible to, not what.

Someone has to write the law and someone has to enforce the law.

The government and police enforcing this law.


If these laws were democratically decided than it would be no different from the "mob rule" you fear.

It doesn't matter too much how or who, so long as they are implemented.

[LSD]

It doesn't matter too much how or who, so long as they are implemented.

So now you're in favour of democracy?

What happened to "a collective, unaccountable mob that's left granting themselves the authority to murder"?

Would you support any law that recieved a "50% plus one" vote? Doesn't that fly in the face of your principle of "Not just any old law, but a law based on individual rights"?

Would a law be valid if it recieved a majority vote even if it didn't seem to respect "individual rights"?

If not.... who would make that determination?