Question Regarding Capitalism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So I am trying to explain to a friend how wage slavery works (and of course he won't admit it is slavery). Anyway, we get discussing some things and he makes the following points.

1. Monopolies always fall (not true, but I don't know how to discredit this offhand).
2. Everyone started at the bottom once, so the fact that wage slavery exists reveals the presence of a universal burden. AKA. Everyone suffers through it so we actually are equal in society.

Never heard of the second point before. Essentially it takes inequality and gives it to everyone to create an equal system.

Both of these don't seem logical (especially the reasoning to make the points). Just wondering what the best way to go about criticizing them are.

[LSD]

So basically you're slumming for debating tips? OK, I can play that game.


1. Monopolies always fall

Standard Oil.

Please tell me the next one will be more interesting.


2. Everyone started at the bottom once, so the fact that wage slavery exists reveals the presence of a universal burden. AKA. Everyone suffers through it so we actually are equal in society.

Well, that's not even an argument, it's a justification. The "universal burden" is a thing we make up to excuse the society we live in. It's like the "social contract". Do you remember signing a "social contract"? I sure as hell don't, yet somehow I'm supposed to be bound by it. Similarly I'm supposed to be comforted by the fact that my suffering is metaphysically offset by an equal suffering on the part of the CEO making 700,000,00$ a year for busting unions and shutting down stores.

Here are some facts. Everyone did not start off on the bottom. Bill Gates may have dropped out of college, but the name of that college was Harvard. I have no doubt that he worked very very hard, but I'm equally sure that he didn't work six hundred billion times harder than the nice Chinese fellow who makes his shoes. So how come he's compensated six billion times more?

Capitalism can be justified, not easily, not prettily, but it can be done. I will concede that it is a nescessary evil. But never forget that it is evil. And never fall into the trap of imagining that it is fair.

Communism may be a pipe-dream, but libertarianism would be hell-on-earth if it were ever realized. Stalin ain't got nothing on the Aynd Rands of the world.

[the questionist]

So basically you're slumming for debating tips? OK, I can play that game.



Standard Oil.

Please tell me the next one will be more interesting.


The government?

[the questionist]

2. Everyone started at the bottom once, so the fact that wage slavery exists reveals the presence of a universal burden. AKA. Everyone suffers through it so we actually are equal in society.

Somebody actually made an argument like this? Clearly, they are lacking significant details.

[Bud Struggle]

So basically you're slumming for debating tips? OK, I can play that game.
Standard Oil. I don't get you point--it's still in business under a myrad of different names.


The "universal burden" is a thing we make up to excuse the society we live in. It's like the "social contract". Do you remember signing a "social contract"? I sure as hell don't, yet somehow I'm supposed to be bound by it. Lots of people don't live by it, and that's no problem we even have a special house we put them up in, we feed cloth and shelter them--it's called prison. We all live in society and there are general rules of conduct that most be obeyed. It's all agreed (by most of us) that if you don't want to participate you don't have to. You just have to show your willingness to not participate--and then you can go and live in the special house.



Similarly I'm supposed to be comforted by the fact that my suffering is metaphysically offset by an equal suffering on the part of the CEO making 700,000,00$ a year for busting unions and shutting down stores. A few people do that. If you think it's wrong, fine. Though it's not illegal. Some people think abortion is wrong, too. and that's not illegal either. Not everything in this world is fair and we all have different opinions.


Here are some facts. Everyone did not start off on the bottom. Bill Gates may have dropped out of college, but the name of that college was Harvard. So, My wife's grantparents came from Italy--she went to Yale. My parents came over pennyless from Poland, I went to Georgetown. Barak Obama's father came from Kenya, he went to Harvard. I can go on. Forever. I must say I know LOTS more poor kids in my college than rich ones. Lots.


I have no doubt that he worked very very hard, but I'm equally sure that he didn't work six hundred billion times harder than the nice Chinese fellow who makes his shoes. So how come he's compensated six billion times more? Kind of nonsensical argument, isn't it? How hard is "hard work?"


Capitalism can be justified, not easily, not prettily, but it can be done. I will concede that it is a nescessary evil. But never forget that it is evil. Nope. Evil denotes a essential arbiter of what's good and bad. Without a "Him", who is to say what is evil or not? What is evil is pure opinion on your part.


And never fall into the trap of imagining that it is fair. Ouch! That is true. Nothing is "fair" really.


Communism may be a pipe-dream, but libertarianism would be hell-on-earth if it were ever realized. Stalin ain't got nothing on the Aynd Rands of the world.

That's true too. :)

[the questionist]

Capitalism can be justified, not easily, not prettily, but it can be done. I will concede that it is a nescessary evil. But never forget that it is evil. And never fall into the trap of imagining that it is fair.

The moral condemnation is very interesting. I'm sure it could be utterly true but I don't fully understand what is meant by evil here. Would you mind clarifying?

[the questionist]

Nope. Evil denotes a essential arbiter of what's good and bad. Without a "Him", who is to say what is evil or not? What is evil is pure opinion on your part.

Are you suggesting only a deity could be an objective arbiter or judge of morality?

[Bud Struggle]

Are you suggesting only a deity could be an objective arbiter or judge of morality?

Certainly. Whithout a deity, who is to say what is good or bad? We can come up with "concept" of good and bad. As a society we can generally agree--theough a social contract what is good and bad. (Tho' sometimes we like a bit of slavery and Jew killing!)

Overall it's better to use the terms "naughty" and "nice" instead of "good" and "bad".

[RGacky3]

2. Everyone started at the bottom once, so the fact that wage slavery exists reveals the presence of a universal burden. AKA. Everyone suffers through it so we actually are equal in society.

First of all thats extreamly far from the truth, but lets assume it is true, which it is in some isolated cases, how does that justify anything? Exploitation is'nt dependant on how it started, condemning it means condemning it no matter how it started. Thats like saying its ok for a Monarch to have his power as long as he started out a peasent, it does'nt matter how he started out.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

1. Monopolies always fall (not true, but I don't know how to discredit this offhand).

Since we aren't had-line Capitalism, we usually use the government to dismantle monopolies which completely control a market. Just a few years ago, AT&T controlled most of the telecom business.

But anyway, I word argue that corporations use the government to create monopolies, but just don't say they are. Why can't you use cannibis instead of ambien (or a dozen other pills that could replace)? How come I can't make a competitor to Jack Daniels in my garage and sell it for cheaper to adults who fully understand what they're buying?


2. Everyone started at the bottom once, so the fact that wage slavery exists reveals the presence of a universal burden. AKA. Everyone suffers through it so we actually are equal in society.

It may be true in America that anyone can make it out of slavery to a comfortable place (overall, I'd say it is. Though, of course, we still have a lot more to do in making it easier for people from all socioeconomic groups). Meanwhile, in much of the rest of the world this is impossible due to the rigidity of social positions due to class and ethnic lines which are set in stone.

[Bud Struggle]

How come I can't make a competitor to Jack Daniels in my garage and sell it for cheaper to adults who fully understand what they're buying?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Ezra.jpg

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Ezra.jpg

Nice.

The laws must be pretty weird. My friend complains that his cousin is in jail for making, and distributing, moonshine. What gives?

[LSD]

I don't get you point--it [Standard Oil] is still in business under a myrad of different names.

Yes it is, and doing quite well for itself.

It would be doing much better, however, were it still one integrated corporation. Pretty much every major oil company in the world today (aside from your petrochinas or gazproms) are SO breakaways. Right now, the richest company in the world is the Saudi government's State Oil company, Saudia Aramco. The name comes from Aramco, an acronym for the Arab-American Oil Company, which started as a subsdiary of SOCAL, or Standard Oil of California.

Exxon used to be Standard Oil too, so did Chevron and pretty much every other US oil company. The only reason that all that money and all that capital isn't in the hands of one single corporation, is that eighty years ago it was busted and then busted again until Standard was split into 34 little pieces all around the country.

But that wasn't the market. That wasn't the "invisible hand", that was the great big fat hand of government getting into your business and futsing with your "liberties". I'm sure Karl Marx would have approved. I'm equally certain that Adam Smith would have too, but then he never really was that much of a capitalist, was he?

No, the truth is that this magical belief in capitalism is a much later invention. A product of the twentieth century's seeming obsession with novel political invention. Laissez-faire and Austrian-style economics have been around for a while, but it never really took off in the popular conception until it became "hip" sometime in the last few decades.

'Cause suddenly "libertarianism" is the new "radical", and it's certainly got some radical ideas. Like radical exploitation and radical mass death. But because it just reads so damn pretty, I fear that it actually has a half decent chance of taking off.

Which, I suppose, is why I like communists so much more than I do capitalists (I use the latter term in the ideological sense, not the creepy Marxists class sense). Communists (the good ones anyway) are at least trying for something. The people who have fallen in love with "markets" are just done. They've truly sold themselves to the idea that the world is a great big invisible machine working around them; that everything will somehow work out if we all just act incredibly selfishly.

It's a great rationalization, and works as a knock-out bumper sticker. But as for practical politics, well, let's just say creepy doesn't begin to explain it.


Lots of people don't live by it, and that's no problem we even have a special house we put them up in, we feed cloth and shelter them--it's called prison. We all live in society and there are general rules of conduct that most be obeyed. It's all agreed (by most of us) that if you don't want to participate you don't have to. You just have to show your willingness to not participate--and then you can go and live in the special house.

Wow! Did you just invent this thing, 'cause seriously it sounds like a neat-o idea and if you patent it really quick I bet people will be buying this "prison" up like hot cakes!

Oh, right, you were trying to be clever. Good luck with that.

The existence of prison no more proves the "social contract" than the Gulags did class war. Prisons exist because governments decided to build them and they did that because societies evolve from other societies which evolved from other socities all the way back to the origins of human civilization.

But no one ever got together and signed a contract. The metaphor is flawed, it's not a 'contract", a contract is something you willingly abide by and choose to commit too. It's something you either do or do not sign.

Society is a fact. We're all here, and we have to find a way to live with each other. Society is how we do that. But there are no "invisible hands" or "social contract" making it easy for us. No magical forces of any kind setting out a crystal path of light.

That's my point. Not to denigrate the nescessity of a rule of law, but to illustrate that that rule of law is only as powerful as we make it. It has no special powers.


A few people do that [bust unions, close shops, hurt people, bad stuff like that]. It's you thiink it's wrong, fine. Though it's not illegal. Some people think abortion is wrong, too. and that's not illegal either. Not everything in this world is fair.

Lots of people think abortion is wrong, generally they tend to fall on your side of the left-right divide. I wonder why that might be.

Maybe it could be because abortion is a nuanced concept, full of complex issues and moral headaches and generally the right likes to answer headaches with nuclear bombe. You know, make a complex problem simple by giving it a simple answer.

And, by the way, busting unions is illegal. Abortion isn't, thankfully, although that could change any day. So could the other thing too. That is if we get some "free market" thinkers into power. Unions, after all, they "hamper" progress and "delay" markets. Kind of like how women controlling their bodies "kill babies".

What, the analogy doesn't make sense to you? Me neither. I have absolutely no idea what abortion is doing in a discussion on free markets. Maybe you just have some unresolved issues in that area. You should look into that. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on an answer to how any of this refutes a single point I made.


So, My wife's grantparents came from Italy--she went to Yale. My parents came over pennyless from Poland, I went to Georgetown. Barak Obama's father came from Kenya, he went to Harvard. I can go on. Forever. I must say I know LOTS more poor kids in my college than rich ones. Lots.

And Bill Gate's parents were rich. Which was my point. The fact that your wife is not does not refute or diminish that point. All it does it show off the fact that you have a wife. I guess you were feeling particularly challanged in your masculinity and felt the need to demonstrate the size of your preverbial penis. Congratulations, now we all know that you've boned a Yalie. Good on you.


Kind of nonsensical argument, isn't it? How hard is "hard work?"

I don't know. Do you? I do know that no degree of human labour could possibly be six hundred billion times more than that poor Chinese fellow's though. I mean come on, do you know how hard it is to make a pair of shoes? Six hundred billion times that would be like twelve hundred billion shoes!

That's a lot of shoes!

No one needs that many shoes! Or should I say no one needs that much money. But Bill Gates has it, and no amount of debating trickery or metaphysical mumbo-jumbo can diminish the fact that there is something fundamentally disturbing with that kind of accumulation of wealth in a world that still features regular death due to starvation.

Capitalism can't be abolished, unfortunately it hasn't been supplated by anything superior yet. But we must do our best to mitigate it's more eggregious brutalities.

Not that Mr. Gates is the worst of the lot, he actually isn't. He's just a convenient celebrity. Honestly, the world would be a much better place if more billionaires followed his example.

Whooops.. I mean, um, class war rah rah! overthrow the bourgeoisie! :p


Nope. Evil denotes a essential arbiter of what's good and bad. Without a "Him", who is to say what is evil or not? What is evil is pure opinion on your part.

Surely you'll forgive rhetorical hyperbole.

"Evil" is that which is harmful. "Good" is that which is not. It's never black and white, but our morals have developed over millions of years of social evolution. We've got a pretty decent grasp of the fundamentals.

Killing people, for instance, that would fall on the "evil" side. Not cause "he" says so, but because the dude getting killed does. That's not "social contract" that's society.

And for the moment capitalism's still a nescessary part of that society.

It's just an evil part.:p

[Bud Struggle]

Yes it is, and doing quite well for itself.

It would be doing much better, however, were it still one integrated corporation. Pretty much every major oil company in the world today (aside from your petrochinas or gazproms) are SO breakaways. Right now, the richest company in the world is the Saudi government's State Oil company, Saudia Aramco. The name comes from Aramco, an acronym for the Arab-American Oil Company, which started as a subsdiary of SOCAL, or Standard Oil of California.

Exxon used to be Standard Oil too, so did Chevron and pretty much every other US oil company. The only reason that all that money and all that capital isn't in the hands of one single corporation, is that eighty years ago it was busted and then busted again until Standard was split into 34 little pieces all around the country.

But that wasn't the market. That wasn't the "invisible hand", that was the great big fat hand of government getting into your business and futsing with your "liberties". I'm sure Karl Marx would have approved. I'm equally certain that Adam Smith would have too, but then he never really was that much of a capitalist, was he?

We agree on all of this.


No, the truth is that this magical belief in capitalism is a much later invention. A product of the twentieth century's seeming obsession with novel political invention. Laissez-faire and Austrian-style economics have been around for a while, but it never really took off in the popular conception until it became "hip" sometime in the last few decades. I prettymuch agree here, too.


'Cause suddenly "libertarianism" is the new "radical", and it's certainly got some radical ideas. Like radical exploitation and radical mass death. But because it just reads so damn pretty, I fear that it actually has a half decent chance of taking off. Yup. FYI: I'm no Libertarian.


Which, I suppose, is why I like communists so much more than I do capitalists (I use the latter term in the ideological sense, not the creepy Marxists class sense). Communists (the good ones anyway) are at least trying for something. The people who have fallen in love with "markets" are just done. They've truly sold themselves to the idea that the world is a great big invisible machine working around them; that everything will somehow work out if we all just act incredibly selfishly. Interesting concept--that brotherhood thing. Christianity has been doing that for centuries, though. They actually seem to have the market on it. Communism is the pale second brother (The Jewish Marx is the second brother to Jewish Jesus?) Markets are, agreed a construct--they work because we all expect them to work. I rather thin a social democracy, not a pie inthe sky Communist world or a strict market driven Capitalist one is the real workable solution. In the end the middle ground always works best.


It's a great rationalization, and works as a knock-out bumper sticker. But as for practical politics, well, let's just say creepy doesn't begin to explain it. And uber-cyborg-killingmachings and killing all the priests isn't creepy?




Wow! Did you just invent this thing, 'cause seriously it sounds like a neat-o idea and if you patent it really quick I bet people will be buying this "prison" up like hot cakes!

Oh, right, you were trying to be clever. Good luck with that. "Hey did you sign the social Contract!" Tit for tat.:lol:


The existence of prison no more proves the "social contract" than the Gulags did class war. Prisons exist because governments decided to build them and they did that because societies evolve from other societies which evolved from other socities all the way back to the origins of human civilization. Not at all. I mean that's really not the case. Prisons are for transgressors against society: theives, murders, rapist--people that have done ACTUAL harm against another human being. Gulags are in their very essence different. They punish the thought, the idea, the urge to disagree with authority. Gulags aren't a punishment for hurting another member of society--they aren't a punishmet of actions. They are a punishment of being. They don't punish a person for doing--they punish him for thinking.


But no one ever got together and signed a contract. The metaphor is flawed, it's not a 'contract", a contract is something you willingly abide by and choose to commit too. It's something you either do or do not sign. Fair enough. and a prison isn't a nice place where people go.


Society is a fact. We're all here, and we have to find a way to live with each other. Society is how we do that. But there are no "invisible hands" or "social contract" making it easy for us. No magical forces of any kind setting out a crystal path of light. It's all pretty much spelt out to us at a young age in school--"THESE ARE THE RULES. THIS IS HOW WE LIVE."


That's my point. Not to denigrate the nescessity of a rule of law, but to illustrate that that rule of law is only as powerful as we make it. It has no special powers. The rules of law is two tierd. In some societies it is for actions--America for example. In some societies for thought--in North Korea.


Lots of people think abortion is wrong, generally they tend to fall on your side of the left-right divide. I wonder why that might be. I tend to think because they are smart, well educated and damnded good looking--but that's just my opinion. ;)


Maybe it could be because abortion is a nuanced concept, full of complex issues and moral headaches and generally the right likes to answer headaches with nuclear bombe. You know, make a complex problem simple by giving it a simple answer. And economics isn't a nuanced concept--and there ain't no bigger bomb then that damned REVOLUTION. Remember that? There's no anit-Abortion equivalent, is there?


And, by the way, busting unions is illegal. Abortion isn't, thankfully, although that could change any day. So could the other thing too. That is if we get some "free market" thinkers into power. Unions, after all, they "hamper" progress and "delay" markets. Kind of like how women controlling their bodies "kill babies". Your Socialist "commercial break." :)


So, My wife's grantparents came from Italy--she went to Yale. My parents came over pennyless from Poland, I went to Georgetown. Barak Obama's father came from Kenya, he went to Harvard. I can go on. Forever. I must say I know LOTS more poor kids in my college than rich ones. Lots.


And Bill Gate's parents were rich. Which was my point. The fact that your wife is not does not refute or diminish that point. All it does it show off the fact that you have a wife. I guess you were feeling particularly challanged in your masculinity and felt the need to demonstrate the size of your preverbial penis. Congratulations, now we all know that you've boned a Yalie. Good on you. Sorry I meant to mention--I was the poor son or Polish immigrants and now I'm rich. Married royalty. Hard work and all of that crap. Anyone could do it. Really.


I don't know. Do you? I do know that no degree of human labour could possibly be six hundred billion times more than that poor Chinese fellow's though. I mean come on, do you know how hard it is to make a pair of shoes? Six hundred billion times that would be like twelve hundred billion shoes!

That's a lot of shoes! First you say you don't know--but the later part of your posts seem to him you do seem to think things are a bit excessive. I tend to agree, but if Gates could do it, good for him. I ten to not be outraged at successful people, being one myself. (Though certainly not of the order of Bill gates.)


No one needs that many shoes! Or should I say no one needs that much money. Your are moralizing.


But Bill Gates has it, and no amount of debating trickery or metaphysical mumbo-jumbo can diminish the fact that there is something fundamentally disturbing with that kind of accumulation of wealth in a world that still features regular death due to starvation. It's not a zero sum game. Who cares about how much money Gates has--let's do something about the poor people. Certainly taking away money from Gates wouldn't help in the least. Besides he's donating all to charity anyway--does that make you feel better?


Capitalism can't be abolished, unfortunately it hasn't been supplated by anything superior yet. But we must do our best to mitigate it's more eggregious brutalities. Another Socialist "Commercial break." :)


Not that Mr. Gates is the worst of the lot, he actually isn't. He's just a convenient celebrity. Honestly, the world would be a much better place if more billionaires followed his example. Agreed.


Whooops.. I mean, um, class war rah rah! overthrow the bourgeoisie! :p
Surely you'll forgive rhetorical hyperbole. I've been forgiving it all along and find it all quite enjoyable.


"Evil" is that which is harmful. "Good" is that which is not. It's never black and white, but our morals have developed over millions of years of social evolution. We've got a pretty decent grasp of the fundamentals. From religion. Morality separate from religion has't been around longer than lo' these last 100 or so years.


Killing people, for instance, that would fall on the "evil" side. Not cause "he" says so, but because the dude getting killed does. That's not "social contract" that's society. Nope. We kill murderers. We kill Jews, we kill Blacks and Native Americans. All reciently in human history and all in society. Polite society, no less. No it's the social contract--it just changes over time. For the better, we hope. But decent honest guys like you and me in Rome or Athens might have just owned slaves and thought nothing of it. What are WE doing now that people in 500 years might find apalling?


And for the moment capitalism's still a nescessary part of that society.

It's just an evil part.:p

Like Democracy is is evil--just better than any other alternative.

And if I may introduce a personal comment:
LSD--you are a pleasent foil to converse with. :)

[LSD]

Interesting concept--that brotherhood thing. Christianity has been doing that for centuries, though. They actually seem to have the market on it. Communism is the pale second brother

So pale as to be virtually invisible at this point. I guess Islam's the only real alternative left nowadays. It's too bad, really. Atheism was one of the few things communism got right.

Now we're left with monotheists vs. monotheists. There's no beauty in that, no elegance. "My God is better than your god"? Really? That's what it's come down to? Francis fucking Fukuyama, this must be the end times!

Or maybe we're just scared, and a little confused and we genuinely don't know what to do about the very serious problems around us. And in our fear and confusion we turn to easy answers, like Jesus or Mohammed ...or Karl Marx. We've gotten so used to getting our lessons from prophets and messiahs that we've forgotten how to think for ourselves. We've fooled ourselves into believing that great ideas require great leaders.

I don't think there's going to be a "brotherhood of man" in my lifetime, nor would I particularly want to live in one -- the absense of women would be considerable a turn off. But I do believe that humanity must evolve past this point; and I appreciate that communists think that they can work towards that end. It's touching in a way that capitalist rhetoric just isn't.


And uber-cyborg-killingmachings and killing all the priests isn't creepy?

Oh, no they're creepy too, they're just not remotely attainable. The way the libertarian movements been taking off, it just might be.

It's kinda like primitivism; if their ideas were ever to be put into practice it would be genocidal to a degree never before imagined ...but it's never ever ever going to happen. So I don't really worry about primitivists.

But libertarians aren't fruitcakes hanging out in dumpsters (well, most of them aren't anyway). A lot of them are running hedge funds and "enterprise institutes"; and a lot of them have gotten very good at marketing their ideas.

I don't really think that we're going to see a libertarian revolution anytime soon, but I do worry that many of their ideas are starting to seep into popular politics and just might tip the scales enough to cause some real damage.

Communists love to rant on about how "fascists" are secretly crouching behind every wall waiting to pounce, but they've missed the boat. The real danger's coming from the other side.

Pretty fucking creepy!


Prisons are for transgressors against society: theives, murders, rapist--people that have done ACTUAL harm against another human being. Gulags are in their very essence different. They punish the thought, the idea, the urge to disagree with authority. Gulags aren't a punishment for hurting another member of society--they aren't a punishmet of actions. They are a punishment of being. They don't punish a person for doing--they punish him for thinking.

You mean "ACTUAL harm" like smoking marijuana? And here I thought you were against all that black-and-white, us vs. them nonsense. Tsk, tsk.

GULAG is an acronym, translated from the Russian it means Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies, or put less stupidly, Bureau of Prisons.

Soviet prisons held people who had committed a crime against the Soviet Union. American prisons hold people who have committed crimes against America. Do you understand how this works now?

You may prefer American laws over Soviet ones (I certainly do), but they both operated according to the same basic principal, namely the rule of law and imprisonment for criminal offense. Your "social contract" applies just as much to Soviet Russia as to demcratic America, it's just not as lavish a "contract".

Which is why I oppose the metaphor. It's vague and it's useless. If the social contract is everything and nothing then it's nothing. So who cares. We didn't agree to abide by society's laws, we were born into them. But all that society is is us, so its existance is our existance. Therefore fundamentally, the sole purpose of society is the betterment of the existance of all of its members insofar as that betterment can be maximally and equitably applied -- no small feat!

Now, as the centuries have worn on we've gotten gradually better at meeting that fundamental purpose, but we've still got a long[b/] way to go. And in the mean time, we work with the imperfect solutions we have; like prisons, and like capitalism.

They're ugly and messy ...but they work.


And economics isn't a nuanced concept--and there ain't no bigger bomb then that damned REVOLUTION. Remember that? There's no anit-Abortion equivalent, is there?

Sure there is, it's called "pro-life". Life begins at conception no ifs and buts or anythings. It's as black and white as a paradigm can get, and as such it's entirely [b]useless.

So's "REVOLUTION", of course, but "pro-life" has got a bigger following these days. But I take your point, and you're right, the Communist line is the ultimate nuclear bomb answer to a complicated question. That's why communists get so vague when you press them on post-revolution specifics.

They don't really want to think that far ahead. All they do is plan plan plan for that great revolution, under the fervent undying belief that once that glorious orgasmic moment comes ....everything will just fall into place.

Fuck the bomb metaphor, it's really politics as orgasm. And the Soviet Union was the limp dick of an expended movement.

Which makes Cuba, what, the dirty cum stain? Ew, now that's just nasty...


Your Socialist "commercial break."

This message brought to you by COKA-COMMIE, now with 75% less Scientific Socialism.


First you say you don't know--but the later part of your posts seem to him you do seem to think things are a bit excessive. I tend to agree, but if Gates could do it, good for him. I ten to not be outraged at successful people, being one myself. (Though certainly not of the order of Bill gates.)


I tend not to get outraged at successful people either, I just want to take some of their money and redistribute it. It's not about getting mad, just mitigating the damage.


Your are moralizing.

Hyperbolizing actually, and you already forgave me that indulgence.


It's not a zero sum game.

Of course it is!

That's the oldest lie in the book, the rising tides nonsense. Economics is a complex animal, no doubt, and absolute wealth does grow, but Bill Gates didn't get his money from the vaccum, he got it from people paying him. Again, it's not the fact that Bill Gates is rich that's a problem, it's the fact that he's rich while others are starving. i.e., the resources can be better allocated.

If money is spent on a private plane it ipso facto (I always wanted to say that) cannot be spend on feeding someone.

I don't have the solutions to global dispartity, but please don't pretend that it doesn't exist.


Wgho cares about how much money gates has

I do, evidently. As apparently do millions of other people since they insist on constantly pulbishing his net worth in endless "top ten" lists. Your "invisible hand" dicates that they wouldn't keep doing that if someone wasn't interested.

Personally, I care insofar as that wealth could be better used if it was actually helping people rather than sitting in a bank somewhere collecting interest. Not that I have a good plan for getting it out of there. In fact I have the worst plan in the world, I plan on hiring a bunch of men with guns to demand that he hand it over on pain of capture and abuse.

Of course those men will IRS agents and that capture will be prison. Yeah, that's right, I want the US government to force him to give up his money as taxes and then redistribute it to other people.

Actually, they already do that. Personally, I don't think they do it enough. you may not agree. I don't actually know where you are on the political spectrum. But you're not a liberarian so you must support some degree of government redistibution.

Which puts on at least one of the same sides. :)


--let's do something about the poor people. Certainly taking away money from gates would help in the least. Besides he's donating all to charity anyway--does that make you feel better?

Not particularly, though I imagine it must make him feel pretty damned good. I guess you can chalk that up to good human emotion. Insofar as the "invisible hand", there's no reason to give away hard-earned money to poor people (especially poor people with dark skin! :o). But Bill Gates isn't just a capitalist, he's also a human being, and he's subject to the same moral hardwiring as the rest of us (most of us anyways).

Once again Karl Marx's determinism fails to explain even the simplest of human behaviours.


From religion. Morality separate from religion has't been around longer than lo' these last 100 or so years.

If that!

We're really on the cutting edge here, I'd say we're in the midst of one of the greatest transitional periods in human history -- though that period stands to outlast both of our lifetimes.

It's too bad, I sometimes wish that I were born two or three centuries later. I really think the future's going to be pretty neat to see.

...you know, or really really depressing.


And if I may introduce a personal comment:
LSD--you are a pleasent foil to converse with.

Well isn't that sweet.:wub:

Honestly, this has been fun, I wish I disagreed with you more so I could argue on, but I fear that we're both too rational.

I suppose that's why we've been restricted! :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Honestly, this has been fun, I wish I disagreed with you more so I could argue on, but I fear that we're both too rational.

I suppose that's why we've been restricted! :lol:

Yea, we're getting pretty close to agreeing on stuff. Better quit while we're ahead. :)

Stick around--we'll cross keyboards again! :lol:

[the questionist]

In fact I have the worst plan in the world, I plan on hiring a bunch of men with guns to demand that he hand it over on pain of capture and abuse.

Of course those men will IRS agents and that capture will be prison. Yeah, that's right, I want the US government to force him to give up his money as taxes and then redistribute it to other people.

You do understand that you are openly and enthusiastically advocating for theft, rape, torture, and possibility of murder here. Of course you realize this makes you a sadist. But hey, at least you're an honest sadist that throws no heed to morality. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[LSD]

Theft, yes. Torture, no. And as for rape, I think you've been watching too many Girls behind bars films.

What I am proposing is that the government pass laws mandating all persons cede a portion of their wealth to be redistributed to the general public. In other words, the status quo. And pretty much anyone who isn't a libertarian agrees with that principle. The only dispute is over how much the government should take.

The only time that force is required is when someone refuses to follow redistributive laws. And in those cases, you're damn right I'm in favour of using every available tool to make them comply. That doesn't make me a sadist, however, just a realist. 'Cause in the real world, coercion is a nescessary part of human society. Absolute freedom is a myth, and a dangerous myth at that since it nescessarily encourages antisocial behaviour.

And honestly, which is more sadistic, forcing Bill Gates to give up a tiny portion of his vast wealth; or allowing millions of people to starve to death out of of some mystical reverence for "property rights".

But hey, good luck with your "morality". Ivory towers are always more comfortable than the real world.

[Bud Struggle]

We have all that government apparatus here in the United States--it's called the Internal Revenue Service.

The problem is that they tax Income not Wealth--but of course all that wealth was income at one time, so it has already been taxed once.

[LSD]

That was my point:

What I am proposing is that the government pass laws mandating all persons cede a portion of their wealth to be redistributed to the general public. In other words, the status quo.

In tq's mind, however, that makes me a "sadist" -- typical libertarian bullshit.

Welcome to OI!

Restricted. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

That was my point:


In tq's mind, however, that makes me a "sadist" -- typical libertarian bullshit.



Oops, :blushing: Missed it. I go around berating people for not understanding metaphor and I miss one myself. :( :D

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Capitalism can be justified, not easily, not prettily, but it can be done. I will concede that it is a nescessary evil. But never forget that it is evil. And never fall into the trap of imagining that it is fair.
I agree entirely, except for your concession. Why do you concede that capitalism is necessary? Necessary for what?

I can see why you might (wrongly, in my opinion) concede that capitalism is indestructible for the forseeable future. Capitalism is difficult to defeat - so difficult that you might lose hope and start thinking that it can never be done. Fine. But how on earth is it necessary?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oh, no they're creepy too, they're just not remotely attainable. The way the libertarian movements been taking off, it just might be.

It's kinda like primitivism; if their ideas were ever to be put into practice it would be genocidal to a degree never before imagined ...but it's never ever ever going to happen. So I don't really worry about primitivists.

But libertarians aren't fruitcakes hanging out in dumpsters (well, most of them aren't anyway). A lot of them are running hedge funds and "enterprise institutes"; and a lot of them have gotten very good at marketing their ideas.

I don't really think that we're going to see a libertarian revolution anytime soon, but I do worry that many of their ideas are starting to seep into popular politics and just might tip the scales enough to cause some real damage.

Communists love to rant on about how "fascists" are secretly crouching behind every wall waiting to pounce, but they've missed the boat. The real danger's coming from the other side.

Pretty fucking creepy!
That's the truest and most important thing you've said in this whole thread. We need to spend more of our time and effort combatting the creeping influence of libertarianism. I am absolutely convinced that libertarianism will be the greatest enemy of the left in the 21st century.

[Bud Struggle]

That's the truest and most important thing you've said in this whole thread. We need to spend more of our time and effort combatting the creeping influence of libertarianism. I am absolutely convinced that libertarianism will be the greatest enemy of the left in the 21st century.

the interesting thing is they aren't REAL Libertarians in all respects. They like their social services and they they like the idea of the poor being fed and they like the idea that all people live in peace.

But they'll sit in their office surrounded by plaques of merit for their donations to the United Way and in 15 mins. put 2000 people out of work. And it's just business. Or they'll finance a business in india that will pay people $1. for 10 hours work. OR buy grain from some farmer in Africa and export it to the US while Africa starves. It's business.

And they are Democrats and Republicans on their days off--but behind their telephones--they are libertarians.

[Lynx]

The Questionist was restricted for being a Libertarian?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes.

Is that aganst the rules? I'm not one--but itn's not being a Nazi or a Racist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now we're left with monotheists vs. monotheists. There's no beauty in that, no elegance. "My God is better than your god"? Really? That's what it's come down to? Francis fucking Fukuyama, this must be the end times!

What about the rise in "Islamic banking," then - social responsibility going beyond nanny-state "social democracy" and all that politically correct stuff?


I don't really think that we're going to see a libertarian revolution anytime soon, but I do worry that many of their ideas are starting to seep into popular politics and just might tip the scales enough to cause some real damage.

Communists love to rant on about how "fascists" are secretly crouching behind every wall waiting to pounce, but they've missed the boat. The real danger's coming from the other side.

Hardly. The increased distrust towards the bourgeois state and slave-like apathy towards "representative democracy" (neither representative nor democratic) since the Nixon debacle is a good thing. :)

The only guy I see threatening is one Bryan Caplan and his open praise of elitism, but his activity can only serve to educate the working class (especially "knowledge workers") about the bankruptcy of small-l liberalism. :)

You are right in one way, however, in terms of a lot of us missing the boat: social fascism a la Blair (the "surveillance society," the politically correct nanny society, plus neoliberalism with a smiling face) is an underrated threat.

At present, Canadian "social democracy" is too pinko to consider the "surveillance society."