Victim disarmament zones

[runlvlzero]

It tends to not generate the most productive responses )

[Elmarnieh]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lobbyists arose because of our Constitutionally protected right to petition the government. All special interests do this. It just so happens that in our current economic system, individual private firms wield the absolute pinnacle of power in a variety of ways.

It always amuses me how libertarians argue that weakening the government and handing even more power over to private firms will somehow increase freedom. It will not. The vast majority of our problems come from the concentration of power in private hands-- often multinational corporations who have little interest in any of your patriotic crap. They do whatever it takes to maintain acceptable margins of profitability, including outsourcing the labor market and slashing worker's benefits and wages. It will lead further into the immiseration of the masses, the continued hyper-concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few, and the eventual recognition that capitalism and the world we all want are not compatible states of existence. This unsustainable path will bleed America dry and then move on to the next super power without batting an eye. Have fun with that while the rest of us liberal socialists try to develop some power for the public to stand up for our own self-interests.

The concentration of power in heriarchical organizations is a systemic problem. This is as true for any such organizational structure - business or government. As the power is concentrated it not only tempts and corrupts those who can wield it but it also attracts the already corrupted to the positions of control. Union, Government, Corporation, family business, Charity, Religion, whatever - the flaw is in the nature of the system.

If one only picks one of these groups to chastise they are missing the truth. Striking at business while calling for more government is like having one arm punch your chest while the other massages your back - it does nothing constructive but makes you feel better in one area while causing much more serious damage elsewhere. In fact it is wholly worse for the government has the ability to employ uncontested force in order to effect compliance whereas the rest (absent such force) can only present options that individuals are free to undertake or reject.

[Elmarnieh]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, regardless I think were way past that. Does not invalidate the other facts they brought to the table that are indeed interesting and thought provoking.

Don't need to dredge it up.

I am replying as I read.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Collective shortages VS Unemployment and Homelessness/Evictions being utterly abolished and nonexistant, and a largely agrarian civilization of serfdom rising to global super power status in a matter of 2 decades. That's a real toughie.

"Collective shortages" is a really funny way to describe the death of millions of human beings by manmade economic disasters.

So if our options are
a) everyone has a roof over their head, but tens of millions die from lack of food
b) having a cornucopia of food available 24 hours a day, but about a million are homeless. Literally 0 people die each year from starvation in the US.

You would really choose a)?

[Elmarnieh]

Law of Disproportionality-

Compared to what? Rare shortages and surpluses that are autoamtically resolved in quick manner by price signals. When was the last time you went to the store and couldn't find what you needed in stock in the US? Lets compare that to well-known shortages and wait times in socialist nations (Cuba, former USSR, and right now Venezuela is taking over a toilet paper factory because their economic policy causes it to be no longer worth it to manufacture http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/world/...per/index.html ).

It's very easy to attack a thing when you don't compare it to the alternative you're offering. I've never run out of toilet paper. I've never stood in a line only because there was a line. I've never gone to a store to gaze longingly at basic consumer electronics.

Law of Accumulation

This is actually a few fallacies wrapped into one. Increase technology leads to increased efficiency but to argue that technology only puts people out of work well our technology is many times greater than it was in 1932 yet there are more people employed in the US than existed back then and the rate of employment is higher. It in effect calls for the destruction of all computers and copiers and the return of hand messangers and scriveners. Its a call for luddites.

The second fallacy is that it assumes accumilation of capital is a bad thing.

Law of Falling Rate of Profit

Assumes a fixed profit margin. Assumes no innovation (which meshes nicely with the fallacy in the "Law of Accumulation".

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not going to defend the Soviet Union as some perfect experiment obviously, but there were many things we could learn from as a society-- largely in what we value most (our priority of values) and what the dignity of a worker means to us as Americans (which at the moment, the dignity of the working and lower classes means exactly shit to the US at large).

You know what I value most? Not having to worry about dying of starvation every few years. Actually, access to water is probably top, but food would be #2. Then things like having a home, internet, etc. Having dignity is probably down around #50-100. Shit, if my employer wants to yell at me all day and call me a worthless piece of shit while giving me enough money to cover all of my most immediate expenses and many frivolous ones, I'll take that. I'll certainly take that over working my ass off only to die of starvation because no food is available at any price.

[runlvlzero]

Not to be overly trolly. But here is another issue: Illustrated by the past.


Project Cybersyn

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Things like this is what the libertarian mindset seeks to avoid.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Elmarnieh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Law of Disproportionality-

Compared to what? Rare shortages and surpluses that are autoamtically resolved in quick manner by price signals. When was the last time you went to the store and couldn't find what you needed in stock in the US? Lets compare that to well-known shortages and wait times in socialist nations (Cuba, former USSR, and right now Venezuela is taking over a toilet paper factory because their economic policy causes it to be no longer worth it to manufacture http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/world/...per/index.html ).

It's very easy to attack a thing when you don't compare it to the alternative you're offering. I've never run out of toilet paper. I've never stood in a line only because there was a line. I've never gone to a store to gaze longingly at basic consumer electronics.

Marx was basically just showing that capitalism is not 100% perfect. Just another of his brilliant insights. Certainly nobody knew men could make mistakes before Marx came along, right?

Law of Accumulation

This is actually a few fallacies wrapped into one. Increase technology leads to increased efficiency but to argue that technology only puts people out of work well our technology is many times greater than it was in 1932 yet there are more people employed in the US than existed back then and the rate of employment is higher. It in effect calls for the destruction of all computers and copiers and the return of hand messangers and scriveners. Its a call for luddites.

The second fallacy is that it assumes accumilation of capital is a bad thing.

Technology does put people out of work. However, people have this knack for figuring out new types of work. The destruction of jobs has been one of the great. I'm sure happy that we don't need 90% of the population to be farmers anymore. I don't think Steve Jobs would have made a very good farmer, but he was pretty good with electronics.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not to be overly trolly. But here is another issue: Illustrated by the past.


Project Cybersyn

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Things like this is what the libertarian mindset seeks to avoid.

Perhaps you can make a point? Or explain that last sentence of yours? Libertarians want to avoid centrally planned economies? That doesn't seem like a terribly trolly or provocative statement.

[Stinkum]

Orruar is actually a parody forum account for that annoying Paultard on every college campus who thinks he's intelligent because he can paraphrase Milton Friedman.