| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
http://www.navigatingourfuture.org/12mythsofhunger.html
Myth 1 Not Enough Food to Go Around Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods-vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products. Myth 2 Nature's to Blame for Famine Reality: It's too easy to blame nature. Human-made forces are making people increasingly vulnerable to nature's vagaries. Food is always available for those who can afford it-starvation during hard times hits only the poorest. Millions live on the brink of disaster in south Asia, Africa and elsewhere, because they are deprived of land by a powerful few, trapped in the unremitting grip of debt, or miserably paid. Natural events rarely explain deaths; they are simply the final push over the brink. Human institutions and policies determine who eats and who starves during hard times. Likewise, in America many homeless die from the cold every winter, yet ultimate responsibility doesn't lie with the weather. The real culprits are an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunities, and a society that places economic efficiency over compassion. Myth 3 Too Many People Reality: Birth rates are falling rapidly worldwide as remaining regions of the Third World begin the demographic transition-when birth rates drop in response to an earlier decline in death rates. Although rapid population growth remains a serious concern in many countries, nowhere does population density explain hunger. For every Bangladesh, a densely populated and hungry country, we find a Nigeria, Brazil or Bolivia, where abundant food resources coexist with hunger. Costa Rica, with only half of Honduras' cropped acres per person, boasts a life expectancy-one indicator of nutrition -11 years longer than that of Honduras and close to that of developed countries. Rapid population growth is not the root cause of hunger. Like hunger itself, it results from underlying inequities that deprive people, especially poor women, of economic opportunity and security. Rapid population growth and hunger are endemic to societies where land ownership, jobs, education, health care, and old age security are beyond the reach of most people. Those Third World societies with dramatically successful early and rapid reductions of population growth rates-China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Cuba and the Indian state of Kerala-prove that the lives of the poor, especially poor women, must improve before they can choose to have fewer children. Myth 4 The Environment vs. More Food? Reality: We should be alarmed that an environmental crisis is undercutting our food-production resources, but a tradeoff between our environment and the world's need for food is not inevitable. Efforts to feed the hungry are not causing the environmental crisis. Large corporations are mainly responsible for deforestation-creating and profiting from developed-country consumer demand for tropical hardwoods and exotic or out-of-season food items. Most pesticides used in the Third World are applied to export crops, playing little role in feeding the hungry, while in the U.S. they are used to give a blemish-free cosmetic appearance to produce, with no improvement in nutritional value. Alternatives exist now and many more are possible. The success of organic farmers in the U.S. gives a glimpse of the possibilities. Cuba's recent success in overcoming a food crisis through self-reliance and sustainable, virtually pesticide-free agriculture is another good example. Indeed, environmentally sound agricultural alternatives can be more productive than environmentally destructive ones. Myth 5 The Green Revolution is the Answer Reality: The production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth. Thanks to the new seeds, million of tons more grain a year are being harvested. But focusing narrowly on increasing production cannot alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly concentrated distribution of economic power that determines who can buy the additional food. That's why in several of the biggest Green Revolution successes-India, Mexico, and the Philippines-grain production and in some cases, exports, have climbed, while hunger has persisted and the long-term productive capacity of the soil is degraded. Now we must fight the prospect of a 'New Green Revolution' based on biotechnology, which threatens to further accentuate inequality. Myth 6 We Need Large Farms Reality: Large landowners who control most of the best land often leave much of it idle. Unjust farming systems leave farmland in the hands of the most inefficient producers. By contrast, small farmers typically achieve at least four to five times greater output per acre, in part because they work their land more intensively and use integrated, and often more sustainable, production systems. Without secure tenure, the many millions of tenant farmers in the Third World have little incentive to invest in land improvements, to rotate crops, or to leave land fallow for the sake of long-term soil fertility. Future food production is undermined. On the other hand, redistribution of land can favor production. Comprehensive land reform has markedly increased production in countries as diverse as Japan, Zimbabwe, and Taiwan. A World Bank study of northeast Brazil estimates that redistributing farmland into smaller holdings would raise output an astonishing 80 percent. Myth 7 The Free Market Can End Hunger Reality: Unfortunately, such a "market-is-good, government-is-bad" formula can never help address the causes of hunger. Such a dogmatic stance misleads us that a society can opt for one or the other, when in fact every economy on earth combines the market and government in allocating resources and distributing goods. The market's marvelous efficiencies can only work to eliminate hunger, however, when purchasing power is widely dispersed. So all those who believe in the usefulness of the market and the necessity of ending hunger must concentrate on promoting not the market, but the consumers! In this task, government has a vital role to play in countering the tendency toward economic concentration, through genuine tax, credit, and land reforms to disperse buying power toward the poor. Recent trends toward privatization and de-regulation are most definitely not the answer. Myth 8 Free Trade is the Answer Reality: The trade promotion formula has proven an abject failure at alleviating hunger. In most Third World countries exports have boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened. While soybean exports boomed in Brazil-to feed Japanese and European livestock-hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population. Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad. Export crop production squeezes out basic food production. Pro-trade policies like NAFTA and GATT pit working people in different countries against each other in a 'race to the bottom,' where the basis of competition is who will work for less, without adequate health coverage or minimum environmental standards. Mexico and the U.S. are a case in point: since NAFTA we have had a net loss of 250,000 jobs here, while Mexico has lost 2 million, and hunger is on the rise in both countries. Myth 9 Too Hungry to Fight for Their Rights Reality: Bombarded with images of poor people as weak and hungry, we lose sight of the obvious: for those with few resources, mere survival requires tremendous effort. If the poor were truly passive, few of them could even survive. Around the world, from the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, to the farmers' movement in India, wherever people are suffering needlessly, movements for change are underway. People will feed themselves, if allowed to do so. It's not our job to 'set things right' for others. Our responsibility is to remove the obstacles in their paths, obstacles often created by large corporations and U.S. government, World Bank and IMF policies. Myth 10 More U.S. Aid Will Help the Hungry Reality: Most U.S. aid works directly against the hungry. Foreign aid can only reinforce, not change, the status quo. It would be better to use our foreign aid budget for unconditional debt relief, Where governments answer only to elites, our aid not only fails to reach hungry people, it shores up the very forces working against them. Our aid is used to impose free trade and free market policies, to promote exports at the expense of food production, and to provide the armaments that repressive governments use to stay in power. Even emergency, or humanitarian aid, which makes up only five percent of the total, often ends up enriching American grain companies while failing to reach the hungry, and it can dangerously undercut local food production in the recipient country.as it is the foreign debt burden that forces most Third World countries to cut back on basic health, education and anti-poverty programs. Myth 11 We Benefit From Their Poverty Reality: The biggest threat to the well-being of the vast majority of Americans is not the advancement but the continued deprivation of the hungry. Low wages-both abroad and in inner cities at home-may mean cheaper bananas, shirts, computers and fast food for most Americans, but in other ways we pay heavily for hunger and poverty. Enforced poverty in the Third World jeopardizes U.S. jobs, wages and working conditions as corporations seek cheaper labor abroad. In a global economy, what American workers have achieved in employment, wage levels, and working conditions can be protected only when working people in every country are freed from economic desperation. Here at home, policies like welfare reform throw more people into the job market than can be absorbed-at below minimum wage levels in the case of 'workfare'-which puts downward pressure on the wages of those on higher rungs of the employment ladder. The growing numbers of 'working poor' are those who have part- or full-time low wage jobs yet cannot afford adequate nutrition or housing for their families. Educating ourselves about the common interests most Americans share with the poor in the Third World and at home allows us to be compassionate without sliding into pity. In working to clear the way for the poor to free themselves from economic oppression, we free ourselves as well. Myth 12 Curtail Freedom to End Hunger? Reality: There is no theoretical or practical reason why freedom, taken to mean civil liberties, should be incompatible with ending hunger. Surveying the globe, we see no correlation between hunger and civil liberties. However, one narrow definition of freedom-the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth-producing property and the right to use that property however one sees fit-is in fundamental conflict with ending hunger. By contrast, a definition of freedom more consistent with our nation's dominant founding vision holds that economic security for all is the guarantor of our liberty. Such an understanding of freedom is essential to ending hunger.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
"Reality: There is no theoretical or practical reason why freedom, taken to mean civil liberties, should be incompatible with ending hunger. Surveying the globe, we see no correlation between hunger and civil liberties. However, one narrow definition of freedom-the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth-producing property and the right to use that property however one sees fit-is in fundamental conflict with ending hunger. By contrast, a definition of freedom more consistent with our nation's dominant founding vision holds that economic security for all is the guarantor of our liberty. Such an understanding of freedom is essential to ending hunger. "
riiiiiight.
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
Yup
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
coming out and saying that liberty does not mean the right to property and economic freedom, and that this is a characteristic of the "definition of freedom more consistent with our nation's dominant founding vision" only exposes a person as being pretty damn stupid if you ask me.
the article had some good points. that part was idiotic.
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
What I think it is saying is that a small, trivial amount of economic mobility for the richest people must be sacrificed in order to give the poorest ones enough so that they are able to exercise their freedoms.
Anyway, I prefer not to derail this thread any further.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
where's all the extra food going?
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
|
My guess would be to those who can afford it.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
this isn't directly in response to that article, and not very political in nature, but here it goes anyway...
we'd all like to see every single individual grow to an adult, raise children if they wish, and die at as old an age as possible. we'd like every human being to live a life free of physical pain, disease, cold, and hunger... we want to see everyone live a life as long and comfortable as possible. but we tend to forget that we humans are a population of animals living in an ecosystem. as we approach our goal, what happens? the population explodes... kind of like it has been for the past century or two. eventually we reach a point, where on this planet of finite resources, many people are going to be starving. many more than do today. the idea that we can ever create a sustainable society of human beings in which every person is free from hunger, pain, and disease is a delusion. there's a limit somewhere, and as we approach it, human suffering, and our impact on this planet, will only increase until it reaches a maximum. how far will we go to extend the upper limits of the equilibrium, and really... why?
| |||||||
|
Now I Have Teeth ![]() Registered: 10/19/03 Posts: 1,310 Loc: North PoLL Last seen: 17 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
From what I've seen most of it ends up in landfills
-------------------- "But it was alright, he had won the battle against himself, He Loved Big Brother"
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
we'd all like to see every single individual grow to an adult, raise children if they wish, and die at as old an age as possible.
You've changed your tune. Last week you were insistent that if someone can't work they and their children should be left to starve to death. the population explodes No it doesn't actually. I explained this to you before. The richer countries tend to have falling birthrates. the idea that we can ever create a sustainable society of human beings in which every person is free from hunger, pain, and disease is a delusion. As big a delusion as a sustainable society dominated by a tiny minority devouring the earths resources for their own short-term profit? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Seeker Registered: 11/27/02 Posts: 3,392 Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C Last seen: 19 years, 26 days |
| ||||||
Quote: OH GOD NOOOO!!!!
-------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Actually I didn't say that, mushmaster did.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Seeker Registered: 11/27/02 Posts: 3,392 Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C Last seen: 19 years, 26 days |
| ||||||
|
right. Well in that case....
OH GOD, NOOOO!!!!!..... -------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
|
hmmm.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: In your hurry to defend your shaky ideology you chose to ignore the fact that the author was talking about the right to UNLIMITED property and economic freedom. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Did you actaully read the original post???????????????? -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
In your hurry to defend your shaky ideology ... How is it shaky? ...you chose to ignore the fact that the author was talking about the right to UNLIMITED property and economic freedom. And this is a problem because...? Why should there be limits placed on the amount of money you can earn and the amount of property you buy from others with that money? Who has the right to enforce the limits? How (by what rational process) are the limits to be decided, and by whom? Freedom is freedom. The author has arbitrarily decided to substitute some idiosyncratic definition of his own for the commonly-accepted definition of freedom. pinky
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: For the simple reason that no individual or oligarchy may be allowed to own sufficient property as to corner an entire economy, thus depriving the population of their freedom. In the past there has never been an actual limit; but progressive tax structures were established to this end. Now they are gone and with them our freedoms. Quote: Correct me if im wrong, but you seem to be implying that "the commonly accepted definiton of freedom" is the growth of plutocracy. That may well be so as such autocratic elements try to sell ppl on "freedom is slavery". But that doesnt make it the actual definition of freedom. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Annapurna1 writes:
For the simple reason that no individual or oligarchy may be allowed to own sufficient property as to corner an entire economy... Why not? Don't just make baldfaced assertions, explain the rationale behind them. Further, note that in a free economy it is impossible for anyone to "corner an entire economy". But let's pretend for a moment that such a feat were possible. Why may no individual or business be allowed to buy whatever people are willing to sell them? ... thus depriving the population of their freedom. Exactly how does someone owning... say... every last ounce of silver in an entire country (not that it's possible anyway) deprive the population of that country of their freedom? Give us specifics here... not shopworn revolutionary rhetoric. Correct me if im wrong, but you seem to be implyung that "the commonly accepted definiton of freedom" is the growth of plutocracy. You are wrong. Freedom is that state of existence wherein humans are not prevented from acting by other humans. It has nothing to do with plutocracy. One needs no plutocracy in order to amass property. If I were to invent a cure for AIDS tomorrow, I would need no plutocracy to become the wealthiest person on the planet. That may well be so as such autocratic elements try to sell ppl on "freedom is slavery". That's gibberish. A parroted slogan with no meaning behind it. pinky
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
|
*ROTFLMAOTIPIMP* are you trying to tell me that a consortium of elite corporations hasnt nearly cornered the US economy?? And that they dont impede on our freedoms as such?? Why do you think we start wars for oil monopolies...
If you really are that lame, then its as simple as there's only a finite amount of resources and if one entity manages to acquire enough of them, then it is necessarily a controlling entity. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Annapurna1 writes:
are you trying to tell me that a consortium of elite corporations hasnt nearly cornered the US economy?? Oh, so now it's a consortium. And of course, you will say that any corporation that sells things in the US is part of that consortium. You seem incapable of backing up a single one of your statements. Which "consortium" of automakers has "cornered" the US economy? I don't know about you, but last time I checked, I could buy Japanese cars, German cars, Italian cars, French cars, Korean cars.... is BMW part of the "consortium"? How about Hyundai? Which "consortium" of television manufacturers has cornered the US economy? Which consortium of computer makers? And that they dont impede on our freedoms as such?? No, they don't. I ask you again, explain to us how General Motors or Nike or IBM impedes any American's freedom. Be specific. What specific right has General Motors stripped from you? What action could you perform if General Motors didn't exist that you cannot perform today? If you really are that lame, then its as simple as there's only a finite amount of resources... And no one in a free market economy could ever control even the majority of any single resource, let alone all of it. ....and if one entity manages to acquire enough of them, then it is necessarily a controlling entity. Again, you seem incapable of understanding what I am asking. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that someone (or some corporation) could actually buy every gram of silver in the US, and buy every single existing silver-producing mine in the US, and could buy the mineral rights to every single potential silver-bearing ore deposit in the US. How -- specifically -- would this decrease your freedom? pinky
| |||||||
|
Errorist Registered: 03/06/02 Posts: 27,587 Loc: To the limit! Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes |
| ||||||
|
There is only one property law in the world.
If you can take it, it's yours. Many of these starving people have had billions of dollars of intellectual property stolen from them by big business, particularly the pharmaceutical industry. The san tribe of Africa is negotiating with a pharmaceutical company for compensation for a drug they discovered centuries ago. Rarely does any such compensation occur, and it is doubtfull whether the Sans will receive any either. International law doesn't seem to recognize those types of property rights. -------------------- Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ (•_•) <) )~ ANTIFA / \ \(•_•) ( (> SUPER / \ (•_•) <) )> SOLDIERS / \
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Why do you think we start wars for oil monopolies...
I think the neocons have assured us they invaded Iraq for "freedom" and for "WMD". I for one believe them...
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: I cant answer specifically which rights have been affected. However, all of the examples you gave are very large MNCs that hold considerable political influence. As such their activities will affect our laws and freedoms. Again, i cant give you any real specifics, but in the case of GM, they bought out many public transportation systems in the early 1950s (direct involvement in municipal politics) to make ppl buy cars, which in turn greatly increased our dependance on oil. And without going into detail, that eventually led to 9/11 and the PATRIOT act. Quote: But we dont live in a free market. And its precisely because of monopolies and oligopolies like the ones you named that we dont. In a free market, "intellectual property" (which forbids one from producing and selling certain items) could not exist. And you could buy cocaine and heroin in a supermarket (and again, its because of large pharmaceutical companies that you cant). So without getting into specifics, thats a prime example of how such corporations have impeded our freedoms. When they talk about "free markets" in the US, its the same as the Soviets claiming to represent the interests of workers. Sure, no one company or consortium owns the entire world (yet), but a relatively tiny number of them together come pretty close. Quote: Silver might not compare to oil; but it is still a vital commodity with a wide range of applications. So if that did happen, that entity would hold considerable influence; although maybe not to the extent of Exxon. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Now I Have Teeth ![]() Registered: 10/19/03 Posts: 1,310 Loc: North PoLL Last seen: 17 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: some how I don't think you'd be all that rich, not unless *gasp* the governments stepped in and provided your drug to their ppl.. http://www.unaids.org/EN/other/functiona...FileSize=118836 -------------------- "But it was alright, he had won the battle against himself, He Loved Big Brother"
| |||||||
|
Errorist Registered: 03/06/02 Posts: 27,587 Loc: To the limit! Last seen: 1 hour, 31 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: Alot of it goes to production of meat. Some goes to liquor/beer/wine some is made into fuel. Some people just like to roll around in beans. -------------------- Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ (•_•) <) )~ ANTIFA / \ \(•_•) ( (> SUPER / \ (•_•) <) )> SOLDIERS / \
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: I feel that the pursuit of limitless wealth will arrive at a situation where few have much more than they need and many will have less than they need, which in effect is where we are right now. To me this is a system which allows certain parties to restrict, impinge upon, and eliminate the freedoms of others. To me it seems obvious that championing the rights of the individual to the point where they are able to affect other individuals negatively is an idea that does not hold up to close logical scrutiny. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: Indeed. My right to swing my fist ends at your face.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Annapurna1 writes:
I cant answer specifically which rights have been affected. That's because none have been. However, all of the examples you gave are very large MNCs that hold considerable political influence. Which is why I advocate Laissez-faire Capitalism -- the complete separation of economy and state. In a free market the government has no influence on transactions, so being best buddies with a legislator gains you no business advantage. Again, i cant give you any real specifics, but in the case of GM, they bought out many public transportation systems in the early 1950s (direct involvement in municipal politics) to make ppl buy cars, which in turn greatly increased our dependance on oil. GM bought out public transportation companies in some cities? Which cities? What did they do with the companies once they bought them? If they continued to run them (using GM buses), what's the problem? If they closed them, why didn't someone else start a new one? And without going into detail, that eventually led to 9/11 and the PATRIOT act. Hogwash. Bin Laden didn't crash planes into buildings because of oil. But we dont live in a free market. Correct. We live in an economy that you are in favor of -- one where people are prevented from acquiring as much as they choose. And its precisely because of monopolies and oligopolies like the ones you named that we dont. The businesses I named are not monopolies. And the reason we live in a less than free market has nothing to do with GM or Hyundai and everything to do with government. [In a free market, "intellectual property" (which forbids one from producing and selling certain items) could not exist. Incorrect. You are confusing Capitalism with Anarchy. Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market. And you could buy cocaine and heroin in a supermarket (and again, its because of large pharmaceutical companies that you cant). Incorrect. It is because of government that you can't. So without getting into specifics, thats a prime example of how such corporations have impeded our freedoms. Nope. It is a prime example of how government has impeded our freedoms. If cocaine and heroin were legal, you can bet that Roche and Sandoz and Bayer would be selling them. Sure, no one company or consortium owns the entire world (yet), but a relatively tiny number of them together come pretty close. Nonsense. Name one and explain which part of the world they "own". Silver might not compare to oil; but it is still a vital commodity with a wide range of applications. So if that did happen, that entity would hold considerable influence; although maybe not to the extent of Exxon. And I ask you yet again -- if it were possible (and it isn't) for a single corporation to own every scrap of silver not already in private hands in the US, what freedom would you lose that you hold today? Would you be unable to buy food or a car or a book or a television? Would you be unable to go jogging? Would you be unable to get married? Would you be unable to attend school? What specific action that you are allowed to perform today would you be unable to perform tomorrow if all the available silver (a resource) in the US were to be bought up by a single entity? pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
I feel that the pursuit of limitless wealth will arrive at a situation where few have much more than they need and many will have less than they need, which in effect is where we are right now. To me this is a system which allows certain parties to restrict, impinge upon, and eliminate the freedoms of others. HOW, specifically are they restricting, impinging upon, and eliminating the freedom of others? You keep saying that this is your belief. You've said it countless times in various posts of yours here, but you have never given us any specifics. Specifically HOW does my owning two shipyards, three auto plants, eight farms, three mansions, a yacht, a private jet, and two Ferraris prevent you from doing something you want to do? If I didn't own those things, what other things would you be allowed to do that you aren't allowed to do when I own them? To me it seems obvious that championing the rights of the individual to the point where they are able to affect other individuals negatively is an idea that does not hold up to close logical scrutiny. HOW does my owning all these things affect other individuals negatively? See, this is the where your belief doesn't hold up to close logical scrutiny. You seem to feel it is axiomatic that if the above things are owned by a single person rather than by a group of many people it is automatically a bad thing. Yet in all our many many conversations on this subject, you have never yet explained why it makes such a difference. The things aren't yours -- what possible difference does it make if they are owned by a single individual or several thousand shareholders or a hippy commune? How would the change in ownership increase your freedom? pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
silversoul7 writes:
My right to swing my fist ends at your face. Correct. pinky
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: Can you prove that it was bin Laden and not the junta? And if so, how do you know it wasnt because of oil (directly or indirectly)? Quote: Free markets are by definition anarchic. Intellectual property laws create artificial conditions of scarcity and must be backed by the govt with the threat of armed force. As such, "the complete separation of economy and state" which you claim to advocate is impossible under such conditions. "Capitalism" and "free market" are two different things. Quote: To repeat: it is impossible to give a direct answer to that question, except that such an entity will necessarily become politically involved and that involvement will affect our rights. Just because theres no specific answer doesnt make it wrong. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Annapurna1 writes:
Can you prove that it was bin Laden and not the junta? Burden of proof. You are the one saying that it was GM's purported buying of pubic transportation that led to increased dependence on oil, leading to 9/11. I don't need to prove it was bin Laden, you need to prove your assertion that it was "the Junta". Free markets are by definition anarchic. Incorrect. Free markets involve contracts and mechanisms by which those contracts are to be enforced. Anarchy has no such mechanism. Intellectual property laws create artificial conditions of scarcity... Incorrect. There is nothing artificial about the "scarcity" you mention. Until Rubik's Cube, for example, was invented, Rubik's Cubes were not just scarce, they were non-existent. Once they were invented, it was Rubik, the inventor, who decided how many were to be produced. He had every right to do so, just as Dickens had every right to decide how many copies of "Oliver Twist" were to be produced. ...and must be backed by the govt with the threat of armed force. Of course. As such, "the complete separation of economy and state" which you claim to advocate is impossible under such conditions. Incorrect. The government is not regulating the economy by enforcing contracts, it is protecting the rights of those who have had their property seized from them. "Capitalism" and "free market" are two different things. Only in that Capitalism covers more areas than solely economics. A free market is a "subset" of the concept of Capitalism. To repeat: it is impossible to give a direct answer to that question, except that such an entity will necessarily become politically involved... Incorrect. Such an entity need not become politically involved at all -- it need do nothing more than buy up all the silver in the US. ... and that involvement will affect our rights. In what way? What right will you lose? Just because theres no specific answer doesnt make it wrong. The reason you can't give a specific answer is because your assertion is baseless. Admit it and move on. pinky
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: Your the one thats assuming bin Laden is guilty when he hasnt been proven so in a court-of-law. The junta, OTOH, does not presume innocence before guilt if they suspect someone of "terrorism", so its not unreasonable at all to apply that same standard to them. Quote: That may be the theory; but the reality is that the government enforces contracts on behalf of corporations and not individuals ("Fascism should be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate interests" [Benito Mussolini]). And even in the latter case, that contract would still allow the individual to gain enough money to buy out legislators if (s)he chose to do so. You might try to blame it on the politicians in both cases but thats the reality nonetheless. Again without going into detail, one could imagine scenarios where the need to enforce contracts (especially when ownership of contracts is centralized) could easily conflict against civil liberties, etc. Quote: If you want a specific example of how corporate involvement in politics has robbed us of our rights, read The Elkhorn Manifesto. Now, in the case of your supposed silver monopoly, can you honestly deny that such a corporation would not become politically involved after they have bought up all the silver?? If so, you are an idiot. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Annapurna1 writes:
Your the one thats assuming bin Laden is guilty when he hasnt been proven so in a court-of-law. Oh, please. Al Qaeda planned and carried out the attack. Captured Al Qaeda operatives have confirmed that. This is no longer speculation. As for the court of law crack, Ted Bundy was guilty of murdering thirty women. Whether he had ever been captured and brought to trial wouldn't change that fact. That may be the theory; but the reality is that the government enforces contracts on behalf of corporations and not individuals. Incorrect. Government does both. And even in the latter case, that contract would still allow the individual to gain enough money to buy out legislators if (s)he chose to do so. Legislators don't decide contract disputes. Juries and judges do. Again without going into detail, one could imagine scenarios where the need to enforce contracts (especially when ownership of contracts is centralized) could easily conflict against civil liberties, etc. You keep claiming this, but you remain unable to describe such a scenario. Describe one or admit you are wrong and move on. Now, in the case of your supposed silver monopoly, can you honestly deny that such a corporation would not become politically involved after they have bought up all the silver?? Why would they need to get politically involved? They've already achieved their goal -- they own all the raw silver in the United States. What do they need politicians for? I ask again, let's pretend that such a corporation exists -- one which owns all the raw silver resources in the United States. They use some of that silver to bribe a legislator or a bunch of legislators to do.... what? What civil right that you currently hold today would the silver corporation bribe legislators to remove from you? pinky
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: Fortunately, TrueBrode has found just such a case to prove that you are indeed an idiot: Quote: As such, the mere existence of these "contracts" and the priveledges they confer to certain individuals and/or entities automatically nullifies whatever freedoms you might claim, especially the ones that your not even allowed to read let alone choose not to sign. That makes you not only a moron but a hippocryte as well... Anyway, i think i will move on without admitting im wrong..because im not. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Annapurna1 writes:
Fortunately, TrueBrode has found just such a case to prove that you are indeed an idiot: Quote: As such, the mere existence of these "contracts" and the priveledges they confer to certain individuals and/or entities automatically nullifies whatever freedoms you might claim, especially the ones that your not even allowed to read let alone choose not to sign. That makes you not only a moron but a hippocryte as well... Re-read the Forum rules post by Rono. It is a sticky at the top of the first page. Next, try to grasp the very clear distinction between the metaphorical (and many argue invalid) "social contract" TrueBrode describes and an actual business contract voluntarily entered into by two or more parties with their eyes wide open, then ask yourself who here is the moron. Let's go back to the beginning of this exchange: Your assertion is that if people are allowed to accumulate as much wealth as they are able, our freedoms and/or rights would be reduced. As yet you have given no specific example of which rights or freedoms would be reduced, nor any hint of how they would be reduced. Instead, with each post you attempt to pull the discussion further afield. Even when I simplified it as much as possible, breaking it down into an easy to grasp hypothetical (albeit impossible) situation of a corporation managing to corner the market on a single resource, and asking very clearly-worded, direct questions devoid of jargon, you have failed to answer. Anyway, i think i will move on without admitting im wrong..because im not. Here's the thing -- anyone can make unsupported assertions, then walk off in a huff claiming they are right. If you find it odd I remain unconvinced you are right, so be it. pinky
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: By pursuing unlimited wealth people are hoarding more than they need. It is inefficient. This kind of wealth should be spread more evenly about. I realise that humans are a subsection of a larger organism, not just a group of individuals competing blindly against each other to accumulate ferraris and mansions. You woulnt like it if certain parts of your body started to take resources they didnt really need at the expense of other parts of your body because eventually you would die. Try actually taking some mushrooms, and give the matter some serious thought. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
By pursuing unlimited wealth people are hoarding more than they need. In some cases it is undeniable that certain people end up with more than they and their family need. How does their possessing things restrict your freedom? Which rights of yours have they violated? It is inefficient. Inefficiency is not equivalent to restricting freedom. This kind of wealth should be spread more evenly about. Why? By whom? I realize you have convinced yourself it is moral to seize the belongings of others by force. You have yet to explain the process by which you arrived at this belief. How is restricting the freedom of people and violating their rights correct? I realise that humans are a subsection of a larger organism, not just a group of individuals competing blindly against each other to accumulate ferraris and mansions. Your realization is faulty. Humans are not bees or ants, they are individuals. I ask again, how does your owning a mansion and a Ferrari infringe upon my freedom? How does your owning of a mansion and a Ferrari violate my rights? You woulnt like it if certain parts of your body started to take resources they didnt really need at the expense of other parts of your body because eventually you would die. To repeat, humans are not colonial entities such as ants or bees or coral polyps or jellyfish. Your purchase of a computer didn't take rice out of the mouth of a Laotian peasant. You took no resources from him at all. The computer you don't really need didn't come at his expense and is not hastening his death. And I really do hate to be tedious about this, but you still haven't demonstrated to us how your ownership of a mansion and a Ferrari prevents me from owning a cottage and a Rover. No one is dying because Bill Gates owns a gigantic mansion. His mansion didn't come at the expense of my rented rooms. The champagne the Rockefellers drink at dinner didn't come at the expense of the Guiness the shop clerk drinks with his mates at the pub. Your hyperbole would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that you actually seem to believe it. Try actually taking some mushrooms, and give the matter some serious thought. Ah. The standard Libbie lament. The reason I believe what I do must not be because I have spent more than three decades thinking about things like this, reading about this, having endless discussions with people from all walks of life -- no, it must be because I am too rational. "Take some mushrooms and you will see the light". Sorry, but I have probably done more entheogens in my time on this planet than you have. Since you have spent some time on this board, you must be aware that many beliefs commonly held by those who oppose drugs are dead wrong. For example, these people believe that mushrooms fry your brain. I can assure you these people are wrong on that point. pinky
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Try actually taking some mushrooms, and give the matter some serious thought.
Mushrooms only stimulate thought in those predisposed to thinking. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: They aren't needed by those who have the ability to reason and listen. They obviously never helped you. Had they been any help you'd have learned long ago to be honest. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take more than they deserve. It is fairly obvious that if the obscene wages taken by businessmen were distributed more equally throughout their entire organisations then their employees would have more "freedom". I.e the freedom to not have to count every penny, to take the holidays that they want etc. The way the world works it is not possible for every single person to own a mansion and a ferrari etc. There is nothing to stop anyone from becoming a successful businessman and earning all these meaningless trinkets would be your arguement I presume? This is obviously not the case. Quote: Why? Because it is gained through participating in a system that needs everyones participation to work. Right down to the man who cleans toilets for a living. Therefore when people are taking dividends from this system which put them in the financial super league somebody somewhere is missing out. By whom? We need to move towards living in a democracy rather than a puppet dictatorship. With the technology we have at our disposal all members of society should be able to be consulted on these matters. Instead of simply choosing a minority to make our decisions for us once every 4 years we should actually make the decisions. Politicians should simply be facilitators of the will of the people. Dont you see that we have a political system where a minority controls the majority and our economic system leads to a situation where a minority control the majority of the wealth of society. Is that a simple coincidence? Quote: And in the same way every single bee and ant are individuals. Humans exist in groups. We always have done, always will. It is the only way we can survive. We are a subsection of a larger organism, that larger organism being the planet we live on. You seem to be taking the christian view of man as a divine being, apart from the rest of nature. Quote: So their is no simple correlation between my actions and effects on the lives of a single peasant, called Jim say, living somewhere else in the world. But try thinking in terms of how the actions of GROUPS of individuals effects the lives of other GROUPS of individuals. Quote: No they are dying because there are many people like Bill Gates who own more than they need. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take more than they deserve. Two fallacies need to be addressed in that sentence: 1) "These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take...." Incorrect. You have somehow managed to convince yourself that it is impossible for one to acquire quite a bit of property through honest work. You are wrong in this presumption. It is not at all necessary to "take" anything from anybody in order to end up with a lot of wealth. There are thousands of millionaires who achieved their wealth through nothing but voluntary transactions. 2) " ...because they take more than they deserve." Who decides what someone "deserves"? In a free market, those who choose to do business with an individual decide what that individual deserves to receive for the goods or services he offers. J K Rowling, for example, went from being a single working mother to a multi-millionaire because those who bought her books judged the pleasure the books brought into their lives and the lives of their children would be worth the money they exchanged for them. By what rationale do you presume to claim that Rowling "took" anything from anyone? By what rationale do you presume to claim that Rowling has more than she "deserves"? It is fairly obvious that if the obscene wages taken by businessmen were distributed more equally throughout their entire organisations then their employees would have more "freedom". I.e the freedom to not have to count every penny, to take the holidays that they want etc. It is fairly obvious that you are employing the standard Leftist trick of redefining words to suit your own agenda. It seems you are aware of this, hence the quotation marks around the word freedom. Freedom doesn't mean the ability to do take the holidays you want, freedom is that condition of human existence wherein one's actions are not interfered with by other humans. The way the world works it is not possible for every single person to own a mansion and a ferrari etc. If true, so what? That doesn't address the question I ask. There is nothing to stop anyone from becoming a successful businessman and earning all these meaningless trinkets would be your arguement I presume? My argument is that your ownership of a mansion and a Ferrari has no effect whatsoever on the potential of my one day owning both. My odds of owning both (or either) remain unchanged whether you own them or not. The fact that ten Americans own mansions, or a hundred Americans, or a thousand, or ten thousand, or a hundred thousand -- is irrelevant to my potential ownership of one some day. Why? Because it is gained through participating in a system that needs everyones participation to work. Incorrect. I don't need the participation of everyone in order to earn a ton of money -- I just need to produce a product and find customers. Interestingly enough, you feel that in order for the system to work, force must be initiated against people in order to get them to participate. Therefore when people are taking dividends from this system which put them in the financial super league somebody somewhere is missing out. Incorrect on two counts: 1) People in a free market don't "take" "dividends" from "this system" -- they trade the products of their efforts for the products of the effort of others. 2) The fact that someone agrees to enter into a trade with you does not deprive anyone else of their opportunity to enter into trades of their own. No one anywhere is "missing out". We need to move towards living in a democracy rather than a puppet dictatorship. Nonsense. Your concept of "democracy" is nothing more than dictatorship of the majority -- Peter and John agree together to rob Paul. We need to move towards living in freedom. With the technology we have at our disposal all members of society should be able to be consulted on these matters. So if 51% of the members of society vote that it is correct to forcibly seize 98% of the belongings of a societal group comprising perhaps 5% of that society, you would be in favor? You are saying nothing more than "might makes right". Politicians should simply be facilitators of the will of the people. And there are to be no limits on the "will of the people"? Remember that politicians "facilitate" things through the initiation of force. Dont you see that we have a political system where a minority controls the majority... If true, it is irrelevant to my support of total freedom in economic activity, since our current system is nowhere close to what I support. ... and our economic system leads to a situation where a minority control the majority of the wealth of society. Is that a simple coincidence? Since humans are individuals, there will always be those capable of prospering and those incapable of prospering. This has nothing to do with politics (or coincidence) and everything to do with the nature of humans. Humans exist in groups. We always have done, always will. There are incalculable benefits available to individuals able to freely and peaceably interact with other humans. This is why the norm is for humans to exist in groups. It is the only way we can survive. Incorrect. Humans can and often do survive quite handily in the absence of other humans. We are a subsection of a larger organism, that larger organism being the planet we live on. Incorrect. We are not essential components of a Gaia-type super organism. If you truly believe this is the case and are using this assumption to base your arguments on, there is no point continuing this discussion. You seem to be taking the christian view of man as a divine being, apart from the rest of nature. Man is not apart from nature. Man depends on nature to produce that which he needs to sustain his existence. How does this have the slightest relevance to the point we are discussing -- that it makes no difference to your rights and freedoms if all the raw silver in the United States (for example) is owned by a single corporation or three thousand separate corporations. Or that the fact that Bill Gates lives in a mansion does nothing to prevent you from living in a castle. So their is no simple correlation between my actions and effects on the lives of a single peasant, called Jim say, living somewhere else in the world. But try thinking in terms of how the actions of GROUPS of individuals effects the lives of other GROUPS of individuals. You want to talk groups? Okay then. How many computer owners are there in the UK? Millions? Tens of millions? Let's suppose that there were instead none. No one in the UK owned a computer. How would that affect the lives of all those living in a rural province of Laos? How would their lives be better? What things which they are currently being deprived of by UK citizens owning computers would they cease being deprived of? Let's take it further -- suppose no one in the UK owned a motor vehicle either. Or any kind of electronic device -- no TV, no radio, no stereo system, no telephone. After all, none of those things are required for human survival, yet all of those things use resources -- resources that the Laotians don't have access to if they are owned by folks in the UK. In my hypothetical example described above, none of those resources have been hoarded by people living in the UK. All that steel and aluminum and copper and silicon and rubber that would have gone into the making of belongings for UKers is available to the world at large. What freedoms have the Laotians gained? What rights have they acquired which were denied to them by the UK ownership of all that wealth? pinky
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
If we found a way to "feed everyone", it would be like curing all diseases. The world is, for the most part, vastly overpopulated, the invention of DDT, penicillin and sanitation has only contributed to that problem. In nature, animals die from hunger when the food supply is too heavily taxes. The point about hunger not coming from overpopulation is quite flawed. While the numbers of people in third-world nations might not be growing as fast as they were, they are still heavily overpopulated. The more "natural enemies" of human life we stop, the more people we will have, and the more hunger their will be.
In Brave New World, revisisted, Huxley talks about how "death control" can be accomplished by a few trained technical personel going into a third-world nation, thus bringing the number of deaths down due to easily curable things (increased sanitation, penicillin, etc). However, birth control, is quite impossible for any number of people to bring on to a people. Their are no sure-fire ways of encouraning the teeming, illiterate, starving masses to not have children. Taking a pill of penicillin or boiling your water is much easier than using effective (and costly) methods of birth control. Until we have less people, we will be marching towards our own Brave New World. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Gosh, one mans story.
I'm convinced. EVERY american corporation is evil. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Really.... get a life. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
What was the point of posting that link?
Seriously -- I have no idea which of my points you were attempting to address with that. Help me out here. pinky
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Nice try. But where have I actually said anything of the sort? Quote: Ah! the hallowed voluntary transaction. This seems to be a cornerstone of your philosophy. Say I get held up by somebody tommorow, they want my money and they are pointing a gun in my face. I voluntarily hand over my money because I do not wish to be shot. Does that mean this transaction is fair? Now, I know this is an extreme example but it highlights the fact that a voluntary agreement is not always reached because it is the fairest agreement available to both parties. Many of these agreements are reached because one side has a far stronger bargaining posistion than the other. This applies to the minimum wage arguement. Just becasue someone is willing to enter into an agreement with somebody to earn a pittance rather than nothing at all, does not mean they are happy or that the agreement is fair. This is a gaping hole in your ideas that needs to be addressed properly. For you to say that because an agreement is voluntary it is therefore fair, seems to pander to those with the strongest bargaining position. Cant you see you are simply following a philosophy designed by powerful people to keep themselves powerful? Quote: Your obsession with the individual continues. My point is, no single individual is responsible for infringing upon the freedom of others. It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. Quote: Quote: So if one human takes too much dividend from a system to the point where they are limiting the actions of other humans.... Quote: So what is your definition of democracy? I would be very intrested to hear it. What would be wrong with a "dictatorship" (Emotive word used by yourself to try and cast a negative light on my idea) of the majority? Quote: If this is true then somebody is always taking these things at the expense of somebody else. Here you reveal the Darwinian surivival of the fittest side of your quaint philosophy. Quote: Im not saying the majority would always concur with what I think. However, if the majority of any group decide a certain course of action is the one to take I would prefer to see that followed than the course of action chosen by a minority. (Cue examples from Pink along the lines of what if the majority decided to drown all puppies etc) Quote: So if large swathes of society suddenly decided to stop participating in the system called "money" how would you make any "money"? Quote: Nice fantasy Mark but I dont see any free markets anywhere right now. Do you? Quote: Once again you try and fall back on a Darwinian form of economics. This is obviously rubbish as many humans find themselves in a position of economic preeminence simply because they are born into the "right" family. The same concept applies to power, hence the USA is ruled by an idiot simply because of the gene pool he came from. Quote: Please give me some meaningful examples of humans existing outside of any group structure. Quote: I didnt say we were essential components, but as far as I can tell we are reliant upon the rest of the planet for our existence. Gaia could carry on quite happily without us. She just wouldnt be as smart. Quote: Once again, groups of bill gates living in mansions will prevent some other people from living in mansions. Or do you seriously think that every single person on earth can live in a mansion under your utopian economic philosophy? Re: Your example of the UK going without computers etc. If the UK stopped buying computers and instead put the excess wealth towards feeding the poor of the world then the Laotians may well benefit. However, I am not advocating that entire populations go without. I am simply advocating a more equal distribution of existing wealth. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: That is most definately not a voluntary transaction and you well know it. Or should at least. In that circumstance you are being coerced and threatened. When was the last time you were threatened and forced to buy fish and chips? That's an example of a voluntary transaction. Bizarre reasoning , but the rest of your posts in this thread are the same. Bizarre. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
This is the way our discussions always go. I ask very simple, very clear questions, and you avoid them -- all the while attempting to draw the discussion further and further away from your inability to answer.
Let's review: I originally asked you to explain -- Quote: You have not tried to answer these questions. Instead you have irrelevantly claimed (with no supporting argument) that such a situation is "inefficient", opined that this kind of wealth "should be" more evenly spread around (without demonstrating WHY it should be), claimed (with no support) that humans are hive organisms akin to bees and ants unable to survive as individuals, claimed (again with no supporting argument) that the mansions and "trinkets" of the successful are acquired at the expense of the impoverished, implied that the true meaning of "freedom" means the ability to take a vacation whenever and wherever you want, and claimed that even though no single individual amassing wealth can be shown to be restricting the freedom and rights of any other single individual, somehow magically when several unspecified individuals amass wealth it restricts the rights and freedoms of several other unspecified individuals -- to the point that people are actually dying because of their ownership. It seems you are incapable of actually answering my questions, so I am tempted to end this post here and now. However, it's a slow night and I'm bored, so I'll allow myself to be diverted into areas having nothing to do with those questions and rebut your latest proclamations. GazzBut writes: Nice try. But where have I actually said anything of the sort? When you say things like, "These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take more than they deserve." To "take" something in this context clearly implies dishonest behavior. Say I get held up by somebody tommorow, they want my money and they are pointing a gun in my face. I voluntarily hand over my money because I do not wish to be shot. Does that mean this transaction is fair? Now, I know this is an extreme example... Not only is it extreme, it is completely irrelevant. The behavior you describe above is the kind of behavior you support and I oppose. ...but it highlights the fact that a voluntary agreement is not always reached because it is the fairest agreement available to both parties. If one of the parties had a "fairer" alternative available to him, yet voluntarily chose to accept the less "fair" alternative anyway, then clearly there are more important -- to him -- factors involved in his decision than "fairness". Who are you to tell him by which criteria he must make his decision? It's his decision, not yours. Just becasue someone is willing to enter into an agreement with somebody to earn a pittance rather than nothing at all, does not mean they are happy or that the agreement is fair. The fact that one has the freedom to exercise his right to choose does not guarantee the choices available to him are infinite, nor does it guarantee his happiness, nor does it guarantee that whenever he is faced with the necessity to make a choice there will always be a "fair" choice available to be made. This is a gaping hole in your ideas that needs to be addressed properly. It is not a "gaping hole" at all -- it is an objective assessment of life as it is really is, not as you naively believe it ought to be. See above. For you to say that because an agreement is voluntary it is therefore fair, seems to pander to those with the strongest bargaining position. I have never said that a voluntary agreement needs to be "fair". In the context of freedom (which is after all what we have been discussing all along), all that matters is that the agreement is uncoerced. Cant you see you are simply following a philosophy designed by powerful people to keep themselves powerful? This philosophy wasn't "designed by powerful people", it is one that has been independently discovered by philosophers in virtually every civilization in recorded history -- it is forbidden for one human to initiate force against another human; not even in the interest of "fairness". And this single taboo -- followed consistently -- benefits more than just the "powerful", for it prevents the powerful from plundering the less powerful. In fact, it allows the powerless to eventually empower themselves. Does it guarantee that every single individual on the planet will eventually empower themselves? Nope. No one can force another to expend the effort necessary to achieve such a goal, nor can anyone remove all misfortunes from the path of another. Your obsession with the individual continues. As does your insistence on refusing to acknowledge individual rights, and your downright baffling persistence in viewing humans as colonial organisms. My point is, no single individual is responsible for infringing upon the freedom of others. This is a contradiction in terms. If no single individual's actions infringe on the freedom of others, no one's freedom has been infringed upon. It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. Impossible. Example, please. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. What you are saying is self-contradictory. If there are a group of people trading peacefully among themselves by voluntary consent, no one's rights and freedoms -- inside or outside the group -- can possibly be violated. So if one human takes too much dividend from a system to the point where they are limiting the actions of other humans.... If you could ever get around to providing us a specific example of this we could address it, couldn't we? What you insist on obfuscating by terming it "a dividend from the system taken by individual X", rational people refer to as "wages" or "salary" or "payment for goods and/or services rendered". The fact that I exercise my ability to produce goods and services others wish to buy in no way whatsoever diminishes your ability to do the same. I am in no way "limiting" your rights and freedoms. So what is your definition of democracy? The same one recognized by political scientist everywhere -- that system of government by which decisions affecting all members of that society are made by majority vote. I would be very intrested to hear it. What would be wrong with a "dictatorship" (Emotive word used by yourself to try and cast a negative light on my idea) of the majority? A majority could vote to strip rights from a minority. Slavery is a good example of this. Coercion is wrong whether initiated by a single individual, a minority of individuals, or a majority of individuals. If this is true then somebody is always taking these things at the expense of somebody else. Incorrect. Michael Jackson took his mansion from no one. It didn't exist at all before he commissioned it and paid for it. If Michael Jackson had never existed, there would not be a mansion sitting around available for some poor goatherder to move into. Here you reveal the Darwinian surivival of the fittest side of your quaint philosophy. Darwin has nothing to do with it. Human survival requires human effort. This was known long before Darwin was born. Here you reveal your ignorance both of Darwin's work and of the facts of reality. Im not saying the majority would always concur with what I think. Well, DUH! However, if the majority of any group decide a certain course of action is the one to take I would prefer to see that followed than the course of action chosen by a minority. Really? Would you have said the same as a black man in Mississipi in the early 1800s? You would prefer to see recreational drugs remain illegal rather than have the minority legalize them? (Cue examples from Pink along the lines of what if the majority decided to drown all puppies etc) Why would I need to use examples of drowned puppies when there are examples such as slavery and drug prohibition available? So if large swathes of society suddenly decided to stop participating in the system called "money" how would you make any "money"? Barter. Currency itself provides nothing I need or want. It is the products and services I exchange my money for that I am interested in. Nice fantasy Mark but I dont see any free markets anywhere right now. Do you? Nope. How does the fact that there are no free markets (except of course the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies) support your claim that people's economic freedom must be restricted? Once again you try and fall back on a Darwinian form of economics. This is obviously rubbish as many humans find themselves in a position of economic preeminence simply because they are born into the "right" family. And their being born to wealthy parents infringes upon your freedom in what way, specifically? The same concept applies to power, hence the USA is ruled by an idiot simply because of the gene pool he came from. Irrelevent to the discussion, and incorrect in any case. Bush is president because he received more electoral votes than Gore, not because his father was president. Don't bother replying, since it is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand no matter what your reply may be. Please give me some meaningful examples of humans existing outside of any group structure. People have lived alone for decades on desert islands -- some by choice. Hermits were far from unusual during the settling of the American West. Japanese soldiers lived for almost thirty years by themselves. Is it the norm? Nope. Is it possible? Certainly. Once again, groups of bill gates living in mansions will prevent some other people from living in mansions. Once again, HOW ? Try to grasp that simply repeating an assertion over and over again does not prove your point. Or do you seriously think that every single person on earth can live in a mansion under your utopian economic philosophy? No, I don't believe that. Certain people are incapable of or unwilling to expend the effort required to produce enough goods or services to exchange for a mansion. This doesn't mean that Bill Gates or a hundred thousand like him have prevented these people from owning one. If the UK stopped buying computers and instead put the excess wealth towards feeding the poor of the world then the Laotians may well benefit. Ah. So it is not the ownership of things that is restricting the freedom of others. Why didn't you say that at the beginning? We have been in agreement all along. However, I am not advocating that entire populations go without. I am simply advocating a more equal distribution of existing wealth. You are advocating the seizure by force of the belongings of peaceful individuals. No matter how you slice and dice and mince your words; no matter how you evade and equivocate and drag irrelevancies into the discussion, that is your position in a nutshell -- force is to be initiated against certain individuals not for anything they have done wrong, but for what others have not done. And you proclaim your morality superior to mine? pinky
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
|
No Pinky. I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. That is how our discussions go.
You have asked how somebody owning a ferrari etc stops me from doing the same and how this impinges upon anyones freedoms. Correct so far? I will rephrase what I have ALREADY said... You cannot simplify these situations down to individuals because that is not how the world works. One JK Rowling or Bill Gates is not directly affecting me. However, groups of overpaid individuals certainly do have a bearing on me. For instance, it is bonus time at the company I work for at the moment (Yipee!) If the MDs of my company werent taking obscene paypackets I may well see a considerable improvement in the bonus I get. If Bill Gates and Co werent so overpaid it wouldnt cost my company so much to buy all the neccesary licences they need which again could result in a small raise in the bonus I get. Bill would still be rich beyond my wildest dreams as would the directors of the multinational I work for. However, I might have a little bit more money in my pocket and might not need to get a credit card to go skiing next month. If you are simply saying what actions does their wealth stop me taking then the answer is none. I can do what I like...I cant believe that is all you are getting at though as that is a very oversimplistic way of looking at things. Obviously I am pretty much free to do anything but with more money I would be able to do alot more. I have also explained why I believe this sort of wealth should be distrbuted more evenly. Like it or not we are part of a system in which the majority of people partcipate. Without this majority participation then the rewards people such as Gates and Rowling take would be renedered meaningless. Besides, these people do not simply get into these positions by their own merit, there is a lot of luck and timing involved. Who knows what other people were developing Operating systems that could have gone onto be much better than windows? It hardly takes a great deal of imagination to imagine a better o/s than windows after all. As for Rowling she has been lucky enough to capture the public imagination through some smart PR work and has made a fortune from her prose which is decidedly average. Quote: Your shortsightedness is laughable. You support the removal of the minimun wage which allows companies to hold a financial gun to peoples heads. You can kid yourself it is a voluntary agreement but it is fairly obvious coercion is involved when a choice between no pay and being paid a pittance is all that is on offer. Quote: See above. Quote: Please explain to me exactly how a free market prevents the powerful for plundering the less powerful. Ive got to hear this! Quote: Once again, where have I ever failed to acknowledge an individuals rights? Please stick to what I actually say instead of putting words into my mouth and these discussion might be a little more concise and a little less tedious. Quote: I also said "It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. " Your whole philosophy seems to put the individual above any form of group structure which is clearly asinine. You ask for an example? I grow weary of you apparent inability to read the written word Mark and wonder if I am wasting my time continually restating what I have said to pander to your debating technique of trying to bash people into the ground with a whole range of inconsistent yet elegantly constructed rhetoric. It is fairly obvious that I am putting forth the idea that groups of people hoarding extreme levels of wealth has a negative effect on the levels of wealth attainable by the average member of society. It is simple maths. Quote: Fantasy land again. I was talking about the real world. Quote: Once again this is pure fantasy. We get to choose every four years which minority group gets to make our decsions for us. The majority does not have a say in any of the decisions other than public opinion occasionally swaying a government. And public opinion is at best measuered in a vague and subjective fashion. Quote: How the hell is slavery a good example of this? When were the majority of people consulted over whether slavery should be allowed or not? Anyway by the same token a minority could just as easily decide to strip the rights of another minority. Quote: Yes but reward does not match effort in some neat little x=effort y=reward graph does it? Quote: Once again, when were the majority actually consulted on the slavery issue. They may well have chosen to keep slavery but you cant say that for sure. Anyway I feel peoples ideas of morality and equal rights have generally evolved to a point where I would be far happier putting my trust in the majority to do the right thing than putting my trust in governments run by the likes of Bush and Blair. Quote: Because ALL the examples you use have never been truly referred to a majority vote. Quote: ONCE AGAIN make a little more effort when reading what other people have written and you might find your general reading comprehension improves a little. Just a thought. Quote: A tiny, tiny minority compared to the 99.999% of people who have lived their entire lives within some form of group structure. Quote: So what you are actually saying is if everyone had the same drive and ability as Bill Gates we would all be living in big mansions? Dream on. Quote: Hardly force. I am simply saying that people should be required to put more back into the system which allows them to become so wealthy. If they dont want to...fine. They can go an join all the hermits. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
bravo.
"You are advocating the seizure by force of the belongings of peaceful individuals. No matter how you slice and dice and mince your words; no matter how you evade and equivocate and drag irrelevancies into the discussion, that is your position in a nutshell -- force is to be initiated against certain individuals not for anything they have done wrong, but for what others have not done."
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: Bull Shit. Cases in point: Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tycho, and many others. More generally the whole pattern of "outsourcing", "downsizing", "rightshoring", "deregulation", "structural adjustment" and whatever other moronic PC euphemisms that right-wing poopstix use for outright looting and thuggery. Some more examples: HP and MSFT exporting all their software engineering jobs to India. This is not about what the masses have not done; its about what certain individuals have done wrong -- albeit not in terms of laws that they bought... -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I think it is impossible to look at this objectivly and say "Person X is making too much money, we should forcable redirect their income to me." In your opinion Bill Gates might be making too much money, if you believe so, and you believe his product is overpriced, noone will make you buy it. Linux is much better and totally free. This is typical of the "equality" movement, instead of bettering one self, you just cripple the people that are better than you. Thus, you end up with a lowest common denomenator by crippling the harder working. It's like having all of "our kids" get the same shitty education by the same underqualified and underpaid teachers, that way they'll be all equally stupid. It might work, but it's not the best course of action. Quote: Since your example, like everything else, operates on a continuum, the richer you got, the more you'd have poor people under you that would want your riches (they'd be saying the same thing you are now), and you'd have to give your "excess" money to them. Then you'd be "poor" again, and be critical of the people richer than you endless circle. Want more money? Invent a computer operating system that 90% of all computers in busines, retail and the government use, then do well with your stock. Don't take it from people that did do that. Quote: This really seems like the "waah.. wahh.. Iw anna be rich too, it's not fair mommy" kind of class warfare crap we've already talked about somewhere else. If you think "luck" is the problem, talk to the Gods of Fate, but don't cripple the people that are lucky. What about lottery winners, thats "luck", shouldthey take their winnings and give them to you? Quote: You seem to miss a very obvious choice. Instead of me working for McDonalds, I have chosen to work for McDonald Douglas, due to my degrees in aeronautics. I am presented with mroe choices than starve, or work minimum wage. Just how much do you think burger flipper technicians or french fry consultants deserve to be paid? If you don't like your lot in life, get a degree, get a better job. I grew up in a town where the majority of people went nowhere with their lives after high school. They started off working as a waitress or in a factory and 40 years later they'll still be there. I, on the other hand, started driving an hour to work so I could work at MC-D entry level making 14$ an hour, no experience. I then went to college full time while working part-time. Should my wage be fixed by the "happy police" so it's teh same as a burger flipper just so they can buy the same things I have? Haven't I done more work, and presented more initiative than they have, shouldn't I be able to get some sort of reward for this? Quote: If you don't feel you are getting paid enough, or you aren't getting the proper benefits, noon will make you work there. Quote: Demonstrate this math. When Bill Gates developed MS and their products, who did he TAKE money from? Show me, with this "maths" of yours, who got shafted so that he could be rich. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of his investors weren't poor people having their money forcibly put into the pot... Quote: When the south seceded from the Union, a vote aws put forth. They elected JEfferson Davis, and they elected to stay with slavery. Quote: Newsflash : Life not fair, extra extra read all about it! Life is not fair. The answer here isn't to penalize every person who DOES make it so those that do not make it don't feel bad, or so that they can have an Escalade as well. Life is what it is. Quote: When they voted on Jefferson Davis? I'm sure that you won't make the assertation that the south was ANTI-Slavery? You can't, for sure, say that hte south was Anti-slavery, unless you drool and seizure every few hours due to mental retardation. I don't know how Blair came to power, I'd say he was probably elected, just like Bush. Isn't that a majority, or is it only when you liek the outcome that you support it? Quote: I think that most poeple that end up in big mansions, somewhere along the line, did so as a result of hard work, ability and drive. Since you can no more prove the opposite of this than we can prove what you asked us for, it's a moot point. Did Gates have the drive and ability? Yes. DO alot of people who don't "make it" have the same drive? Probably. Is it the answer, then, to penalize Gates for having the drive, the ability, and the random gift of luck to make up for those that don't have it? Of course not. You don't penalize people who contribue and work hard. How much money does Gates contribute each year to charity? how much do you contribute? Quote: Wrong. If the people who ARENT making the money like Gates feel the need to lash out and penalize him for making it rich, they should be forced to live hermitage. Nowhere in the constitution of America is it written that people that od the hard work should be forced to compensate those that don't. "I hate the rich, so lets take all of their money so I can be rich too" - Typical. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
More generally the whole pattern of "outsourcing", "downsizing", "rightshoring", "deregulation", "struc tural adjustment" Interesting point. You are pissed that jobs in America are being sent to other countries. The reason this is happening is because people in other countries will work for less money. There is no way an American worker can compete with someone who is willing to work for half of the money that he is. It really does appear as if America is becoming the adminstrative country of the world and the rest of the world will do the work. Now before you think I am going all "Lefty" on you, I recognize that this entire process has been undertaken with voluntary economic choices. Unfortunately, it is the American consumer's fault for buying the cheaper foreign made goods that has resulted in lost American jobs. All of this is good for American consumers, because our goods will be cheaper. It is not good for the American worker, because he might find himself downsized or laid-off suddenly. We live in a modern and massive economy, where certain individuals are at the head of companies that employ thousands of people. The decisions made by these higher-ups can negatively affect other people because of the sheer scope of the company's influence. In America, we are not living in a free-market economy, but it is free-market oriented. In free-market oriented economies, shit can and does happen. The bad things that happen in free-market oriented economies are easier to deal with than what happens in controlled economies. We also have the ability to enact legislation that will deal with the problems of our economy. We have the ability to make a "patch-work" free-market oriented economy. Productivity that is marked by disparity. Equality that is marked by stagnation and mediocrity. Which would you rather deal with?
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
|
All of this is good for American consumers, because our goods will be cheaper. It is not good for the American worker, because he
might find himself downsized or laid-off suddenly. It doesnt matter how cheap goods are if nobody can afford to buy them...that might not be the case just yet..but globalization is a race to the bottom...so it will be..sooner rather than later..i dont have any numbers to back this claim up...but im almost positive..that prices have not gone down much at all..while labour costs have...or if they have gone down..not nearly so much..as median wages...if you have figures that can prove or disprove this..pls post a link.. Productivity that is marked by disparity. Equality that is marked by stagnation and mediocrity. Which would you rather deal with? ..in the former scenario...all that productivity..will go towards increasing the power of the financial oligarchy..which they will use..to rob you more...so whatever level of stagnation and mediocrity that your at..in the latter scenario...it will eventually become worse under the former.. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Bull Shit. Cases in point: Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tycho, and many others. More generally the whole pattern of "outsourcing", "downsizing", "rightshoring", "deregulation", "structural adjustment" and whatever other moronic PC euphemisms that right-wing poopstix use for outright looting and thuggery. Some more examples: HP and MSFT exporting all their software engineering jobs to India. This is not about what the masses have not done; its about what certain individuals have done wrong -- albeit not in terms of laws that they bought...
irrelevant to the statement you are refuting. the statement was summarizing the coercive nature of collectivist schemes to redistribute wealth. now... i'm not familiar with the specifics of every example you just gave, but each is either an initiation of force\fraud or it isn't. if it is, it's a violation of the idea of voluntary exchange. if it's not... then it's not. what it comes down to is this: please provide just ONE example of how a person's RIGHTS may be infringed upon without the use of force or fraud. just one will suffice.
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
|
I think in those examples i gave the use of force..is prolly appropriate..had they not been caught (forcibly or otherwise)..they would have continued their looting and fraud...which violates the RIGHTS of many ppl...but i must admit...to being deficient in rightist logic...so i wont try to argue with right-wing chicken turds anymore..
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
I think in those examples i gave the use of force..is prolly appropriate..had they not been caught (forcibly or otherwise)..they would have continued their looting and fraud...which violates the RIGHTS of many ppl
if they were initiations of force\fraud, they are crimes.... so what's your point? how is this an argument against voluntary exchange? how does it make pinksharkmark's statement i quoted "bull shit"? but i must admit...to being deficient in rightist logic...so i wont try to argue with right-wing chicken turds anymore.. the "rightist logic" here is that individuals have a right to do as they wish without forceful intrusion unless they themselves first initiate force. it's that the only proper use of force is in response to force. if you cannot grasp that, it's rather sad. again i ask... can you provide just a single example of a specific right which can be violated without the use of force or fraud?
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh please! Where have I said I want to make all rich people poor? You are not listening to what I am saying you are merely responding to arguements you feel comfortable with...not mine. Quote: Once again, this is not what I am saying at all. Quote: Your doing it again. Try rereading my post without making prior value judgements. Quote: X= money taken in wages etc by upper level management Y= Wages put aside to pay lower level staff. Z= Total money available to pay wages i.e X + Y Obviously the higher X is the lower Y will be. Quote: So what happens if everyone gets a degree in aeronautics? Who is going to flip your burgers for you then? To say that everyone can reach the same level of achievment is yet another flaw in this utopian fantasy..even if people could, burgers still need to be flipped and rubbish needs to be disposed of etc. You would just have over qualified people doing it. Quote: Are you labouring under the illusion that free markets actually exist? Quote: There was actually a specific vote on the issue of slavery? I was unaware of this. Perhaps you could point me to a source for your claim? Quote: Extra Extra read all about it The economic system is not a universal law. It can be changed, it can be made fairer. Quote: Read this slowly....What I am saying is that one vote every four years does not constitute democracy to my mind. We have the ability now to let people vote on a multitude of issues. Not just in some ridiculous popularity contest once every four years. Is that so hard for you to understand? You see the problem is you are looking at money as some kind of score that keeps track of your achievements in life and bolsters your ego. I see money as a potential means of facilitating a better society for the majority. If you took all the wealth in the US and divided it equally everyone would be a millionaire. That is how pointless money is. What is to stop people still achieving and working hard in their lives? Why is money the only satisfactory reward? Im not suggesting we simply divide all wealth equally but surely we should be trying to move towards equality rather than simply allowing small minorities to control the vast majority of wealth. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
You seem to miss a very obvious choice. Instead of me working for McDonalds, I have chosen to work for McDonald Douglas, due to my degrees in aeronautics.
really? you work for McDonald Douglas?
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Incorrect. You are confusing Capitalism with Anarchy. Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market.
um. this is patently false. a true free market would not respect the concept of intellectual property. I think you already know why this is. it's been hinted at earlier. besides, you completely contradict yourself later when you say: Nope. How does the fact that there are no free markets (except of course the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies) support your claim that people's economic freedom must be restricted? so now, the only free markets in the world are the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies? so I guess all these black markets have intellectual property laws right? since "Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market"?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
No Pinky. I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. That is how our discussions go. Incorrect. Your responses are not answers to the questions I ask. You cannot simplify these situations down to individuals because that is not how the world works. Incorrect. That is exactly how the real world works. One JK Rowling or Bill Gates is not directly affecting me. Then you must logically agree that J K Rowling and Bill Gates should be allowed to acquire as many belongings as they possibly can provided they do so through voluntary transactions. And if those two are allowed this freedom, then who else may logically be denied the same freedom? However, groups of overpaid individuals certainly do have a bearing on me. Of course. I do not argue that the actions of people do not change situations. However, the specific action of people (or even groups of people) acquiring stuff through peaceful, non-coercive, voluntary exchanges does not impinge upon your (or anyone else's or any other group's) RIGHTS and FREEDOMS. For instance, it is bonus time at the company I work for at the moment (Yipee!) If the MDs of my company werent taking obscene paypackets I may well see a considerable improvement in the bonus I get. And you may not. The board of directors may instead to reinvest in expanding the company, or paying down debt ahead of time, or issuing a larger dividend to the shareholders, or hiring more staff. If it is your estimation that the MDs are overpaid, you are free at any time to offer to take their place at a lower salary. The owners of the company, being greedy capitalists, would jump at such a chance to put more money in their pockets, no? As for your bonus, did the employment contract you voluntarily signed when you accepted employment with them specify the size of your bonus? If so, and if the bonus you receive is less than what was specified, I suggest you sue your employer for breach of contract. Your example in no way shows a restriction or infringement of your freedom or your rights. If Bill Gates and Co werent so overpaid it wouldnt cost my company so much to buy all the neccesary licences they need which again could result in a small raise in the bonus I get. Bill would still be rich beyond my wildest dreams as would the directors of the multinational I work for. However, I might have a little bit more money in my pocket and might not need to get a credit card to go skiing next month. Your company is not required to buy even a single license from Bill Gates. They are free at any time to use a free operating system such as Linux or to switch over to Macs or to hire someone to write a new operating system. When it comes to that, your company is not even required to use computers at all. They are free to do their accounting and word processing using desk calculators and Selectric typewriters. Again, your example in no way shows a restriction or infringement of your freedom or your rights. No one is preventing you from offering your services to a company which doesn't buy Microsoft products. You have every right to make such an offer. If you are simply saying what actions does their wealth stop me taking then the answer is none. I can do what I like...I cant believe that is all you are getting at though as that is a very oversimplistic way of looking at things. Obviously I am pretty much free to do anything but with more money I would be able to do alot more. Well, DUH! Thank you for finally actually answering a question. Now it's time for a followup -- If the wealth they possess doesn't prevent you from taking any actions, by what rationale do you justify your position that people may not be allowed to accumulate as much wealth as they are able? I have also explained why I believe this sort of wealth should be distrbuted more evenly. I have no objection to people redistributing their wealth -- voluntarily. For example, the arch-fiend Bill Gates has given away over half his wealth. That's a bit more than $23 billion dollars. Besides, these people do not simply get into these positions by their own merit, there is a lot of luck and timing involved. And lucky people deserve to have force initiated against them? By what rationale do you justify this position? Who knows what other people were developing Operating systems that could have gone onto be much better than windows? It hardly takes a great deal of imagination to imagine a better o/s than windows after all. Irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If a large number of people are too dim to realize there are better operating systems available and voluntarily choose to purchase Windows instead, how does this violate anyone else's rights or freedoms? As for Rowling she has been lucky enough to capture the public imagination through some smart PR work and has made a fortune from her prose which is decidedly average. Irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If a large number of people are too dim to realize there are better books available and voluntarily choose to purchase hers instead, how does this violate anyone else's rights or freedoms? Your shortsightedness is laughable. You support the removal of the minimun wage which allows companies to hold a financial gun to peoples heads. You can kid yourself it is a voluntary agreement but it is fairly obvious coercion is involved when a choice between no pay and being paid a pittance is all that is on offer. Incorrect. Not only is it not "fairly obvious", it is not obvious at all. No coercion is involved whatsoever. Quote: Please explain to me exactly how a free market prevents the powerful for plundering the less powerful. Ive got to hear this! Sigh. Are you truly incapable of grasping how forbidding the initiation of force in interactions between humans prevents people -- any people, regardless of the level of power they have -- from having their belongings plundered? Once again, where have I ever failed to acknowledge an individuals rights? By insisting that people not be allowed to earn and keep whatever they are capable of. I also said "It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. " You are unable to grasp that if no individual in a group is infringing on the rights and freedoms of others, then it is impossible for the rights and freedoms of others to be infringed upon. ]Your whole philosophy seems to put the individual above any form of group structure which is clearly asinine. You haven't grasped that a group is nothing more than several individuals, regardless what "structure" that group may choose to organize itself. You ask for an example? I grow weary of you apparent inability to read the written word Mark and wonder if I am wasting my time continually restating what I have said to pander to your debating technique of trying to bash people into the ground with a whole range of inconsistent yet elegantly constructed rhetoric. And I am now firmly convinced I am wasting my time asking you to support your assertions. Clearly you lack the capability to do so. It is fairly obvious that I am putting forth the idea that groups of people hoarding extreme levels of wealth has a negative effect on the levels of wealth attainable by the average member of society. It is simple maths. But that's just it -- you are not putting forth an idea at all. You are making an assertion, and are unable to support it in any way whatsoever. I realize asking this again is futile, but I'll do it again anyway -- By what specific process does the acquisition of wealth by one individual or group of individuals prevent other individuals or groups of individuals from acting freely? How does it violate their rights? I shouldn't have to ask this again -- you have already admitted that "If you are simply saying what actions does their wealth stop me taking then the answer is none. I can do what I like..." It is simple maths. Maths only have validity in the real world if they are based on correct assumptions. You seem convinced that the acquisition of wealth is a zero-sum process -- that in order for some to gain stuff they must take stuff from others; that the amount of wealth is static. This is an incorrect assumption. Fantasy land again. I was talking about the real world. As was I. You yourself admit that no one's rights and freedoms are violated by the process I described. Quote: Once again this is pure fantasy. We get to choose every four years which minority group gets to make our decsions for us. The majority does not have a say in any of the decisions other than public opinion occasionally swaying a government. And public opinion is at best measuered in a vague and subjective fashion. You didn't ask for my comments on the structure of the political system in place in the US and the UK today. You asked me to define Democracy. I did. How the hell is slavery a good example of this? When were the majority of people consulted over whether slavery should be allowed or not? See enimatpyrt's comments on this. Yes but reward does not match effort in some neat little x=effort y=reward graph does it? In every single case? Nope. So what? Anyway I feel peoples ideas of morality and equal rights have generally evolved to a point where I would be far happier putting my trust in the majority to do the right thing than putting my trust in governments run by the likes of Bush and Blair. So you are far happier that the majority approves of drug prohibition? Okay then. A tiny, tiny minority compared to the 99.999% of people who have lived their entire lives within some form of group structure. I didn't say it was the norm. I said it was possible. So what you are actually saying is if everyone had the same drive and ability as Bill Gates we would all be living in big mansions? Dream on. I said no such thing. I said that Gates's exercising of his drive and ability in no way affects your possession (or lack) of the same, nor does it infringe upon your freedoms or your rights. Hardly force. I am simply saying that people should be required to put more back into the system which allows them to become so wealthy. If they dont want to...fine. And if they choose not to they will not be forced to? If that is what you are saying then we are in agreement. They can go an join all the hermits. And if they choose not to they will not be forced to? If that is what you are saying then we are in agreement. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
a true free market would not respect the concept of intellectual property. Excuse me for not defining my terms. By "free market" I refer to the exchange of one's property for another's property through voluntarily entered-into contracts. My unstated corollary is that these transactions occur in the context of a civilized political environment -- one where there is a government organ available charged with the protection of property rights. In other words, a Capitalist socio-economic model. so now, the only free markets in the world are the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies? so I guess all these black markets have intellectual property laws right? since "Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market"? Good point. Since black markets have no mechanism protecting the participants from force or fraud, they are in reality not "free markets" but "anarchic markets". pinky
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Quote: I liked some of what the article had to say but I have to put my foot down at your point. Freedom, true freedom, is freedom. That's really all there is to it. I also find it a waste of time arguing the point. Others may think differently. That is their "choice". Cheers, MM
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I think that a daily vote would be best! hows that? every day we'll elect a new president, who will have ofice for one day, just enough time fo rhim to not to be able to make any difference at all. how often are your local elections help there flapjack?More than 1x every four years? I thought so. Quote: "Money isn't everything, so give me more of it". That makes great sense. If you don't want to live in a society where "money" is what makes ya, go buy a farm and make your own food. You'd have all of your needs met from your own labor, or you wouldn't. Why is it that "equality" always is attained by hurting the people at the top, rather than encouraging everyone to get there via their own means? Nowhere in nature are things "equal", you get what you work for. Penalize the rich so that the poor can be rich? I think not. If money is so pointless, wouldn't making the poor people rich be giving credence and value to the money system? Maybe if people weren't so materialistic we wouldn't have the problem. Do you think that a person working at McDonalds from the day they dropped out of high school until the day they got food stamps for making so little money, and kept working there the day that they got reduced housing costs and send their children to a school that they tax dollars pay 1/10000000th of the cost of deserves to have "as much stuff" as a person who went to college, grad school and makes a difference in the world? The best thing about American Society is that, if you don't like it, we won't force you to stay, and we won't force you to participate. If you can do better somewhere else, or you can do better in a non-monetary system (such as growing your own food), go for it! You think it's fair that the rich get such massive taxes levied upon them? Do you think it's fair the gigantic tax (Short Term Capital Gain Tax) that people have to pay on any bonus that they get, or stock sales? I don't belive a nation has any obligation to force the highest wage earners to help the lowest wage earners, but if you do belive so, I don't think I could see how you would think that the amount of "freebies" given to the poor people would exceed food and a place to live? Nowhere in America's founding documents is anyone "entitled" to live the "good life", they are given the ability and the freedom to do so. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Once again very slowly..... WE SHOULD GET TO VOTE ON ISSUES RATHER THAN PERSONALITIES. WE WONT BE VOTING A NEW PRESIDENT EVERY DAY, WE WILL BE DECIDING POLICY. Quote: Nice way to start your latest tirade. Sadly that is not what I said. Once again you are ignoring what I have said and are merely rephrasing it into terms which you feel comfortable with arguing against. Quote: I refer you to these questions which you have failed to answer: Quote: Quote: -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
And once again, slowly for you..... as I believe pinky asked... when the majority decides to reinstitute slavery?
Or torture? Or if the majority votes to make possesion of pot a mandatory life sentence? Or to ban music they don't like.... or books? What if they decide to euthanise those over 65 to save money on health care? -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: So what you are saying is that the decision of the majority cannot be trusted? However Pinky defines democracy as: that system of government by which decisions affecting all members of that society are made by majority vote. Those are his words, not mine. So what exactly are you saying? -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Why did you fail to answer these questions?
when the majority decides to reinstitute slavery? Or torture? Or if the majority votes to make possesion of pot a mandatory life sentence? Or to ban music they don't like.... or books? What if they decide to euthanise those over 65 to save money on health care? -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: As I said earlier in this thread..this is the "what if the majority decides to drown puppies arguement?" It is fallacious, firstly because I really dont think the majority would decide to carry out any of the scenarios you suggest. Secondly, so what if they do? I thought you supported democracy as defined by Pinky. I.e "that system of government by which decisions affecting all members of that society are made by majority vote." My whole point is that we do not have a system of true democracy. We do not get to decide whether we should reinstitute slavery or make possesion of pot a mandatory life sentence. All we get is to choose representatives once every four years to MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR US. Let me make this clearer for you, Answer this one question honestly: Do you agree with every decision the Bush government has made? I you answer yes then god have mercy on your soul. If you say no then surely you can see what I am getting at? -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote:I answer every question honestly. Some just either fail to grasp the answer or merely don't like it. I don't agree with everything any administration has done. Quote: And we should not. Given a choice between direct democracy and a constitutionally limited republic, I'll take the latter thank you. People are stupid for the most part. Most have no clue whats really going on. I have no wish to have a bunch of fools making decisions that will affect me. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: So you are putting your trust into the minority of people who find their way into political power and at the same time are suggesting that the majority of Americans are stupid? Firstly I would say, do you really think that every person who manouvers themselves into a position of politcal power does so to solely serve the American people? I think we all know the answer to that question! Secondly, I would highlight Noam Chomsky's observation that the average American, whilst not politically astute is deinitely not stupid. For instance, most would be able to tell you, in intricate detail, facts related to their favoured sport going back over decades. Just because the political arena does not provide the same level of interest, does not mean that peoples lack of knowledge of political matters is an indicator of stupidity. If we were to vote on issues rather than personalities you might find many peoples interest in politics suddenly rose. In turn, your average person might become much more politically astute. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Since you can say nothing positive about American freedoms, freedoms our country has had in her first 200 years, that your nation took generations to develop, let me ask you how YOU think it should be. I'd like you to describe a system where votes are taken more than every four years. This system must include the things that you railed Americas democratic system for NOT having. Each and every single issue must be decided by a vote. How will that be conducted? Wouldn't that leave thousands of possible items to be voted upon at the local, state and federal level by people? Wouldn't it be much better if each person picked the representative that most closely matched the specific qualifications they felt most sincere about? Quote: Do you think that it is possible for any one singular person to ever answer "yes" to that question if you remove the Bush and put in an "X" variable, in which "X" is any particular politician? I might like the majority of things that Bush, or Clinton, or Hitler, or whomever did, but to say that you like EVERY single decision borders on extremism. Find me a politican that you can say you've agreed to every single thing about... -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Were you playing the national anthem as you wrote this? It really sounds like it! Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to where I talked about "American Freedoms". Im from the UK or your info and I think my points apply to all democracies, not just the good ole US OF A. Quote: Its really quite simple. For starters we would vote on major issues but I can envisage a time, where, using modern technology we vote on more and more issues. Quote: Using a mixture of standard methods and those made available by the net etc. Quote: Of course. I am not arrogant enough to pretend I know exactly how such a system would be applied. I am simply saying we should set our minds to finding a way in which the true wishes of the majority can be enacted. Why do you think that this is a bad thing? All I am suggesting is we move to a purer form of democracy. This is not a left/right idea. It is moving away from the whole left/right concept to a degree. Quote: This is my whole point. No politician can accurately represent the view of all the people who vote for them, which is why, to achieve pure democracy we must vote on issues rather than personalities. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
In starship troopers ou have to have had military service in order to vote.. something to think about
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: I wouldn't want that. Years ago you had to pay a poll tax to vote in some places. That sucked also. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Did you type that really slow, because I'm such a slow reader? WHen you vote on a "personality", you are doing just that. If the single most important issue to me is, lets say, the death penalty, I'll vote for a candatite that believes the same about the death penalty that I do. If I elect said person and he happens to contradict another belief that I have, I have the ability to write him and state my position, to vote for another person, or to contact another member of the legislature and encourage them to support the ideals that I do. Quote: Do you or do you not think that the money from the rich should be given to the poor, without an increase in work done by the poor, and with no decrease in the amount of work being done by the rich? If so, you are showing your distate for the rich (by saying that the poor should work the same amount for more money and the rich should work the same amount forthe less money). By showing your distate for the rich, yet wanting everyone to be "more rich" (Except the already rich, which should be "more poor"), you are doing exactly what I stated. Punishing the rich to raise the poor up and make it "Equality". It's the same way with this "all races are equal" crap, they keep every kid as dumb as the slowest minority in the class, and, prety damn soon, all kids will be equally stupid. Why isn't equality (A condition that I do not beleive exists in nature) ever about the lesser group (in whatever condition) actually working harder? Why is it always about the highest performing group being told that they are naughty for performing so well, and that they must either stop performing so well, or spread their riches around? Quote: You are entirely correct. Not everyone CAN achieve the same level of whatever value you are trying to quantify here. Thus, wouldn't the person with college degrees be, once again, crippled in that their money would be given to the burger flipper to achieve your un-natural goal of "equality"? You are the person that is trying to reach this "utopian fantasy", not me. I think that the kid flipping burgers should be happy to be paid what he is getting, and if not, guess what, he can get another fucking job! If anyone is being "forced" to keep a job, it would be the person with a very specific degree! More variety of jobs are open to the entry-level, uneducated, manual laborer than to someone with specific degrees. Quote: I would be happy to do so. However, I don't see a reason for this. I'll post a link showing how the representatives of the time voted on slavery and the numerous votes that were taken about the issue, and you'd say "well, the blacks weren't polled, if they were, it would have been a fair election". I want your assurance that, when I post the links that I have, in fact, already found, you'll say "I apologize. Their was a vote for slavery done in accordance with the laws of the time. I might possibly disagree with the way that the laws worked at that time, but my statement that no vote took place regarding such matters was incorrect. Post that and i'll give you the links... or you can simply search google and historychannel.com for it as I did. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Gazzbut said:
Once again very slowly..... WE SHOULD GET TO VOTE ON ISSUES RATHER THAN PERSONALITIES. WE WONT BE VOTING A NEW PRESIDENT EVERY DAY, WE WILL BE DECIDING POLICY. Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work. The founding fathers of America realized this. Public whim would make a mockery of what you are advocating.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Excuse me for not defining my terms.
there's no need to (re)define your terms. you already defined them here: "I advocate Laissez-faire Capitalism -- the complete separation of economy and state. In a free market the government has no influence on transactions" you had it right the first time. this is what a true free market would be like - intellectual property would not be recognized by individuals or corporations acting independently of the state.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to
manipulation. It just doesn't work. correct. the same can be said of a true free market economy.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work. correct. the same can be said of a true free market economy. True.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Sophistry.
The government indeed has no influence on transactions -- voluntary exchanges of goods and services. The government does have the right and obligation to protect the rights of its constituents. Those rights include, of course, the right to create, earn, retain, and exchange property. If someone is robbed or defrauded of their property, the government steps in. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
the same can be said of a true free market economy. Incorrect. A more accurate statement would be, "A free market is much too chaotic, complex, and fickle to manipulate successfully". Marxists demonstrated this to the world decades and decades ago. pinky
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
The government indeed has no influence on transactions
in a true free market, no they wouldn't. in reality, the so called free market economy has tons of government interference. not just in intellectual property laws, but also in tarriffs and anti-trust laws. these things would not exist a true free market economy as you yourself defined it. much like a true, direct democracy, this ideal of a completely free market is unrealistic and unworkable. Those rights include, of course, the right to create, earn, retain, and exchange property. If someone is robbed or defrauded of their property, the government steps in. you're assuming that the recognition of intellectual "property" is a given and that the government is simply enforcing this, but what is the mechanism by which intellectual property is recognized? is there a contract or agreement between individuals or corporations? No (except perhaps in the case of EULAs), the contract is between government and an individual, sometimes money is exchanged for the government's recognition of intellectual property (for example, paying a fee to file a patent). and without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place. so unless you are talking about a hypothetical free market, it wouldn't be accurate to state that "government indeed has no influence on transactions" the economy we are living in, while described as a "free market", has plenty of government interference and influence. this is the way things should be.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes: the same can be said of a true free market economy. PinkSharkMark writes: Incorrect. A more accurate statement would be, "A free market is much too chaotic, complex, and fickle to manipulate successfully". Marxists demonstrated this to the world decades and decades ago. I think that we(meaning people in this forum) tend to get caught up in semantics when discussing these economic ideas. To me, a "free-market" is when there are no rules in regards to the exchange of goods and services. This means there are no environmental rules, no anti-monopoly rules, no worker safety rules, etc... People are allowed to do whatever they want in their economic activity. This could also be termed anarchic capitalism. When you use the term "free-market", I think you are referring to an economy that has no income redistribution, but that has rules in place that punish people who impose upon other people. Complete control of an economy(the complete economic muzzling of a people) has proven to be a complete travesty and failure. But, anarchic capitalism has pitfalls as well in today's modern world. I believe in having an economy that is 95% free-market and 5% controlled.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
I think that we(meaning people in this forum) tend to get caught up
in semantics when discussing these economic ideas too true, which is why I use the term "true free market" in reference to pinky's ideal of an economy completely seperate from the state. it's kinda like how people say that America is a "democracy" but not a true democracy. similarly, our economy can be loosely described as a free market but it is far from the true free market that pinky is advocating.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
in a true free market, no they wouldn't. Looks like you insist on defining a free market as what I call an "anarchic market". I have no problem with that, as long as we are clear that this is the case. To avoid confusion, from now on I will refer to a "Capitalist free market". in reality, the so called free market economy has tons of government interference. In reality, the misnamed "free market" in existence today is not in fact a Capitalist free market, for the very reasons you point out. not just in intellectual property laws, but also in tarriffs and anti-trust laws. these things would not exist a true free market economy as you yourself defined it. Tariffs and anti-trust regulations would not exist, true. Laws protecting one's intellectual property would exist, just as laws protecting one's other property would. Don't confuse non-interference in voluntary business transactions with non-protection of individual rights. The two are not equivalent. much like a true, direct democracy, this ideal of a completely free market is unrealistic and unworkable. Incorrect. I call you on this. Please support your assertion. WHY is it unrealistic and unworkable? you're assuming that the recognition of intellectual "property" is a given and that the government is simply enforcing this, but what is the mechanism by which intellectual property is recognized? The same mechanism which recognizes property of other kinds, such as crops, for example, or manufactured goods. Intellectual property such as a book or screenplay or computer program or invention is created by humans. Before a specific human (or group of humans, sometimes, as in the case of a large computer program or a new medication) created that book or program or whatever, it didn't exist. Just as he who creates an armchair or a bushel of wheat owns that armchair or bushel of wheat, so does he who created a book or painting or song or invention own it. The principle in each case is identical. and without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place. so unless you are talking about a hypothetical free market, it wouldn't be accurate to state that "government indeed has no influence on transactions". More sophistry. In a Capitalist free market, government has no influence on voluntary business transactions. Government has "influence" on illegal actions, such as theft or fraud. Theft and fraud do not meet the definition of voluntary business transactions. Everything you just said about government "influence" on fraudulent actions involving intellectual property can be said about fraudulent actions involving crops or manufactured goods. You choose to make an arbitrary and artificial distinction between the two. the economy we are living in, while described as a "free market", has plenty of government interference and influence. Correct. this is the way things should be. Incorrect. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
RandalFlagg writes:
This means there are no environmental rules, no anti-monopoly rules, no worker safety rules, etc... People are allowed to do whatever they want in their economic activity. No anti-monopoly rules, correct. But of course there would have to be certain environmental rules -- you cannot toss your toxic waste over the fence into your neighbor's yard, for example, as that is a clear cut violation of his rights. Similarly, there would have to be certain worker-safety rules. You can't order someone to work an eight hour shift in front of a blast furnace stark naked, for example, or penalize him for refusing to do so -- that violates his individual rights. When you use the term "free-market", I think you are referring to an economy that has no income redistribution, but that has rules in place that punish people who impose upon other people. I refer to that socio-economic system (Laissez-faire Capitalism) wherein the government stays out entirely of voluntary exchanges of goods and services between individuals and groups of individuals -- even to the point of not printing currency. The government's sole area of power is the protection of the rights of its constituents. I believe in having an economy that is 95% free-market and 5% controlled. Which 5%? pinky
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
I believe in having an economy that is 95% free-market and 5% controlled. Which 5%? I'll throw out some examples: I think that: -The government should have the authority to regulate tariffs. -The government should have the authority to restrict monopolies. -The government should have the authority to step in if certain economic products or procedures are deemed harmful to the general public. -Public tax money should be used in some way to subsidize education for anybody who wants to take advantage of it. I should add that I am not a supporter of how public education is currently ordered at the moment and I think things should be changed. However, I recognize that in a free-market oriented economy there will always be poor people. These poor or irresponsible people probably can't afford to offer their kids any education. Education is the most important thing a person can use to better their lot in life. I believe that the availability of it is necessary.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: What examples are you basing this belief on? As far as I am aware direct democracy has never been tried. Are you saying the current form of democracy is not fickle and is also free from manipulation? One of the major potential drawbacks I can see with direct democracy is that people could still use media influence etc to get the decisions they want. However, if people were to vote on a whole raft of issues as opposed to simply selecting representatives then it would surely be much harder to manipulate people than it is currently. Perhaps you mean the votes themselves could be rigged? Obviously this would be an area that would need to be looked at very closely, but I think it has been shown by the fiasco surrounding the last election in America that our current system is far from secure in this respect. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Direct democracy is much too chaotic, fickle, and subject to manipulation. It just doesn't work. What examples are you basing this belief on? As far as I am aware direct democracy has never been tried. None. I am going by my common sense. I think bad things would happen. Are you saying the current form of democracy is not fickle and is also free from manipulation? No. But, the fact that it is not 100% direct and accountable to the whim of every individual in this country insures that there is stability. In a direct democracy situation who would be responsible for determining what was voted on? Who would be responsible for working out all of the intricacies of the laws? Millions of people could never come to an agreement. But, several hundred who represent those millions can. For example, what do you think the American public would have voted for on September 11th? It might be possible that a majority would have voted to invade every Muslim country on Earth. What would happen if irrational public whim and sentiment were to be fully implemented into law? People are too stupid to allow the kind of democracy that you are talking about.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
RandalFlagg writes:
-The government should have the authority to regulate tariffs. Why? By what rationale do you justify that people may buy a vacuum cleaner made in the US for whatever the owner agrees to sell it for, but may not buy a vacuum cleaner made in Canada for whatever the owner chooses to sell it for? -The government should have the authority to restrict monopolies. Why? Actually, I don't really care what your reasoning is on this one, since it's a moot point anyway. No monopoly may arise and be maintained longer than the lifespan of a patent without government intervention anyway. -The government should have the authority to step in if certain economic products or procedures are deemed harmful to the general public. Well, that pretty much leaves the door wide open for anything, doesn't it? It's similar to the fatal flaw in the Constitution where the federal government was given the right to regulate interstate commerce, and the courts and legislators have tortured it out of all recognition to the point where it is used to "justify" every government intervention in the economy. -Public tax money should be used in some way to subsidize education for anybody who wants to take advantage of it. Why? Why is it necessary that I be charged for the education of someone else's children anymore than I should be charged for providing them shoes or housing or food or toothbrushes? Education is the most important thing a person can use to better their lot in life. Correct. I believe that the availability of it is necessary. Education is available. It must be paid for, however. I ask again, why should I pay for educating someone else's kids? pinky
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Yikes...I am not one of the Lefty's on this forum. You're not
supposed to drill me so hard. ![]() -The government should have the authority to regulate tariffs. Why? By what rationale do you justify that people may buy a vacuum cleaner made in the US for whatever the owner agrees to sell it for, but may not buy a vacuum cleaner made in Canada for whatever the owner chooses to sell it for? There are people in this world who are willing to work for a pittance in comparison to what Americans work for. Therefore it is very difficult for the American worker to compete with these people. Sometimes, it is beneficial for the American worker to have a little help. -The government should have the authority to restrict monopolies. Why? It is not in the best interest of the general public to allow one entity to have complete control over an entire industry. By not allowing monopolies, competition is allowed to foster, which is good for the consumer. Actually, I don't really care what your reasoning is on this one, since it's a moot point anyway. No monopoly may arise and be maintained longer than the lifespan of a patent without government intervention anyway. I am a firm believer in allowing competition in the marketplace. It is possible for a company to so dominate a market that it can stifle the ability of another company to compete. I know this sounds socialist of me to say: I believe that if an entity is determined to have too much influence in a market, something should be done about it. -The government should have the authority to step in if certain economic products or procedures are deemed harmful to the general public. Well, that pretty much leaves the door wide open for anything, doesn't it? Admittedly, that is a broad statement I made. I don't think the government should poke its nose in everything. But, I do feel that the government should have the right to regulate certain practises which harm the environment or the consumer. -Public tax money should be used in some way to subsidize education for anybody who wants to take advantage of it. Why? Why is it necessary that I be charged for the education of someone else's children anymore than I should be charged for providing them shoes or housing or food or toothbrushes? If a parent cannot provide their kid with the bare essentials (food, housing) then the kid should be taken away from them. A lot of parents out there are worthless and would not provide their kids with education, thus dooming them to an uneducated and unfulfilled life. Education is the only thing that enables someone to really choose where they want to go in the world. By making sure everybody receives it(no matter what their initial socio-economic status is) we give them the ability to compete in the marketplace. An educated populace creates a strong and vibrant economy. Education is available. It must be paid for, however. I ask again, why should I pay for educating someone else's kids? There is not anything that says you "should". It is my personal opinion that the benefits outway the problems.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
RandalFlagg writes:
There are people in this world who are willing to work for a pittance in comparison to what Americans work for. Correct. Therefore it is very difficult for the American worker to compete with these people. In certain industries, also correct. Sometimes, it is beneficial for the American worker to have a little help. At the cost of the American consumer? Especially a poor American consumer? Why should a poor American consumer be prevented from buying a less expensive foreign product? Note that tariffs are meaningless to the rich -- the rich can afford to buy expensive domestically-produced stuff. Tariffs hurt the poor. It is not in the best interest of the general public to allow one entity to have complete control over an entire industry. Why? By not allowing monopolies, competition is allowed to foster, which is good for the consumer. Except apparently competition from imported products, eh? As I said, it's a moot point anyway. In the absence of government interference, monopolies can't arise. It is possible for a company to so dominate a market that it can stifle the ability of another company to compete. Nonsense. Even in the heavily-regulated economies of today there is no instance of that occurring. Name a single product in the US which you must sole-source. I know this sounds socialist of me to say: I believe that if an entity is determined to have too much influence in a market, something should be done about it. Determination does not guarantee success. No matter how determined MacDonalds and Coca Cola and Wal-Mart are to crush their competitors, they have been unable to do so, and always will be unable to do so. It is my personal opinion that the benefits outway the problems. Even if achieving that benefit comes at the expense of violating the rights of others? Okay, then. pinky
| |||||||
|
Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: Tariffs help create more blue-collar jobs domestically rather than shipping them overseas, so the poor can be put to work at a steady job, rather than working multiple minimum-wage jobs or living off of welfare. Tariffs help the poor.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Sometimes, it is beneficial for the American worker to have a little help. At the cost of the American consumer? Especially a poor American consumer? Why should a poor American consumer be prevented from buying a less expensive foreign product? Note that tariffs are meaningless to the rich -- the rich can afford to buy expensive domestically-produced stuff. Tariffs hurt the poor. Yes, tariffs do harm to the American consumer. But, sometimes it is what is in the best interest of the nation. Imagine if a certain U.S. city was home to 95% of the factories of a certain industry. This city and its citizens are heavily dependent upon this industry. Now imagine if the Chinese government all of a sudden decides to move into this industry. Chinese factories are opened up and they pump out the product in question for a much cheaper rate. All of the plants in the American city proceed to go out of business. Is it worth having people save five cents on something if an entire region in my country is economically destroyed? I don't think tariffs should be used indefinately, but they can be used to lessen the blows of industry migration. It is not in the best interest of the general public to allow one entity to have complete control over an entire industry. Why? If one entity is so supremely powerful, it can limit the ability of other entities to compete in the marketplace. If only one entity in an industry exists, it limits choices for the consumer. By not allowing monopolies, competition is allowed to foster, which is good for the consumer. Except apparently competition from imported products, eh? When the influx of imported products causes economic havoc, that must be rectified. It is possible for a company to so dominate a market that it can stifle the ability of another company to compete. Nonsense. Even in the heavily-regulated economies of today there is no instance of that occurring. Name a single product in the US which you must sole-source. There are none because the U.S. has anti-monopoly laws in place which restrict such a thing from happening. Even if achieving that benefit comes at the expense of violating the rights of others? Okay, then. When public funds are pooled to accomplish a certain goal, often it does violate our rights. The question is, how much are you willing to put up with to ensure a basic educational standard amongst the population?
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Looks like you insist on defining a free market as what I call an "anarchic market"
huh? I haven't defined free market at all. I'm going by your definition of a free market as the complete seperation of state and economy - a definition I happen to agree with. you didn't even make up the term "anarchic market" until a contradiction was pointed out to you (or perhaps because you realized how untenable your original position was). but that's fine, you can define it however you want. I'm just saying that a complete seperation of state and economy (whatever you want to call it) is unrealistic. what you are advocating is much more extreme than you make it out to be. much like a true, direct democracy, this ideal of a completely free market is unrealistic and unworkable. Incorrect. I call you on this. Please support your assertion. WHY is it unrealistic and unworkable? well for one thing, as I explained, intellectual property laws would not exist in a completely free market. and even if they did, the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition and the lack of reasonable import tarriffs would destroy many critical industries. I guess this is a value judgement because you might have no problem with monopolies or job losses. you might be one of those people who actually like the Wal-Martization of America. also in a true free market, every economy would be specialized to produce what it can most efficiently (read: cheaply) produce, this is seen as a positive by many advocates of globalization and free trade, but as you probably already know, a specialized economy is much more vulnerable than a diversified one. and also, there would be reduced career options for people and a reduced selection of consumer goods, as all goods of a particular type would be produced in the same place (where it can be produced most efficiently) - in other words, less freedom of choice. also millions of north american auto workers, steel workers, textile makers, furniture makers, etc. etc. would be out of work as all those can be produced more cheaply elsewhere. devoloped countries with higher wages would be especially vulnerable to such job losses in a truly free market, and again, you might have no problem with this.. but I think most people would agree that this is undesirable. Intellectual property such as a book or screenplay or computer program or invention is created by humans. Before a specific human (or group of humans, sometimes, as in the case of a large computer program or a new medication) created that book or program or whatever, it didn't exist. Just as he who creates an armchair or a bushel of wheat owns that armchair or bushel of wheat, so does he who created a book or painting or song or invention own it. The principle in each case is identical. well sure, if you're talking about the concept of creating something or the concept of "ownership", the principle is the same. heck, if you reduce everything as you've done here, you could say almost everything is the same in principle - you could say that slavery is the same "in principle" as owning land as it applies to the concept of "ownership". but let's try to deal with reality here without reducing everything. the government does not recognize intellectual property in the same way it recognizes physical property. this is obvious. for one thing, ownership of intellectual property is limited to a certain amount of time and then it becomes public domain. does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it? a physical thing can be owned indefinately. intellectual property, by it's very nature, can't really be "owned" (at least, not for long) because it is just information, nothing more than zeros and ones. is there some kind of natural law that covers the ownership of such information? the ownership of physical property, for the most part, is self-evident and government isn't necessary (though helpful) because a physical property can be physically defended. with intellectual property, there must be an overriding governmental authority that recognizes ownership. another difference between physical and intellectual property is that many copies of a physical thing can be made and owned. with intellectual property, only one individual (or corporation) can own it. for example, if I create an armchair, it does not prevent my competitor from creating one and selling it. but if I invented a better mouse trap, my competitor could not create and market a similar one, even if he independently discovered it and even if it took him many years and millions of dollars in research, the government would prevent him from selling his product under threat of force, simply because his product resembles mine. need I mention how many things are discovered independently? am I "stealing" your property when I independently discover something after you've discovered the same thing? according to you, that's theft - identical "in principle" to stealing physical property. Everything you just said about government "influence" on fraudulent actions involving intellectual property I never mentioned any fraudulent actions. read it again. I mentioned a non-transaction as an example of government influence - "without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place"
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
pinky: In the absence of government interference, monopolies can't arise.
how do you figure this? please support your assertion. Edited by infidelGOD (12/05/03 06:39 AM)
| |||||||
|
MysteriousStrang ![]() Registered: 05/10/02 Posts: 901 Loc: U.S.S.A. |
| ||||||
Quote: Unlike Pinky I think monopolies might arise, but in a TRULY free market they would not last. Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted or created by a government? -------------------- "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Unlike Pinky I think monopolies might arise,
I concur but in a TRULY free market they would not last I never said they would... I only said that monopolies would stifle competition, at least for the time that they're in existence. Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly that has lasted more than the length of time a patent is in effect that was NOT aided or abetted or created by a government? there are no such examples in real life because we DO have anti-trust laws that prevent such things. but some examples of the government breaking up virtual monopolies include the microsoft case, which you already know about and more recently the VISA/Mastercard antitrust suit, which was settled for $3billion a few months ago (I'm one of the plaintiffs). it should be noted that in this case, and in many other cases of anti-trust litigation, the government isn't so much breaking up a monopoly, but they're preventing firms from using their large market share to stifle competition. examples include microsoft bundling IE with windows, effectively killing off Netscape (their only viable competitor at the time) and VISA/Mastercard barring merchants who accept their cards from accepting other credit cards like amex and discover. this is unfair competition pure and simple, and under a true free market, there wouldn't be any laws to deal with this.
| |||||||
|
MysteriousStrang ![]() Registered: 05/10/02 Posts: 901 Loc: U.S.S.A. |
| ||||||
|
Then I'll rephrase my question...
Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly existing BEFORE anti-trust laws, that lasted longer than the length of time a patent and that was NOT aided or abetted or created by a government (this includes government 'looking the other way' while criminal acts were engaged in). -------------------- "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
furthermore, there would be no laws to prevent price fixing and profiteering during emergencies. the issue isn't just about monopolies. an industry with many companies can decide to fix prices and consumers would have to pay through the nose. "in principle", government intevention is always a bad thing, "in reality", government intervention is a necessity.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly existing BEFORE anti-trust laws
hhhmmmm. I can't think of any off the top of my head. the economy wasn't nearly as integrated back then, so I guess monopolies would have been regional. I wonder how many nationwide companies the size of Microsoft existed back then? in any case, this is a not a relevent question because we're talking about the current economy. it would be a stretch to say that no monopoly would arise now in the absence of antitrust laws because no monopolies existed in the economy of the 1800's. and besides, what can be considered monopolies (by the standards of the time) DID exist back then. Theodore Roosevelt was famous for breaking up some of them.
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
here's something:
http://lego70.tripod.com/us/roosevelt_th.htm "In 1901, Americans were alarmed about the spread of so-called trusts, or industrial combinations, which they thought were responsible for the steady price since 1897. Ever alert to the winds of public opinion, Roosevelt responded by activating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. Beginning in 1902 with a suit to dissolve a northwestern railroad monopoly, Roosevelt moved next against the so-called Beef Trust, then against the oil, tobacco, and other monopolies. In every case the Supreme Court supported the administration, going so far in the oil and tobacco decisions of 1911 as to reverse its 1895 decision. In addition, in 1903 Roosevelt persuaded a reluctant Congress to establish a Bureau of Corporations with sweeping power to investigate business practices; the bureau's thoroughgoing reports were of immense assistance in antitrust cases" no doubt some of those monopolies had some "help" from the government but the point is made... it's also interesting to note that Theodore Roosevelt was a proud Republican and an unapologetic Imperialist. kinda a 19th century "neocon". and he hated monopolies with a passion. here are some interesting quotes: http://awog.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$95 "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln "Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with those institutions." - Theodore Roosevelt "If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of government. I do not expect monopoly to restrain itself. If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it." - Woodrow Wilson "The real fight today is against inhuman, relentless exercise of capitalistic power... The present struggle in which we are engaged is for social and industrial justice." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis "The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ?dens of crime? that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails, and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like... the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern." - C.S. Lewis
| |||||||
|
MysteriousStrang ![]() Registered: 05/10/02 Posts: 901 Loc: U.S.S.A. |
| ||||||
Quote: The point is not made. Have you listed a single MONOPOLY that came into being and maintained it's position without the help of a government (or illegal activity)? Now if monopolies are bad, why do so many quietly accept state run monopolies? Keeping in mind that those in the private sector must rely on non-violent means to maintain a monopoly (if permitted), what makes some people assume that the hearts and designs of those who are engaged in government run monopolies are somehow more beneficent merely because they are backed up by the monopoly of legal violence which is the essence of the state? -------------------- "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Have you listed a single MONOPOLY
if by monopoly you mean one company owning 100% of an industry, then no I haven't (this is impossible anyway). I have listed regional monopolies and virtual monopolies. Now if monopolies are bad, why do so many quietly accept state run monopolies? I don't like monopolies of any kind, state owned or not. and it's true that most monopolies are artificially created by government, however I recognize the necessity of certain state owned non-profit enterprises in industries that provide basic services and infrastructure. it would be pretty chaotic to have 300 companies trying to sell me gas and electricity and it wouldn't necessarily result in lower prices for the consumer (just look at energy deregulation in California). and besides, as already I mentioned, anti-trust laws don't always deal with monopolies. they are often used to prevent companies from using market share to engage in unfair competition.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
silversoul7 writes:
Tariffs help create more blue-collar jobs domestically rather than shipping them overseas, so the poor can be put to work at a steady job, rather than working multiple minimum-wage jobs or living off of welfare. Tariffs help the poor. Absolutely incorrect. There have been multiple articles from multiple sources regarding Bush's steel tariff fiasco, for example. Steel workers kept their jobs, true. But many of those working in industries who used steel as a raw material lost their jobs. The ratio was approximately three to one. So the steel tariffs hurt three times as many blue collar workers as they helped. And poor folks buy things made out of steel. Since the enactment of the tariffs, they (and all Americans) have been paying substantially more for such products than they had to. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
RandalFlagg writes:
Imagine if a certain U.S. city was home to 95% of the factories of a certain industry. This city and its citizens are heavily dependent upon this industry. Now imagine if the Chinese government all of a sudden decides to move into this industry. Chinese factories are opened up and they pump out the product in question for a much cheaper rate. All of the plants in the American city proceed to go out of business. Is it worth having people save five cents on something if an entire region in my country is economically destroyed? See my comments to silversoul7 re Bush's steel tariff fiasco. Why should we value one region over the entire country? Bush's idiotic tariffs cost the country as a whole more than three times as much as it "saved". The argument for tariffs is precisely identical to the argument for restricting new technology. As new technology arises, old jobs are lost, and entire regions dependent on the old technology suffer. With the advent of personal computers, the demand for typewriters declined enormously. With the advent of e-mail, the demand for fax machines declined enormously. What does it matter to a worker in a typewriter factory if he loses his job to cheap Japanese typewriters or to American made PCs? If one entity is so supremely powerful, it can limit the ability of other entities to compete in the marketplace. Incorrect. HOW can it limit their entry into the marketplace? Only government can do that. If only one entity in an industry exists, it limits choices for the consumer. In a Capitalist free market, if there ever arises a situation where there is a sole source for a particular product (and such a situation cannot last past the life of a patent, but let's pretend it can), it is because that source produces the product better and sells it cheaper than anyone else. How does this hurt the consumer? There are none because the U.S. has anti-monopoly laws in place which restrict such a thing from happening. No, it has none because it is impossible (absent government interference) for one to arise and be maintained. Those laws are unnecessary. When public funds are pooled to accomplish a certain goal, often it does violate our rights. The question is, how much are you willing to put up with to ensure a basic educational standard amongst the population? I am not willing to put up with people initiating force against me in order to educate other people's kids. If you feel that some "public good" justifies the initiation of force against peaceful individuals, that makes you in principle no different from any number of despots throughout history. The only nominal variation is what is subsumed by the nebulous phrase "public good". pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
I'm going by your definition of a free market as the complete seperation of state and economy - a definition I happen to agree with. Ah. But you claim that government protecting people from theft and fraud is equivalent to them interfering in the market. It isn't. you didn't even make up the term "anarchic market" until a contradiction was pointed out to you (or perhaps because you realized how untenable your original position was). I didn't invent the term "anarchic market". And there was no contradiction -- we just defined "free market" differently. To you, a free market can only exist in the absence of police and courts -- in an anarchic society. Once we got that sorted out, I agreed to use the term "Capitalist free market" from now on. I'm just saying that a complete seperation of state and economy (whatever you want to call it) is unrealistic. I know you say that. I am waiting for you to support that assertion. well for one thing, as I explained, intellectual property laws would not exist in a completely free market. Incorrect. In a Capitalist free market, the owners of property must have their property recognized as belonging to them. For whatever reason, you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing as intellectual property. If, by "completely free market" you are referring to an anarchic market, then of course there is no such thing as the recognition of intellectual property. There is no such thing as the recognition of ANY property -- the strong may take whatever they wish from the weak with zero risk of retaliation from police and courts, since there are no police or courts. Everything is handled through vigilanteism. and even if they did, the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition and the lack of reasonable import tarriffs would destroy many critical industries. How does the lack of anti-trust laws prevent someone who wishes to make shoes from making shoes? Or starting a fast food restaurant? Or making furniture? Which industries are "critical"? If I can buy all the shoes, furniture, and burgers I need, what does it matter to me where they were manufactured? also in a true free market, every economy would be specialized to produce what it can most efficiently (read: cheaply) produce, this is seen as a positive by many advocates of globalization and free trade, but as you probably already know, a specialized economy is much more vulnerable than a diversified one. So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to protect a "vulnerable" economy? and also, there would be reduced career options for people and a reduced selection of consumer goods, as all goods of a particular type would be produced in the same place (where it can be produced most efficiently) - in other words, less freedom of choice. So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to provide consumers a choice of a hundred and fifty different brands of soda pop rather than thirty? Besides, your assertion that each country would produce just one type of good is erroneous. There are currently over a dozen countries producing shoes (for example) of basically identical price and quality. also millions of north american auto workers, steel workers, textile makers, furniture makers, etc. etc. would be out of work as all those can be produced more cheaply elsewhere. How is this different from the millions of buggy makers, typewriter repairmen, telephone switchboard operators, etc. who were put out of work with the advent of automobiles, computers, and automated telephone switching systems? Should we outlaw the introduction of new technologies in order to preserve their jobs? devoloped countries with higher wages would be especially vulnerable to such job losses in a truly free market, and again, you might have no problem with this.. but I think most people would agree that this is undesirable. Most people in the West... perhaps. Most people in the world? Not a chance. I concede that you personally may not subscribe to the viewpoint of so many here who never tire of pointing out how large a share of the world's wealth and resources are held by the Western world. Their argument is that the West has no inherent right to that wealth and those resources... that a goatherd in Somalia has just as much right to the goodies as an American or an Italian. If in fact the scenario you describe ends up occurring, this stratification of wealth becomes less extreme. Is this not a good thing for mankind in general? heck, if you reduce everything as you've done here, you could say almost everything is the same in principle - you could say that slavery is the same "in principle" as owning land as it applies to the concept of "ownership". Not even close. Try a less hysterical example if you wish to be taken seriously. the government does not recognize intellectual property in the same way it recognizes physical property. this is obvious. for one thing, ownership of intellectual property is limited to a certain amount of time and then it becomes public domain. does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it? Actually, the government can take away your house whenever it pleases. Investigate the concept of "eminent domain". In the case of some intellectual property (books and songs), the lifespan of the copyright is longer than the life of the author. Patents are different, true. The idea is that the creator has his property protected. There are arguments going on to this day about how long patents and copyrights should exist, and occasionally adjustments are made (in almost every case, the trend has been to LONGER periods) but that doesn't alter the principle involved. by it's very nature, can't really be "owned" (at least, not for long) because it is just information, nothing more than zeros and ones. There's no need to get into a debate over whether there should be such a concept as intellectual property recognized by law. Brighter minds than either you or I have decided that already, hundreds of years ago. Are there differences between a chair and a manuscript? Sure. But both are property. There are in essence four kinds of property -- land, resources contained on land, manufactured goods, intellectual property. Depending on the political orientation of the person involved in the discussion, arguments arise over whether every one of the four should be treated identically, and in some cases (syndico-anarchists, for example), even if there is any such thing as property at all. To say that a Capitalist free market has no protection of intellectual property is false. To say that an anarchist free market has no protection of ANY property is correct. As I have made plain many posts ago, I refer in this thread to a Capitalist free market. I mentioned a non-transaction as an example of government influence - "without this transaction with the government, many transactions between individuals involving the sale of said intellectual property would not and could not take place" You are conflating two different terms, either out of ignorance or out of sophistry. The government does no "transaction" to protect property. If you can prove you own something, and someone attempts to steal it, the government steps in. In the case of your car, it's your registration papers. In the case of your house and plot of land, it's your deed. In the case of your television, it's your sales receipt. In the case of your manuscript or musical score, it's your copyright. pinky
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
See my comments to silversoul7 re Bush's steel tariff fiasco. Why should we value one region over the entire country? Bush's idiotic tariffs cost the country as a whole more than three times as much as it "saved". If that region will be economically destroyed overnight, then I believe it is not out of line for the government to intervene and make things easier on that region. I don't believe that we should have excessive or long-lasting tariffs. Bush's tariffs might have been stupid, but I am sure that they are not indicative of the merit of all tariffs. What does it matter to a worker in a typewriter factory if he loses his job to cheap Japanese typewriters or to American made PCs? If one or a few workers lose their jobs, I don't personally care. If hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their jobs very quickly, the fallout(increased crime rates, disappearance of tax revenue, etc..) from that is not healthy for a society. If one entity is so supremely powerful, it can limit the ability of other entities to compete in the marketplace. Incorrect. HOW can it limit their entry into the marketplace? Only government can do that. I never said a powerful entity could limit the entry of another entity into the marketplace. I said it could limit the ability of the smaller entity to compete. If a powerful entity has so saturated a market, it is a good possibility that the consumer will not be exposed to products from competitors. For example, Ben from the "Ben and Jerry's" ice cream company spoke at my college once. When they were first getting started, they were a tiny company. The big "speciality" ice cream company at the time was Hagen-Das(spelling?). Hagen-Das told retailers that they would not sell their ice cream to stores that sold "Ben and Jerry's". Now, thankfully "Ben and Jerry's" was able to overcome this strongarm tactic by Hagen-Das, but not all companies could do this. Imagine being crushed by a behemoth before you even had a fighting chance. Homogenization of a particular market causes limited choice for consumers. There are none because the U.S. has anti-monopoly laws in place which restrict such a thing from happening. No, it has none because it is impossible (absent government interference) for one to arise and be maintained. Those laws are unnecessary. If they were unnecessary, why were they passed in the first place? For just no reason at all? If you feel that some "public good" justifies the initiation of force against peaceful individuals, that makes you in principle no different from any number of despots throughout history. I never said that education is an inalienable right. Neither is food or shelter. However, it is within the rights of the citizens of a democratic country to determine how much they are taxed and what the tax money is used for. I have no problem with some of my money going to maintain a strong military, a national park service, and education. If you do have a problem with this, then feel free to engage in the political process to change it.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Why don't you provide us with ONE example of a true MONOpoly existing BEFORE anti-trust laws Standard Oil
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
Research that statement. It will surprise you to find that Standard Oil was never in fact a monopoly. And by the time the anti-trust laws were put into place, it had been losing its market share steadily for over a decade.
pinky
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
I see that you have some serious misconceptions about intellectual property.
I'm going by your definition of a free market as the complete seperation of state and economy - a definition I happen to agree with. Ah. But you claim that government protecting people from theft and fraud is equivalent to them interfering in the market. It isn't. don't be ridiculous. I never claimed such a thing. please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't invent the term "anarchic market". And there was no contradiction actually there was. see post #2149392 and #2149428. to your credit, you admitted and corrected yourself. To you, a free market can only exist in the absence of police and courts again, I never said such a thing. do you just make this crap up or what? For whatever reason, you have convinced yourself that there is no such thing as intellectual property. seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? do you actually read what I write or are you debating your own preconceptions here? I clearly DO recognize the concept of intellectual property. I'm just trying to explain to you why and how it exists. you have this mistaken notion that intellectual property works in the same way as physical property. If, by "completely free market" you are referring to an anarchic market no. that's not what I mean , you should try reading my posts. if I didn't make it clear already, I'm referring to a complete seperation of state and economy, where the government has no influence on transactions. I made this pretty clear already, so I wonder how you could get this one wrong at this point... if you get the little things so blatantly wrong, how did you do with the real important stuff? we'll see... and even if they did, the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition and the lack of reasonable import tarriffs would destroy many critical industries. How does the lack of anti-trust laws prevent someone who wishes to make shoes from making shoes? Or starting a fast food restaurant? Or making furniture? huh? do you really need this explained to you? I said "the lack of anti-trust laws would stifle competition" and I already gave several examples. So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to protect a "vulnerable" economy? no, I do not advocate the initiation of force. So you advocate the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to provide consumers a choice of a hundred and fifty different brands of soda pop rather than thirty? no, I do not advocate the initiation of force. also millions of north american auto workers, steel workers, textile makers, furniture makers, etc. etc. would be out of work as all those can be produced more cheaply elsewhere. How is this different from the millions of buggy makers, typewriter repairmen, telephone switchboard operators, etc. who were put out of work with the advent of automobiles, computers, and automated telephone switching systems? sigh. you honestly don't see how that's different? Should we outlaw the introduction of new technologies in order to preserve their jobs? oh yeah. that's exactly what I'm proposing If in fact the scenario you describe ends up occurring, this stratification of wealth becomes less extreme not at all. it actually becomes more extreme because the money saved by moving jobs overseas do not stay there. remember that job losses are spurred by lower wages, which means the companies that employ those workers are increasing profits. you don't have to look at a hypothetical scenario because this is exactly what has been happening to our economy, see the Wal-Mart phenomenon. the government does not recognize intellectual property in the same way it recognizes physical property. this is obvious. for one thing, ownership of intellectual property is limited to a certain amount of time and then it becomes public domain. does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it? Actually, the government can take away your house whenever it pleases. Investigate the concept of "eminent domain". nice dodge, but maybe you should investigate the concept of answering the question that was asked because I didn't ask if the government can take away your property, I asked: "does the government take away your house 20 years after you buy it?". if the "ownership" of intellectual property is identical in principle to the ownership of physical property, why does the government routinely take away people's property? please answer this direct question, because there is an important point here. hint: it has nothing to do with eminent domain. maybe you can't answer the question, maybe by now, you've realized your mistake. you have said that information can be owned and that it is the same in principle to owning an object.. well, to say that owning a thing and owning an idea is identical in principle is just PLAIN SILLY. and it shows a complete lack of understanding about the real issues surrounding intellectual property. and yes you HAVE reduced everything. you have reduced everything to a point where you make no distinction between a thing and an idea. once again you are unable or unwilling to see fundamental differences. information, by it's very nature, cannot be owned because it is immaterial. it can only be controlled and held for periods of time, tenuously at best. this is why patents expire, this is why you don't ever own the information, what you actually own is a government issued patent or copyright or trademark - a contract that recognizes your right to exclusive use or exclusive control of that information for a limited time, NOT your ownership of it. THERE CAN BE NO OWNERSHIP OF THE IMMATERIAL. intellectual property laws only give you this artificial government sanctioned control for a time and after that, it becomes public domain. eventually ALL information becomes public domain. it is not "identical in principle" to ownership of physical property, in fact, it is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. I asked you earlier about the mechanism by which intellectual property is recognized. you should have investigated the question because then you would already know the following: form the constitution article I, section 8: Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. from the US patent and trademark office: The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. some more resources for those interested: http://www.wipo.int http://www.intelproplaw.com/ http://www.patents.com/patents.h http://www.timestream.com/stuff/ notice there is no mention of "ownership"... that's because even the government acknowledges that information cannot be owned - it can only be controlled for a time, and ONLY by the explicit recognition of government. so you are blatantly wrong when you say that the government has no influence on transactions involving intellectual property. in fact, the opposite is true - it is government that enables such transactions because government is the overriding authority that grants you this psuedo-ownership of information. without this artificial government influence, there can be no ownership or control of intellectual property. here are some words from a famous inventor: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson. "Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property" "in nature" there can be no ownership of ideas. it is ONLY through artificial legal constructs like "patent", "trademark" and "copyright" that individuals are given exclusive property rights to information. these rights are granted by government, therefore, intellectual property rights REQUIRE government influence and intervention. so your next assertion is completely false: To say that a Capitalist free market has no protection of intellectual property is false all you're doing here is repeating an assertion with no facts and no logic to back it up. I have shown that a capitalist free market, as YOU defined it (the complete seperation of state and ecoonomy), CAN NOT recognize intellectual property. YOU are the one advocating such a system. all I'm doing, and all I've done so far in this thread is explain to you that such a system is unworkable, one reason (of many) would be the lack of intellectual property rights. I also couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored the point I made about independent discoveries. this idea alone completely destroys your claim that ownership of intellectual property is the same as ownership of objects. imagine if you had worked your ass off for five years spending millions of dollars in research to develop a new fuel cell technology. you go to market with it only to find out that your design is similar to a product released a week earlier, and you are prevented under threat of force from competing in the open market. first, this demolishes your ridiulous claim that government has no influence on transactions and secondly, it calls into question the whole concept of exclusive ownership of IDEAS. if information is mere property, WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY HERE? why did you not address this point in your last post? You are conflating two different terms, either out of ignorance or out of sophistry. The government does no "transaction" to protect property ha, I'm not conflating anything.. and you accuse ME of ignorance and sophistry? there is no transaction with the goverment you say?!? try this: http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/If you can prove you own something, and someone attempts to steal it, the government steps in. In the case of your car, it's your registration papers. In the case of your house and plot of land, it's your deed. In the case of your television, it's your sales receipt. In the case of your manuscript or musical score, it's your copyright. this is more of your totally meaningless BS. sure there are superficial similarities there, but a copyright is NOTHING like a receipt or deed. a copyright does NOT grant ownership of anything. a copyright gives you the exclusive right to copy and control your information. you need to get some basic facts straight man. it's been amusing, but your ignorant statements and your mistaken notions about intellectual property are of absolutely no interest to me. I prefer to deal with facts and logic, not your overly verbose rhetoric. so I would kindly suggest that you educate yourself on this subject before we continue this discussion.
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
|
Well, I was digging through some old threads I made under my previous account, and came across this. My ideas have changed quite a bit since then, but I thought this might still be an interesting item for discussion.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Pilgrim -DBK鰻 Registered: 08/11/05 Posts: 6,300 Loc: The Trenches of Last seen: 18 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Of course
-------------------- Don't fight it. Just let the illuminados take over your mind. You be at bliss soon.
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Pure Capitalism ( |
10,763 | 76 | 12/25/01 11:30 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
monopolies... ( |
2,642 | 61 | 08/11/03 02:45 PM by Cornholio | ||
![]() |
Communist Anarchism | 987 | 6 | 05/05/04 03:55 AM by BleaK | ||
![]() |
God is an Anarchist. ( |
4,823 | 33 | 07/21/05 01:12 PM by rogue_pixie | ||
![]() |
The Reluctant Anarchist | 2,014 | 17 | 06/12/04 09:27 PM by RandalFlagg | ||
![]() |
America. the threat to its self... ( |
3,955 | 29 | 02/21/02 08:50 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
You May Already Be An Anarchist. ( |
5,001 | 45 | 10/16/02 01:16 AM by zeronio | ||
![]() |
An Anarchistic Socialistic Democratic Society ( |
6,961 | 63 | 07/27/07 03:57 PM by Teotzlcoatl |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 10,832 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||









, you should try reading my posts. if I didn't make it clear already, I'm referring to a complete seperation of state and economy, where the government has no influence on transactions. I made this pretty clear already, so I wonder how you could get this one wrong at this point... if you get the little things so blatantly wrong, how did you do with the real important stuff? we'll see...

