(July 17, 2011 at 12:33 am)theVOID Wrote:

(July 16, 2011 at 2:17 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: ..when every AMERICAN libertarian I meet face to face no longer votes the Republican ticket. In my experience, every libertarian I have met have openly voted for Republicans and even openly endorsed the tea party.

I am sure there are some LIBS out there who vote their own ticket, but I have yet to meet one face to face. Talk on the net is cheap when it comes to politics.

And what exactly is it you think the Dems have done that is socially so superior? "Abolishing" DADT? That hasn't actually happened yet has it? It will happen "When the pentagon thinks the soldiers are psychologically ready". Where is Obama giving federal mandate to same-sex marriage? And he has refused to give the states legislative power over medical marijuana, your FDA going as far as to say it has NO medicinal (which is in stark contradiction to peer-reviewed science, shows the FDA are some impartial angels who care, right?) benefits under his watch.

For a bit of contrast, It was libertarian leaning Republicans who recently legalised Gay Marriage in NY and if I recall correctly the majority of states with medical marijuana are Republican run.

---

(July 16, 2011 at 12:32 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Well said Void. I have no hate for corporations in general, merely distrust. On the other hand, I openly oppose the corporations you mention in this post. Im tired of people claiming progressives are "anti-business / anti-capitalists". I am pro business / capitalism. I am ANTI- greed and "cut throat capitalism".

Distrust is healthy towards any and all interests.

You can't punish someone just for being greedy, suppose someone makes a fuckton of money making goods to sell for a price people are willing to pay and making a good profit on it, their greed motivates them to expand their own business but they have never done anything unethical or illegal to obtain it - In my view they have done absolutely nothing wrong... If they have done nothing wrong then seizing their assets simply because other people aren't doing to well financially is immoral.

All very good questions.

I also want to point out that I enjoy our political debates

You mistake me for someone who plays partisan party politics. I am an INDEPENDENT PROGRESSIVE. The only time I will be partisan is if a Bull Moose Progressive party were established in my area. That ISNT going to happen anytime soon. This means I vote for the most Progressive position I can, be it Dem, Rep, or Indie. I consider MANY things about the Republican in California ("Get to the Chopper!" Arnold) to be very Progressive and very appealing for my vote. I live in North Carolina. I would vote Arnold (Rep) if he were running here. The American Progressive Party stemmed off of the Republican Party in 1912. The Republican Party itself was created by anti-slave social liberals. In a sense I can say that I am a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican".

I am very upset at Obama right now, as he convinced me he was a Progressive, then turned around and voted center right on many things. He didnt do SHIT to BP for the oil spill. He laughed at the idea of changing the legal views on marijuana. He is cringing back on his stance for gay rights. etc..etc...

Yes I can punish someone for being greedy. I can punish anyone for anything. Government is a free-for-all and anyone who thinks otherwise is in the dark. At any moment I could be tossed into Guantanamo bay for trumped up charges and there will be nothing I could do about it. Suppose that a group of liberals and conservatives get together and vote to fuck that company that "makes a fuckton of money making goods" out of some of its profits? Greed is the fucking problem, and it reaches STRONG across the entire politcal/philosophical realm. Yes, even Progressives can fall weak to greed. Now, as far as you saying "seizing their assets", surely you realize that it goes much deeper than that? This isnt a handful of people we are dealing with. This is the entire WORLD now. Everyone making promises and deals and conspiracies with and against everyone else. There is a chaos factor involved. That is why I am a mixed economist. I must be willing to bend and not break.

I will bet my paycheck that any political or economic theory that claims it has the answers is more than likely wrong since humans and thoughts and opinions and politics are in a state of constant flux...and thus my guilty secret crush for Anarchy comes to the surface from time to time. Its not that I think government is bad. I just think it is a sometimes random free-for-all.

---

void Wrote:And what exactly is "cut throat capitalism"? The way I see it the people cutting the throats of the competition are the ones who have their cock in the government's asshole, not the ones who want free markets where the only way to "cut throats" is to give the consumers goods and services at a price so low that nobody else can compete - If that is what's happening then fucking Hooray! "Cut" as many throats as you like, if the consumers are getting goods and services so cheap that nobody else can realistically meet the low prices then I couldn't care less if you can't operate a small aluminium plant because Alco is kicking your ass in prices - What is good for consumers is low prices, taxing a giant like Alco to favour small businesses or fining them for being 'uncompetitive' because their prices are too low only passes the costs off to consumers, as does subsidising the small businesses where the costs may appear lower from the small supplier, but that is only because the value of the subsidies aren't included on the price tag.

Cut throat capitalism is capitalism for the sake of capitalism, and nothing more. Cut throat capitalists steal children and sell them for sex slaves, or to be mine workers, or to die being eaten by exotic animals for the sake of the entertainment of the cut throat capitalist crowds.That should be punished in my opinion.

(July 17, 2011 at 1:16 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: All very good questions.

I also want to point out that I enjoy our political debates

Same here, it's been a great way to learn, get rid of miscommunication caused by differing definitions and expose assumptions

Quote:You mistake me for someone who plays partisan party politics. I am an INDEPENDENT PROGRESSIVE.

Sure, but when you're criticising someone for voting Republican because their track record on social issues is poor when the alternative is really no better by-and-large it's something that needs to be addressed.

Quote: The only time I will be partisan is if a Bull Moose Progressive party were established in my area. That ISNT going to happen anytime soon. This means I vote for the most Progressive position I can, be it Dem, Rep, or Indie.

That's why America needs some MMP type system as we have here. We might have two big parties and these two parties are ultimately the ones who govern (which is analogous to the USA) but we also have smaller parties who get influence, the ability to propose legislation to be voted on and who are almost always needed by the larger parties to form coalitions - Under those circumstances you could have a real "Progressive" party worth voting for, just as I have a real Free-market libertarian leaning party to support who would never manage to win under an FPTP system that would have a much more substantial negotiating platform than the isolated progressives in the Democratic party or libertarians in the Republican party - The other advantage is while I may not be a big fan of the leader of the party I vote for, and their position on Climate Change is a bit backwards, I don't have to worry about them getting their way on those issues while still getting a solid voice for free-market reform and individual liberty.

Quote:I consider MANY things about the Republican in California ("Get to the Chopper!" Arnold) to be very Progressive and very appealing for my vote. I live in North Carolina. I would vote Arnold (Rep) if he were running here. The American Progressive Party stemmed off of the Republican Party in 1912. The Republican Party itself was created by anti-slave social liberals. In a sense I can say that I am a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican".

That's interesting, I've heard the Democrats were the offshoot of a very corporatist elite party (I'd argue that has not changed much) but I didn't know the Progressives came from the GOP... I had always assumed them to have their origins in a forking of the Democrat vote.

Quote:I am very upset at Obama right now, as he convinced me he was a Progressive, then turned around and voted center right on many things. He didnt do SHIT to BP for the oil spill. He laughed at the idea of changing the legal views on marijuana. He is cringing back on his stance for gay rights. etc..etc...

He's a complete fucking lying douchebag, he scares me more than Bush because he's so much smarter and has betrayed his voters so much more - A well meaning idiot is far less harmful than a highly intelligent liar.

Quote:Yes I can punish someone for being greedy. I can punish anyone for anything.

I was talking about morally, not by use of sheer force, in that sense you can punish someone for having Red Hair and freckles - The difference is that it would be hard to convince the masses to punish gingers but it's damn easy to convince them to vote themselves rich, that they should use force to take what they do not have regardless of whether or not the people they are taking from obtained it ethically or not.

Quote:Government is a free-for-all and anyone who thinks otherwise is in the dark. At any moment I could be tossed into Guantanamo bay for trumped up charges and there will be nothing I could do about it.

Which is why your government was founded as a constitutional republic, not an all-pervasive democracy. Democracy left unchecked is an extremely dangerous and immoral system where 51% can vote to kill the 49% should enough people agree to do it.

Quote:Suppose that a group of liberals and conservatives get together and vote to fuck that company that "makes a fuckton of money making goods" out of some of its profits? Greed is the fucking problem, and it reaches STRONG across the entire politcal/philosophical realm. Yes, even Progressives can fall weak to greed. Now, as far as you saying "seizing their assets", surely you realize that it goes much deeper than that? This isnt a handful of people we are dealing with. This is the entire WORLD now. Everyone making promises and deals and conspiracies with and against everyone else. There is a chaos factor involved. That is why I am a mixed economist. I must be willing to bend and not break.

There is a massive difference, especially morally, between the manifestation of Greed via competitiveness and self-interest as is the case with the "greedy entrepreneur" and the manifestation of Greed through force, threats and mob-rule, as is the case with those who would seek to vote themselves rich at the expense of others - That is precisely why our individual sovereignty needs to be taken seriously, if someone's greed manifests in a way that imposes no force on others we have no moral authority to stop it as they have done nothing wrong, if someone's greed manifests in them forming a Gang or mob to take it by force or threats then they have done something wrong and we do have the moral authority to stop it.

That is precisely why we need a government at all, was it the case that there was no greed or it was only manifest as self-interest we wouldn't need one, but it is because that Greed manifests in force that a government becomes necessary, the government have a real and absolute moral authority to prevent the use of force by some individual(s) over others.

Quote:I will bet my paycheck that any political or economic theory that claims it has the answers is more than likely wrong since humans and thoughts and opinions and politics are in a state of constant flux...and thus my guilty secret crush for Anarchy comes to the surface from time to time. Its not that I think government is bad. I just think it is a sometimes random free-for-all.

Your guilty crush for Anarchy is my ideal world, one that is plainly incompatible with individual sovereignty given human nature but one that would be ideal given an ideal humanity - The solution to minimise greed manifest as force is a government who can use it's force to protect individual sovereignty, to abide by the principle than anyone can do anything they want with their mind, body and property provided they do not force others to do something they do not want to do with their mind, body or property. A government who abuses it's power to force attitudes, agendas and resources is exactly the type of system where those who are greedy have an opportunity and incentive to corrupt, it is when greed is manifest as both selfish drive AND force (the corporatocracy) that the most harm is done, and when that force is the government, the very organisation who is supposed to protect us from force, that we are truly fucked.

rev Wrote:Cut throat capitalism is capitalism for the sake of capitalism, and nothing more. Cut throat capitalists steal children and sell them for sex slaves, or to be mine workers, or to die being eaten by exotic animals for the sake of the entertainment of the cut throat capitalist crowds.That should be punished in my opinion.

There is no such thing as x for the sake of x, regardless of what x is.

What you would call "cut throat capitalists" I would describe as greed manifest as force, the fact that this person is using the markets to trade their ill-gotten gains is completely irrelevant, they could just as easily be the ruler of some oppressive totalitarian state - Calling it capitalism does little more than taint the term and using it really is no more respectable than Glenn Beck associating socialism with that same Totalitarian nightmare, it taints minds. What you described is an organisation or individual that acts unchecked by or through by the rule of law and without consideration for individual sovereignty - I agree with you so far as it's exactly the worst thing that can happen, but it's not capitalism.

example of GREED:

Netflix raises their price by a MASSIVE 60%. Did they do it to give their workers a bigger raise or more benefits? No. Did they do it for the price of DVD's? No.

Here is their reason:

Netflix Wrote:"We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into separate plans to better reflect the costs of each and to give our members a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan or the option to subscribe to both," Netflix Vice President of Marketing Jessie Becker wrote on a company blog post.
"Given the long life we think DVDs by mail will have, treating DVDs as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan neither makes great financial sense nor satisfies people who just want DVDs," Becker wrote

Can you make any sense of this quote other than they can raise the price because they want to? So here you have the Netflix white colrs giving themselves an extra 60% profit.

Well, people could always stop using their service. It would be irresponsible for the managers of this operation to charge any less than exactly as much as a consumer would pay. There are investors to satisfy, at the very least.

Lets say you loaned a friend $100 dollars to start a business selling a product at the rate of $1 per unit. You asked him why it was taking so long to repay you, and he pointed to the $1 unit price, against his costs, etc. Now, if you knew that your next door neighbor was selling the same product at 2x the price of your friend, and that he sold out every day..would you not politely suggest to your friend that he increase his price and repay you sooner?

(July 17, 2011 at 12:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, people could always stop using their service. It would be irresponsible for the managers of this operation to charge any less than exactly as much as a consumer would pay. There are investors to satisfy, at the very least.

Lets say you loaned a friend $100 dollars to start a business selling a product at the rate of $1 per unit. You asked him why it was taking so long to repay you, and he pointed to the $1 unit price, against his costs, etc. Now, if you knew that your next door neighbor was selling the same product at 2x the price of your friend, and that he sold out every day..would you not politely suggest to your friend that he increase his price and repay you sooner?

Not exactly. Im not even sure if your example is something that actually happens in real life. Keeping prices low and salaries decent will help ensure a products lifespan I would think. But, then again, there is no exact way to be 100% sure of such things. There is risk, but to a point. For the ammount I "loaned" in this example, I would not be so impatient for a return. I would suggest that he investigates the competition and find out why the differences are so largely inverted.

(July 17, 2011 at 12:04 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: example of GREED:

Netflix raises their price by a MASSIVE 60%. Did they do it to give their workers a bigger raise or more benefits? No. Did they do it for the price of DVD's? No.

Here is their reason:

Netflix Wrote:"We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into separate plans to better reflect the costs of each and to give our members a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan or the option to subscribe to both," Netflix Vice President of Marketing Jessie Becker wrote on a company blog post.
"Given the long life we think DVDs by mail will have, treating DVDs as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan neither makes great financial sense nor satisfies people who just want DVDs," Becker wrote

Can you make any sense of this quote other than they can raise the price because they want to? So here you have the Netflix white colrs giving themselves an extra 60% profit.

So Netflix raise their prices? Great, now it's 60% easier for some competitor to undercut them... No, that quote doesn't explain a price rise and assuming that he's never elaborated beyond that quote it's a simple case of the old political double-speak, but it's not like it takes a genius to figure out the reason for the price hike was "We wan't more cash", I suspect however the reason for the price hike has to do with their losing market share to other competitors such as iTunes, Amazon, Hulu and the like. Netflix might have beaten these guys to market put their pervasiveness is nowhere near as impressive - There are dozens of competitors both nationally and internationally, if Netflix have lost their market share they can no longer operate on a high-volume, low margin business model, now they have to sell less products at a higher margin.

But speculation aside, when it comes down to it they can charge whatever the fuck they like, they aren't forcing you to buy their product and you don't have a right to streaming movies or mail DVDs - If you don't like it well tough, you can either look for a competitor or start your own company if you're that worried about it but when it really comes down to is those DVDs are NOT yours and it's absolutely none of your business what is done with them - You don't get to tell anybody what they can do with their own property, including what they can charge for renting it.

(July 17, 2011 at 4:02 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Not exactly. Im not even sure if your example is something that actually happens in real life. Keeping prices low and salaries decent will help ensure a products lifespan I would think. But, then again, there is no exact way to be 100% sure of such things. There is risk, but to a point. For the ammount I "loaned" in this example, I would not be so impatient for a return. I would suggest that he investigates the competition and find out why the differences are so largely inverted.

Well let's assume that Netflix are a bunch of complete fucking morons and their business model is destined to fail; so what?

I think I can speak for a great number of small business owners Jeremiah..I want to borrow money from you. The patient creditor. Now why is it we can never seem to find you?