Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
April 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
void Wrote:We want quality in what sense? Equal treatment and opportunity or equal outcome?
Of course it isnt about equal outcome. It is about equal oportunity. According to your next quote, you make it very obvious that you are neither for equal outcome OR equal oportunity. According to your own words someone can make a product, monopolise on it, and even gloat over inflated prices. Funny how you rail against keynesian policies, yet you see no problem in artifically inflating prices, something that keynesian policies put into practice and has led to America's current economic woes.
void Wrote:Awww, you want cheap matches? Do you have some right to a particular material product? If I'm the only match game in town I can charge whatever I like, I have no obligation to give you matches for the price you want! Nothing to stop you from creating a rival company and trying your luck.
You really need to look up monopolies of the turn of the 20th century Void. You really have no idea how they crushed anything that even resembled competition. And now that you have your monopoly, why would you still be a libertarian? You would do everything you could to hold your power. You would CEASE being libertarian and become a plutocrat, with cleptocratic tendencies. You would no longer care about ANYTHING other than your corporation. A new corporatist is born, who care of nothing other than his power hold, what he can take, and what he has. The allegiance is now to the corporation. To greed. You will do everything in your power to squash any perceived threat to your hold.
April 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 6:50 pm by Violet.)
(April 8, 2011 at 3:32 am)theVOID Wrote: That's not what I said!
I said that someone getting Rich, accumulating wealth, is in no way necessarily at the expense of someone else, in the vast majority of circumstances the rich get rich and benefit those they trade with in the process.
How isn't it at the expense of someone else to have more than them? It absolutely necessarily is. It means that while I'm riding high up here on easy street: some other person here is starving for money that they otherwise might have if I did not have it.
Generally the rich become so by selling things at a grossly inflated price to the poor masses, making them poorer for things that they should have had in the first place for free (within reason).
Quote:Say someone invents a product, they need people to manufacture this product so they can sell their invention, they hire you to work assembling this device, they then sell the product to others, you get paid a wage and they take the rest. They have not taken anything from you, they have provided you with a means to exchange your time and skill for money and you have agreed, you benefit from it and so do they. Try tell me having a job isn't beneficial, if you dare be so absurd.
Having a job isn't beneficial. I'll dare to defend a rational position any day. Slavery is slavery whether it is hidden as 'wage' slavery or not. This absolute pittance that they have 'allowed' you to have is very likely barely enough for you to get by, plenty can't even afford an emergency fund.
They have taken from you a good third of your days to do menial tasks for them *just so that you can survive*. Not many of us happen to have skill to sell off, infact most markets are oversaturated to the point that even *college graduates* cannot find well paying jobs, and sometimes can't even find a job at all.
This entire capitalistic system that turns humans into cogs and gives them an illusion that they are being rewarded for working benefits none of the cogs: they will absolutely die if they do not take a job when they see it. What keeps those bottom scrapers from starving to death in america? Socialistic systems such as soup kitchens.
Is it really so absurd to you that people who try to buck slavery usually fail and sometimes die?
Quote:Suppose someone has a successful idea and good management skills and manages to make a great amount of money from it, at what point from the initial scenario to this one did they steal from or exploit you? None. They used the labor that workers were willing to trade for money and used it with their idea and management skills to sell goods and services at a profit - No crime done, nothing immoral, no detriment to you, no imposition of values - You have an entrepreneur who is getting wealthy, the motivation for his invention and risks, a worker who is getting the wage they agree to work for and customers who are getting the products they agree to trade for.
Willing to trade? Hahaha!
How about instead 'desperately accept to keep their family off the streets' or 'immediately take up before it's gone'? They are slaves to a system, what can you expect them to do when someone "offers" a job? It's not unlike throwing a starving dog a chicken nugget. The lion's share is held by the master of his castle, and all of his dogs are kept alive only because the master wants a gourmet party daily amongst his peers.
The crime that is done by this 'rich people hiring poor people' scheme is that the rich are robbing the poor blind and keeping them a shadow of life that to retain they *must* turn to the rich thieves. This entire system is based on fucking greed, how the hell can it get *less* moral? The detriment to the poor is phenomenal, across the entire board.
Quote:The more demand your skills are in, or the more money you will demand, you have to be worth more to more people to make more money, that's just the reality of it. As long as someone makes their wealth without using force, being fraudulent or neglecting their responsibilities to their employees and consumers, like paying what is agreed and treating them equally or providing products and services of the quality and function agreed upon, they can do whatever the fuck they like in my books, their productivity is not mine and I have no right to it and I have no right to impose my values or the government the "collective" values onto their transaction, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the personal freedoms of the individuals.
It is true: some cogs are special little cogs in that they aren't quite as common as the other cogs. But don't for a moment think that they are not replaceable, and easily at that. Doesn't matter if the replacement is slightly rough around the edges: It'll still get the bottom line done.
'As long as', you know that entire argument is based on having a powerful government capable of enforcing rules that it makes, do you not? What's to stop the rich from turning the masses into full-time serfs, the use of deadly force to silent an outspoken individual, not upholding their side of a contract as they use you and throw you away... if there is no powerful government to respond to such?
You are so beyond ridiculous when you think that slaves have appreciable 'personal freedoms'... what keeps the rich from increasing their profits even higher is that there is a government with a massive military capable of retaliating. Remove that, and america is gone like a rowboat in a midatlantic storm as surely as elephants from poaching.
Quote:The government imposing values for causes, taking wealth by threat of imprisonment, is not something I support, it's group thuggery. We all have a tons of personal vales and group values, the government should all ensure these values aren't interfered with so long as that doesn't involve imposing on other values, not establish values at point of force in the name of the "common good" like giving taxpayer money to finance and automotive companies or forcing people to buy healthcare from a corporation.
On the other hand, I agree with the government curing the national debt by ripping almost everything from the rich. Don't agree with keeping poor businesses around when it is quite capable of splitting the money it used to keep them afloat into those who had trusted it in the bank in the first place.
But then, I'm somewhat pragmatic. I see resource, I take resource. It really is the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, our government is the puppet of the rich people it should be gutting.
Quote:That's because without entrepreneurs who have the ability to prosper nobody would have any motivation to build these products, the USA would be at best another backwards socialist nation. American workers have a decent quality of life, that's not despite the motivations for wealth, it's because of it.
Nobody needs to prosper into the hundreds of millions. And we have multibillion corporations. There is plenty of a motivation to increase the power of the greater machine and to be rewarded for it by a reputation and a greater allowance. Only greedy self-centered people build things for other people solely for themselves. I would rather not have any of those people in a community than embrace their greed.
American workers have a decent quality of life? Maybe by your low standards, but I'm hard to impress. Now *I* have a decent quality of life. More than I deserve, frankly. And most americans do not live so easily as I. I was born in a fairly rich environment, I know people, and I've had a well paying job all my life that takes but an 10th of my life. What I see of fellow americans in this area is that many of them bring home either minimum wage or something I consider to be barely past that. I know so many poor people here that I am absolutely aghast of it. Perhaps I'm biased and the area in which i live is just super poor. Somehow, i doubt it is any better for many people living in hundreds of times more crowded places
Quote:Rich people did NOT cause you all to borrow and spend, they may have genuinely persuaded you to do something, or your flash bang media might have had a part in it, it helps them sell stuff, but it's ultimately your decisions and your faults, the rich are a scapegoat for people not wanting to admit their productivity just isn't that valuable or they didn't work hard enough for it or lucked out, Sorry... but that's not an excuse to steal from other people, rich or not, to account for it or to impose your values.
If someone does wrong lock them up, we need harsher sentences for all crimes.
Hmmm... did you know that I didn't borrow anything at all from anyone? I spend plenty, sure, but I almost never let myself drop into a deficit. I have spent slightly more than i made last year, granted... but luckily most of what I bought is electronic things that are staying with me. I won't be making a similar array of purchases next year (I wont even have an Xbox 360 or PS3 to spend money on).
Agree with the last sentence here. American adult daycare is more of a reward than anything as I see it.
Anyway, more to the point: i very highly doubt that the investments made by all of the poor people in the banks comes even close to those made by the rich.
Classical liberalism = SLAVERS. Someone who is willing to steal people and sell them to other people. Some Classical Liberals would be more than happy to inpregnate a slave and sell their own children into slavery just so that he (Classical liberals are usually males) can make an easy profit.
(April 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Classical liberalism = SLAVERS. Someone who is willing to steal people and sell them to other people. Some Classical Liberals would be more than happy to inpregnate a slave and sell their own children into slavery just so that he (Classical liberals are usually males) can make an easy profit.
Thank you for the TL: DR ^_^
Who wants to bet that the next thing posted in response is going to be all about the american black slave trade as they try to undermine wage slavery by comparing it to racial slavery?
April 8, 2011 at 7:29 pm (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 7:39 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
Voids intent declares him guilty. Look at how he mocked me of the price of matches. What is his intent? Apparently he has no problem becoming the lord of matches. If so, then so be it.. but dont try to fool me with that "libertarian" crap at the same time. If even ONE person can lord it over on anything, then libertarianism has been destroyed.
So which one is it Void? Libertarian or Plutocrat?
It sure looks like you are against keynesian economics, unless it means you will benefit from it.
void Wrote:We want quality in what sense? Equal treatment and opportunity or equal outcome?
Of course it isnt about equal outcome. It is about equal oportunity. According to your next quote, you make it very obvious that you are neither for equal outcome OR equal oportunity. According to your own words someone can make a product, monopolise on it, and even gloat over inflated prices. Funny how you rail against keynesian policies, yet you see no problem in artifically inflating prices, something that keynesian policies put into practice and has led to America's current economic woes.
There is nothing against Equal opportunity there, Equal opportunity is about everyone being treated equally by the state, show me where I said for the state to do otherwise! Someone charging what they want for what they produce has nothing to do with equal opportunity.
Monopolies aren't stealing my money by threat of imprisonment to spend it! That's the big difference. Also, in state monopolies common in Keynesianism there is absolutely no opportunity for competition, in the former case there is nothing to stop someone importing matches and undercutting the person who is charging high prices.
Quote:You really need to look up monopolies of the turn of the 20th century Void. You really have no idea how they crushed anything that even resembled competition. And now that you have your monopoly, why would you still be a libertarian? You would do everything you could to hold your power. You would CEASE being libertarian and become a plutocrat, with cleptocratic tendencies. You would no longer care about ANYTHING other than your corporation. A new corporatist is born, who care of nothing other than his power hold, what he can take, and what he has. The allegiance is now to the corporation. To greed. You will do everything in your power to squash any perceived threat to your hold.
So long as I can do so without breaking any laws, imposing my values on others or coercing or forcing them to do what I want it's none of your fucking business. You don't get to tell someone for what price they can sell their product for and I couldn't care less if you really really want it, you don't have a right to tell anybody what they can do with their stuff.
"Bu..bu..but it's in our best interests to do so", right? I couldn't care less. It's in my best interests to steal all of your stuff, I can sell it and get that new Guitar I want and have a nice holiday. Something being in the best interests of the individual or group DOES NOT give them the moral aithority to take it by threat of force!
I am also a selfish person in that I am against something until I can benefit from it *enough*. This is a value judgement: my dislike of slavery. This is a value judgement: how much of a perceived benefit comes to me from slavery.
If the latter is a far greater value than my dislike for slavery: i will support slavery. I sincerely doubt that anyone can come up with that kind of funds when I *already* have more money than I really want. I'd put it to use, sure... but probably not for me.
April 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm by theVOID.)
(April 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Classical liberalism = SLAVERS. Someone who is willing to steal people and sell them to other people. Some Classical Liberals would be more than happy to inpregnate a slave and sell their own children into slavery just so that he (Classical liberals are usually males) can make an easy profit.
Resorting to straw men already? I have NO RIGHT to force anybody to do what they don't want to, that absolutely includes taking people by force and selling them! Classical liberals like Adam Smith were the FIRST people against slavery, racism, sexism and the like in modern society. Classical Liberalism has always been against those things because it is an absolute violation of the rights of the individual.
(April 8, 2011 at 7:29 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Voids intent declares him guilty. Look at how he mocked me of the price of matches. What is his intent? Apparently he has no problem becoming the lord of matches. If so, then so be it.. but dont try to fool me with that "libertarian" crap at the same time. If even ONE person can lord it over on anything, then libertarianism has been destroyed.
You can start your own match company if you don't like my prices, ANYONE can. But as long as nobody is willing to make or import matches to compete don't think you have the right to tell me what to sell my stuff for. If I use force or threats of violence to stop someone setting up competition then fucking lock me up!
That doesn't make me the "Lord of matches" it makes me a person who is allowed to charge whatever the fuck I like for MY stuff.
Quote:So which one is it Void? Libertarian or Plutocrat?
You need to cut the strawman bullshit, I'm a strict individualist.
Quote:It sure looks like you are against keynesian economics, unless it means you will benefit from it.
What the fuck??? Where, at what point, ANYWHERE, did I advocate Keynesianism?
April 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm (This post was last modified: April 8, 2011 at 8:53 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
Quote:There is nothing against Equal opportunity there, Equal opportunity is about everyone being treated equally by the state, show me where I said for the state to do otherwise! Someone charging what they want for what they product has nothing to do with equal opportunity.
So we are treated equal by the state. And we all have an equal chance to become a monopoly. Once you get that monopoly, then equality is nothing more than a word that is spread by the plutocrats to keep the masses from overwhelming them. Do you not see how you are failing in this category? Now you have an equal opportunity to get screwed, as then your money no longer rewards or punishes the freemarket. A monopoly has been created. Monoploies WILL get your money, wether you need their product or not.
Quote:Monopolies aren't stealing my money by threat of imprisonment to spend it! That's the big difference. Also, in state monopolies common in Keynesianism there is absolutely no opportunity for competition, in the former case there is nothing to stop someone importing matches and undercutting the person who is charging high prices.
So imports stop a monopoly now? Honestly Void, you expect me to think that imports stop a monopoly? Like there is no such thing as multinational corporations, who took over when the Bush administration got into power and gave themselves tax rebates, tax exemptions, corporate welfare, and tax incentives to move their corporate headquaters off shore? Honestly Void, have you NOT been paying attention? what you just posted; "there is nothing to stop someone importing matches and undercutting the person who is charging high prices" is what they spread around for people to think they are still in a free market. CORPORATISTS DONT WANT A FREE MARKET. I dont think I can say that enough. They want to control the market. They want no bid conttracts with the government. Nothing about jail, but you give them money regardless.
Void, you are about to make me go Min on your ass.
Quote:So long as I can do so without breaking any laws, imposing my values on others or coercing or forcing them to do what I want it's none of your fucking business. You don't get to tell someone for what price they can sell their product for and I couldn't care less if you really really want it, you don't have a right to tell anybody what they can do with their stuff.
And I would agree with you if that was the case...but this is not the case. What is a monopoly if they are not breaking laws, rewriting laws to give them more profit, removing environmental laws, artificially inflating prices to screw everyone but the inside traders, imposing their values on others and a monopoly is synonamous with coercion and force. Fuck, my union (IBEW) was violently fought against by the corporatists. Are you telling me you honestly believe this tripe? That they dont impose their values on people?
Void, the problem is not with them setting their prices. I will say this again. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM SETTING THEIR PRICES. The problem is with them ARTIFICIALLY INFLATING their prices. Do you know the difference? One is in a free market setting. The other is in a corporate controlled setting, where if you are not an "insider", then you are the victim that will be robbed to make the inside few very rich.
Quote:Resorting to straw men already? I have NO RIGHT to force anybody to do what they don't want to, that absolutely includes taking people by force and selling them! Classical liberals like Adam Smith were the FIRST people against slavery, racism, sexism and the like in modern society. Classical Liberalism has always been against those things because it is an absolute violation of the rights of the individual.
Strawmen? The founding fathers of America were classical liberals to the exact letter of the definition. What did they do? Um..I dont know...Slavers?
Now you tell me they werent classical liberals.
(April 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:
Reverend Wrote:Sae - what does TL mean?
Too Long: Didn't Read.
I am also a selfish person in that I am against something until I can benefit from it *enough*. This is a value judgement: my dislike of slavery. This is a value judgement: how much of a perceived benefit comes to me from slavery.
If the latter is a far greater value than my dislike for slavery: i will support slavery. I sincerely doubt that anyone can come up with that kind of funds when I *already* have more money than I really want. I'd put it to use, sure... but probably not for me.
Sometimes you give me the creeps Sae. Dont take it wrong, most of the times you make me laugh, but posts like this rub me the wrong way.
(April 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: According to your own words someone can make a product, monopolise on it, and even gloat over inflated prices.
Consumers always set the prices for companies. If the prices are too high, consumers will not purchase your product, and you pave the way for competitors to emerge with lower prices to challenge you in the market. Companies always adjust their prices with regard to the complexity of the product they are making, the demand in the market, and the prices of their competitors. Companies that don't go under very quickly. This is very simple economics, which for some reason you are not getting (or refusing to get).
