Classical Liberalism

[theVOID]

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.

Because it's not a zero sum game! This is the biggest false flag in any argument for collectivism, that all wealth comes from a fixed source of existent value and if anyone has more than someone else they must have done something untoward to get it - It's completely FALSE.

Wealth can be created from both thin air and lesser wealth, I created wealth from thin air yesterday, I designed a new UI and jQuery Library, I can sell that and make money. Does that mean I have stolen money from poor people elsewhere? Fuck no it does not. I created wealth - I did not TAKE it from someone who has less than me.

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).

No, they sell their stuff to people at prices that they agree to pay. If you were worse off by buying my products then you wouldn't do it!

Free? Fuck that. You don't get my stuff for free just because you want it! Suppose I make bread, do you get that for FREE? MY productivity and financial risks, management and marketing, MY wealth, you don't get a scrap of it unless I agree to trade it with you for a price you agree to pay for it.

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.

Oh what nonsense. Why don't we just call hunger "Hunger slavery" because after all you are forced to do things to satisfy your hunger. What a slave you are! Why can't all our food just come without effort so we can stop being hunger slaves?

You need to eat, you want to buy nice things, you need to trade your productivity (time and skills) for those of someone else, what a slave! Yeah having a job, a means by which to sell your productivity, to trade it for the things that other people produce with their productivity, so you can eat and have things you desire, is such a slave fest!

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.

Allowed? Pffft, you 'agree' to work for a wage, you don't have to work for this person at this place, you don't have to work at all if you don't want to, but you're a hunger slave who needs to eat and a desire slave who needs to get her WoW fix, are you a Blizzard slave too?

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.

No, they did not TAKE it, you agreed to trade for it. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Before industry you were forced to get up early and trudge around herding animals, miking cows, chopping wood, preparing food *Just so you could survive*. What a bunch of labor slaves our ancestors were!

So they should have studied something else rather than what they wanted to do. Say you want to be a Musician but there is more supply than demand and your chances of finding work are slim? Tough shit.

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.

And before industry you would absolutely die if you didn't hunt or raise animals! You could starve for days on end because you couldn't find a kill - Fucking hunger slaves, right?

Soup Kitchens are an example of Civil Society, they are funded through private altruism. Most people have an altruistic side, rich or not, they give money to charity because they care about people. I have no problem promoting that attitude, I will campaign for altruism any day, I give some of the fuck all money I have to Oxfam, when I have more money I'll undoubtedly give more - What I will NOT do is force people to give money by threat of imprisonment. If someone doesn't care I have no right to take from them because I do - It's a complete imposition of values - completely contrary to Individualism.

Is it really so absurd to you that people who try to buck slavery usually fail and sometimes die?

It's not slavery, it's work. Oh, you don't want to have a job and you suffer for it? What the fuck did you expect? Nobody is forcing you to work, and using the word "slavery" does nothing but demean what real slaves went through, forced to work without consent or reward, being beaten when they were not, no choices, no freedoms - NONE of that applies to a job.

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.

Oh fuck off, your job gives you food and shelter and toys for the children and luxury items and a car etc, if they're really struggling then contact a charity for aid, there are plenty of people willing to voluntarily give some of their wealth to help those in need.

How is paying you enough to have a relatively decent life "throwing you a chicken nugget". Are you paid in soup and bread or do you get to buy shit you want? Don't get as much money as you like? Well sorry, but your skills just aren't in that much demand. Make yourself in more demand and people will pay you more.

So what if the person who runs the company makes more? They generally work longer hours, have all the high demand skills, take all the risks, own the vast majority of the liabilities and own the property being traded - They should get paid more. The lions share though? You're deluded, the profit margin for a major supermarket is about 4%, that's not the lions share, you might make a good income relative to a single shelve stocker but so what? It's not unfair, it's not theft, it's not exploitation and it's not slavery - It's the reality of some people and skills being in more demand that others, I couldn't care less if you don't like that.

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. p

Robbing? Bullshit. Come to work and I'll give you $ = robbery? Not at all. Life is tough, some people are worth less than others. Get used to it. Yeah people NEED jobs, because we NEED to eat. If you want to call anything 'slavery' it is our being slaves to our needs and desires, but like I said, calling it slavery does nothing but belittle what actual slaves went through.

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.

Cogs in a machine is a collective analogy, what I am proposing is individualism, looking at individuals like they don't matter, like they're part of a collective with it's own goals, doesn't work.

What does replaceable have to do with it? Some skills are in more demand than others, people are willing to trade more for those skills, the better the price you offer for your skills the higher the chance of a successful trade.

'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?

*STRAWMAN ALERT*

No government is NOT what I advocate. I am for policing and much tougher sentences for people who use force fraud, coercion or negligence. What is to stop people from turning the masses into full time serfs? The fact that they aren't allowed to force anyone to do anything they don't want or neglect their responsibilities as agreed in the terms of the trade (employment contract) and if they try either the government and the police can fine or arrest them!

This is the straw man you inevitably resort to, completely ignoring the most crucial point that I have espoused time and time again - Individual freedoms - Someone killing you is violating your right to life, if someone is found guilty of it then lock hem up, someone violating a contract is violating the agreement that two people have willingly come to - Those things are ILLEGAL.

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.

NOT SLAVES.

What stops the rich from creating or accumulating more wealth? As long as they don't use force, fraud, coercion or neglect their responsibilities then NOTHING, they can get as much money as they like. If they do any of those things then the government and police and get involved.

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.

Good, because taxing the rich double what they do now would get you barely a fraction of the way out of the years spending, taking EVERYTHING wouldn't do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

What gives you the right to take a business and dissolve it? That's authoritarian BS. Should we promote the idea to be charitable and give people good wages? Yes. The tools of the intellectual is persuasion and argument, convince people to take up your position, NOT to use group thuggery to impose your values on others and threaten them with imprisonment if they don't.

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.

You're a thief, in other words. I see the resource I try and persuade the owner to trade it for a good price or give some of their wealth to those who need it, I don't storm in with my death squad and take it by force.

Nobody needs to prosper into the hundreds of millions.

Sure, nobody needs most of what they have. Good reason to steal it? No.

And we have multibillion corporations.

Most of whom are so rich because they are propped up by taxpayers!

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.

Well tough, Nazi Sae, you don't get to order society to match your values and kick them out when they think differently or are greedy, even when they are doing nothing to thwart the freedoms of others. We don't have to "embrace" their greed either, We can praise people for selflessness, condemn them for being selfish, reward them when they do good and punish them when they violate our freedoms, but beyond that it's all authoritarianism, imposing your values on others, just another police state rounding up those who think differently.

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

I'm for promoting good lives for all people, I've been an employer in the past and I've paid well above market value, I give to charity, I promote altruism, but I will NOT use force to get my way or impose my values! The tools of the intellectual is persuasion, not force. And I have no right to impose my values on anyone else - That is why I support free markets and civil society, Individualism is the single most important aspect of my worldview.

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.

Good, now go encourage people to do the same.

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).

Good for you.

Agree with the last sentence here. American adult daycare is more of a reward than anything as I see it.

A reward at the expense of others though, not out of charity but taken by force.

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.[/hide]

I doubt that, considering your government took your money and dumped it into your banks.

---

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.

You don't get it. Equality has nothing to do with you getting to decide what other people to with their resources because YOU want them, Equality has to do with being treated like anyone else, not being singled out for any reason like race, gender, geography, family history etc. You want "Equal opportunity" to mean something like "I want it i get it and for the prices I see fit".

Monopolies get your money whether you want their product or not? Bullshit. They sell their product for what the most they can get for it, why the fuck not? You don't have to buy it and if you do it's because you think it's worth the price. They should sell you whatever you want because YOU want to pay that much for it? They will set their prices in such a way as to make the most from it, If they set their prices too high they will lose customers and create huge opportunities for competition.

In a free market there is NOTHING to stop you or some competitor from opening a business, if you think prices are too high then don't threaten force because you don't like it - Do something about it! Start a business and if the monopoly tries price fix and lies to the consumers about no price decrease because of "material and labor costs" or some other bullshit then they are being fraudulent and coercive so they are breaking a law. If they say "No, we just want to charge heaps for it" then tough shit if you don't like it, you still have the opportunity to compete against them, seize the opportunity created by high prices and get into the market!

So imports stop a monopoly now? Honestly Void, you expect me to think that imports stop a monopoly?

CAN stop a monopoly. If you import matches OR manufacture them yourself and sell them for a lower price you are completely free to do so. You'll get more customers because your prices are better and retailers will buy your stock because they get more customers if they sell a cheaper product and can make more profits on quantity.

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?

That's not free market. we are both against government-private sector co-ops! Put the straw man down and back away!

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.

NOT in a free market there isn't! Yeah, Corporatism via Cronie capitalism (Mercantilism) or Keynesianism empowers corporate interests and creates monopolies while closing off the market to stifle competition and prevent people from doing anything about it - That is one of the MANY reasons why I am AGAINST corporatism.

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.

That's not fucking Free Market! Stop the strawman BS. The opportunity for Corporatism comes about via government control (regulations) of the market, not a government that DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to tamper with the economy!

Void, you are about to make me go Min on your ass.

So you've basically stated your intent to use straw men and false equivocation? Great.

Now when you want to actually address my position rather than attacking corporatism, as if that's NOT what I'm vehemently opposed to, you can continue the actual discussion.

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

The only player in the market for a particular product or service, that is what a monopoly is.

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.

Any time you are rewriting laws you are not a monopoly, you are a state-sponsored monopoly, one has the entire force of law on their side and working for their advantage, the other does not. There is a massive difference between the power the two have available.

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?

More fucking straw men huh?

Good, all people should fight against corporatism, stop taxpayer resources going to big business, I oppose it more than almost anything. Government intervention is not the solution to corporatism, it is the very means by which it is created.

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.

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, I'M NOT SUPPORTING CORPORATISM!

Can you stop straw manning me for ONE fucking second?

Prices are determined by supply and demand, if there is only one supplier their prices will be set as to make them the most possible money, the highest price that people will pay, if you have two suppliers it's different, it will be the highest price they can charge while out-selling the competition. Nothing "artificial" about that

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?

Slavery and individualism simply ARE NOT compatible. They didn't see blacks as individuals? So fucking what? That is an inconsistency in their position, not a flaw with mine. It would be like me launching pathetic attacks against communism or statism because you support some form social government, but you don't see me doing that, you don't see me attacking all socialists because of something that a group of people who define themselves as socialists did some time in the past, that's because unlike you it seems I don't have the intellectual spinelessness to resort to straw men to make a point.

Either address what I advocate or don't bother. I don't give a shit what some person who calls themselves a classical liberal somewhere at some time did that was contrary to the values espoused, your using it is nothing more than a straw man, no better than saying blacks are immoral because OJ Simpson killed his wife or Socialism is evil because Stalin was a genocidal maniac or Christianity is evil because of the crusades.