Classical Liberalism

[Violet]

---

Me sleepy, and chelaxed and no want to argue... but i'll do it anyway.

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.

What in the name of Susan are you on about? 0.o If I give a money to a man poorer than I, then he has gained money and I lost money. If a man is poor and I am rich, that man is poor in part because I am rich (read: I have not given him money). I don't attempt to insinuate that wealth is coming from anywhere, i note simply that my riches are at the poor's expense. That is to say that part of the reason they are poor is infact me.

Please remember my stance on blame (that it is shared (not necessarily equally) between all of the causes).

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.

I presume you made this <insert technical nonsense> without the use of an already designed system in which it might be made (read: out of thin air)? I'm going to go right ahead and say you're some sort of god, if indeed this is true ^_^

But more seriously... wealth is not created out of nothing (ever). Wealth is a judgement of value, such as how I should say the apple farmer grows himself a wealth of apples. If indeed you are *selling* whatever you just made, it follows that someone is *buying* it. Means that money is going from one person to another person. You are necessarily taking money from someone else if you are gaining money with this thing you created.

And is this stealing? It usually is. Depends on how you price it, what it is, and who you intend to sell it to. Priced at 500% what it cost to obtain, water, poor people? Stealing. 130%, niche item, rich people? Not stealing. Theft isn't simply the action of taking from someone, it is how it is done. The former example is coercion: they must drink to live, so you steal from those who value their life more than their hate for your prices. The latter is an agreement to the benefit of both parties, over an item that is far from needed, towards people who genuinely decide to buy it because they want to.

So yes, presuming that you follow the marketing practices you seem to follow (free market is no light term): you are almost certainly stealing from someone. Granted, your item is probably incredibly niche... but I highly doubt you would price it fairly, and more highly doubt you would specifically target rich people with what is probably a price well beyond its worth to most. If this item is particularly useful to a poor person, I should certainly think you are stealing from them should they buy it.

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!

If they had these things in the first place, they wouldn't need to feed your greed.

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.

Depends, am I starving? If so, i should think yes. I would never deprive a man of a loaf of bread when I can see the hunger in him. Hell... i'd give him five loaves at the very least. Give. It's worth more to me to see a man fed than it is to have

I read all of that as the seagulls in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4BNbHBcn...re=related

Yes, void... free. Your priorities are as out of whack as every self-centered asshole that doesn't care about anyone else. I sometimes wonder if you are one of these people. I'll go a meal to give a hungrier person my food. I do it plenty often. I give my money to those who don't have the money to buy food. And I neither expect nor wish to be paid back. If this makes me a collectivist: i'll be a collectivist every day.

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?

We are infact slaves to our hunger. By definition, it rules us. We can revolt for a while, but it always ends up the same: if we don't obey it eventually, it will kill us... and revolting against it is very likely to harm us.

And yes: I wish much of our food did come without effort, as nobody deserves to go hungry, especially for long periods of time. Much of my food comes without effort (a benefit of being 'rich')... many of the poor people I know have to make great effort to purchase food to not be hungry. I can buy myself out a full cart of food items without a care in the world, if I so wanted.

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!

Forced to eat so as not to die: hunger slave. This doesn't matter so much though, since we are all slaves to 'reality'... but not all of us are slaves to other people.

Nobody forces you to buy nice things, you are not a slave because you do not have nice things.

Those that must trade their time/skills so as not to die: wage slave.

It is infact a slave fest, and in many countries: poor people cannot afford random things that they want. The poor people I know maintain their houses off of one or two paychecks (if they are renting or on a mortgage), and those who have houses can't find a job that pays enough for them to get ahead. And if people rebel against this system, they 'get the lashes' as surely as any slave of the pre-civil war american south.

You think poor people choose to trade their services for these things? Haha... they are choosing to not starve, to not thirst, to not die. I suffer not the illusion that the poor sod that I just hired came to the job looking to work for me, nor work for him. I see it clearly in that he is here so he can eat, so he can drink, so he can live. No doubt you'll tell me again that slavery is not slavery. No doubt I'll again respond to it that yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. I hate 'debating' this sort of thing.

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?

Yes, allowed. You do have to work for this person at this place if you wish to eat a week from now. You do have to work if you intend to survive. You are a slave to hunger that must eat.

We are not desire slaves unless it rules over us. That is to say that I think few of us are infact desire slaves. Maybe you are, I certainly am not. I sure am lazy though If you must get a WoW fix to survive... yes, you absolutely are a Blizzard slave, and yes, I absolutely pity you.

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!

Because agreeing under threat of death means they want this? Funny guy. Nobody is forcing you to do so? How about the people that sell the water, food, houses, etc? I suppose that you know some impressive way in which the poor might live without these things? It's colder than you can survive in out here... you'd have to be some sort of god.

Milking cows/herding is a form of industry, but that's a tangent away from the point. The difference here, is that these ancestors were slaves to the necessities of survival itself. The wage slaves in america are the slaves of other people. A very important difference, I should think.

I'm beginning to think Void is a god. It would certainly explain how little he understands poor people.

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.

Where you say tough shit, I say socialistic system that provides those neccessities so that you can better both your country and yourself and those greedy capitalistic. Unlike you, I have a heart

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?

Poor sods, is what I say. Thank goodness we are so much richer technologically. What a pitiful life we would lead otherwise.

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.

What i would do is have the overseeing body manage the likes of soup kitchens. If some rich person gives half a damn about the poor, I can think of many more applicable ways than a simple soup kitchen. Not to suggest that a soup kitchen is a poor idea of course... but I am not ignorant of the reasons they are needed in the first place

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.

I work for plenty of people. The work I do isn't slavery. I am not forced to work, and yet I do. That's a personal choice, agreed upon trade and all that nonsense.

The poor are slaves. And it is work. And unlike me, they don't get to take breaks. They have a job, and suffer for having that job, and would suffer more without it. You're absolutely right: nobody is forcing me to work. But the poor is being forced ti work.

I absolutely mock your understanding of what slaves are. You think that the blacks of the american south had it the worst? What of the sorry sods of Stalin's regime? The chinese? A poor acquaintance of mine that has been a paycheck away from losing her house for the last year as she works two jobs? You tell me that I'm demeaning the work of slaves by noting more of them in a wider capacity? Haha. Know this: rights are an illusion, beating is a punishment (stalin: death, america: "jail", acquaintance: loss of shelter), forcing someone to work is done by holding a severe punishment over someone's head, pre-american-civil-war slaves were rewarded for free room and board so long as they kept working, choice is an illusion.

All of that applies to the poor in america. You suggest I demean slavery? I say you demean slaves.

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.

Oh, believe me... I would love to not see you respond to this. My job gives me those things, yes. Many people's jobs do not. I can only smile at your suggestion of charities as you might one day get it.

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.

A relatively decent life? Compared to soviet russia? And yes, the poor are paid in a chicken nugget while the rich are paid in dozens of chickens. Plenty of poor people might as well be paid in soup and bread for what they can afford to spend their money on.

I really just have to side at your arrogance. /sigh...

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.

I am hardly deluded. 4 cheeseburgers at McDonalds are worth as much as one of those workers make in an hour, and the line is streaming through there all the hours that it is open. The wages of the workers and the wage of the manager absolutely do not compare (not even close).

A supermarket isn't set up the same way a lot of business are... but 4% of the revenue goes to a single person in it? 0.o That is HUGE considering what his workers are being paid (.0## if not .00###). Compared to the other workers, that is the lions share. I cannot defend that much of a return for a single person running a supermarket, cut them and raise the others. Sure, they get to deal with liabilities and nonsense, but that is far beyond what they need to be paid.

It absolutely is unfair, it can be theft, it is exploitation, it often is slavery. It is the reality that people are bags of flesh that can be replaced almost instantly, and don't need to be paid beyond keeping them alive... and these people would be paid far less were there no minimum wage.

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.

Robbing? Quite cleanly. Come to work and I'll give a way to not starve and if you leave me I'll just grab another poor sod and do the same with them. More simply, they are robbing a third of a person's life if the person works the job for 8 hours. That they are being stolen from in other ways isn't always true, however it is often so.

I agree that life is tough and some rare gems are worth more than most. I disagree that I should get used to it, especially when humanity is supposed to be going forward. People do not need jobs, people need food. Slavery is to anything that rules you, but the slavery I care about here is that another person rules someone.

'Actual slaves'? Oh such ignorance... are you sure you didn't write this nonsense while drunk?

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.

Individualism is turning a populace into a collective body? Fascinating. Totally didn't see that one coming. Oh wait... i did.

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.

Replaceable means you are quite similar in identity to the point that you are hardly missed. Meaning that it costs next to nothing to boot you the moment you don't perform as the employer wishes.

*STRAWMAN ALERT*

I already knew you were going to put forth a strawman... that was really unnecessary. I mean... why read the next bit if I already know it's going to be a strawman? Total downer. Maybe I shouldn't read it, but then you'd be all disapointed. Very well, let's read the strawman

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!

You don't advocate no government? Am I drunk? I don't drink, so I can't be drunk. But what if I am drunk? I might be drunk. I had too much to drink. Water isn't always a good thing.

So.... you aren't for a free market at all. Why do you incessantly insist that you are, then? What you are saying is that I am entirely correct, and you agree. So that's what strawman means. I did not know that. Maybe I'll read strawmen more often.

And yes, they are allowed to force people to do things. Just not 'visibly'. It can't be immediately seen for what it is if they wish to avoid fines/jail/armed rebellion/good stuff.

But yeah... it's good to see that you don't advocate no government. I really don't get your strawman assertion when you agree with what happens with no government. Try not to have the arrogance to think that everything I write is directly addressed at you, that paragraph was addressed at the irreverent position that seems to plague some real life 'libertarians' I know. And also fr0d0.

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.

Individual freedoms? Someone being seen is violating my right to see the world without them in it. Oh, I'm sorry.... you meant individual restrictions. Of course, now I understand.

Why in the name of Susan (my left ankle) do you use the word 'freedoms' to express restrictions? What a strange person you can be

NOT SLAVES.

Slaves. You tell a lot. I wonder how many burgers you can fit into your mouth by now.

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.

Funny then, seeing as force, fraud, coercion, and neglect for responsibilities so often describe the rich.

The puppet government and corrupt police?

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.

Really? We are so far in debt that taking all that there is wouldn't pull us out of it? That's some serious debt right there.

Don't worry, I had a chat with boyfriend about just how impractical an idea it is to take all of the money from the rich, just earlier today. I no longer believe this is viable. If it were though, I would still advocate it.

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.

What gives me the right? Absolutely nothing. The government with the largest army in the world? What doesn't give them the right?

Authoritarian BS? You surely mean authoritarian effectiveness.

I promote charity. I don't support wages while food, water, etc isn't free at a reasonable allotment.

A tool of an intellectual is persuasion and argument. Another tool is to shoot people. Don't presume the one who uses a tool is intelligent or not unless it takes a great deal of intelligence to wield a tool (effectively...).

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.

Guilty as charged, I have stolen under a variety of rather effective methods. Electronic piracy for one. I am also an honest woman that wishes to see those she has stolen from in the past repaid.

I haven't stormed in with a death squad yet, but it's certainly an idea for the future. Love the way your evil little mind works, Void

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

Great reason to steal it if I don't have what I need, actually.

Poor reason for me of course.

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

So they steal even more from the poor? How very fascinating.

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.

Nazi Sae has a nice ring to it. Unfortunately, I am not christian, and I don't wear the hat.

The greedy are always doing things to thwart the "freedoms" of others. How could they get ahead while everyone else can as well? Silly greedy people.

We do embrace their greed as a society. Many respect Bill Gates a lot, for instance. I do not.

What we can do and what we do are usually both on the selfish side of the spectrum.

I believe our leaders should be authoritarian within reason. A people does not need to be involved in an easy attack on another civilization. Infact, it gets in the way. Damn hippies. That I also see our entire system in need of a reboot and suggest a working solution as we patch the problem doesn't make me the thought police

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.

Then you are surely a socialist.

And you do not support free market. You do support civil society.

Individualism sounds nuts to me

Good, now go encourage people to do the same.

If my actions don't on their own, then I see not how my words would change that.

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

American prison is indeed.

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

Then we no longer have rich people, as the banks failed. Oh wait...

---