I would like to note that Mr. Gates has indeed given alot of his money to charity and aid programs, voluntarily.
What is apparently difficult for people living in the first world to understand is that charity and aid programs address only symptoms of a vast underlying problem. Starvation, poverty, and environmental degredation of the third world (for example) all arise from the same fundamental disfunction, namely that the global economic system is designed to facilitate a small group of people exploiting the relatively empovrished multitude.
Quote from ljossberir »
He earned his wealth through the voluntary participation of individuals. He didn't use force or the threat of force to get labor or consumers.
Again, your insight stops at the surface. The reason Bill Gates was able to make his billions in the IT industry was because computer companies were exploiting cheap labor and a lack of environmental regulations in developing countries to produce affordable computers. The various materials used to make those computers were likewise acquired by companies exploiting cheap labor and lax environemntal regulations in other developing countries. By profitting and then driving the personal computer industry, by not using his influence to dismantel these systems and create workable alternatives to them, Bill Gates is actively involved in supporting these systems of international exploitation.
Quote from ljossberir »
Anyone who advocates the use of force to "redistribute" (steal) from him is much worse than he will ever be.
It's a good thing this has nothing to do with the discussion since no one was advocating that.
Quote from ljossberir »
I'd also like to ask just how much of his wealth you think we should take from him?
I don't think we should take any of his wealth away from him. I think we should dismantel the economic systems that create wealth in the first place.
Quote from ljossberir »
Why [does Bill Gates (for example) have an obligation to demand that his government stand accountable for the atrocities it has condoned and participated in, and continues to deny or ignore?]
By "obligation" I suppose I meant "moral imperitive" which is ultimatly what we're discussing here. Whereas capitalists tend to assume that others are untrustworthy and selfish and it is therefore in their best interest to behave similarly, anarcho-socialists tend to assume that despite their general behavior, others have the capacity to be generous, and honest and therefore it is in their best interest to encourage that sort of behavior.
Quote from ljossberir in reference to the IT industry"s involvement in widescale oppression »
Such as? Given your definition of oppression, it's unlikely that I will agree with you here.
Seeing as the dictionary's definition of oppression matches my own, I'm wondering what definition are you using? It may also be good to look up some of the pertinant words in the definition like: wrongful, corrupt, and cruel.
Quote from ljossberir »
How are these masses being "oppresed" by the military?
This question is more urgent then how the IT industry oppresses people. There are so many answers to this it's overwhelming, I literaly don't know where to begin. The US government gives "military aid" (aka. weapons) to oppressive governments all over the world. The US military runs the recently renamed "School of the Americas" where for almost 50 years we've trained and armed Central and South American paramilitaries to protect US interests in their respective countries by slaughtering uppity peasents. The US has had a nearly constant military presence in many of those countries over the last century. The US used its status as the only remaining military superpower to illegally invade two, relatively defenseless countries and has set up new puppet governments and permanent military bases there. I highly recommend Walter LeFeber's "Inevitable Revolutions" for a very detailed, thorough analysis of US foriegn policy in Central America over the last 150 years if you want more details on the US military "oppressing the masses."
Quote from ljossberir in regards to questions he is not prepared to ask, let alone answer »
I'm not even going to respond to these points. You're all over the place on this one.
That's sort of the point. You keep trying to isolate the topic by removing it from the extenuating social, historical, environmental, geographic, religious, economical, political and military contexts that it exists in. I keep trying to explain that the complex nature of economics and governments, in practice, cannot be properly understood outside of those contexts. In response, you keep banging your head over more details, removing those from their contexts and finding they don't make sense either. For example:
Quote from ljossberir in regards to Socialist governments being crushed "in utero" by Capitalist forces »
Capitalist nations create cheaper, higher quality goods. So, yes...
No... my point is that there has never been a Socialist government. An even remotely successful Socialist government would be horribly detrimental to global Capitalism, in part because Socialist governments, by their very exsistence, would challenge the ultimately illusionary nature of wealth. Another reason Socialism is dangerous to global Capitalism is because, like I explained earlier, Capitalism creates the existence of an oppressed majority by virtue of its functioning. That majority, if they were provided with a functioning model of a Socialist government, would be compelled, even more than they are now, to adopt such a government. So virulent is the "plague" of Socialism, that even the poorly functioning Soviety Union and China had to be made out to be the "Evil Empire." Hence the Cold War.
Quote from ljossberir »
What does the rape and physical abuse of this hypothetical young lady have to do with capitalism? Nothing.
I understand your denial. If you were to accept that the very clothes you wear were made in such atrocious conditions, you might feel compelled to do something about it. Unfortunately, this young lady is not hypothetical and she has everything to do with capitalism. She and millions like her are the building blocks of capitalism. The empovrished farmers, getting sprayed with toxic chemicals, drinking the water it runs off too, so that we can eat cheap bannanas is what makes Capitalism work.
Quote from ljossberir »
That's just a poor attempt appeal to emotion
It's only poor because you don't give a damn about the price other people have to pay for your lifestyle.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
What is apparently difficult for people living in the first world to understand is that charity and aid programs address only symptoms of a vast underlying problem.
Right. Corruption that undermines liberty and the initiation of force against others.
Starvation, poverty, and environmental degredation of the third world (for example) all arise from the same fundamental disfunction, namely that the global economic system is designed to facilitate a small group of people exploiting the relatively empovrished multitude.
I believe in absolute free trade. Free trade is not designed to "exploit" anyone. It is designed to stop interference with economic liberty and prosperity.
Again, your insight stops at the surface. The reason Bill Gates was able to make his billions in the IT industry was because computer companies were exploiting cheap labor and a lack of environmental regulations in developing countries to produce affordable computers.
Yeah, I know that. So what?
The various materials used to make those computers were likewise acquired by companies exploiting cheap labor and lax environemntal regulations in other developing countries.
OK.
By profitting and then driving the personal computer industry, by not using his influence to dismantel these systems and create workable alternatives to them, Bill Gates is actively involved in supporting these systems of international exploitation.
If it is voluntary, I have no problem with it at all.
It's a good thing this has nothing to do with the discussion since no one was advocating that.
So you want him to keep the money he has earned? Great, we are in agreement.
I don't think we should take any of his wealth away from him. I think we should dismantel the economic systems that create wealth in the first place.
How can we dismantle these economic systems?
I think you mentioned this before, but to be honest I had trouble understanding it. What is "wealth" and why do you not want to create it?
By "obligation" I suppose I meant "moral imperitive" which is ultimatly what we're discussing here. Whereas capitalists tend to assume that others are untrustworthy and selfish and it is therefore in their best interest to behave similarly,
False.
anarcho-socialists tend to assume that despite their general behavior, others have the capacity to be generous, and honest and therefore it is in their best interest to encourage that sort of behavior.
So you are an anarcho-socialist, then?
Seeing as the dictionary's definition of oppression matches my own,
The definition may match your own, but I don't think it fits many (if not all) of the examples you have provided.
I'm wondering what definition are you using? It may also be good to look up some of the pertinant words in the definition like: wrongful, corrupt, and cruel.
There is a definition for wrongful, corrupt and cruel. But who made you the sole arbiter of what fits that description?
This question is more urgent then how the IT industry oppresses people. There are so many answers to this it's overwhelming, I literaly don't know where to begin. The US government gives "military aid" (aka. weapons) to oppressive governments all over the world.
If so, they are wrong.
The US military runs the recently renamed "School of the Americas" where for almost 50 years we've trained and armed Central and South American paramilitaries to protect US interests in their respective countries by slaughtering uppity peasents.
If so, they are wrong.
The US has had a nearly constant military presence in many of those countries over the last century.
Again, wrong. We're not even supposed to have a standing army, infact.
The US used its status as the only remaining military superpower to illegally invade two, relatively defenseless countries and has set up new puppet governments
So you say.
and permanent military bases there.
I'm not so sure they have established these bases. If they have, that is wrong.
I highly recommend Walter LeFeber's "Inevitable Revolutions" for a very detailed, thorough analysis of US foriegn policy in Central America over the last 150 years if you want more details on the US military "oppressing the masses."
Alright. What's your point here? Has the US army been forcing people around the world to work where we want them to?
That's sort of the point. You keep trying to isolate the topic by removing it from the extenuating social, historical, environmental, geographic, religious, economical, political and military contexts that it exists in.
If we're discussing the legality of abortion, don't ask me to speak about Hammurabi.
If we're discussing circus animals, I don't wanna hear anything about Hannibal marching over the Alps.
No... my point is that there has never been a Socialist government.
Great, here we go again.
An even remotely successful Socialist government would be horribly detrimental to global Capitalism, in part because Socialist governments, by their very exsistence, would challenge the ultimately illusionary nature of wealth. Another reason Socialism is dangerous to global Capitalism is because, like I explained earlier, Capitalism creates the existence of an oppressed majority by virtue of its functioning.
The majority is not oppressed by Capitalism simply because they have less money, but whatever..
I understand your denial.
There's no denial here. I know many people don't make much money. I just don't care, as long as they are working voluntarily..
If you were to accept that the very clothes you wear were made in such atrocious conditions, you might feel compelled to do something about it.
Please.
Unfortunately, this young lady is not hypothetical and she has everything to do with capitalism.
Yeah, I think I understand! The evil capitalist pig is perverted by greed. This greed makes him want to rape and physically abuse a child. It's all coming together now.
She and millions like her are the building blocks of capitalism.
If we can overthrow the capitalist class there will be less rape and child abuse! To the barricades, comrade. Do it for the children!
It's only poor because you don't give a damn about the price other people have to pay for your lifestyle.
If they do it willingly? No. If they are physically forced to do so? Hell yes, I care.
It's absolutely thrilling to see two literary dreadnoughts gliding past each other, stately broadsides a-firing, particularly in the full and comfortable knowledge that, for once, I am not standing on the bridge of either.
You guys give good debate. Rock on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
ljossberir states that government and business shouldn't be lumped together under captilist idealology and that others feel that a socialist regime would not allow this to occur. My two cents. Both camps are technically correct but idealogicaly different standpoints.
On topic, I feel this is a good example of too much coporparte power gone wrong. Private interests in infringing on civil rights for the case of money. The governmnet who's purpose it is to adminstrate and protect the civil rights of all citizens has failed to do so.
It's absolutely thrilling to see two literary dreadnoughts gliding past each other, stately broadsides a-firing, particularly in the full and comfortable knowledge that, for once, I am not standing on the bridge of either.
You guys give good debate. Rock on.
Well, thank you very much.
Quote from behemoth »
ljossberir states that government and business shouldn't be lumped together under captilist idealology
Yes. I'd like to point out that this is a two way street. The government should not support business (as it often does today), nor should it regulate business. Please note that this doesn't mean that business owners or workers get any more of a break from criminal liability than an individual would under the given circumstances.
Quote from behemoth »
others feel that a socialist regime would not allow this to occur
I doubt Ben would like you to use the word "regime" here. The two of us, I believe, would agree that the ultimate goal should be to obtain the consent of the governed.
Quote from behemoth »
On topic, I feel this is a good example of too much coporparte power gone wrong.
I won't argue with you on that one, corporations are artificial lifeforms and they should be abolished.
Private interests in infringing on civil rights for the case of money. The governmnet who's purpose it is to adminstrate and protect the civil rights of all citizens has failed to do so.
An individual should not infringe on the civil rights of another. Therefore this is in my opinion wrong ethically. The act was not carried out "for the greater good" nor does it seek the recompense the infringed indivual.
I'm a bit of an optimist. I'm not a staunch captilist but see it as a means to stability, prosperity (not just financial) and a way to grant the individual freedom. It does though as every idealogy has the flaw that peope get in the way.
An individual should not infringe on the civil rights of another.
As far as I'm concerned: life (future), liberty (present) and property (past).
Therefore this is in my opinion wrong ethically. The act was not carried out "for the greater good"
Even if it was, I think it would still be wrong to an extent. I have an idea but I'm not entirely aware of how British government works.
For the most part, we are supposed to have a Republican government in the United States. And rightly so. A government where the majority gets their way, but their way should never interfere with the rights of the minority.
nor does it seek the recompense the infringed indivual.
They've got this thing they like to call just compensation. I'm not so sure who determines this compensation, but it sure as hell isn't fair. Some of these inviduals would or will be recieving about 1/3 of the market value of their property. Fair?!
I'm a bit of an optimist. I'm not a staunch captilist but see it as a means to stability, prosperity (not just financial) and a way to grant the individual freedom.
Rights that are granted aren't rights. Rights that are granted are privileges, because they can be taken back. I believe in rights. As you can see from the example above, these particular politicians believe property is a privilege.
I believe the sole purpose of government is, as some of America's founders said, to secure rights.. not grant them.
Rights unfortuanetly are "granted". If a right can be removed such as murdering someone removing their right to live then I propose rights are granted.
I don't disagree though with your statement.
Your goverment is very similair in out look than ours we just go about things in a different manner as far as I can tell.
I believe in absolute free trade. Free trade is not designed to "exploit" anyone. It is designed to stop interference with economic liberty and prosperity.
This is naive. Labor laws and environmental regulations are both examples of "barriers" to free trade. Are you seriously suggesting that we leave buisness completely unregulated? Given that buisness is driven solely by the search for ever greater profits, what would stop buisness from laying waste to the land, and enslaving the populace? Since revolts and collective bargaining are also barriers to free trade, what's to stop big buisness from highering mercenaries to slaughter disobedient workers (like the Contras in the 1980's)? More on this topic further down.
Quote from ljossberir in response to my assertion that Bill Gates is responsible for the oppression of others because the industry he is entrenched in is reponsible for the oppression of others. »
Yeah, I know that. So what?
So, if you lead an organization or group of organizations that oppresses people, you are therefore involved in that oppression, and are therefore oppressing people. Which was, if you recall, my point (that Bill Gates is oppressing people).
Quote from ljossberir on the same issue »
If it is voluntary, I have no problem with it at all.
Define and explain your usage of voluntary as it makes no sense to me. Of course Bill Gates if volunteering to make bundles of money! Of course Intel, IBM and Dell are all voluntarily exploiting people, they're making bags of money doing it! Are suggesting that people are voluntarily being exploited? I guess I don't understand what definition of "voluntary" you could possibly be using. Global economic patterns define our lives, we make choices within that context, but our day-to-day existence is defined by it. For many people, part of the context of their lives is that they are exploited, they can choose to varying extents how they respond to that exploitation, but given that their survival is on the line, and they must work for survival since their alternatives have been decimated by international economic forces, I don't think its useful, constructive or practical to say that they are voluntarily in the positions that they are in. That is a privilaged, elitist justification for oppression.
Quote from ljossberir »
So you want [Bill Gates] to keep the money he has earned? Great, we are in agreement.
Bill Gates can keep his money, absolutely. I'm reminded of a famous Cree Indian Prophecy:
Quote from Cree Indian Prophecy »
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.
I don't want to take Bill Gates' money and give it to someone else, I want to make money worthless.
Quote from ljossberir »
How can we dismantle these economic systems?
I think you mentioned this before, but to be honest I had trouble understanding it. What is "wealth" and why do you not want to create it?
I'm working on a thorough answer to this and the rest of the points that followed it, but am going out of town for a few days, so I won't be able to post my response until Monday at the soonest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
About the government death pictures posted, I say I have to take them with a grain of salt. Most glaring is the forced abortions/infanticides portion. The one-child law was enacted because of the fact that China's population is so large that the Chinese leadership saw they were headed towards a major catastrophe. However, the law failed to take into account that many traditions from old China (not actually so old because of China's late development), namely that girls are undesirable. Who committed most of the infanticides? The parents.
The policy, though inhumane, is necessary. There are simply too many people in the world today, and world population is still increasing.
Second, I object to the notion that capitalism should not be regulated. Chicago sausage factories in 1905 (give or take) had poisoned rats, sawdust, and meat rejected from markets in Europe because it was unfit for human consumption, thrown into the hoppers and sold to consumers.
Not to mention the 1929 stock market crash was influenced by people making front companies, selling worthless stock while reporting fake profits, and making off with quite a lot of money.
For the computer part of this, Bill Gates was simply selling a product. He did indeed profit becuase other companies made cheap parts in China, the Phillipines, and Mexico, but he is no more guilty than we are by using those parts to access the internet to post on this website.
The companies, despite searching for profits, are not in a monopoly situation (thanks again to anti-trust laws (I forget who made them in the states, since Im not an American, I think it was Wilson, Teddy, or Taft)), and sell their product at the lowest price they can and still derive a profit. Thus it is natural to search for the cheapest labour pools as a way to save money. While Bob might make 3 dollars a day cranking out Pentiums, one cant forget that in developing countries, 3 dollars is a lot of money that might buy food for a week or a good night out with one's girl with change to spare.
I recall one of the islamist states going on about their uber-severe punishments for something westerners dont care about, with the cost coming to about 7 dollars.
Even if Bill Gates has or had a monopoly, the government has a monopoly or near-monopoly on tons of other things: roads, schools, gambling, etc. Why do you not object to these things?
Quote from BenGreen »
This is naive. Labor laws and environmental regulations are both examples of "barriers" to free trade.
Yep, that's why they're wrong.
Are you seriously suggesting that we leave buisness completely unregulated?
We should get government out of business as much as possible. No support for it, little to no regulation on it.
Let the market decide for itself which business survives and which does not. Let the people decide, not the politicians with their hands in the coffers. Government is hardly an objective judge here.
Quote from behemoth »
Rights unfortuanetly are "granted". If a right can be removed such as murdering someone removing their right to live then I propose rights are granted.
Part of the 5th amendment to the Constitution of these United States: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Interference with the life, liberty or property of another should indicate a forfeiture of ones own rights. Within reason, of course.
From the Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I agree with the founding fathers of these United States when they say that the purpose of government is to secure rights. They are admitting here that rights are natural, not granted. If rights were granted, the purpose of a government might instead be to "create" rights. That's not how it works.
Quote from Ben Green »
So, if you lead an organization or group of organizations that oppresses people, you are therefore involved in that oppression, and are therefore oppressing people.
Yes, all that is true.
Quote from Ben Green »
Which was, if you recall, my point (that Bill Gates is oppressing people).
Your point is opinion and I generally disagree with that opinion. I don't think anyone who enters into a contract out of their own free will is being oppressed. Now, if Mr. Gates is forcing anyone to do so or using anyone to force someone to do so.. then yes, he is an oppressor.
Quote from Ben Green »
Define and explain your usage of voluntary as it makes no sense to me.
Ljoss: Hey Ben, you want a job?
Ben Green: What kind of job?
Ljoss: We'll pay you 2.00 USD an hour to work in our factory.
Ben Green: OK. When can I start?
Ljoss: As soon as you are ready.
Voluntary.
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
Ben Green: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
Ben Green: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: [reviewing papers] This is acceptable.
Ben Green: Ok, you can start tommorow.
Ljoss: OK.
Voluntary.
Quote from Ben Green »
Global economic patterns define our lives, we make choices within that context, but our day-to-day existence is defined by it.
On my commnet on murder I used it as an example of someone being more powergful removing a right. This proves a right is granted in the sense a powefulr body be it a person/group may remove rights even illegally. Thus rights are delicate. I agree that the goal of a goverment should be to secure the necessary rights for the populace. Going into what rights these should be is a seperate debate.
I disagree on the let the market decide. Without legislation protectig the indiviudal "companies" will seek to exploit the individual. That's the fail safe of a democratic government. It may hold a monopoly but every citizen is a shareholder with equal weight (in theory, reality has proven "companies" and memebrs of "pressure groups" have greater power). Companies though due to their nature are more effeicitent at delivering services and goods. I beleive in a balance of the two.
Even if Bill Gates has or had a monopoly, the government has a monopoly or near-monopoly on tons of other things: roads, schools, gambling, etc. Why do you not object to these things?
Because that's part of the job of the government, to hold the monopolies on things that the market fails on.
Quote from ljossberir »
We should get government out of business as much as possible. No support for it, little to no regulation on it.
Let the market decide for itself which business survives and which does not. Let the people decide, not the politicians with their hands in the coffers. Government is hardly an objective judge here.
Ljoss, its your blind faith in the free market that is leading you to support this foolish position. Even a first year econ student knows that the market fails in a great many situations. Any product that is a public good (that is, products that you don't have to pay for to benefit from, such as roads or health care), or that has externalities (products that you pay for even though you don't benefit from, such as products that have toxic byproducts), the market will not produce in the correct amount. The whole point of government regulation is to correct these deficiencies in the free market system.
Quote from ljossberir »
From the Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I agree with the founding fathers of these United States when they say that the purpose of government is to secure rights. They are admitting here that rights are natural, not granted. If rights were granted, the purpose of a government might instead be to "create" rights. That's not how it works.
It is how it works, and it should be quite obvious. Here's an illuminating argument.
Look at a group of people living with no system of laws or government, in other words in complete anarchy. What rights do they have? None. If someone overpowers them by force and takes the property they were living on, what appeal do they have? None.
Now add a government and a legal system into the mix that enforces agreed upon rights. What rights do they have now? Whatever rights the people (and therefore the government) agreed they should enforce. If someone violates those rights, do they now have an appeal? Certainly, they can appeal to the enforcing body. The government created the rights the citizens now have through the enforcement of those rights.
It is meaningless to talk about rights you "have" when those rights are not being enforced. To put my rebuttal into the language of your argument, you are setting up a false dichotomy. Securing rights *is* creating rights.
Quote from ljossberir »
Ljoss: Hey Ben, you want a job?
Ben Green: What kind of job?
Ljoss: We'll pay you 2.00 USD an hour to work in our factory.
Ben Green: OK. When can I start?
Ljoss: As soon as you are ready.
Voluntary.
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
Ben Green: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
Ben Green: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: [reviewing papers] This is acceptable.
Ben Green: Ok, you can start tommorow.
Ljoss: OK.
Voluntary.
Scene setting: A plane crashed in the mountains. GMontag and Ljoss are the only two survivors. It is 13 below freezing. GMontag luckily packed two heavy winter coats, as he was getting a connecting flight to Anchorage. Ljoss only packed warm weather clothes, as he was getting a connecting flight to Honolulu.
GMontag: I've got this extra coat here that you could wear so you won't die.
Ljoss: Wow, thanks.
GMontag: Wait, it's going to cost you. You have to pay me $1 billion for it.
Ljoss: What? You've got to be kidding me.
GMontag: Fine, don't take the coat then.
Ljoss: Alright, alright, I pay you whatever you want, just give me the damn coat.
Voluntary?
Now try this more realistic version of your example.
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
GMontag: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
GMontag: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: That's it? I can barely pay my rent and feed my family on that.
GMontag: If you don't like it you don't have to take it.
Ljoss goes to another employer:
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
GMontag2: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
GMontag2: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: That's as bad as the other guy's offer!
GMontag2: Take it or leave it.
Ljoss: I can't afford to stay unemployed any longer. I guess I'll just have to take this dead-end job that can barely support me.
Voluntary?
I'm pretty sure any reasonable person would say neither of my examples were voluntary.
Because that's part of the job of the government, to hold the monopolies on things that the market fails on.
And why exactly are governments better equipped to handle these things?
Ljoss, its your blind faith in the free market that is leading you to support this foolish position. Even a first year econ student knows that the market fails in a great many situations.
When did I say the market never fails?
Limited knowledge on the subject notwithstanding, Milton Friedman is hardly a "first year econ student".
Any product that is a public good (that is, products that you don't have to pay for to benefit from, such as roads or health care),
I'm not going to waste my time on the roads issue. As for health care, I've seen no proof whatsoever that socialized medicine works better.
The system is often slower, inefficient and more expensive because bureaucrats have less of an incentive to provide cheap, quality health care.
Here is just one example of the problems we could fix by kicking government out of medicine and out of business.
or that has externalities (products that you pay for even though you don't benefit from, such as products that have toxic byproducts), the market will not produce in the correct amount. The whole point of government regulation is to correct these deficiencies in the free market system.
There are few deficiencies and government is making it worse, not better. Supply and demand.
Look at a group of people living with no system of laws or government, in other words in complete anarchy. What rights do they have?
The same rights we do. The same rights people in South Africa do. The same rights people in Korea do. Want me to go on?
None.
Ummm... no. We don't need an artificial entity to "give" us our natural rights as human beings.
I don't have the right to murder you, wherever we are, whatever the conditions might be.
Now add a government and a legal system into the mix that enforces agreed upon rights. What rights do they have now? Whatever rights the people (and therefore the government) agreed they should enforce. If someone violates those rights, do they now have an appeal? Certainly, they can appeal to the enforcing body. The government created the rights the citizens now have through the enforcement of those rights.
No. People have rights with or without a government. The purpose of a government is to protect those rights.
It is meaningless to talk about rights you "have" when those rights are not being enforced.
Tell that to Gandhi. Tell that to Malcom X. Or Bobby Seale. Or Wang Dan.
To put my rebuttal into the language of your argument, you are setting up a false dichotomy. Securing rights *is* creating rights.
Rights aren't created. We are born with them. When I (and the framers, IMO) say the word "secure" in this context it can mean any number of things, but it certainly does not mean to create from scratch or to invent.
Are you actually saying that a man on a train ride to Auschwitz didn't have a right to life, just because no one could enforce it for him?
I believe you are confusing a right with a privilege.
a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all
prerogative: a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right); "suffrage was the prerogative of white adult males"
(law) the right to refuse to divulge information obtained in a confidential relationship
bestow a privilege upon
Scene setting: A plane crashed in the mountains. GMontag and Ljoss are the only two survivors. It is 13 below freezing. GMontag luckily packed two heavy winter coats, as he was getting a connecting flight to Anchorage. Ljoss only packed warm weather clothes, as he was getting a connecting flight to Honolulu.
GMontag: I've got this extra coat here that you could wear so you won't die.
Ljoss: Wow, thanks.
GMontag: Wait, it's going to cost you. You have to pay me $1 billion for it.
Ljoss: What? You've got to be kidding me.
GMontag: Fine, don't take the coat then.
Ljoss: Alright, alright, I pay you whatever you want, just give me the damn coat.
Voluntary?
Invalid. Where are the competition coat dealers here?
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
GMontag: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
GMontag: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: That's it? I can barely pay my rent and feed my family on that.
GMontag: If you don't like it you don't have to take it.
Yeah, if I don't like it I should go somewhere else. Are you telling me that you have an obligation to feed my family? That I have the right to tell you how much of your money you'll give me? How sweet your system is! Goodbye responsibilities!
Maybe I should go get some more job training. Or a better education. Or learn a skill. Or start my own business. So on and so on and so on. Or perhaps, just perhaps, I should have thought about my responsibilities to my children before I created them.
Ljoss goes to another employer:
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
GMontag2: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
GMontag2: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: That's as bad as the other guy's offer!
GMontag2: Take it or leave it.
Ljoss: I can't afford to stay unemployed any longer. I guess I'll just have to take this dead-end job that can barely support me.
Voluntary?
I'm pretty sure any reasonable person would say neither of my examples were voluntary.
Because every business pays the exact same wage, right? And because it is impossible to learn skills, get training, work hard and get a promotion, get an education, start your own business.
You start dicating your own wages, by threat of force or otherwise, and the overall quality of life for everyone will diminish while business after business disappears because they're all in the red.
Quote from behemoth »
On my commnet on murder I used it as an example of someone being more powergful removing a right. This proves a right is granted in the sense a powefulr body be it a person/group may remove rights even illegally.
Yes, that is why we form governments... to protect these natural rights.
Behemoth, you are still using the word granted. What object is doing the granting? Can a person not be "granted" this right?
Sorry I'm debating semantics of rights which doesn't have a place anymore in this debate. The granting is done by whomever the individual meets who wishes to circumvent the rights and has the ability to do so. The point was merely to illustrate the delicate nature of rights and the need for goverments to protect them.
We agree on the need for governments and their purpose so I think we can put that one to bed.
Humans have no intrinsic rights. To claim otherwise is clearly fallacy. We're just creatures like any other, with no more intrinsic right to existence than that deer which just got eaten by a Tiger.
If no one has a right to life, then why don't you kill someone and take all their money? Is it only fear of reprisal that prevents you from doing this?!
The prominence of slave cultures throughout history is simple denial of 'basic' human rights.
So you would be OK with bringing slavery back? No one has a right to liberty, so you should be just fine with it.
But there are people throughout the world who fundamentally prove that there IS NO HUMAN RIGHTS are often violated.
Fixed.
Kim Jong Il is a great example of this. If people have fundamental rights, his actions should be impossible.
No. The violation of rights is quite possible. Ever heard the phrase "stand up for your rights" or "defend your right to ____"?
But they ARE possible, because he has the power to define what 'rights' his people do and do not have.
Just because he can do whatever he wants does not mean he should.
Do you really, really, REALLY think that all Human Rights existed 1000 years ago?were respected and defended 1000 years ago?
Fixed.
If you do, you're wrong. People had no rights. The ruler decided, on a whim, who lived, who died, and all the rest of it.
Yes. And he did.
Question: Do you object to these things? If so, what do you use as a basis for objection?
And no, nobody has a right to liberty.
If you want to believe that, fine. I completely, wholeheartedly, with every fiber of my being disagree with that belief.
But liberty is a good thing, appreciated by everyone (including me) and I'm very glad that my government decided to give me that liberty.
The government hasn't given you anything. All they have done is defended what you already deserve.
Also, you make it sound as if the government is some supernatural being, hovering in space somewhere and zapping you with the liberty gun. Where do you think this government came from? It was instituted by men to protect their natural rights.
Let me reverse this, Ljoss, before you start drooling at the mouth because it seems you're utterly unable to understand this incredibly simple concept:
Too late. I already am. I get pretty irritated when someone says human beings don't have a right to life or liberty. Crazy, ain't it?
If you moved to a different country, for whatever reason, and that country happened to be ruled by a fascist dictator, and that dictator decided to make you a scapegoat for a crime you were on the other side of the country of... what rights do you have?
The same rights. If he chooses to kill me, imprison me or whatever then he will be violating my rights.
The fact that I cannot defend them is not the point.
Answer? None. Because the person in power, will not GIVE YOU THOSE RIGHTS.
Rights aren't given.
You can shout to the heavens about your right to love, liberty and all the rest of it, and the door will be slammed in your face, the key will be thrown away, and you'll still die accused of a crime you never committed.
Still, that doesn't change the fact that I had those rights.
What if rape was legal? What basis would you use to object to it? The fact that you "just don't like it"?
EDIT: Another prudent example. The Death Penalty. If a Human has the right to life, how can that right be revoked?
Because rights can be violated?
And no, I'm not for the return of slavery. Maybe you ought to think about what you're talking about before spouting such total bollocks.
The same rights. If he chooses to kill me, imprison me or whatever then he will be violating my rights.
The fact that I cannot defend them is not the point.
Exactly. Rights can be violated, and in fact, are violated all of the time. The fact that theyre violated doesnt mean that theyre granted and not inherent.
I feel fortunate that I live in a country that recognizes that rights such as life and liberty are yours from birth, and are taken only when your conduct dictates as such.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. " - Dwight D. Eisenhower
I believe in absolute free trade. Free trade is not designed to "exploit" anyone. It is designed to stop interference with economic liberty and prosperity.
This is naive. Labor laws and environmental regulations are both examples of "barriers" to free trade. Are you seriously suggesting that we leave buisness completely unregulated? Given that buisness is driven solely by the search for ever greater profits, what would stop buisness from laying waste to the land, and enslaving the populace? Since revolts and collective bargaining are also barriers to free trade, what's to stop big buisness from highering mercenaries to slaughter disobedient workers (like the Contras in the 1980's)? More on this topic further down.
Quote from ljossberir in response to my assertion that Bill Gates is responsible for the oppression of others because the industry he is entrenched in is reponsible for the oppression of others. »
Yeah, I know that. So what?
So, if you lead an organization or group of organizations that oppresses people, you are therefore involved in that oppression, and are therefore oppressing people. Which was, if you recall, my point (that Bill Gates is oppressing people).
Quote from ljossberir on the same issue »
If it is voluntary, I have no problem with it at all.
Define and explain your usage of voluntary as it makes no sense to me. Of course Bill Gates if volunteering to make bundles of money! Of course Intel, IBM and Dell are all voluntarily exploiting people, they're making bags of money doing it! Are suggesting that people are voluntarily being exploited? I guess I don't understand what definition of "voluntary" you could possibly be using. Global economic patterns define our lives, we make choices within that context, but our day-to-day existence is defined by it. For many people, part of the context of their lives is that they are exploited, they can choose to varying extents how they respond to that exploitation, but given that their survival is on the line, and they must work for survival since their alternatives have been decimated by international economic forces, I don't think its useful, constructive or practical to say that they are voluntarily in the positions that they are in. That is a privilaged, elitist justification for oppression.
Quote from ljossberir »
So you want [Bill Gates] to keep the money he has earned? Great, we are in agreement.
Bill Gates can keep his money, absolutely. I'm reminded of a famous Cree Indian Prophecy:
Quote from Cree Indian Prophecy »
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.I don't want to take Bill Gates' money and give it to someone else, I want to make money, as an economic system worthless.
Quote from ljossberir »
How can we dismantle these economic systems?
I think you mentioned this before, but to be honest I had trouble understanding it. What is "wealth" and why do you not want to create it? Last in, first out, but before the first, I just want to acknowledge that this is a relatively brief explanation, and I'd be happy to clarify what I'm trying to say if that's necessary.
In the broadest sense, wealth is a relationship between a person or group of people and a resource which society perceives to be of value. The nature of this relationship is based on the principal of ownership, which is defined somewhat circularly as it is largely reliant on the principals of possession and property, which are defined in terms of ownership. What they ultimately boil down to is control. That is, ownership of a resource is dictated by who controls that resource regardless of how they came to control it. While this may seem like common sense to us, it's important to this discussion to remember that the concept of ownership is an invented thing.
Historically, ownership seems to arise as people organize into large, complex societies. This makes sense, since as communities become sufficiently large, it becomes progressively more difficult to maintain an "everyone knows/is related to everyone" atmosphere. This breakdown of community creates a need for alternative ways to settle disputes, two related and important answers to this new problem is the development of ownership and the creation of a legal system. This is important because before people owned things, they could not trade them. Essential to trade is perceived value, so the institution of ownership created a system by which the relative values of the existing resources would be determined (i.e. 2 pigs for 1 cow). This process of quantitative value assessment for the purposes of trade is called commodification. Because by this point in the development of societies, trade specialization was in its infancy, certain people whose trades were deemed more valuable were capable of trading for commodities in larger quantities than people whose trades were not so highly valued. It was this capacity for trade that is wealth in its most basic form, and as I've attempted to illustrate, it follows naturally from the very idea of ownership. Furthermore, this initial disparity in wealth was a natural consequence of that idea and this is at the root of my objection to wealth (particularly as it manifests in a capitalist economy (which I'm getting to)). Put simply, any process that necessarily creates a stratified social system whereby a relatively small group of people are put in a position to exploit a relatively large group of people is sub-optimal and should be avoided whenever possible.
But I'd like to draw a distinction here; I'm not referring just to private ownership, but to public ownership as well. Indeed, the first organized economies were essentially Communist. The "Chief" gathered the entire productive output of the community and then redistributed it amongst the population. It was also the Chief's responsibility to requisition a portion of the community's resources for the construction and maintenance of public works like irrigation, temples and the like. These Chief's were variously even handed and despotic. In some communities the Chief worked in the fields like everyone else, wore no special ornamentation but was the Chief simply because they were respected. In other communities, the Chief consumed disproportionate quantities of the communal resources, and used trained warriors to ensure the rest of the population's obedience. Eventually, the military class emerged in all societies that remained sufficiently organized for long enough, and once that happened the tendency of those societies was towards despotism. The reasons for this are contained, if not explicitly spelled out above.
After the practice of trade was developed, it quickly became apparent that it was a big hassle to have to take your tradable goods with you everywhere, hence a representative monetary system was created where each commodity was given an absolute value (as opposed to a value in relation to everything else) and could generally be bought or sold for approximately that value. The development of currency encouraged trade as it allowed wealth to effectively change hands faster and in larger quantities than ever before. For several thousand years, the government controlled (inasmuch as it could be controlled in those days) the creation and release of currency into the market. The linchpin of the whole system was that people needed to accept that otherwise useless currency could be traded for anything. Currency requires faith to function, because if no one believes its worth anything, then no one will accept it, and if no one accepts it then it isn't worth anything. The way governments ensured the people's faith in their currency was to make it the only form acceptable for the payment of taxes. Obviously I'm glazing over several thousand years of socio-economic history, but I'm attempting to stay on topic. At any rate, because of the value of currency is dependant on faith, the market became increasingly volatile as its complexity grew and incorporated multiple competing currencies, across ever larger geo-political regions.
The current capitalist economic system measures wealth by economic activity. This follows fairly simply from the illusory nature of the monetary principals that emerge naturally from the institution of ownership. Money that isn't invested, or otherwise circulated in the market is worthless, so the only accurate way to measure the strength of the market is by the activity of the market. Simply put, money that is never spent may as well not exist. Because this measurement followed very naturally from other concepts that, as I've illustrated also followed very naturally from the ideas preceding them all the way back to the very natural inception of ownership, most of the "relevant" people involved either didn't fully understand the consequences of their decisions, they were unable to remove themselves from their cultural assumptions enough to get a clear picture of the consequences, or they had too much to gain to be bothered by them. At any rate, this system of measurement when applied to a region is called the Gross Domestic Product. What’s important to realize about the GDP is that while it’s a fantastic measurement of market activity, it’s a horrible measurement of the quality of the system itself. Using the GDP as a measurement of prosperity (which is what we do, in fact use in our capitalist system) means that car accidents, illness, disease, hospitalization, war and toxic spills are all signs of prosperity because all of these things represent boosts in economic activity. Loss of resources, cultural depletion, debilitating social and environmental effects, and reduction of the overall quality of life – these effects can all be taking place while the GDP says that economic life is good and the region is prosperous. “Developing” countries all over the world, in attempts to boost their GDPs are compelled to ignore the cultural, and environmental and long-term impact of their actions in favor of “progress.” The point here is not that we need to devise some quantitative measurement of the quality of people’s lives, that’s ridiculous. The point is that under a capitalist system, the quality of people’s lives is not valued. This is true for obvious reasons. As I stated earlier, capitalism is concerned with the relative values of owned commodities that can be traded, “quality of life” cannot be traded, or owned, so capitalism, as a system is incapable of recognizing its value. This does not mean that capitalists cannot recognize that cancer is not progress, but it does mean that while operating within capitalist economic paradigm, you have to act as though it is. So, while chemists in pharmaceutical companies aren’t sitting around hoping we get sick, the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in the proliferation (or fabrication) of various diseases.
Anyway, that is probably enough on that for now.
Quote from ljossberir »
So you are an anarcho-socialist then?
Honestly, I don't know. I think that so far anarcho-socialism is closer to what I believe is an optimal social system than anything else I've seen so far, but I haven't looked into it enough to say, "I am a blah blah."
Quote from ljossberir »
There is a definition for wrongful, corrupt and cruel. But who made you the sole arbiter of what fits that description?
Well, maybe I'm being riddiculous here but I'd say that most people nowadays would say that institutionalized murder, rape, theft and racism would be wrongful, corrupt and cruel. Now, perhaps most people wouldn't say that these things are actually institutionalized, but as my examples above and before illustrate, they are.
Quote from ljossberir »
Quote from BenGreen »
The US government gives "military aid" (aka. weapons) to oppressive governments all over the world.
If so they are wrong.
Quote from BenGreen »
The US military runs the recently renamed "School of the Americas" where for almost 50 years we've trained and armed Central and South American paramilitaries to protect US interests in their respective countries by slaughtering uppity peasents
If so they are wrong.
Quote from BenGreen »
The US has had a nearly constant military presence in many of those countries over the last century
Again, wrong. We're not even supposed to have a standing army, in fact.
Quote from BenGreen »
The US used its status as the only remaining military superpower to illegally invade two, relatively defenseless countries and has set up new pupper governments.
So you say.
Quote from BenGreen »
and permanent military bases there.
I'm not so sure they have established these bases. If they have, that is wrong.Okay. So given that we've agreed that these things are wrong, would you also agree that as citizens of the United States we have a responsibility to prevent our government from doing these things (if, as I say it is in fact doing them)?
Quote from ljossberir »
Has the US army been forcing people around the world to work where we want them to?I would say that the Western Industrial complex is indeed forcing people to work where it want's them to.
Quote from ljossberir »
Quote from BenGreen »
That's sort of the point. You keep trying to isolate the topic by removing it from the extenuating social, historical, environmental, geographic, religious, economical, political and military contexts that it exists in.
If we're discussing the legality of abortion, don't ask me to speak about Hammurabi.
If we're discussing the social phenomenon of the aboriton controversy, discussing the development of Christianity in Europe is indeed relevant. Particularly relevant would be the emergence of the particular brand of evangelical christianity that has become a very powerful force in American politics in the last thirty years.
``It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,'' said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. ``I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.''
Off-Topic quickly here: Who upon reading that paragraph pictured Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker's Guide?
Back on Topic: Just one quick quip before I leave quickly. Looks like the government has decided to go back to the 1800's and treat it's citizens like the Cherokee Indians... I personally don't mind the intrusion on my right, as long as it is only for the betterment of the country as a whole and not for some commercial or individual goals. For instance, I support the civil rights intrusions of the Patriot act because it, is for the safety of all citizens. However, I do not support this Supreme Court Decesion because its all for the commercial improvement of the area ("a riverfront hotel, health club and offices." as the article states)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I consider myself to be taking a middle of the road approach here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
This post is essentially a place holder, to make this particular thread easier to find. I´d refer the reader to my previous posts. I think they are quite good, though they need further work. Hence my desire to find them easily so that they may be further developed. Thank you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
Try going to Thread Tools at the top of the page and Subscribe to it. That way it'll always be linked in your user CP. You can also change your settings subscribe to threads you post in by defult.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Again, your insight stops at the surface. The reason Bill Gates was able to make his billions in the IT industry was because computer companies were exploiting cheap labor and a lack of environmental regulations in developing countries to produce affordable computers. The various materials used to make those computers were likewise acquired by companies exploiting cheap labor and lax environemntal regulations in other developing countries. By profitting and then driving the personal computer industry, by not using his influence to dismantel these systems and create workable alternatives to them, Bill Gates is actively involved in supporting these systems of international exploitation.
It's a good thing this has nothing to do with the discussion since no one was advocating that.
I don't think we should take any of his wealth away from him. I think we should dismantel the economic systems that create wealth in the first place.
By "obligation" I suppose I meant "moral imperitive" which is ultimatly what we're discussing here. Whereas capitalists tend to assume that others are untrustworthy and selfish and it is therefore in their best interest to behave similarly, anarcho-socialists tend to assume that despite their general behavior, others have the capacity to be generous, and honest and therefore it is in their best interest to encourage that sort of behavior.
Seeing as the dictionary's definition of oppression matches my own, I'm wondering what definition are you using? It may also be good to look up some of the pertinant words in the definition like: wrongful, corrupt, and cruel.
This question is more urgent then how the IT industry oppresses people. There are so many answers to this it's overwhelming, I literaly don't know where to begin. The US government gives "military aid" (aka. weapons) to oppressive governments all over the world. The US military runs the recently renamed "School of the Americas" where for almost 50 years we've trained and armed Central and South American paramilitaries to protect US interests in their respective countries by slaughtering uppity peasents. The US has had a nearly constant military presence in many of those countries over the last century. The US used its status as the only remaining military superpower to illegally invade two, relatively defenseless countries and has set up new puppet governments and permanent military bases there. I highly recommend Walter LeFeber's "Inevitable Revolutions" for a very detailed, thorough analysis of US foriegn policy in Central America over the last 150 years if you want more details on the US military "oppressing the masses."
That's sort of the point. You keep trying to isolate the topic by removing it from the extenuating social, historical, environmental, geographic, religious, economical, political and military contexts that it exists in. I keep trying to explain that the complex nature of economics and governments, in practice, cannot be properly understood outside of those contexts. In response, you keep banging your head over more details, removing those from their contexts and finding they don't make sense either. For example:
No... my point is that there has never been a Socialist government. An even remotely successful Socialist government would be horribly detrimental to global Capitalism, in part because Socialist governments, by their very exsistence, would challenge the ultimately illusionary nature of wealth. Another reason Socialism is dangerous to global Capitalism is because, like I explained earlier, Capitalism creates the existence of an oppressed majority by virtue of its functioning. That majority, if they were provided with a functioning model of a Socialist government, would be compelled, even more than they are now, to adopt such a government. So virulent is the "plague" of Socialism, that even the poorly functioning Soviety Union and China had to be made out to be the "Evil Empire." Hence the Cold War.
I understand your denial. If you were to accept that the very clothes you wear were made in such atrocious conditions, you might feel compelled to do something about it. Unfortunately, this young lady is not hypothetical and she has everything to do with capitalism. She and millions like her are the building blocks of capitalism. The empovrished farmers, getting sprayed with toxic chemicals, drinking the water it runs off too, so that we can eat cheap bannanas is what makes Capitalism work.
It's only poor because you don't give a damn about the price other people have to pay for your lifestyle.
Right. Corruption that undermines liberty and the initiation of force against others.
I believe in absolute free trade. Free trade is not designed to "exploit" anyone. It is designed to stop interference with economic liberty and prosperity.
Yeah, I know that. So what?
OK.
If it is voluntary, I have no problem with it at all.
So you want him to keep the money he has earned? Great, we are in agreement.
How can we dismantle these economic systems?
I think you mentioned this before, but to be honest I had trouble understanding it. What is "wealth" and why do you not want to create it?
False.
So you are an anarcho-socialist, then?
The definition may match your own, but I don't think it fits many (if not all) of the examples you have provided.
There is a definition for wrongful, corrupt and cruel. But who made you the sole arbiter of what fits that description?
If so, they are wrong.
If so, they are wrong.
Again, wrong. We're not even supposed to have a standing army, infact.
So you say.
I'm not so sure they have established these bases. If they have, that is wrong.
Alright. What's your point here? Has the US army been forcing people around the world to work where we want them to?
If we're discussing the legality of abortion, don't ask me to speak about Hammurabi.
If we're discussing circus animals, I don't wanna hear anything about Hannibal marching over the Alps.
Great, here we go again.
The majority is not oppressed by Capitalism simply because they have less money, but whatever..
There's no denial here. I know many people don't make much money. I just don't care, as long as they are working voluntarily..
Please.
Yeah, I think I understand! The evil capitalist pig is perverted by greed. This greed makes him want to rape and physically abuse a child. It's all coming together now.
If we can overthrow the capitalist class there will be less rape and child abuse! To the barricades, comrade. Do it for the children!
If they do it willingly? No. If they are physically forced to do so? Hell yes, I care.
You guys give good debate. Rock on.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
On topic, I feel this is a good example of too much coporparte power gone wrong. Private interests in infringing on civil rights for the case of money. The governmnet who's purpose it is to adminstrate and protect the civil rights of all citizens has failed to do so.
Well, thank you very much.
Yes. I'd like to point out that this is a two way street. The government should not support business (as it often does today), nor should it regulate business. Please note that this doesn't mean that business owners or workers get any more of a break from criminal liability than an individual would under the given circumstances.
I doubt Ben would like you to use the word "regime" here. The two of us, I believe, would agree that the ultimate goal should be to obtain the consent of the governed.
I won't argue with you on that one, corporations are artificial lifeforms and they should be abolished.
Mhmm.
I'm a bit of an optimist. I'm not a staunch captilist but see it as a means to stability, prosperity (not just financial) and a way to grant the individual freedom. It does though as every idealogy has the flaw that peope get in the way.
As far as I'm concerned: life (future), liberty (present) and property (past).
Even if it was, I think it would still be wrong to an extent. I have an idea but I'm not entirely aware of how British government works.
For the most part, we are supposed to have a Republican government in the United States. And rightly so. A government where the majority gets their way, but their way should never interfere with the rights of the minority.
They've got this thing they like to call just compensation. I'm not so sure who determines this compensation, but it sure as hell isn't fair. Some of these inviduals would or will be recieving about 1/3 of the market value of their property. Fair?!
Rights that are granted aren't rights. Rights that are granted are privileges, because they can be taken back. I believe in rights. As you can see from the example above, these particular politicians believe property is a privilege.
I believe the sole purpose of government is, as some of America's founders said, to secure rights.. not grant them.
I don't disagree though with your statement.
Your goverment is very similair in out look than ours we just go about things in a different manner as far as I can tell.
So, if you lead an organization or group of organizations that oppresses people, you are therefore involved in that oppression, and are therefore oppressing people. Which was, if you recall, my point (that Bill Gates is oppressing people).
Define and explain your usage of voluntary as it makes no sense to me. Of course Bill Gates if volunteering to make bundles of money! Of course Intel, IBM and Dell are all voluntarily exploiting people, they're making bags of money doing it! Are suggesting that people are voluntarily being exploited? I guess I don't understand what definition of "voluntary" you could possibly be using. Global economic patterns define our lives, we make choices within that context, but our day-to-day existence is defined by it. For many people, part of the context of their lives is that they are exploited, they can choose to varying extents how they respond to that exploitation, but given that their survival is on the line, and they must work for survival since their alternatives have been decimated by international economic forces, I don't think its useful, constructive or practical to say that they are voluntarily in the positions that they are in. That is a privilaged, elitist justification for oppression.
Bill Gates can keep his money, absolutely. I'm reminded of a famous Cree Indian Prophecy:
I don't want to take Bill Gates' money and give it to someone else, I want to make money worthless.
I'm working on a thorough answer to this and the rest of the points that followed it, but am going out of town for a few days, so I won't be able to post my response until Monday at the soonest.
The policy, though inhumane, is necessary. There are simply too many people in the world today, and world population is still increasing.
Second, I object to the notion that capitalism should not be regulated. Chicago sausage factories in 1905 (give or take) had poisoned rats, sawdust, and meat rejected from markets in Europe because it was unfit for human consumption, thrown into the hoppers and sold to consumers.
Not to mention the 1929 stock market crash was influenced by people making front companies, selling worthless stock while reporting fake profits, and making off with quite a lot of money.
For the computer part of this, Bill Gates was simply selling a product. He did indeed profit becuase other companies made cheap parts in China, the Phillipines, and Mexico, but he is no more guilty than we are by using those parts to access the internet to post on this website.
The companies, despite searching for profits, are not in a monopoly situation (thanks again to anti-trust laws (I forget who made them in the states, since Im not an American, I think it was Wilson, Teddy, or Taft)), and sell their product at the lowest price they can and still derive a profit. Thus it is natural to search for the cheapest labour pools as a way to save money. While Bob might make 3 dollars a day cranking out Pentiums, one cant forget that in developing countries, 3 dollars is a lot of money that might buy food for a week or a good night out with one's girl with change to spare.
I recall one of the islamist states going on about their uber-severe punishments for something westerners dont care about, with the cost coming to about 7 dollars.
I'm with you brother.
It is M$'s business practices, not merely their innocent presence in the market.
Actually, you're mistaken. (And elsewhere on the planet.)
Even if Bill Gates has or had a monopoly, the government has a monopoly or near-monopoly on tons of other things: roads, schools, gambling, etc. Why do you not object to these things?
Yep, that's why they're wrong.
We should get government out of business as much as possible. No support for it, little to no regulation on it.
Let the market decide for itself which business survives and which does not. Let the people decide, not the politicians with their hands in the coffers. Government is hardly an objective judge here.
Part of the 5th amendment to the Constitution of these United States: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Interference with the life, liberty or property of another should indicate a forfeiture of ones own rights. Within reason, of course.
From the Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I agree with the founding fathers of these United States when they say that the purpose of government is to secure rights. They are admitting here that rights are natural, not granted. If rights were granted, the purpose of a government might instead be to "create" rights. That's not how it works.
Yes, all that is true.
Your point is opinion and I generally disagree with that opinion. I don't think anyone who enters into a contract out of their own free will is being oppressed. Now, if Mr. Gates is forcing anyone to do so or using anyone to force someone to do so.. then yes, he is an oppressor.
Ljoss: Hey Ben, you want a job?
Ben Green: What kind of job?
Ljoss: We'll pay you 2.00 USD an hour to work in our factory.
Ben Green: OK. When can I start?
Ljoss: As soon as you are ready.
Voluntary.
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
Ben Green: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
Ben Green: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: [reviewing papers] This is acceptable.
Ben Green: Ok, you can start tommorow.
Ljoss: OK.
Voluntary.
So you want to control global economic patterns?
I disagree on the let the market decide. Without legislation protectig the indiviudal "companies" will seek to exploit the individual. That's the fail safe of a democratic government. It may hold a monopoly but every citizen is a shareholder with equal weight (in theory, reality has proven "companies" and memebrs of "pressure groups" have greater power). Companies though due to their nature are more effeicitent at delivering services and goods. I beleive in a balance of the two.
I don't want to live in Merchant Prince world.
Because that's part of the job of the government, to hold the monopolies on things that the market fails on.
Ljoss, its your blind faith in the free market that is leading you to support this foolish position. Even a first year econ student knows that the market fails in a great many situations. Any product that is a public good (that is, products that you don't have to pay for to benefit from, such as roads or health care), or that has externalities (products that you pay for even though you don't benefit from, such as products that have toxic byproducts), the market will not produce in the correct amount. The whole point of government regulation is to correct these deficiencies in the free market system.
It is how it works, and it should be quite obvious. Here's an illuminating argument.
Look at a group of people living with no system of laws or government, in other words in complete anarchy. What rights do they have? None. If someone overpowers them by force and takes the property they were living on, what appeal do they have? None.
Now add a government and a legal system into the mix that enforces agreed upon rights. What rights do they have now? Whatever rights the people (and therefore the government) agreed they should enforce. If someone violates those rights, do they now have an appeal? Certainly, they can appeal to the enforcing body. The government created the rights the citizens now have through the enforcement of those rights.
It is meaningless to talk about rights you "have" when those rights are not being enforced. To put my rebuttal into the language of your argument, you are setting up a false dichotomy. Securing rights *is* creating rights.
Scene setting: A plane crashed in the mountains. GMontag and Ljoss are the only two survivors. It is 13 below freezing. GMontag luckily packed two heavy winter coats, as he was getting a connecting flight to Anchorage. Ljoss only packed warm weather clothes, as he was getting a connecting flight to Honolulu.
GMontag: I've got this extra coat here that you could wear so you won't die.
Ljoss: Wow, thanks.
GMontag: Wait, it's going to cost you. You have to pay me $1 billion for it.
Ljoss: What? You've got to be kidding me.
GMontag: Fine, don't take the coat then.
Ljoss: Alright, alright, I pay you whatever you want, just give me the damn coat.
Voluntary?
Now try this more realistic version of your example.
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
GMontag: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
GMontag: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: That's it? I can barely pay my rent and feed my family on that.
GMontag: If you don't like it you don't have to take it.
Ljoss goes to another employer:
Ljoss: I applied for the position last week. Have you reviewed my application?
GMontag2: We've looked at your application and it seems in order. We would like to hire you.
Ljoss: Can I have more information about the wages and working conditions?
GMontag2: Sure, [hands papers]
Ljoss: That's as bad as the other guy's offer!
GMontag2: Take it or leave it.
Ljoss: I can't afford to stay unemployed any longer. I guess I'll just have to take this dead-end job that can barely support me.
Voluntary?
I'm pretty sure any reasonable person would say neither of my examples were voluntary.
And why exactly are governments better equipped to handle these things?
When did I say the market never fails?
Limited knowledge on the subject notwithstanding, Milton Friedman is hardly a "first year econ student".
I'm not going to waste my time on the roads issue. As for health care, I've seen no proof whatsoever that socialized medicine works better.
The system is often slower, inefficient and more expensive because bureaucrats have less of an incentive to provide cheap, quality health care.
Here is just one example of the problems we could fix by kicking government out of medicine and out of business.
There are few deficiencies and government is making it worse, not better. Supply and demand.
The same rights we do. The same rights people in South Africa do. The same rights people in Korea do. Want me to go on?
Ummm... no. We don't need an artificial entity to "give" us our natural rights as human beings.
I don't have the right to murder you, wherever we are, whatever the conditions might be.
No. People have rights with or without a government. The purpose of a government is to protect those rights.
Tell that to Gandhi. Tell that to Malcom X. Or Bobby Seale. Or Wang Dan.
Rights aren't created. We are born with them. When I (and the framers, IMO) say the word "secure" in this context it can mean any number of things, but it certainly does not mean to create from scratch or to invent.
Are you actually saying that a man on a train ride to Auschwitz didn't have a right to life, just because no one could enforce it for him?
I believe you are confusing a right with a privilege.
According to: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A privilege is:
Invalid. Where are the competition coat dealers here?
Yeah, if I don't like it I should go somewhere else. Are you telling me that you have an obligation to feed my family? That I have the right to tell you how much of your money you'll give me? How sweet your system is! Goodbye responsibilities!
Maybe I should go get some more job training. Or a better education. Or learn a skill. Or start my own business. So on and so on and so on. Or perhaps, just perhaps, I should have thought about my responsibilities to my children before I created them.
Because every business pays the exact same wage, right? And because it is impossible to learn skills, get training, work hard and get a promotion, get an education, start your own business.
You start dicating your own wages, by threat of force or otherwise, and the overall quality of life for everyone will diminish while business after business disappears because they're all in the red.
Yes, that is why we form governments... to protect these natural rights.
Behemoth, you are still using the word granted. What object is doing the granting? Can a person not be "granted" this right?
We agree on the need for governments and their purpose so I think we can put that one to bed.
If no one has a right to life, then why don't you kill someone and take all their money? Is it only fear of reprisal that prevents you from doing this?!
So you would be OK with bringing slavery back? No one has a right to liberty, so you should be just fine with it.
Fixed.
No. The violation of rights is quite possible. Ever heard the phrase "stand up for your rights" or "defend your right to ____"?
Just because he can do whatever he wants does not mean he should.
Fixed.
Yes. And he did.
Question: Do you object to these things? If so, what do you use as a basis for objection?
If you want to believe that, fine. I completely, wholeheartedly, with every fiber of my being disagree with that belief.
The government hasn't given you anything. All they have done is defended what you already deserve.
Also, you make it sound as if the government is some supernatural being, hovering in space somewhere and zapping you with the liberty gun. Where do you think this government came from? It was instituted by men to protect their natural rights.
Too late. I already am. I get pretty irritated when someone says human beings don't have a right to life or liberty. Crazy, ain't it?
The same rights. If he chooses to kill me, imprison me or whatever then he will be violating my rights.
The fact that I cannot defend them is not the point.
Rights aren't given.
Still, that doesn't change the fact that I had those rights.
What if rape was legal? What basis would you use to object to it? The fact that you "just don't like it"?
Because rights can be violated?
:mad1:
Exactly. Rights can be violated, and in fact, are violated all of the time. The fact that theyre violated doesnt mean that theyre granted and not inherent.
I feel fortunate that I live in a country that recognizes that rights such as life and liberty are yours from birth, and are taken only when your conduct dictates as such.
So, if you lead an organization or group of organizations that oppresses people, you are therefore involved in that oppression, and are therefore oppressing people. Which was, if you recall, my point (that Bill Gates is oppressing people).
Define and explain your usage of voluntary as it makes no sense to me. Of course Bill Gates if volunteering to make bundles of money! Of course Intel, IBM and Dell are all voluntarily exploiting people, they're making bags of money doing it! Are suggesting that people are voluntarily being exploited? I guess I don't understand what definition of "voluntary" you could possibly be using. Global economic patterns define our lives, we make choices within that context, but our day-to-day existence is defined by it. For many people, part of the context of their lives is that they are exploited, they can choose to varying extents how they respond to that exploitation, but given that their survival is on the line, and they must work for survival since their alternatives have been decimated by international economic forces, I don't think its useful, constructive or practical to say that they are voluntarily in the positions that they are in. That is a privilaged, elitist justification for oppression.
Bill Gates can keep his money, absolutely. I'm reminded of a famous Cree Indian Prophecy:
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.I don't want to take Bill Gates' money and give it to someone else, I want to make money, as an economic system worthless.
I think you mentioned this before, but to be honest I had trouble understanding it. What is "wealth" and why do you not want to create it? Last in, first out, but before the first, I just want to acknowledge that this is a relatively brief explanation, and I'd be happy to clarify what I'm trying to say if that's necessary.
In the broadest sense, wealth is a relationship between a person or group of people and a resource which society perceives to be of value. The nature of this relationship is based on the principal of ownership, which is defined somewhat circularly as it is largely reliant on the principals of possession and property, which are defined in terms of ownership. What they ultimately boil down to is control. That is, ownership of a resource is dictated by who controls that resource regardless of how they came to control it. While this may seem like common sense to us, it's important to this discussion to remember that the concept of ownership is an invented thing.
Historically, ownership seems to arise as people organize into large, complex societies. This makes sense, since as communities become sufficiently large, it becomes progressively more difficult to maintain an "everyone knows/is related to everyone" atmosphere. This breakdown of community creates a need for alternative ways to settle disputes, two related and important answers to this new problem is the development of ownership and the creation of a legal system. This is important because before people owned things, they could not trade them. Essential to trade is perceived value, so the institution of ownership created a system by which the relative values of the existing resources would be determined (i.e. 2 pigs for 1 cow). This process of quantitative value assessment for the purposes of trade is called commodification. Because by this point in the development of societies, trade specialization was in its infancy, certain people whose trades were deemed more valuable were capable of trading for commodities in larger quantities than people whose trades were not so highly valued. It was this capacity for trade that is wealth in its most basic form, and as I've attempted to illustrate, it follows naturally from the very idea of ownership. Furthermore, this initial disparity in wealth was a natural consequence of that idea and this is at the root of my objection to wealth (particularly as it manifests in a capitalist economy (which I'm getting to)). Put simply, any process that necessarily creates a stratified social system whereby a relatively small group of people are put in a position to exploit a relatively large group of people is sub-optimal and should be avoided whenever possible.
But I'd like to draw a distinction here; I'm not referring just to private ownership, but to public ownership as well. Indeed, the first organized economies were essentially Communist. The "Chief" gathered the entire productive output of the community and then redistributed it amongst the population. It was also the Chief's responsibility to requisition a portion of the community's resources for the construction and maintenance of public works like irrigation, temples and the like. These Chief's were variously even handed and despotic. In some communities the Chief worked in the fields like everyone else, wore no special ornamentation but was the Chief simply because they were respected. In other communities, the Chief consumed disproportionate quantities of the communal resources, and used trained warriors to ensure the rest of the population's obedience. Eventually, the military class emerged in all societies that remained sufficiently organized for long enough, and once that happened the tendency of those societies was towards despotism. The reasons for this are contained, if not explicitly spelled out above.
After the practice of trade was developed, it quickly became apparent that it was a big hassle to have to take your tradable goods with you everywhere, hence a representative monetary system was created where each commodity was given an absolute value (as opposed to a value in relation to everything else) and could generally be bought or sold for approximately that value. The development of currency encouraged trade as it allowed wealth to effectively change hands faster and in larger quantities than ever before. For several thousand years, the government controlled (inasmuch as it could be controlled in those days) the creation and release of currency into the market. The linchpin of the whole system was that people needed to accept that otherwise useless currency could be traded for anything. Currency requires faith to function, because if no one believes its worth anything, then no one will accept it, and if no one accepts it then it isn't worth anything. The way governments ensured the people's faith in their currency was to make it the only form acceptable for the payment of taxes. Obviously I'm glazing over several thousand years of socio-economic history, but I'm attempting to stay on topic. At any rate, because of the value of currency is dependant on faith, the market became increasingly volatile as its complexity grew and incorporated multiple competing currencies, across ever larger geo-political regions.
The current capitalist economic system measures wealth by economic activity. This follows fairly simply from the illusory nature of the monetary principals that emerge naturally from the institution of ownership. Money that isn't invested, or otherwise circulated in the market is worthless, so the only accurate way to measure the strength of the market is by the activity of the market. Simply put, money that is never spent may as well not exist. Because this measurement followed very naturally from other concepts that, as I've illustrated also followed very naturally from the ideas preceding them all the way back to the very natural inception of ownership, most of the "relevant" people involved either didn't fully understand the consequences of their decisions, they were unable to remove themselves from their cultural assumptions enough to get a clear picture of the consequences, or they had too much to gain to be bothered by them. At any rate, this system of measurement when applied to a region is called the Gross Domestic Product. What’s important to realize about the GDP is that while it’s a fantastic measurement of market activity, it’s a horrible measurement of the quality of the system itself. Using the GDP as a measurement of prosperity (which is what we do, in fact use in our capitalist system) means that car accidents, illness, disease, hospitalization, war and toxic spills are all signs of prosperity because all of these things represent boosts in economic activity. Loss of resources, cultural depletion, debilitating social and environmental effects, and reduction of the overall quality of life – these effects can all be taking place while the GDP says that economic life is good and the region is prosperous. “Developing” countries all over the world, in attempts to boost their GDPs are compelled to ignore the cultural, and environmental and long-term impact of their actions in favor of “progress.” The point here is not that we need to devise some quantitative measurement of the quality of people’s lives, that’s ridiculous. The point is that under a capitalist system, the quality of people’s lives is not valued. This is true for obvious reasons. As I stated earlier, capitalism is concerned with the relative values of owned commodities that can be traded, “quality of life” cannot be traded, or owned, so capitalism, as a system is incapable of recognizing its value. This does not mean that capitalists cannot recognize that cancer is not progress, but it does mean that while operating within capitalist economic paradigm, you have to act as though it is. So, while chemists in pharmaceutical companies aren’t sitting around hoping we get sick, the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in the proliferation (or fabrication) of various diseases.
Anyway, that is probably enough on that for now.
Honestly, I don't know. I think that so far anarcho-socialism is closer to what I believe is an optimal social system than anything else I've seen so far, but I haven't looked into it enough to say, "I am a blah blah."
Well, maybe I'm being riddiculous here but I'd say that most people nowadays would say that institutionalized murder, rape, theft and racism would be wrongful, corrupt and cruel. Now, perhaps most people wouldn't say that these things are actually institutionalized, but as my examples above and before illustrate, they are.
So you say.I'm not so sure they have established these bases. If they have, that is wrong.Okay. So given that we've agreed that these things are wrong, would you also agree that as citizens of the United States we have a responsibility to prevent our government from doing these things (if, as I say it is in fact doing them)?
Has the US army been forcing people around the world to work where we want them to?I would say that the Western Industrial complex is indeed forcing people to work where it want's them to.
If we're discussing the social phenomenon of the aboriton controversy, discussing the development of Christianity in Europe is indeed relevant. Particularly relevant would be the emergence of the particular brand of evangelical christianity that has become a very powerful force in American politics in the last thirty years.
Off-Topic quickly here: Who upon reading that paragraph pictured Arthur Dent from Hitchhiker's Guide?
Back on Topic: Just one quick quip before I leave quickly. Looks like the government has decided to go back to the 1800's and treat it's citizens like the Cherokee Indians... I personally don't mind the intrusion on my right, as long as it is only for the betterment of the country as a whole and not for some commercial or individual goals. For instance, I support the civil rights intrusions of the Patriot act because it, is for the safety of all citizens. However, I do not support this Supreme Court Decesion because its all for the commercial improvement of the area ("a riverfront hotel, health club and offices." as the article states)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I consider myself to be taking a middle of the road approach here.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Even those morons in the House of Reps condemned it! By a large margain!
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Don't bump/necro old threads.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.