Why do you disagree with libertarianism?
I believe they are all crazy
3.6% (9)
3.6% (9)
I believe their economic ideas are wrong
35.5% (89)
35.5% (89)
I believe their social ideas are wrong
6.8% (17)
6.8% (17)
I believe their economic and social ideas are wrong
25.5% (64)
25.5% (64)
I am a libertarian
17.5% (44)
17.5% (44)
Other
10.4% (26)
10.4% (26)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Why do you disagree with libertarianism?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

farson135:
YOU argued for a plantation style economy.

What in the flying fuck are you talking about?

In my opinion a governments prime job is to ensure three things. Prosperity, security and freedom in exactly that order. Libertarians seem to put freedom ahead of both prosperity and security. That is a problem.

Freedom is good but if I had to chose between expanding freedom or expanding a Social network that brings us closer to eradicating poverty by even a little then the latter choice would be my pick in less then a second. I'd rather have my fellow man prosper with less freedom then starve with more. Total freedom and total prosperity don't go hand in hand and most likely never will.

As for the point about corporations stepping it to ensure a good living for all when there isn't a government forcing them to do so, we already have an example of that, or rather an example of corporations refusing to do just that. In the industrial revolution government interference in companies was at a complete minimum.....and it sucked! The working conditions where absolutely horrible and often lethal. In a lot of Asian countries the governments also doesn't pay much attention to work ethics, did anyone catch that story about a company forcing its workers to toil in a building only barely not collapsing until it finally did and buried hundreds of people. Yeah....i'd prefer my governments to tell those companies they shall suffer if they try such things.

Companies and CEO'S are only interested in their wallet but governments are genuinely interested in the well being of their state, its how they are judged after all.

Within a functioning democracy, the government is the people. It just makes no sense to be principly anti-government.

Everything we (the majority) want to organise, but cannot manage to do so on a corporate, communal or smaller level has to be done through the larger democratic institutions instead.
Big government is big exactly because the demands we place on it are so many. Libertarianism would mean giving up on alot of services, oversight and control even in the best of scenarios.

You can still make a case for moderate government spending and control, but that makes one just a "classical liberal", not a libertarian.

Seanchaidh:

farson135:
YOU argued for a plantation style economy.

What in the flying fuck are you talking about?

You argued that the economy works solely in an internal basis similar to how a Roman Plantation worked. That is, little in, little out. Almost everything is produced and used internally.

Seanchaidh:

farson135:

Seanchaidh:

What in the flying fuck are you talking about?

You argued that the economy works solely in an internal basis similar to how a Roman Plantation worked. That is, little in, little out. Almost everything is produced and used internally.

No. I did not.

Get better at English.

Yes you did. You stated that 100% of the sales would go to the employees and to no one else.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:

farson135:

You argued that the economy works solely in an internal basis similar to how a Roman Plantation worked. That is, little in, little out. Almost everything is produced and used internally.

No. I did not.

Get better at English.

Yes you did. You stated that 100% of the sales would go to the employees and to no one else.

Nope! Not even close.

100% of the employees would buy does not = 100% of sales to employees. This is basic grammar and logic. You are wrong.

Seanchaidh:
The example is purely a matter of demonstrating that paying workers more does not benefit an employer by vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>>>>expanding<<<< * * *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

a market-- they have no incentive to do so.

(Emphasis not in original quotation)

Seanchaidh:
Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make.

Seanchaidh:
So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none

Seanchaidh:
You can still be profitable paying a livable wage, of course. But maximal profitability only allows for paying workers what they demand.

Notice how I'm not saying what your brain is apparently telling you I'm saying.

It's fine, though-- if making your own willful misinterpretation the issue of discussion is the best you can come up with in order to avoid actually facing an argument, then YOU are the ambassador libertarianism deserves.

The even stupider part about your interpretation is that my example is explicitly something that I think does not work.

Seanchaidh:
Nope! Not even close.

Nope, I am exactly right.

100% of the employees would buy does not = 100% of sales to employees. This is basic grammar and logic. You are wrong.

Nope, I am right. You focused on one and only one element to describe profitability that means that that element is the only one present. If there were more than you would have described them.

Seanchaidh:
The example is purely a matter of demonstrating that paying workers more does not benefit an employer by a market-- they have no incentive to do so.

Which shows that you are concentrating on one market element, e.g. a plantation style economy.

Seanchaidh:
Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make.

So you use a modern approximation because you do not know that your model has an exact parallel.

Seanchaidh:
So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none

A statement which would not be relevant if we were talking about a general market. After all, in no market except for a plantation style market do the employees ever come close to purchasing at 100% of their company's products.

Seanchaidh:
You can still be profitable paying a livable wage, of course. But maximal profitability only allows for paying workers what they demand.

A statement which proves nothing.

Notice how I'm not saying what your brain is apparently telling you I'm saying.

Actually you said it to the letter.

It's fine, though-- if making your own willful misinterpretation the issue of discussion is the best you can come up with in order to avoid actually facing an argument, then YOU are the ambassador libertarianism deserves.

And I suppose you are the ambassador that no one deserves. After all, no one deserves to have an ambassador who cannot even admit to his own faults.

The even stupider part about your interpretation is that my example is explicitly something that I think does not work.

Then why did you use it in your model?

farson135:

100% of the employees would buy does not = 100% of sales to employees. This is basic grammar and logic. You are wrong.

Nope, I am right. You focused on one and only one element to describe profitability that means that that element is the only one present. If there were more than you would have described them.

Sorry to butt in, but you're wrong and SeanChaidh is right here.

When he made his post about this here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.410416.19829921

He was clearly referring to the employees because those were the relevant part of his example - the interrelation between the laborers and the amount of money they have to buy back the fruit of their labours. Nothing in there states or implies that the laborers are the only people buying his products, the omission certainly doesn't because bringing them up has no relevance to the point being made. "Concentrating on one market element" as you put it does not mean that the other market elements don't exist, just that they aren't relevant to what is currently under discussion.

I don't think throughout any of your discussion here you've suggested that labourers need to sleep and are unable to work 24/7, so as you've failed to focus on this particular element should I claim that's what you believe; that people don't need to sleep? of course not, people aren't supposed to list everything they happen to believe in which is completely incidental to the point they're.

He also specifically used the example of Henry Ford, a well known case of lots of people who weren't employees purchasing the goods.

If you're going to claim someone is making such an outlandish statement you need to not only have real proof, but you need for them to not be directly telling you that you're mistaken.

Overhead:
Sorry to butt in, but you're wrong and SeanChaidh is right here.

Nope, I am right and he is wrong.

He was clearly referring to the employees because those were the relevant part of his example - the interrelation between the laborers and the amount of money they have to buy back the fruit of their labours. Nothing in there states or implies that the laborers are the only people buying his products, the omission certainly doesn't because bringing them up has no relevance to the point being made. "Concentrating on one market element" as you put it does not mean that the other market elements don't exist, just that they aren't relevant to what is currently under discussion.

Why would he discuss one single element when that lone element is irrelevant to my point? He wouldn't unless he thought that he could build a model where I was wrong. He built an idiotic model that was not based upon my point. So he is wrong.

I don't think throughout any of your discussion here you've suggested that labourers need to sleep and are unable to work 24/7, so as you've failed to focus on this particular element should I claim that's what you believe; that people don't need to sleep? of course not, people aren't supposed to list everything they happen to believe in which is completely incidental to the point they're.

Sleep is an accepted necessity. Given the fact that plantation style economies can and do exist in this world your point is faulty.

He also specifically used the example of Henry Ford, a well known case of lots of people who weren't employees purchasing the goods.

And he dismissed those people in his post.

If you're going to claim someone is making such an outlandish statement you need to not only have real proof, but you need for them to not be directly telling you that you're mistaken.

Try rewriting that.

Anyway, he is wrong. Either he fucked up and he thought that I was arguing for something that I did not say or he lied and pretended that I said something that I did not say. Either way he is in the wrong. I want you to go and mess our two posts. Give one good reason why he would argue for a plantation style economy as a model. None exists. He is wrong and he will not admit it.

farson135:
. Either he fucked up and he thought that I was arguing for something that I did not say or he lied and pretended that I said something that I did not say.

No. Read my posts again until you fix your error.

farson135:
And I suppose you are the ambassador that no one deserves. After all, no one deserves to have an ambassador who cannot even admit to his own faults.

rofl

Seanchaidh:
No. Read my posts again until you fix your error.

Either read your own posts and fix YOUR error or just admit you are wrong.

farson135:
Why would he discuss one single element when that lone element is irrelevant to my point? He wouldn't unless he thought that he could build a model where I was wrong. He built an idiotic model that was not based upon my point. So he is wrong.

Because your point doesn't matter in that context. He's not you. He's got his own opinion and his own points.

Although you're both talking about the same general topics, as you've got opposing views your points by definition will be relevant. The whole point is to explain how points that one person didn't consider relevent actually are.

That's what a debate is.

You might not have been making any argument about the relationship between employer and employee, but there's nothing stopping everyone else in the universe from doing so and then connecting that to a view that opposes you.

Sleep is an accepted necessity. Given the fact that plantation style economies can and do exist in this world your point is faulty.

I see you want to pick over the exact example rather than alayse the message, so let me dig up some of your posts.

"Imagine if the two of us had a business on the edge of the city of Austin. You would be subject to the laws of the city and I would be subject to the laws of the county. You have a business in the city of Austin. I have a business right next door but in Travis County instead of Austin. YOU are subject to the bag ban (that is, you are not allowed to use plastic grocery bags) while I am not because it is a city law not a county law. Now in my example we have overlapping jurisdictions but you get the idea. Austin's laws do not apply outside of Austin. The laws of a "government without space" do not apply anywhere aside from the people under its jurisdiction."

In this example you didn't post that you both paid your taxes, so you would both be getting arrested and the entire point is moot.

I mean, trying to come up with real world examples where you don't pay any tax? That's complete trash!

And he dismissed those people in his post.

Yes, because although they existed and did form part of the customer base they are in no way relevant to the point about the interaction between employees and business owners. Mentioning them is in no way relevent, except to people who are anally obsessed with covering any possible discrepencies in an anecdote even when they have nothing to do with the point being made and only serve to drag the entire level of the arguement down.

If you're going to claim someone is making such an outlandish statement you need to not only have real proof, but you need for them to not be directly telling you that you're mistaken.

Try rewriting that.

You're claiming that he's making an incredibly crazy statement.

if you're going to do something like that you need proof.

You don't have proof, you just have your own inferences which don't match up with either the basic english meaning of what he's said or common interpretations.

More than that when someone specifically tells you what their meaning was, that's the end of the arguement. He's stated what his meaning was so if you like you can argue that he should have been clearer, but the arguement about what he meant has been solved by him directly telling you what he meant in a clear cut way.

[qouote]Anyway, he is wrong. Either he fucked up and he thought that I was arguing for something that I did not say or he lied and pretended that I said something that I did not say. Either way he is in the wrong.[/quote]

No, because the third option and the one which is clearly the case is that you've completely misinterpreted the point he was making.

I want you to go and mess our two posts.

What?

Give one good reason why he would argue for a plantation style economy as a model. None exists.

Exactly, further proof that he wasn't saying it.

Overhead:
Because your point doesn't matter in that context. He's not you. He's got his own opinion and his own points.

Then why did he address my post? Why not just talk out loud?

Although you're both talking about the same general topics, as you've got opposing views your points by definition will be relevant. The whole point is to explain how points that one person didn't consider relevent actually are.

That's what a debate is.

Sorry, a debate is not about bringing up irrelevant points.

You might not have been making any argument about the relationship between employer and employee, but there's nothing stopping everyone else in the universe from doing so and then connecting that to a view that opposes you.

That is not what he brought up. He brought up a plantation styled economy and tried to prove me wrong using that model. That model does not apply to what I was saying. YOU tell him to stop trying to prove me wrong using incorrect comparisons. He was trying to prove me wrong. You cannot do that by bringing up irrelevant points.

I see you want to pick over the exact example rather than alayse the message

Your example is faulty. If you provide a proper example then do so but your argument is hurt if you cannot provide a proper example.

In this example you didn't post that you both paid your taxes, so you would both be getting arrested and the entire point is moot.

I mean, trying to come up with real world examples where you don't pay any tax? That's complete trash!

Taxes are not a principle point in my statement. Selling to people is the point of the statement that he was addressing. Obviously, he ignored most of the people that I was referring to. In other words, he did not include the principle issues but I did. So, your example is faulty. Don't like it? Either use a good example or quit.

Yes, because although they existed and did form part of the customer base they are in no way relevant to the point about the interaction between employees and business owners. Mentioning them is in no way relevent, except to people who are anally obsessed with covering any possible discrepencies in an anecdote even when they have nothing to do with the point being made and only serve to drag the entire level of the arguement down.

Let me get this straight, he is addressing my point that business owners have a vested interest in selling to people. He argues that that is not the case because a plantation economy (of the Roman style) is not especially profitable. HE dragged the argument down by ignoring a massive section of my argument. Justify that or quit.

You're claiming that he's making an incredibly crazy statement.

He did. He tried to argue that I was saying something that I was not.

if you're going to do something like that you need proof.

The proof is my post. Nowhere in my post is what he said even implied.

More than that when someone specifically tells you what their meaning was, that's the end of the arguement. He's stated what his meaning was so if you like you can argue that he should have been clearer, but the arguement about what he meant has been solved by him directly telling you what he meant in a clear cut way.

Tell him that since he tried to tell me what I was saying.

[qouote] No, because the third option and the one which is clearly the case is that you've completely misinterpreted the point he was making. [/quote]

Prove it. Mesh our two statements and prove that he is in the right.

Exactly, further proof that he wasn't saying it.

Actually it is proof that he said it. He has no reason to do so. My statement does not give a single reason for him to go off on that kind of tangent. Therefore, he is in the wrong.

farson135:
Then why did he address my post? Why not just talk out loud?

Because he was refuting what you were saying and it was directly applicable to your post. When someone does this they don't have to stick to the same points you use.

If you think people in sweatshops are well treated because of the lack of taxes they pay, there's nothing stopping me from coming at it from a completely different angle and pointing out their poor working conditions and low pay mean they're badly treated.

Similarly if you think companies can be trusted to pay people a living wage because you think without it there aren't people to work, analysing the relationship between employee and employer and how this works makes sense.

The entire point of a debate is people have different opinions. Complaining about this does nothing.

Sorry, a debate is not about bringing up irrelevant points.

The points aren't objectively irrelevent, they're only irrelevant from your perspective where you're sticking your fingers in your ears and accusing everyone of arguing in bad faith.

That is not what he brought up. He brought up a plantation styled economy and tried to prove me wrong using that model. That model does not apply to what I was saying. YOU tell him to stop trying to prove me wrong using incorrect comparisons. He was trying to prove me wrong. You cannot do that by bringing up irrelevant points.

No he didn't. He never once mentioned a plantation economy. He never once mentioned that the sales were only to employees. The conversation was about the wages of employees. Are random people You just seem to have had a problem where if everything isn't spelt out clearly and obviously you make wild assumptions. Not an awful thing in itself, but when someone clarifies the position that you have misunderstood, calling them a liar isn't an option.

It's the way it is.

Secondly, even if he had been talking about a 'plantation economy' the point would still be valid. In that economy or the normal one he was talking about, the cost benefit equation of the employees wages in relation to their ability to buy the product of their labour remains the same. The only thing that changes is the percentage of overall sales which go employees, 100% in this 'plantation economy' of yours, X% in his example because the exact amount isn't specified.

The relevant thing is that in increase in wages equates to a in profits loss when looked at in this way. When the employees are only a small percentage of the purchasers of a product, there can still be a net profit due to all the ordinary customers. However the net profit is smaller that it would be - hence the employers are incentised to keep wages low.

Thirdly, he was very obviously not talking about a 'plantation economy' because the point he was making shows that a company where 100% of the buyers were staff is basically a failure.

I see you want to pick over the exact example rather than alayse the message

Your example is faulty. If you provide a proper example then do so but your argument is hurt if you cannot provide a proper example.

The example is valid. For a start because you've got plantation economies completely wrong and that's not the term used to refer to a company which has it's own internal market of employees which make up 100% of the sales (there isn't a term to refer to this, because you've just made it up).

A Plantation economy is simply one which relies on agricultural mass production.

Taxes are not a principle point in my statement.

Purchasers of the product who aren't employeees are not a principle point in his statement. You're holding to a hypocritical double standard.

Selling to people is the point of the statement that he was addressing.

Nope, he was referring to wages. He was directly quoting The Lyre who said:

"you can't trust them (Companies) to maintain minimum standard of living (for their employees) - there's nothing in that for them."

Obviously, he ignored most of the people that I was referring to. In other words, he did not include the principle issues but I did. So, your example is faulty. Don't like it? Either use a good example or quit.

Actually the principle issue was wages, as brought up by The Lyre in the post before yours. By continuing to miss the point since then, all your posts since then have been a waste.

Yes, because although they existed and did form part of the customer base they are in no way relevant to the point about the interaction between employees and business owners. Mentioning them is in no way relevent, except to people who are anally obsessed with covering any possible discrepencies in an anecdote even when they have nothing to do with the point being made and only serve to drag the entire level of the arguement down.

Let me get this straight, he is addressing my point that business owners have a vested interest in selling to people. He argues that that is not the case because a plantation economy (of the Roman style) is not especially profitable. HE dragged the argument down by ignoring a massive section of my argument. Justify that or quit.

No, he was addressing the Lyre's point about businesses not having a reason to pay their employees well. The reason we can know this is because he directly quotes The Lyre there.

This isn't something debatable. It's what he did. If you need me to I can go to the previous page, take a screenshot and post it here.

If you think his point was about something completely different from what it was laid out to be, that's your error.

He did. He tried to argue that I was saying something that I was not.

The irony.

The proof is my post. Nowhere in my post is what he said even implied.

Your post is irrelevent to the points other people come up with. If everyone based their thought and opinions and facts and knowledge of what someone else said, we'd all be mindless zombies.

Tell him that since he tried to tell me what I was saying.

I haven't noticed him doing that, but even if he has two wrongs don't make a right.

Show me where he's done it and I'll point out he's wrong too, but that doesn't stop you from being wrong right here.

Actually it is proof that he said it. He has no reason to do so. My statement does not give a single reason for him to go off on that kind of tangent. Therefore, he is in the wrong.

Have you heard of a motive? You've just admitted he has no motive to say what you're interpreting him as saying. Therefore your interpretation is likely wrong rather than his point.

Overhead:
Because he was refuting what you were saying and it was directly applicable to your post. When someone does this they don't have to stick to the same points you use.

So a modern economic system like what we have now is equal to a plantation style economy. Can you prove that?

If you think people in sweatshops are well treated because of the lack of taxes they pay, there's nothing stopping me from coming at it from a completely different angle and pointing out their poor working conditions and low pay mean they're badly treated.

Problem, you did not suddenly switch from sweatshops to serf labor. He switched between entirely different economic systems.

Similarly if you think companies can be trusted to pay people a living wage because you think without it there aren't people to work, analysing the relationship between employee and employer and how this works makes sense.

But not by Jerry rigging the model and bringing up irrelevant points. My point (the one he was arguing against) was about the relationship between the business owner and the consumer. Sure, that MAY include the employee but it does not exclusively mean the employee. However, he decided to make the model into a plantations style economy rather than the common style that we have now.

The entire point of a debate is people have different opinions. Complaining about this does nothing.

I agree, which is why you should stop complaining.

The points aren't objectively irrelevent, they're only irrelevant from your perspective where you're sticking your fingers in your ears and accusing everyone of arguing in bad faith.

You're his defender. Prove they are relevant.

No he didn't. He never once mentioned a plantation economy.

He did not use those words but that is what he said.

He never once mentioned that the sales were only to employees.

Before you start defending him try actually reading what he said-

"So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..?"

No allowances for exterior sells.

The conversation was about the wages of employees. Are random people You just seem to have had a problem where if everything isn't spelt out clearly and obviously you make wild assumptions. Not an awful thing in itself, but when someone clarifies the position that you have misunderstood, calling them a liar isn't an option.

Give me one good reason why he would limit the entire model to employees. None except for the fact that he misread my post. I did not confine my statement solely to employees. His argument relies on the idea that I did. Since I did not he is wrong.

Secondly, even if he had been talking about a 'plantation economy' the point would still be valid. In that economy or the normal one he was talking about, the cost benefit equation of the employees wages in relation to their ability to buy the product of their labour remains the same. The only thing that changes is the percentage of overall sales which go employees, 100% in this 'plantation economy' of yours, X% in his example because the exact amount isn't specified.

Nowhere in my post did I say that employees are the only people who buy a product. Why would he bring up this irrelevant point? Because he is wrong and he misread my post.

The relevant thing is that in increase in wages equates to a in profits loss when looked at in this way. When the employees are only a small percentage of the purchasers of a product, there can still be a net profit due to all the ordinary customers. However the net profit is smaller that it would be - hence the employers are incentised to keep wages low.

And he did not say that. YOU are adding in new arguments. His argument is that because employees by themselves do not make a business profitable obviously employers have no incentive to keep wages high. That is a true statement IN A PLANTATION STYLE ECONOMY.

Thirdly, he was very obviously not talking about a 'plantation economy' because the point he was making shows that a company where 100% of the buyers were staff is basically a failure.

And plantation economies (of the Roman style) tend to be relative failures (in terms of profit).

The example is valid. For a start because you've got plantation economies completely wrong and that's not the term used to refer to a company which has it's own internal market of employees which make up 100% of the sales (there isn't a term to refer to this, because you've just made it up).

A Plantation economy is simply one which relies on agricultural mass production.

You did notice the simple fact that I included "Roman" as a modifier several times right? The Roman Plantation was a precursor to Feudalism. In modern terms we might call it a tax haven. Basically, part of the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire was due to the rich moving into these Plantations and causing a massive drop in Imperial revenue. The Roman tax system levied few taxes from Plantations as long as they fulfilled certain requirements. One of those things being little in, little out. So a Roman Plantation was basically a self-sufficient area that was designed to maintain the Aristocrat's way of life while spending little. So no, I did not make it up.

Purchasers of the product who aren't employeees are not a principle point in his statement. You're holding to a hypocritical double standard.

He wants to prove my point about selling to people wrong by making a model where I only sell to employees. At the very least you must admit that it is a stupid model.

Nope, he was referring to wages. He was directly quoting The Lyre who said:

"you can't trust them (Companies) to maintain minimum standard of living (for their employees) - there's nothing in that for them."

My statement was about selling. He addressed my statement not his.

Actually the principle issue was wages, as brought up by The Lyre in the post before yours.

Actually the principle issue is selling. Because that was MY point that he was addressing, He was not addressing the other guy's post he was addressing mine and trying to refute my point.

By continuing to miss the point since then, all your posts since then have been a waste.

Coming from you that statement is irrelevant.

No, he was addressing the Lyre's point about businesses not having a reason to pay their employees well.

By addressing my post which is talking about something else.

This isn't something debatable. It's what he did. If you need me to I can go to the previous page, take a screenshot and post it here.

If you think his point was about something completely different from what it was laid out to be, that's your error.

No, it is his error. He failed to address my point and he said that I was saying something other than what I was.

Your post is irrelevent to the points other people come up with. If everyone based their thought and opinions and facts and knowledge of what someone else said, we'd all be mindless zombies.

Glad to know that I can say whatever random shit that comes into my head.

"Militarily, Moscow was perhaps the most important city in the Soviet Union. Moscow controlled the principle arms manufacturing plants in the Soviet Union (Tula). In addition Moscow was the railway and communications hub of the entire Soviet Union. Virtually all the soldiers from the east in the initial stages of the war all traveled through Moscow on their way to the front. With the vast expanses in the Soviet Union the loss of such a vital rail hub would have slowed down the Soviet's military and prevented it from maintaining supply lines."

Show me where he's done it and I'll point out he's wrong too

"YOU said that businesses have an incentive to make sure there are people to work for them and buy their products. I demonstrated that this was not the case-- to which YOU basically responded "Duh." I didn't spectacularly miss your point, what YOU said was just extremely and obviously false to begin with."

I am waiting. Of course, I do not expect you to do anything. Your point is to attack me. If it was not then you would have read this a long time ago.

but that doesn't stop you from being wrong right here.

I was never wrong to begin with. You yourself did not even know what I was talking about. You tried to talk about a modern plantation when I clearly added the modifier "Roman" in my posts. How can you say that I am wrong when you do not even know what I am talking about?

Have you heard of a motive? You've just admitted he has no motive to say what you're interpreting him as saying. Therefore your interpretation is likely wrong rather than his point.

Actually I have said it several times. His misread my post and now that I have called him out on it he wants to pretend it did not happen.

"So a modern economic system like what we have now is equal to a plantation style economy. Can you prove that?"

For crying out loud, farson135, will you just give it a rest with the strawmen? Just acknowledge you misread Seanchaidh's comment about the "100% of employers" and misinterpreted its meaning and move on. You actually had a discussion going for a while, but now it's just sad.

Skeleon:
had a discussion going for a while, but now it's just sad.

Senseless obstinacy has long since turned this debate into a intellectual desert. This thread has not managed to discuss anything useful for about weeks, so it should probably just be locked by mods. Then put into a bag with lead weights and thrown into the ocean.

farson135:
So a modern economic system like what we have now is equal to a plantation style economy. Can you prove that?

Never claimed that, don't make stuff up. reply to what I posted.

If you think people in sweatshops are well treated because of the lack of taxes they pay, there's nothing stopping me from coming at it from a completely different angle and pointing out their poor working conditions and low pay mean they're badly treated.

Problem, you did not suddenly switch from sweatshops to serf labor. He switched between entirely different economic systems.

You didn't seem to get that. A plantation is nto an economic system. Also you've given no reason why one type of switching is right and the other is wrong.

Double standards.

But not by Jerry rigging the model and bringing up irrelevant points. My point (the one he was arguing against) was about the relationship between the business owner and the consumer. Sure, that MAY include the employee but it does not exclusively mean the employee. However, he decided to make the model into a plantations style economy rather than the common style that we have now.

Double standards. You were responding to The Lyre and The Lyre's point was about employees.

Apparently you are allowed to use different points to the person you are responding to but other people aren't. Hypocrisy, as I mentioned.

I agree, which is why you should stop complaining.

Right back 'atcha

You're his defender. Prove they are relevant.

It contains it's own internal logic which you refuse to look at. I can't show someone who refuses to accept arguements in good faith.

Incidentally I think you're both wrong, it's just that he happens to hold a different opinion to me while you're not picking up basic points.

He did not use those words but that is what he said.

Quote them then. Quote the bit he did this.

Before you start defending him try actually reading what he said-

"So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..?"

No allowances for exterior sells.

There are no limits to the amount of exterior sales either. He doesn't say if 1% of people outside the labour force or 100% buy the product.

That the figure is definitely 0% is something you've invented.

Give me one good reason why he would limit the entire model to employees. None except for the fact that he misread my post. I did not confine my statement solely to employees. His argument relies on the idea that I did. Since I did not he is wrong.

The topic under discussion "Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them."

The clearest way companies effect living standards is with the wage they pay employees.

Therefore if he businesses are incentivised to pay employees low wages, that is directly relevant to the point.

Nowhere in my post did I say that employees are the only people who buy a product. Why would he bring up this irrelevant point? Because he is wrong and he misread my post.

He never brought it up. Bringing it up only happened in our imagination.

And he did not say that. YOU are adding in new arguments. His argument is that because employees by themselves do not make a business profitable obviously employers have no incentive to keep wages high. That is a true statement IN A PLANTATION STYLE ECONOMY.

No, his arguement never mentions that the employees are the only one responsible for making a profit.

"OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..? Labor costs increase by enough for workers to afford the price of one car each. The material cost (steel or aluminum and plastic and so on) is of course deducted from the price when it comes to my own profit. So we have +PRICE-MATERIALCOST-PRICE. Or... the negative of the price of the materials used to make the car is my 'profit'. Ah, yes: my profit is less than zero. Negative. Wonderful!"

Regardless of how many people purchase the products, increasing the wages of employees results in less profit.

Capitalists are motivated by profit, less profit is bad and so Capitalists are incentivised to pay workers poorly.

His entire point centres around workers not being profitable which is why companies have to sell to outside consumers. You haven't just got it wrong, you've got it backwards.

You did notice the simple fact that I included "Roman" as a modifier several times right? The Roman Plantation was a precursor to Feudalism. In modern terms we might call it a tax haven. Basically, part of the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire was due to the rich moving into these Plantations and causing a massive drop in Imperial revenue. The Roman tax system levied few taxes from Plantations as long as they fulfilled certain requirements. One of those things being little in, little out. So a Roman Plantation was basically a self-sufficient area that was designed to maintain the Aristocrat's way of life while spending little. So no, I did not make it up.

The type of plantation doesn't matter. A roman plantation isn't an economic system, no more than a call center is an economic system.

Also as noted by the experts: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40908737?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102445074961

Notice how this academic research paper describes roman plantations as producing goods for sale in local and foreign markets? And it describes it as Capitalistic?

Basically you were wrong on all counts.

He wants to prove my point about selling to people wrong by making a model where I only sell to employees. At the very least you must admit that it is a stupid model.

The point is that even if you sell to every other person on the face of the earth, raising the wages of your employees so they can afford what you're manufacturing is a bad idea.

Who else aside from employees purchase the product is incidental.

My statement was about selling. He addressed my statement not his.

Actually the principle issue is selling. Because that was MY point that he was addressing, He was not addressing the other guy's post he was addressing mine and trying to refute my point.

He directly quoted the Lyre and your response was to the Lyre. If anyone moved it off topic it was you, but you're only willing to hold other people and not yourself to these nonsense standards.

Also your statement was "No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit."

That references employees working and selling.

Coming from you that statement is irrelevant.

I've produced some of the most comprehensive and well sourced posts on these forums. Coming from me it's especially relevant.

No, it is his error. He failed to address my point and he said that I was saying something other than what I was.

No, it is your error. You failed to address his point and said that he was saying something other than what he was.

Glad to know that I can say whatever random shit that comes into my head.

You weren't already?

"YOU said that businesses have an incentive to make sure there are people to work for them and buy their products. I demonstrated that this was not the case-- to which YOU basically responded "Duh." I didn't spectacularly miss your point, what YOU said was just extremely and obviously false to begin with."

I am waiting. Of course, I do not expect you to do anything. Your point is to attack me. If it was not then you would have read this a long time ago.

His quote seems to be an accurate representation of what he quoted you saying in his first post: "No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit."

What bits do you see him getting wrong?

I was never wrong to begin with. You yourself did not even know what I was talking about. You tried to talk about a modern plantation when I clearly added the modifier "Roman" in my posts. How can you say that I am wrong when you do not even know what I am talking about?

Firstly, you added Roman into your later descriptions and not your original statement. Seeing as your whole point is that people have to say exactly what they mean and if anything isn't directly stated you can't assume it, if you expect me to let you off for that then you're being hypocritical again.

Secondly, you also used "plantation economy" referring to something different which is a specific phrase referring to something completely different. Wiki it for a summary. It's not my fault if you're not using the right terminology.

Thirdly, even with Roman in there it still doesn't make sense so you can't blame me for not being able to tell which of the two statements which don't make sense you were actually referring to.

Actually I have said it several times. His misread my post and now that I have called him out on it he wants to pretend it did not happen.

So you're saying he DID have a motive? A minute ago you said he didn't. Which is it, because your story's changing.

afroebob:

This of course is a very brief little summary, there is a LOT more about the party that I really don't have the patients to go into, but if I where to summarize the party's belief in one sentence it would be this: It is the only political party that exists in the United States that actually believes in freedom rather than just says it does.

Depends on what you mean by "freedom" - freedom for a big business to sell tainted water or freedom for a family to know that any water they purchase was safely manufactured with 3rd party oversight and regulations.

Here are some articles that explain why I have a problem with libertarians and in some cases the "mother" of the movement, Ayn Rand.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049619/-Why-Libertarianism-Doesn-t-Work

(Somalia is a fairly "libertarian" country, for example. The strong rule. No pesky government interference there!)

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2009/09/problems-with-libertarianism.html

(Discusses "branches" within libertarianism - they exist! Oh yes! :) )

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

("The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln)

And, one of my favorites - the "Non-Libertarian" FAQ:

http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html

If you're a libertarian and you can get through all of those links and have a rational argument for every problem presented, I'd be amazed. I have yet to meet any one of them who can - they talk about the idealism of "freedom" without thinking much beyond that. It reminds me of an article I read comparing libertarians to teenage boys... which is where a lot of people pick up their first Ayn Rand book, anyway. I know I read "Fountainhead" And "Atlas Shrugged" at 14 and thought "What a load of utter crap..." - but some people read it and go, "Ah ha! I am right to be selfish!"

Most people grow out of it, when they realize that they are indeed part of a larger community and not an island unto themselves.

We'll end with my biggest critique of libertarianism in general - it seems, on the whole, a very childish philosophical state. It took one woman's frantic hatred of communism - well earned, I might add - and morphed it into an anti-communism, a philosophy where we have absolutely no moral or ethical duty to each other or the community as a whole. It was a rational response to a repressive communist government, but it's not a rational philosophy.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/19/ayn_rand_is_for_children/

And I'll end with that. I disagree with libertarianism and the mother of the movement because I think, on the whole, it's a childish philosophy. One to grow out of, preferably before you harm anyone.

Farson, you explicitly disagreed with this statement: "Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them" by giving a couple of reasons that it matters to a business whether there are people who exist and can buy things. That it matters to a business whether people exist, however, does not imply that there is "something in it for them" to actually do something with the goal of making sure that people continue to exist with at least a minimum standard of living. Businesses rightly treat the existence of other people as an opportunity to sell them shit-- not a condition that the business needs to worry itself over maintaining.

I attacked your reasoning directly. You said that private corporations need a market for their goods-- people to sell to-- and people to employ to do work. Since you did not in any way specify something that a business would actually do in order to maintain a minimum standard of living or to make sure that people continue to exist in order to buy their products, I made the most obvious way for them to do so my example: by paying its workers enough to buy its products, a business could make sure that there are at least some people to buy its products. I mentioned Henry Ford because I've heard people say that he thought that he had a reason to pay high wages business because his workers being able to buy his company's product meant that he would make more money selling cars. My analysis was that it was more profitable for a business not to care whether its workers could afford the product and to simply take advantage of the existing market for the product while paying workers as little as possible: businesses do not have an incentive to maintain a minimum standard of living for their workers because they make more money by paying the smallest wage possible. Overhead read me correctly-- very well, in fact, kudos to Overhead (it is good to know that my words appear perspicuous enough to at least one person.) You did not.

When I referred to the profit that came from paying workers more than otherwise, I was using the word 'profit' comparatively: how much more money does a business make if they pay their workers enough to afford the product rather than paying none of them enough to afford the product? They make negative more money by doing that-- paying a higher wage means less profit. I explicitly stated in the first place that a company could still be profitable while paying a larger wage than strictly necessary to produce the good or service that they sell, just not as profitable as they could possibly be-- not maximally profitable.

I did not "propose a plantation style system." I did not say that businesses should only sell to their own workers. I did not imply such either. I said that businesses have no reason to pay their workers more if the pay increase is only an attempt at expanding their market. You said this was true and obvious. And then you insisted that my example was about something else for some inscrutable reason.

My meaning should have been clear to you. It was clear to Overhead. I did have a reason to write what I actually did write. I did not write what you continue to insist that I did. That you continue to insist that I wrote and meant something else is entirely your own fault-- there is not even the barest excuse for it at this point. You have been told repeatedly that you are wrong and how exactly you are wrong in detail and at length by two people including myself. A third person has indicated the same as well, but not repeatedly and without a long explanation. A fourth implied the same (and cast a wider net) in response. This is not just because this forum is full of people who are skeptical of libertarianism and anarchism. This is not either because of my personal appeal-- I often come off as fairly abrasive. It is because you are wrong.

Now, if you would like to propose some way other than raising wages that a business would be inclined to do (have an incentive to do) in order to maintain a minimum standard of living (as we both seem to agree they are not generally inclined to raise wages if the workers do not demand it) you may do so-- we can then discuss whether it satisfies the relevant conditions. If you do not have such a way, then you were wrong to disagree with "Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them". I think there is actually a rational way in which you could disagree with The Lyre's statement-- it's just not one you have appeared to post, and it is a weaker sense of 'maintaining a minimum standard of living' and 'something in it for them' than many people would be comfortable with. Will you notice what it is?

Overhead:
Incidentally I think you're both wrong, it's just that he happens to hold a different opinion to me while you're not picking up basic points.

Since we've gone off-topic anyway, I may as well ask: what is your position on this?

If I remember correctly, Marx and Engels seemed to think prices of labor would stabilize in the long run at enough to subsist divided by how many hours one can work-- that is plausible to me, since it doesn't make that much sense to work for less than that (at least or especially if you have no savings); better at least to attempt something with a chance of survival higher than 0%-- crime, for example. I still think that a business would want to pay less than that if it could get away with it, though; it would be the workers demanding more that would keep the rate at subsistence rather than the business's desire to maintain a workforce in my view. Of course, formally speaking, a business might pay less than subsistence and have the workers all owe more than they can pay to the company store should they run out of all savings whatsoever. But if the business intends on that-- and continues to feed and clothe the worker to some extent ignoring the debt-- it's a lot like paying subsistence. It just adds the potential of grabbing any remaining savings of the worker and possibly getting others to contribute to pay off his debt, and in some cases would essentially tie the worker to the job (if not legally, sometimes practically.)

I do think that it is in the interest of business generally speaking for wages through the whole of society to be as high as possible-- but when it comes to an individual business, the individual business wants its own wages to be as low as possible. This seems to be an example of a collective action problem for businesses: the individual incentives of businesses do not align with the interests of business generally.

Or is it something else we disagree on?

I suppose one other point of disagreement might be on whether it can be profitable in the long term to have high wages without eventually provoking a crisis of overproduction. But as far as that goes, I'm simply not sure.

BTW The primary reason Henry Ford decided to offer such high wages was because his competitors were poaching his skilled workers. His company was constantly expanding and he needed to train more and more workers in the assembly line processes he was using. The competing car manufacturers would hire these trained workers away from him and greatly reduce the efficiency of production. By offering the workers such high wages he massively reduced worker turnover and retained the skilled, trained workers. He realized that he was working with such significant economies of scale that the increased efficiency and productivity more than made up for the increased costs.

One should note that Ford in his old age became a tyrannical paranoid and tried to turn his factories into a police state.

Seanchaidh:
Since we've gone off-topic anyway, I may as well ask: what is your position on this?

Your example, is by itself completely true. The capitalist cannot pay a worker their wage, pay for the cost of production, have a worker buy some of the product and make a profit on that exchange alone.

The problem is that once you introduce extra elements it stops being such a simple calculation. As Neilas mentioned, at the time labour was in demand and the labourers could pick and choose where they worked. This lead to high staff turnover and problems with production as new staff needed to be trained, they didn't have a solid core of experienced workers, they didn't know how many employees they'd have next week.

By increasing their wages, Ford increased the productivity of the business in a way completely separate from whether his employees could afford to buy his cars.

So I think that particular example was bad because it highlighted a person who genuinely did increase the wage above the norm due to market pressures and incentives.

Your overall point of capitalists being incentivised to pay labourers as little as possible is one I agree with as long as it has a slightly greater analysis.

Mostly the thing I think needs to be kept in mind this is that the relationship between capital and labour is a constantly shifting dialectic which is altering not just because of the actions of the people involved but also for all kinds of factors not intimately connected in either way - for instance the availability of natural resources or natural disasters can have profound consequences on how businesses are run.

While the profit motive is the primary motivator for keeping wages low and also probably the most powerful motivator as profit and expansion is central to Capitalism; the power of unions, the strength of the labour market, social convention, less staff turnover, close relationships between small business owners and staff, etc, can all play a role in counteracting that motivation somewhat even disregarding the rule of law in terms of minimum wage.

Exactly how strong a role they play will fluctuate with time. For instance there is massive unemployment at the moment that means there are more potential employees available so wages are being driven down by this relationship compared to where it stood a few years ago before the crash. As more and more companies are large ones where the bosses will infrequently interact with the workers, or never in the case of companies with outside investors, the social relationship (heirarchal and unfair though it may be) between business owner and employee disintegrates.

Capitalists are still leeches extracting the surplus value from the hard work of the labourers, the creators of value, but it is not so cut and dry as every aspect of the socio-economic structure always forces wages downward.

SeanchaidhI:
I attacked your reasoning directly. You said that private corporations need a market for their goods-- people to sell to-- and people to employ to do work. Since you did not in any way specify something that a business would actually do in order to maintain a minimum standard of living or to make sure that people continue to exist in order to buy their products, I made the most obvious way for them to do so my example: by paying its workers enough to buy its products, a business could make sure that there are at least some people to buy its products.

There you go everybody. He just admitted to saying what I said he said. He meant to prove a point in a convoluted way but that point STILL does not reflect what y'all are defending. Sorry, y'all lose. Now will y'all calm the fuck down? Or maybe y'all will try and tell me what I was saying. Make it seem like I was saying something I was not. He just admitted that my point was correct. What's your move?

He confined the model solely to one element of the economy. I had a problem with the model and I argued against it. Instead of taking that in stride y'all insist on attacking me. Why is that so difficult for y'all? Stop clinging to bad models and move on.

Skeleon:
"So a modern economic system like what we have now is equal to a plantation style economy. Can you prove that?"

For crying out loud, farson135, will you just give it a rest with the strawmen?

Will you actually address the point? Seanchaidh stated, "So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..?" which has absolutely nothing to do with my point. So he misread my post.

Just acknowledge you misread Seanchaidh's comment about the "100% of employers" and misinterpreted its meaning and move on.

I misread it? HE argued against my point by using a model where I sell to employees and not to the entire consumer market. Show how exactly his point can be extrapolated from my post. Can YOU give that to me? If not then stop attacking me.

You actually had a discussion going for a while, but now it's just sad.

Do you think that for once in your life you could provide something of value to a discussion? That was mean but you need to cut the shit. Show me how I am in the wrong when he is the one who brought up an economic system where only employees buy from employers. He argued against my point using that model. Prove to me that that is appropriate.

I argued against his model. Y'all decided that his model is correct. Prove that it is.

Overhead:
Never claimed that, don't make stuff up. reply to what I posted.

You posted that his point is relevant. In order for his point to be relevant he has to discuss something at least related to my point. He did not.

You didn't seem to get that. A plantation is nto an economic system.

Yes it is. Just a micro scale one.

Also you've given no reason why one type of switching is right and the other is wrong.

Double standards.

Double standards. You were responding to The Lyre and The Lyre's point was about employees.

Apparently you are allowed to use different points to the person you are responding to but other people aren't. Hypocrisy, as I mentioned.

Actually no. Effectively, the vast majority of working people are employees of different businesses. The Lyre was discussing an overall economic system and so was I. Sean was discussing ONE business. Big difference.

It contains it's own internal logic which you refuse to look at. I can't show someone who refuses to accept arguements in good faith.

So your proof comes from the fact that I will not accept an argument that does not have proof in it. YOU will not prove your point and somehow you expect to convince me?

Quote them then. Quote the bit he did this.

Try reading his first post-

There are no limits to the amount of exterior sales either. He doesn't say if 1% of people outside the labour force or 100% buy the product.

That the figure is definitely 0% is something you've invented.

No, it is what he said. The labor force is the only consumer he mentions. How about YOU provide a bit of evidence.

The topic under discussion "Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them."

The clearest way companies effect living standards is with the wage they pay employees.

Therefore if he businesses are incentivised to pay employees low wages, that is directly relevant to the point.

BUT he did not discuss that. HE discussed ONLY selling to employees. If you want to discuss your point then we can do so. However, you need to get rid of this idea that Sean is you.

No, his arguement never mentions that the employees are the only one responsible for making a profit.

Yes he did-

Regardless of how many people purchase the products, increasing the wages of employees results in less profit.

I noticed the fact that you excluded the first part of that paragraph- "So I pay my workers enough to afford my product." That changes the context.

Capitalists are motivated by profit, less profit is bad and so Capitalists are incentivised to pay workers poorly.

Unless there are other reasons (like the ones I talked about) to pay them better.

You seem to want to talk about something actually interesting. How about you abandon Sean and his poorly conceived post and we talk about something relevant?

His entire point centres around workers not being profitable which is why companies have to sell to outside consumers. You haven't just got it wrong, you've got it backwards.

Then why did he bring up- "So I pay my workers enough to afford my product."

I never even implied that employers only need to sell to employees. What is he trying to do? Use a shitty model.

The type of plantation doesn't matter.

So you are going to ignore the point. Big surprise.

Also as noted by the experts: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40908737?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102445074961

Notice how this academic research paper describes roman plantations as producing goods for sale in local and foreign markets? And it describes it as Capitalistic?

Basically you were wrong on all counts.

No, I am completely right. This is what you get for imputing random shit into google and seeing what pops up. Notice, it says "development". As in, the paper concentrates on the early stages not on the later Roman Empire. The late Empire had these problems due in part to the rise of state serfdom (which only became prevalent in the LATE Empire), changes in the tax structure (once again, late Empire), and on. In other words, you have failed miserably.

Also your statement was "No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit."

That references employees working and selling.

No it does not. Now you have decided to lie for him. For the love of Christ do you really feel the need to humiliate yourself for him?

I've produced some of the most comprehensive and well sourced posts on these forums. Coming from me it's especially relevant.

In your opinion perhaps. But you have cited little here.

His quote seems to be an accurate representation of what he quoted you saying in his first post: "No people to work, nothing to make. No people to buy, no profit."

What bits do you see him getting wrong?

It is not going to work if you keep acting so dishonestly. You and I both know that I did not say what he accuses me of saying. My quote that you brought up does not even imply what he is accusing me of.

Firstly, you added Roman into your later descriptions and not your original statement. Seeing as your whole point is that people have to say exactly what they mean and if anything isn't directly stated you can't assume it, if you expect me to let you off for that then you're being hypocritical again.

Actually I did say it. Post 109. Long before you came along.

Secondly, you also used "plantation economy" referring to something different which is a specific phrase referring to something completely different. Wiki it for a summary. It's not my fault if you're not using the right terminology.

And it is not my fault you are unable to grasp simple historiography. Terms change based on time period. If I say plantation economy and add Roman as a modifier it has a completely different meaning. Same thing if I were to say third world nation. That has a different meaning if I am referring to a third world nation in the 1980s vs. now.

Thirdly, even with Roman in there it still doesn't make sense so you can't blame me for not being able to tell which of the two statements which don't make sense you were actually referring to.

Which? The most exact one. That is always how you do it.

Read through any historical paper and you will see the writers modifying the terms for simplicity. Repetitions get irritating over time. That is why if you were reading a book on Frederick the Great they usually refer to him as Frederick after a while even though that is the (at least partial) name of his father, his grand-father, his son, and on (basically every monarch in Prussian history, and a few electors before that, are named Frederick or Frederick William, except for the one William Frederick). Plus, there are all of the other Fredericks running around at this time. Several of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were named Frederick. Several of the electors of Saxony were named Frederick. And on. It would get irritating to constantly refer to Frederick the Great (popular term) as Elector Frederick II of Brandenburg and King in/of Prussia (more official but still watered down, plus it has to take into account the change from "King in Prussia" to "King of Prussia" that only occurred after the First Partition of Poland near the end of his reign). Also, in "Absolute Destruction", Hull does not use the term "Concentration Camp" despite the fact that that is the proper term (it is too loaded a term to modern readers). Instead she uses the term internment camps. The term is still correct BUT concentration camp is more correct given the time period and the fact that the official name for those areas in official documents were (translated) concentration camps. Not everyone knows about the historical terms that I use so I use descriptive terms. That is very common in historical articles, books, shows, etc. (especially "popular history").

Seanchaidh:
I attacked your reasoning directly. You said that private corporations need a market for their goods-- people to sell to-- and people to employ to do work. Since you did not in any way specify something that a business would actually do in order to maintain a minimum standard of living or to make sure that people continue to exist in order to buy their products, I made the most obvious way for them to do so my example: by paying its workers enough to buy its products, a business could make sure that there are at least some people to buy its products.

That is not what you said to begin with. You emphatically denied that what I said was true. You used a convoluted argument that concentrated solely on one single element of an overall economy. Employees and employers by themselves do not make an economy unless you reduce the economy to a Roman Plantation Style economy. You know, like what I said to begin with. I argued against your model and instead of taking it in stride you decided to make this entire discussion into one big mess.

My analysis was that it was more profitable for a business not to care whether its workers could afford the product

And that is relevant to my statement how? Workers are not the only people. Once again, I argued against your model. I told you that your model does not apply to my statement. Why do you continue to push your model when it does not apply?

businesses do not have an incentive to maintain a minimum standard of living for their workers because they make more money by paying the smallest wage possible.

And a minimum standard of living is below what they are willing to pay because?

You see, if you had just admitted that you misread my post we could talk about that point instead. But no, you felt the need to backtrack.

When I referred to the profit that came from paying workers more than otherwise, I was using the word 'profit' comparatively: how much more money does a business make if they pay their workers enough to afford the product rather than paying none of them enough to afford the product?

Which is completely irrelevant to my point and only matters in a Roman Plantation style economy because only the employees are the ones buying. Once again, your model does not fit with my statement. I concentrated on the greater market and you reduced it.

I did not "propose a plantation style system." I did not say that businesses should only sell to their own workers. I did not imply such either.

I never said you did. It was the model you proposed in order to try and attack my point. YOU DID want to use it. It failed because the model is irrelevant to my point. You pushed the model.

I said that businesses have no reason to pay their workers more if the pay increase is only an attempt at expanding their market. You said this was true and obvious. And then you insisted that my example was about something else for some inscrutable reason.

Because it was. Your model did not allow for exterior consumers. You should not have confined the model. I would not have had a problem with it otherwise. Your model is the issue. You misread my post and I told you that. You fucked up but instead of moving on you keep doing this. Just stop.

I did not write what you continue to insist that I did.

Yes you did. You admitted it in your first paragraph.

This is not just because this forum is full of people who are skeptical of libertarianism and anarchism. This is not either because of my personal appeal-- I often come off as fairly abrasive. It is because you are wrong.

No, all of y'all have your own reasons for being obstinate.

Explain this to me. If I am wrong, then why did you continue to argue for a model that only uses employees of one company? Why did you constrict the model so much when you did not need to? Your model is faulty. I told you it was faulty. All you had to do is change the model. Instead you insist on backtracking. Get rid of the fucking model and we can talk. Why is that so hard? I know you do not support that model that I why I expected you to abandon it. Instead you cling to it. Fuck the model and move on. Are you so afraid of being wrong? Just fuck the model. Get rid of it for the love of god.

Now, if you would like to propose some way other than raising wages that a business would be inclined to do (have an incentive to do) in order to maintain a minimum standard of living (as we both seem to agree they are not generally inclined to raise wages if the workers do not demand it) you may do so-- we can then discuss whether it satisfies the relevant conditions.

By lowering the minimum standard of living by making things cheaper to produce and thereby increasing sales. Which makes things even cheaper which drives development and on and on and on.

I think there is actually a rational way in which you could disagree with The Lyre's statement-- it's just not one you have appeared to post

Because no one asked. Y'all insisted on making this ridiculous series of posts rather than having a real discussion.

Nielas:
BTW The primary reason Henry Ford decided to offer such high wages was because his competitors were poaching his skilled workers. His company was constantly expanding and he needed to train more and more workers in the assembly line processes he was using. The competing car manufacturers would hire these trained workers away from him and greatly reduce the efficiency of production. By offering the workers such high wages he massively reduced worker turnover and retained the skilled, trained workers. He realized that he was working with such significant economies of scale that the increased efficiency and productivity more than made up for the increased costs.

I figured there must have been some good reason for it-- because he did actually have higher wages than strictly necessary to make cars.

After my post, I looked up some Ford quotes and couldn't find it-- only something a bit similar, which is that he thought that "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." The specific 'why' of favoring the highest wage possible that I stated and refuted is not something I found which could be sourced to Mr. Ford. I think the idea that Ford "said" or "thought" that high wages were good "because they allowed more people to buy his cars" may have been a complete fabrication by Democratic Politicians or speechwriters or someone else with a similar agenda. I don't know where the idea originated, though I did find it on someone's blog that he posted in 2011.

So I was wrong... about a relatively small detail in a way that doesn't seem to undermine my argument at all.

One should note that Ford in his old age became a tyrannical paranoid and tried to turn his factories into a police state.

A surprising number of very smart, accomplished, and/or industrious people seemed to have or develop very unpalatable views or practices, especially around that time. Charles Lindbergh is another one.

Overhead:
Capitalists are still leeches extracting the surplus value from the hard work of the labourers, the creators of value, but it is not so cut and dry as every aspect of the socio-economic structure always forces wages downward.

Yeah, my analysis was quite focused (good spin) and/or simplistic (worse spin). Broadly, I'm compelled to agree with your list of all the different factors that can affect wages. If I indicated otherwise at some point, I retract.

farson135:

SeanchaidhI:
I attacked your reasoning directly. You said that private corporations need a market for their goods-- people to sell to-- and people to employ to do work. Since you did not in any way specify something that a business would actually do in order to maintain a minimum standard of living or to make sure that people continue to exist in order to buy their products, I made the most obvious way for them to do so my example: by paying its workers enough to buy its products, a business could make sure that there are at least some people to buy its products.

There you go everybody. He just admitted to saying what I said he said.

No.

Attempting to make sure that there are at least some people to buy products by paying workers more does not in any way entail that employees are the only people buying anything. Stop it.

farson135:
You posted that his point is relevant. In order for his point to be relevant he has to discuss something at least related to my point. He did not.

He did.

Yes it is. Just a micro scale one.

Find my any professional reference calling the Roman plantation an economic system. I've already provided one which says that Captialism is the economic system it would be classified as, so 1 to me, 0 to you.

Actually no. Effectively, the vast majority of working people are employees of different businesses. The Lyre was discussing an overall economic system and so was I. Sean was discussing ONE business. Big difference.

The point was about people working and getting paid. Do businesses that employees don't work for pay their wages? Then they aren't relevant in that way, are they, and you've made a meaningless distinction.

Using one business as he did is called using an example. It's pretty much always preferable to making large overreaching statements without proof, which is what you're doing.

So your proof comes from the fact that I will not accept an argument that does not have proof in it. YOU will not prove your point and somehow you expect to convince me?

It has proof, you're just refusing to discuss it because you beleive your opinions are superior to everything.

Try reading his first post-

None of those say that it's a plantation economy. None of them infer it. All you've done is post a quote that I've already read and assumed that by bolding parts of it your points will be proven true.

It's not a plantation economy, it is just talking about employees because those are the relevant part.

No, it is what he said. The labor force is the only consumer he mentions. How about YOU provide a bit of evidence.

Get your story straight. You're saying he said it and then in the next sentence you're changing it to him only mentioning the labour force.

So did he only mention the labour force or did he specifically say that there were no outside consumers? It was the former, so stop claiming the latter.

The topic under discussion "Private corporations are interested in their own profit, and you can't trust them to maintain minimum standard of living - there's nothing in that for them."

The clearest way companies effect living standards is with the wage they pay employees.

Therefore if he businesses are incentivised to pay employees low wages, that is directly relevant to the point.

BUT he did not discuss that. HE discussed ONLY selling to employees. If you want to discuss your point then we can do so. However, you need to get rid of this idea that Sean is you.

That's directly what he was discussing. Regardless of other sales, upping wages to the employees will never be relevant in and of itself in terms of them buying more of the goods that they manufacture.

If the company only sells to it's employees, upping the wages for employees so they can purchase the goods they produce is a bad idea.

If the company sells to plenty of people other than it's employees, upping the wages for employees so they can purchase the goods they produce is a bad idea.

Either way the point is made that from a business owner's perspective, upping wages is a bad idea.

This fixation of yours is completely pointless to the point being made. It changes nothing and all it's done is let you spent post after post avoiding the point.

See, not mentioned.

If I say "Black people are badly treated in the places that they work," then simply because I'm not mentioning white people, asian people, etc doesn't mean they don't exist.

You're inferring that not specifically mentioning something means they're not there. That's some weird ass standard of speech that only you believe in and that you yourself don't manage to meet and even if you do hold to it, it's been made abundantly clear again and again and again what was meant that you have no reason to continue this arguement over the meaning.

I noticed the fact that you excluded the first part of that paragraph- "So I pay my workers enough to afford my product." That changes the context.

The context is about the wages of employees. whether there are 0 sales outside the labour force or a billion, that's what's being discussed.

Unless there are other reasons (like the ones I talked about) to pay them better.

In which case you can deal with his point as it's been made and discuss it on those grounds and bring up your disagreement, rather than just disagreeing over the meaning of what he's said even when three seperate people are all telling you what it meant.

Then why did he bring up- "So I pay my workers enough to afford my product."

I never even implied that employers only need to sell to employees. What is he trying to do? Use a shitty model.

He brought paying employees up to specifically showing that's ineffective.

He's not saying you claimed you only need to sell to employees. He's talking about wages, which was one of the topics under discussion, and pointing out a way employers are disincentivised from raising wages.

So you are going to ignore the point. Big surprise.

Your point is one that peer reviewed academic research says is one. So yes until it becomes meaningful I'll ignore it.

No, I am completely right. This is what you get for imputing random shit into google and seeing what pops up. Notice, it says "development". As in, the paper concentrates on the early stages not on the later Roman Empire. The late Empire had these problems due in part to the rise of state serfdom (which only became prevalent in the LATE Empire), changes in the tax structure (once again, late Empire), and on. In other words, you have failed miserably.

It's an academic peer-reviewed study. I've offered proof. You've offered nothing.

Also the very first sentence of the study is the author specifically laying out what a roman plantation is and he states it produces goods for sale in local and foreign markets. They developed in other ways and things changed, but that is the definition of them as provided by an expert.

All you've provided is your say-so, I've got expert evidence.

No it does not. Now you have decided to lie for him. For the love of Christ do you really feel the need to humiliate yourself for him?

So when you said "No people to work, nothing to make" that wasn't referencing working?

If you truly believe that, then the problem here is that you're the one who can't write what you mean because your posts explicitly mention it.

In your opinion perhaps. But you have cited little here.

I've cited infinity percent more than you and honestly there isn't much to cite when it comes to a basic understanding of what a person is directly telling you is the meaning of their post.

It is not going to work if you keep acting so dishonestly. You and I both know that I did not say what he accuses me of saying. My quote that you brought up does not even imply what he is accusing me of.

I'll ask again, what bits did he get wrong?

You've made this big generalised accusation, now back it up with specifics.

Firstly, you added Roman into your later descriptions and not your original statement. Seeing as your whole point is that people have to say exactly what they mean and if anything isn't directly stated you can't assume it, if you expect me to let you off for that then you're being hypocritical again.

Actually I did say it. Post 109. Long before you came along.

Except earlier in post 104 you referred to it as a plantation economy. As I said, you only added roman later.

You were talking about something else completely and when you've clarified what you supposedly meant you expect us to give you the same leeway that you are even now refusing to give to Seanchaidh.

Hypocrisy.

And it is not my fault you are unable to grasp simple historiography. Terms change based on time period. If I say plantation economy and add Roman as a modifier it has a completely different meaning. Same thing if I were to say third world nation. That has a different meaning if I am referring to a third world nation in the 1980s vs. now.

And if you say plantation economy and only add roman in later posts and even then only occasionally, you made the mistake and it's your fault your posts are wrong.

W

hich? The most exact one. That is always how you do it.

Read through any historical paper and you will see the writers modifying the terms for simplicity. Repetitions get irritating over time. That is why if you were reading a book on Frederick the Great they usually refer to him as Frederick after a while even though that is the (at least partial) name of his father, his grand-father, his son, and on (basically every monarch in Prussian history, and a few electors before that, are named Frederick or Frederick William, except for the one William Frederick). Plus, there are all of the other Fredericks running around at this time. Several of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were named Frederick. Several of the electors of Saxony were named Frederick. And on. It would get irritating to constantly refer to Frederick the Great (popular term) as Elector Frederick II of Brandenburg and King in/of Prussia (more official but still watered down, plus it has to take into account the change from "King in Prussia" to "King of Prussia" that only occurred after the First Partition of Poland near the end of his reign). Also, in "Absolute Destruction", Hull does not use the term "Concentration Camp" despite the fact that that is the proper term (it is too loaded a term to modern readers). Instead she uses the term internment camps. The term is still correct BUT concentration camp is more correct given the time period and the fact that the official name for those areas in official documents were (translated) concentration camps. Not everyone knows about the historical terms that I use so I use descriptive terms. That is very common in historical articles, books, shows, etc. (especially "popular history").

The key to that is that you clarify your meaning in the original instance. You have done the exact opposite of what you've posted and referred to it by completely the wrong name first of all, a name which is used to refer to something completely different, then only later used the correct name.

Not applicable at all.

Seanchaidh:
Overhead read me correctly-- very well, in fact, kudos to Overhead (it is good to know that my words appear perspicuous enough to at least one person.)

Oh, you need not fear that your arguments lack cogency and cohesion: they are clearly stated and easily graspable situations relevant to the topic under discussion.

veloper:
Within a functioning democracy, the government is the people. It just makes no sense to be principly anti-government.

Everything we (the majority) want to organise, but cannot manage to do so on a corporate, communal or smaller level has to be done through the larger democratic institutions instead.
Big government is big exactly because the demands we place on it are so many. Libertarianism would mean giving up on alot of services, oversight and control even in the best of scenarios.

You can still make a case for moderate government spending and control, but that makes one just a "classical liberal", not a libertarian.

Classical liberals are considered a form of libertarian.

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

Not to get to far off topic, but nearly everything people declare 'inherently wrong' are human constructs. All of them. Government, corporations, every political philosophy, every ideology, every ism, every religion, is a human construct. Humanity is to blame for all its problems. And expecting humans to act in a way other then human is like..super confusing to me. Saying 'it's the governments fault' or 'it's those corporations!' is disingenuous. It's the humans in those corporations, in the governments faults, and it's a lot easier to punish a human individual then it is to punish 'the government' or 'the corporation'. It's probably why people in power like to keep it nebulous as possible, to avoid personal responsibility.

Bentusi16:

veloper:
Within a functioning democracy, the government is the people. It just makes no sense to be principly anti-government.

Everything we (the majority) want to organise, but cannot manage to do so on a corporate, communal or smaller level has to be done through the larger democratic institutions instead.
Big government is big exactly because the demands we place on it are so many. Libertarianism would mean giving up on alot of services, oversight and control even in the best of scenarios.

You can still make a case for moderate government spending and control, but that makes one just a "classical liberal", not a libertarian.

Classical liberals are considered a form of libertarian.

So?

Bentusi16:

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

Ok, democracy has failed, time for Oligarchy instead.

Bentusi16:

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

Point being?

Bentusi16:

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

In a democracy, politicians are elected, and have term durations, and therefore, in theory, somewhat answerable and loyal to the will of the people.
CEO's are not elected, and are only responsible to the board of directors, and, maybe, shareholders, and are tasked with one thing only, extracting as much wealth out of their customers and workers as possible.

nyysjan:

Bentusi16:

veloper:
Within a functioning democracy, the government is the people. It just makes no sense to be principly anti-government.

Everything we (the majority) want to organise, but cannot manage to do so on a corporate, communal or smaller level has to be done through the larger democratic institutions instead.
Big government is big exactly because the demands we place on it are so many. Libertarianism would mean giving up on alot of services, oversight and control even in the best of scenarios.

You can still make a case for moderate government spending and control, but that makes one just a "classical liberal", not a libertarian.

Classical liberals are considered a form of libertarian.

So?

Bentusi16:

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

Ok, democracy has failed, time for Oligarchy instead.

Bentusi16:

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

Point being?

Bentusi16:

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

In a democracy, politicians are elected, and have term durations, and therefore, in theory, somewhat answerable and loyal to the will of the people.
CEO's are not elected, and are only responsible to the board of directors, and, maybe, shareholders, and are tasked with one thing only, extracting as much wealth out of their customers and workers as possible.

I will not argue utopian ideals. It's silly.

Your right, in a perfect happy world, your absolutely right. But I'm busy living in the real one where that is the biggest bullshit that people spout with absolute certainty.

They are absolutely NOT accountable. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

Take a look at that. I would point out that the last four years have been some of the most controversial in at least MY lifetime, and the country is openly going into a tail spin.

But the election rate is still 87% for incumbents in the House. It's only like 85% with the Senate. To put that another way, all the people who should be accountable for all the shit going on got reelected, except 1.5/10 of them.

I don't know how it works in other countries, and I don't care. I'm talking about MY country, the one I have to deal with.

Also, you do realize that AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. We a constitutional representative republic with universal suffrage for adult citizens of good standing. The entire purpose of the original structure was to avoid a mobocracy/rule of the majority because they realized just how fucked up that would be.

People vote for themselves, not 'for the good of society', even if they say it's for the good of society.

By the way, I brought it up because he SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT CLASSIC LIBERALISM WAS NOT LIBERTARIAN. I was just correcting him so he'd know. You know, people like to learn and stuff.

Bentusi16:

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

What makes you think minorities don't act like animals do, too?

The dynamics of large groups are much more complex than that. A group might most obviously act like "animals" when overcome by forms of mass hysteria or mob dynamics, neither of which are a remotely potent factor in modern democracies. Let's not also forget that there's a regrettable tendency for us to impute disagreement and different values as stupidity.

In fact, large scale human interactions are far better than that. Whilst people may be swayed by silver tongues, more immediate, short-term concerns and so on, the decision-making of the masses is actually fairly good. Not least because when people want to do things, they are more inclined to listen to smart people than idiots.

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

Corruption is not the issue.

The fact is that a corporation has at its core profit motive, to which all other values come second. Governments can have a large mix of values, but clearly in the mix somewhere are concepts of public service, the greater good, and the welfare of the nation. Thus a corporation will be inclined to cheat or dump on you, your family and your country in a way your government is far less likely to. The rest is oversight, lots and lots of oversight of what institutions and organisations do.

Agema:

Bentusi16:

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

What makes you think minorities don't act like animals do, too?

The dynamics of large groups are much more complex than that. A group might most obviously act like "animals" when overcome by forms of mass hysteria or mob dynamics, neither of which are a remotely potent factor in modern democracies. Let's not also forget that there's a regrettable tendency for us to impute disagreement and different values as stupidity.

In fact, large scale human interactions are far better than that. Whilst people may be swayed by silver tongues, more immediate, short-term concerns and so on, the decision-making of the masses is actually fairly good. Not least because when people want to do things, they are more inclined to listen to smart people than idiots.

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

Corruption is not the issue.

The fact is that a corporation has at its core profit motive, to which all other values come second. Governments can have a large mix of values, but clearly in the mix somewhere are concepts of public service, the greater good, and the welfare of the nation. Thus a corporation will be inclined to cheat or dump on you, your family and your country in a way your government is far less likely to. The rest is oversight, lots and lots of oversight of what institutions and organisations do.

But I've never argued against oversight of businesses. What I've argued against is this belief that it's ok not to have oversight on the government because their motivations for fucking you are slightly different.

Admittedly, I have a cynical world view. I believe everyone is out to fuck everyone else, sometimes for blatant greed (Corporations) and sometimes 'for our own good" (governments). The corporation is clear in their stated goal. They're there to make money. The government, not so much. And don't pretend there hasn't been lots of governments whose only goal was milking its own people for large amounts of cash or power over them.

And it's been proven that a coropration being 'ethical' earns more then a company who isn't on average.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2006/11/29/ethical-companies-make-more-money/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121018735490274425.html
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2009/tc20090816_435499.htm

And the minorities certainly do act as much animal as the majority, because, again, they're human.

The issue isn't government, corporate, religious, majority, or minority, it's 'people'.

Bentusi16:

But I've never argued against oversight of businesses. What I've argued against is this belief that it's ok not to have oversight on the government because their motivations for fucking you are slightly different.

Who's argued against oversight on government?

captcha: oh wait

Bentusi16:
Classical liberals are considered a form of libertarian.

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

Not to get to far off topic, but nearly everything people declare 'inherently wrong' are human constructs. All of them. Government, corporations, every political philosophy, every ideology, every ism, every religion, is a human construct. Humanity is to blame for all its problems. And expecting humans to act in a way other then human is like..super confusing to me. Saying 'it's the governments fault' or 'it's those corporations!' is disingenuous. It's the humans in those corporations, in the governments faults, and it's a lot easier to punish a human individual then it is to punish 'the government' or 'the corporation'. It's probably why people in power like to keep it nebulous as possible, to avoid personal responsibility.

For a start? Are the majority stupid? Really? And if so, why the assumption that the rich aren't stupid too?

But really I think this whole premise is based on a false analysis and concept.

For one you're talking about corruption in business and government as if they were the same thing. The problem with governments being corrupt is that they override the wishes of their voters and exploit them. The same doesn't hold true with capitalist businesses, because their entire purpose is to exploit the workers. They don't have to become corrupt to cause the kind of problems a government official does if he's corrupt, the problems are part of the capitalist model.

I also find the concept poor on an elementary level, because what this really comes down to is that different social/economic/legal/etc factors will influence how people act. An investor directly benefits from voting to cut the wages of people in his business and lay off a large portion of the workforce because that way they'll get greater profits. A politician receives no such direct benefit from cutting the wages of and laying off people in a government department.

If the workers are unhappy with a politician, they can support a different party to try and get them replaced. If workers are unhappy with an investor's decisions, they cannot force the investor to be replaced with a friendlier investor.

The examples should be obvious from here on out, but the overall point is a democratic government is one where moral behavior is encouraged and immoral behavior discouraged. This doesn't mean that governments are perfect and politicians will never falter, but it means the various conflicting forces in society are pushing them in a better direction than the forces which effect businessmen.

Your core premise seems to be that people will inherently be corrupt so why not just go with corporations? Well why corporations? If the structure of society has no effect on people act, why are you picking corporations? Why not a feudal state? Or a tribal system? After all people are inherently corrupt and always will be, so why bother?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked