Chomsky proves once again that capitalism cannot survive without the nanny state. Subsidy, bailout, direct government cash...........but profits never go back to the public. They stay in private hands. Corrupt private hands mostly, like Wall Street.
@MebAbSebseb What? That's a complete bastardization of free-market economics. A corporation should never be bailed out by the government, that's tax money! and if a business collapses because of bad economic decisions, it should ultimately be penalized where all its assets are redistributed and bought up by competitors not rewarded with bailout money from the government! Free-market capitalism would never survive without a state to enforce its contracts. Check your facts, bro.
@MebAbSebseb Capitalism CAN'T survive without government help? That's exactly what ruins capitalism. All of this limits competition, promotes poor decision making on the part of business, and misallocates resources. No free-marketer would ever support these things. Subsidies, bailouts, etc run completely counter to what capitalism is all about.
you free-marketeers are deluded. Capitalism requires divisions and a powerful state just to survive. Otherwise it would be overtaken by socialism. You are blind and foolish.
@SyndicalistTimes You believe that capitalism requires a bigger government than other economic systems? You are so fucking dumb. Apparently you don't know what capitalism OR socialism are. The theoretical flurry fairy tale land version of communism requires zero government, but that's why it's a fucking fairy tale idea and always ends up with a totalitarian oppressive regime that produces death and despair.
"No free-marketer would ever support these things. Subsidies, bailouts, etc"
but ALL free-marketeers, by definition, support the 'freedom' to carry out subsidies, bailouts, credit lending etc etc. That is what lead us here. The 'free market' is nothing more than the freedom to exploit and dominate. An economically foolish ideology, and very irresponsible. It would give fascists more of a foothold.
Shame on you Noam Chomsky, your Straw Man arguments against free market are distortions of a long history of the "market" of ideas that will continue to exist weather black or under the light. You do have legitimate claim that our barbaric, unevolved financial and government systems are festering churns of unclean concentrations of greed and power but you are linking the market and the power structure that currently holds it hostage
rofl, it's hilarious when you deluded free-market lunatics cry about Chomsky. Chomsky has his facts straight, which is why he is lecturing and your economic views are foolish, which is why you are relegated to the comments section of a youtube video.
@SyndicalistTimes Chomsky is a linguist--not an economist. The only thing foolish about my economic views is that I want to take responsibility for my own decisions where you want others to assume responsibility for you. Do you want health insurance for everyone or affordable care? Only a free market can deliver the latter but you're to brainwashed to even understand how prices got so high. Same with Oil--cars have been getting 30 mpg since the 70s and you think the gov will fix that?
@SyndicalistTimes I'm not crying in the least--I'm sad that idiots like you listen to the opinion of a linguist instead of someone who knows something about the economy like, say, an economist. You're probably the kind of guy that owns an Iphone and an Imac, drives everywhere in a car that gets 20mpg and yet complains about job outsourcing and the wars in the middle east... You just want to give control to the government to absolve yourself for the consequences of your behavior.
@SyndicalistTimes Most modern economists in North America are trained in, and practice Keynesian economics --which is not a free market system. Read the price of prosperity: THAT is the system you live in. The central economic planners got their power in the 20's and dialed in the thumb-screws in the 80s. All this crap about "capitalists" causing havoc is BS. The FED caused the depression in the 30s by pulling 30% of currency out of circulation and FANNIE FREDDIE did it this go-around.
all of this is the inevitable result of capitalism. Quit making lame excuses for it. Free market capitalism lead us to this point. Also, free-markets cannot be created now in this current system, the idea is ludicrous and if it did happen it would give ALL power to corporations.
Business must be regulated by the state, or it will be murdering unionists and paying people a pittance.
@SyndicalistTimes wow, you are thick. You literally just said big government failure is the result of the free market. You don't understand the difference between corporatism (bad and what we have now) and capitalism (which created this country). Sadly you don't even realize (and most 99%er conformists like you) is that this isn't even about economics its about collectivism vs. individualism and you're obviously a collectivist lemming fueled by NPR and zero book-reading on socioeconomics.
again--dumbass: WE LIVE IN A CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING SYSTEM! what do you think subsidies are, what do you think happened in the auto industry, WHO do you think INSURED all of the bad loans, WHO controls energy policy and distribution? WHO controls our FOOD! Its all the government fucktard--we haven't lived in a free market system for over 100 years. I'm so sick of dipshits like you who watch one youtube video, go to a rally, and think they know something.
hahaha it's comical to see the right-wing capitalist getting angry because the ignorant masses don't understand his overly-complex nonsense. Hurry up and have an aneurysm already, your miserable existence isn't worth my pity, but I do lament in your suffering.
@SyndicalistTimes Unsurprisingly that's the best you've got. I'm no where near angry, only disappointed that you put as much thought into your posting as you have about economics--very little. Don't bother posting a follow up--its clear you have nothing intelligent to say.
For another example, look at Kerberos. This was developed by MIT and shared with the world as open source software. Microsoft made a trivial modification that they called a trade secret, and leveraged that to gain market share in the server market. When this was reverse engineered, they threatened to sue to maintain their monopoly status. Free market indeed.
Capitalism cannot exist WITH gov't INTERVENTION which ONLY produces Gov't jobs and Economic Distortions of Central Planning!
In a FREE market, there would ONLY be government enforcement of property RIGHTS which are NOT subject to mob-rule collective interpretation. Your buy it, you own it. You're body, do what you will with it but DON'T force others to pay for YOUR mistakes.
you obviously that have NEVER read John Locke & instead listened to some progressive professor's interpretation.
@yakyakyak69 Just an observation: Capitalism exists by the grace of the state because the function of the state is solely to protect the ''right'' of private property (private property being a requirement for laissez-faire capitalism), therefore, you've just accepted the legitimacy of the state in economic matters because gov't enforcement of private property IS a form gov't intervention. Any way you slice it, capitalism is inherently statist.
@boywhosucksatlife said: "Any way you slice it, capitalism is inherently statist. "
WRONG! That is like saying "any way you slice it, a tomato is a base ball because they are both round."
Preventing gov't intervention is not the same thing as gov't intervention. Why not just say "stopping a fight IS a fight because they both require a certain amount of violence."?
Half-truths are the BLACKEST of lies because they are partially defendable. THAT is why people HATE lawyers & politicians
@yakyakyak69 WTF?!? state protection of private property rights = "preventing gov't interference" ??? Your analogies would be accurate, had I suggested that gov't interference and the prevention thereof were one and the same, which I don't think is what did.
@boywhosucksatlife Gov't JOB is to keep We, the People FREE from tyranny, NOT become tyrannical. THAT is why Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."and why the founders FEARED the tyranny of "democracy'" which is Lynch-Mob rule.
The Constitution GRANTS powers which means that ANY power not SPECIFICALLY granded to the Federal Gov't by our supreme law belongs to the States or to the People! READ!
@yakyakyak69 I love self appointed constitutional experts who take time out of their busy schedules to regurgitate things they read on ron paul forums so as not to use their own arguments. What you write is true, but it doesn't change the fact that gov't protection of private property is still an act of the state (statism). Also, you should try getting in touch with the "founders' " definition to "republic". (Res- publica) As in PUBLICLY OWNED or COMMON WEALTH or in the PUBLIC interest.
@boywhosucksatlife A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government A republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government.
@yakyakyak69 I don't really see that we disagree as to what a republic is. As we understand that a republic can be anything that is in the "public" realm, it doesn't make much sense to run a res publica in the PRIVATE interest. That's why democracy and republic are NOT mutually exclusive. "in which THE PEOPLE or some significant portion ... retain supreme control". There's a word for that, I'll give you a hint: it starts with a 'D'
Democracy & Republic ARE mutually exclusive because Democracy does not allow recognize INalienable rights like a Republic.
In Democracy, privaledges are granted or taken by the majority aka "mob" rule. Democracy is easily manipulated by an oligarchy which controls the media (message) and the gov't education system.
Democracy quickly dies of regulation & redistribution which makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients & crony TYRANTS of the politicians
@yakyakyak69 Inalienable rights aren't a product of a republic or a democracy, they're universal and not dependent on the form of gov't or it's laws nor charters. BTW, when you vote for reps, there's also a word for that, which also starts with a D. But this gets away from the point that democracy vs republic argument is false, it's just a word game played on people who read Ayn Rand. In any case, Jefferson and Paine didn't see a contradiction in calling themselves "democratic-republicans''
@boywhosucksatlife Inalienable righst are just that, inalienable. HOWEVER, pure democracy would usurp them with a simple majority vote. The lynch mob "votes" to take away your right to life, the democratic mob regulates your property and control IS ownership, so progressives regulate away your right to property and libery? EVERYTHING is regulated and "progressive" democrat-socialists and Neocons call THAT "progress".
A Representative Republic is NOT a Democracy. Learn the difference!
@yakyakyak69 But you didn't really explain the difference, you just used a rhetorical flourish. "Representative" is explicitly democratic. Nobody has EVER suggested that we are a pure democracy in the classical Greek sense. But our repr. republic is still run by majority rule(democratic), there's no escaping that. In any case you're making a case FOR oligarchy. If it's not the majority, you'd better believe it's a tiny few controlling everything. Your rejection of democracy enables the few
Simple google Representative Republic vs Pure Democracy for your answer.
Olicarchy is ONLY possible when a strong central gov't can be corrupted via the power to buy influence with unlimited fiat currency from a central bank and pass the costs to the taxpayers throuth pubic debt and inflation. In this case, the oligarchy is the Fed and the corporations they control via debt-slavery. Politicians are just cronies of Wall Street, the Fed & "special" interest takers.
@yakyakyak69 I'm NOT going to google anything, dude. Although I agree with your NWO-ish description of oligarchy, that's no way to research anything. For the simple reason that the first results usually take me to a freeper site. Not to mention people who have an interest in making you believe that this is not a democratic republic are the ones scrubbing google search results. But at least you accept that democracy isn't the problem, but rather, the perversion/corruption thereof.
@boywhosucksatlife First, we are a Constitutional Republic and NOT a "democratic" republic. The word "democratic" is not even IN the Constitution so I don't know where you pulled that out of unless it was one of your progressive (socialist) indoctrinators. Article IV does however gurantee us a "Republican form of government".
How about watching: "The American Form of Government" here on YouTube. It's like TV so you won't have to struggle through big words or complex hard to grasp concepts.
@yakyakyak69 I got the crazy idea from Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, both of whom understood the concept of a democratic republic. "Constitutional" doesn't make it any less democratic. We've already established that "republican" means nothing more than "public" affairs. Inalienable rights are not in the description of the original meaning of the word republic. They exist INDEPENDENTLY of the constitutions of democratic republics.
@yakyakyak69 Also, constitutionality is not dependent upon whether or not a word appears IN the constitution. The word slavery wasn't in the constitution either, and that didn't make slavery unconstitutional. And FYI Jefferson believed in public (socialist) education. And one more thing, progressives aren't the only socialists that exist. My "indoctrinators" are Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin, hardly social-democrats. Who are yours' Ayn Rand, the Kochs, "liberty" university?
United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Bastiat: The Law, The Jefferson Letters, Anti-Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Washington's Farewell Address, Patrick Henry: "Give Me Liberty" Speech, Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, John Adams: Thoughts on Government, John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government. Also read Hamilton's Curse!
@boywhosucksatlife Again, you don't know what your talking about. Way too much time in "progessive" (socialist) circles and not enough time thinking for yourself. Some day perhaps you can be deprogrammed.
@yakyakyak69 I just told you, I'm not a progressive, I don't view gov't as a positive force for the worker. I think the state is an anti-worker institution. And again, you didn't refute anything, you just have keyboard diarrhea. You're not connecting your rebuttals to anything substantive. And I'm right. There is a reason why Jefferson omitted Locke's "property" in exchange for the "pursuit of happiness". Common Sense is not the only thing Paine wrote, read Agrarian Justice
@yakyakyak69 Silly goose, fac totum (do everything) describes what i do (everything). I don't mean it in the housekeeper/servant sense. I like different types of work, I don't like to be tied down. It's more of a reference to Bukowski
The Constitution GRANTS power to gov't and reserves what what not specifically granted for the people. THAT is liberty. The Constitution was AMENDED (14th) to prohibit slavery but the Bill of Rights were NEVER amended.
@yakyakyak69 What proves that I "don't know SQUAT"? Article 1 section 9 allowed for slavery. Slavery was constitutional so your arguments against democracy can also be used against constitutionalism. For some reason it rarely is. In any case you're just robotically spewing things I already know, you're not really refuting anything. Going back to the original premise of this debate, you acknowledge the need for a state. That puts you more in line with the progressives than myself
Political Cronies can NOT HAPPEN in a FREE Market Capitalist System because politicians can not GIVE taxpayer money or special regulation to corporate backers in a FREE system therefore politicians can NOT become Corporate Cronies in the first place.
This is Crony CORPORATISM aka Progressive-Corporate SOCIAL FASCISM.
NEVER confuse Cronyism with Capitalism because FREE CAPITALISM is where you can NOT give TAXPAYER money to Corporations!
@yakyakyak69 Free-market capitalism is an oxymoron. If we ever had genuinely free markets, they would lead to socialism. Free of restrictions on union action and on the various state monopolies, the market would be dominated by worker self-managed enterprises, creating a decentralized form of socialism. Privately-owned corporations would be replaced by worker and consumer coops and self-employed individuals.
@QuatFax Again, you confuse FREE market Capitalism with REGULATED Corporate Socialism aka Corporatism. Cronism can ONLY happen when politicians are ALLOWED to interfere. Politicians ALWAYS interfeer to line their own pockets and/or increase their power by favoring their power corporate backers.
Marxist collectivism & forced redistribution is NOT for "fairness"!
Redistribution makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients, TYRANTS of the powerful while killing FREE competition!
@yakyakyak69 But capitalism is not the result of a free market. Capitalism in the sense of private ownership of the means of production can only exist in the context of heavy government regulation. If government regulation were to cease entirely, a socialist society would result. Socialism is the inevitable effect of a free market. That's where the term "free-market anti-capitalist" comes from.
@yakyakyak69 Yes, but without government regulation, private ownership wouldn't be able to exist at all. Excess government regulation may make private ownership less desirable, but private ownership would be impossible in the absence of government regulation. Without government, workers' bargaining power would increase, and workers would be able to take over businesses and set them up as worker coops. This is rudimentary socialism, not capitalism.
@yakyakyak69 There are a number of government regulations that ensure that the means of production remain in private, and not social, hands. One is the land monopoly: the government enforces absentee land claims, preventing the population from taking vacant plots of land for their own. Another is the credit monopoly: the government heavily regulates financial activity, preventing workers from developing mutual credit schemes. Another is patenting, which keep technology in private hands.
Regulated ownership is not ownership at all. You may owe the debt to the bankers for the loan on the property, but as long as OTHERS control the property it is NOT truly yours!
When gov't enforce contracts while NOT regulating what you do with your own property (house, boat, body) then that's good.
When gov't helps you protect your right to use YOUR property as you wish, that is good.
@yakyakyak69 Government enforcement of property is a form of regulation. Governments impose Lockean ideas of property on the market. Absentee ownership is enforced because governments demand it.
In a truly free market, there would be no government enforcement of property. Different communities would decide for themselves what constitutes "property." Property based on occupancy and use, rather than some arbitrary concept of ownership, would likely predominate.
@yakyakyak69 Capitalism relies on government-enforced Lockean property. In this sense, capitalism cannot exist without government regulation. To say that enforcement of property rights doesn't constitute "regulation" is arbitrary, and the burden of proof is on you to explain why property can be imposed on the economy but other market distortions cannot.
@yakyakyak69 Property can be defended without the government's protecting it. That's my point: I have no problem with the existence of private property, but it should not be protected by the government any more than health care should be provided by the government. If people want private property, they should have to hire private defense agencies to defend it themselves.
@yakyakyak69 Your belief that the government should protect private property is no less statist than the "progressive" belief that the government should offer universal healthcare. If you were a true libertarian, you'd oppose the EXISTENCE of the state as I do. Protection of property should be left up to the free market, not provided by the state.
Protecting Property Rights (one's right to keep the fruits of their OWN labor is Directly Opposite of Forced Redistribution.
Again the Anarcho-Communism that YOU promote is the OPPOSITE of True Liberty because Anarcho-Communism DEPENDS on Big Gov't Central Planning by a "strong leader" and his cadre of OLIGARCHY.
Protecting Property Rights is what the founders called "PROMOTE the General Welfare"
@yakyakyak69 I'm not an anarcho-communist; I'm a Mutualist.
People don't have the right to have their property protected. They have every right to protect it themselves, but society doesn't owe them the service.
You never have a right to a service at someone else's expense, whether it be protection of property or healthcare.
That the founding fathers believed it is irrelevant. The founding fathers also supported slavery; does that make slavery right.
@QuatFax Mutualism is something between classical economics and socialism, with some characteristics of both. Modern-day Mutualist Anarchism's Kevin Carson, considers anarchist mutualism to be "free market socialism." [oxymoron]
Half-Pregnant?
Mutualism supports exploitation when it does not recognize a right of an individual to protect land that he has mixed his labor. Mutualism will ALWAYS lead to Oligarchy when people cry out for a "strong leader" & his "friends" to restore order.
@yakyakyak69 Bullshit. We recognize the right to Lockean property in communities where people want to have Lockean property (i.e.- property is anything you mix with labor). We simply don't want that system to be IMPOSED on us for a government.
There is nothing oxymoronic about free-market socialism. Socialism is worker control over production, which could easily happen under free market conditions. How in any way is free-market socialism an oxymoron?
@yakyakyak69 Who's to say that a strong leader would be needed to "restore order?" Order can be established by a free market of competing private defense agencies. Market forces will prevent them from abusing their power (who would buy from an aggressive defense agency?) I'm not going to debate you if you just make shit up.
@yakyakyak69 Of course, you STILL haven't explained to me why the government should protect people's property. You are no libertarian if you think people have a right to someone else's service. If you own property, you should defend it or pay to defend it YOURSELF. You have no right to have it defended at the taxpayers' expense.
@QuatFax How do you convince that simple moral point to some one who's grown up expecting those things? Doesn't seem possible. The whole idea is so hard to comprehend for the average person.
@JessAtlas You mean that people don't have a right to others' services? I think the main reason people object to it is that they don't believe it can work; they don't see how order can exist in society without government. The trick is to show examples and theories that demonstrate that the free market could handle things like protection of property and establishing order. It isn't easy, but it's certainly possible.
@yakyakyak69 Even today, you have yet to explain to me how "free market socialism" is an oxymoron or why government is necessary to protect property or restore order. Please don't make points if you can't back them up; you are only wasting our time.
The emotional urge to move away from free markets will lessen as technology continues to advance, quality of life improve, and opportunities become more diverse. Hopefully before that point socialists don't destroy the true force behind technological progress - capitalism.
You mean as technology continues to advance and robots increasingly replace menial workers putting millions of people out of work just to increase profit?
Well, one could argue that if you implemented the right kinds of robotic automation, you wouldn't need jobs anymore, you wouldn't need income to support yourself. If people don't need to support themselves to live, you don't need profit, and if you don't need profit, you don't need money, and if you don't need money, you don't need a free market to use it in.
This wouldn't happen under capitalism where the corporations (along with their governments) would do everything possible to prevent people from gaining access to these machines and living self-sufficient lives. This would put an end to wage slavery, which they wouldn't like.
So I think you are correct assuming we could escape the expolitation of capitalism.
But while capitalism and corporatism rule robots will only be a negative for the vast majority of workers.
Chomsky proves once again that capitalism cannot survive without the nanny state. Subsidy, bailout, direct government cash...........but profits never go back to the public. They stay in private hands. Corrupt private hands mostly, like Wall Street.
MebAbSebseb 4 months ago 10
@MebAbSebseb What? That's a complete bastardization of free-market economics. A corporation should never be bailed out by the government, that's tax money! and if a business collapses because of bad economic decisions, it should ultimately be penalized where all its assets are redistributed and bought up by competitors not rewarded with bailout money from the government! Free-market capitalism would never survive without a state to enforce its contracts. Check your facts, bro.
dangerale 3 months ago
@MebAbSebseb Capitalism CAN'T survive without government help? That's exactly what ruins capitalism. All of this limits competition, promotes poor decision making on the part of business, and misallocates resources. No free-marketer would ever support these things. Subsidies, bailouts, etc run completely counter to what capitalism is all about.
stebecool 2 months ago
@stebecool
you free-marketeers are deluded. Capitalism requires divisions and a powerful state just to survive. Otherwise it would be overtaken by socialism. You are blind and foolish.
SyndicalistTimes 1 month ago
@SyndicalistTimes You believe that capitalism requires a bigger government than other economic systems? You are so fucking dumb. Apparently you don't know what capitalism OR socialism are. The theoretical flurry fairy tale land version of communism requires zero government, but that's why it's a fucking fairy tale idea and always ends up with a totalitarian oppressive regime that produces death and despair.
Please read.
stebecool 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stebecool
"No free-marketer would ever support these things. Subsidies, bailouts, etc"
but ALL free-marketeers, by definition, support the 'freedom' to carry out subsidies, bailouts, credit lending etc etc. That is what lead us here. The 'free market' is nothing more than the freedom to exploit and dominate. An economically foolish ideology, and very irresponsible. It would give fascists more of a foothold.
SyndicalistTimes 1 month ago
Comment removed
13stevejohnson 2 weeks ago
Noam Chomsky dynamites the myth of free enterprise in our corporate dominated economy. A true inspiration.
MenOfLetters 5 months ago 4
Shame on you Noam Chomsky, your Straw Man arguments against free market are distortions of a long history of the "market" of ideas that will continue to exist weather black or under the light. You do have legitimate claim that our barbaric, unevolved financial and government systems are festering churns of unclean concentrations of greed and power but you are linking the market and the power structure that currently holds it hostage
TurboLoveTrain 6 months ago
@TurboLoveTrain
rofl, it's hilarious when you deluded free-market lunatics cry about Chomsky. Chomsky has his facts straight, which is why he is lecturing and your economic views are foolish, which is why you are relegated to the comments section of a youtube video.
SyndicalistTimes 1 month ago
@SyndicalistTimes Chomsky is a linguist--not an economist. The only thing foolish about my economic views is that I want to take responsibility for my own decisions where you want others to assume responsibility for you. Do you want health insurance for everyone or affordable care? Only a free market can deliver the latter but you're to brainwashed to even understand how prices got so high. Same with Oil--cars have been getting 30 mpg since the 70s and you think the gov will fix that?
TurboLoveTrain 1 month ago
@SyndicalistTimes I'm not crying in the least--I'm sad that idiots like you listen to the opinion of a linguist instead of someone who knows something about the economy like, say, an economist. You're probably the kind of guy that owns an Iphone and an Imac, drives everywhere in a car that gets 20mpg and yet complains about job outsourcing and the wars in the middle east... You just want to give control to the government to absolve yourself for the consequences of your behavior.
TurboLoveTrain 3 weeks ago
@TurboLoveTrain
In a system where economists all have pro-capitalist agendas, it makes more sense to trust a linguist.
SyndicalistTimes 3 weeks ago
@SyndicalistTimes Most modern economists in North America are trained in, and practice Keynesian economics --which is not a free market system. Read the price of prosperity: THAT is the system you live in. The central economic planners got their power in the 20's and dialed in the thumb-screws in the 80s. All this crap about "capitalists" causing havoc is BS. The FED caused the depression in the 30s by pulling 30% of currency out of circulation and FANNIE FREDDIE did it this go-around.
TurboLoveTrain 3 weeks ago
@TurboLoveTrain
all of this is the inevitable result of capitalism. Quit making lame excuses for it. Free market capitalism lead us to this point. Also, free-markets cannot be created now in this current system, the idea is ludicrous and if it did happen it would give ALL power to corporations.
Business must be regulated by the state, or it will be murdering unionists and paying people a pittance.
SyndicalistTimes 3 weeks ago
@SyndicalistTimes wow, you are thick. You literally just said big government failure is the result of the free market. You don't understand the difference between corporatism (bad and what we have now) and capitalism (which created this country). Sadly you don't even realize (and most 99%er conformists like you) is that this isn't even about economics its about collectivism vs. individualism and you're obviously a collectivist lemming fueled by NPR and zero book-reading on socioeconomics.
TurboLoveTrain 3 weeks ago
again--dumbass: WE LIVE IN A CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING SYSTEM! what do you think subsidies are, what do you think happened in the auto industry, WHO do you think INSURED all of the bad loans, WHO controls energy policy and distribution? WHO controls our FOOD! Its all the government fucktard--we haven't lived in a free market system for over 100 years. I'm so sick of dipshits like you who watch one youtube video, go to a rally, and think they know something.
TurboLoveTrain 3 weeks ago
@TurboLoveTrain
hahaha it's comical to see the right-wing capitalist getting angry because the ignorant masses don't understand his overly-complex nonsense. Hurry up and have an aneurysm already, your miserable existence isn't worth my pity, but I do lament in your suffering.
SyndicalistTimes 3 weeks ago
@TurboLoveTrain
You are a tool. All of your drivel cannot justify the end-result of capitalism, which is corporatism.
With all of your 'genius', try to answer these simple questions:
What happened to free-market capitalism? Why didn't the world turn out all rosy and perfect as a 'free market economy'?
You are a joke, you are pushing ideas from centuries ago like an imbecile. I'm anything but conformist, the mainstream disgusts me.
stupid right-wing faggot.
SyndicalistTimes 3 weeks ago
@SyndicalistTimes Unsurprisingly that's the best you've got. I'm no where near angry, only disappointed that you put as much thought into your posting as you have about economics--very little. Don't bother posting a follow up--its clear you have nothing intelligent to say.
TurboLoveTrain 3 weeks ago
@TurboLoveTrain by the way, eventually you may figure this out on your own but I doubt it--you're making a circular argument.
TurboLoveTrain 3 weeks ago
For another example, look at Kerberos. This was developed by MIT and shared with the world as open source software. Microsoft made a trivial modification that they called a trade secret, and leveraged that to gain market share in the server market. When this was reverse engineered, they threatened to sue to maintain their monopoly status. Free market indeed.
shishkabobby 6 months ago
Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.
qwertypoiu4321 10 months ago
Capitalism cannot exist WITH gov't INTERVENTION which ONLY produces Gov't jobs and Economic Distortions of Central Planning!
In a FREE market, there would ONLY be government enforcement of property RIGHTS which are NOT subject to mob-rule collective interpretation. Your buy it, you own it. You're body, do what you will with it but DON'T force others to pay for YOUR mistakes.
you obviously that have NEVER read John Locke & instead listened to some progressive professor's interpretation.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 John Locke smoked crack
rickbar123 1 year ago
@rickbar123 They did not have crack back then so you must be thing of Chomsky.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 Just an observation: Capitalism exists by the grace of the state because the function of the state is solely to protect the ''right'' of private property (private property being a requirement for laissez-faire capitalism), therefore, you've just accepted the legitimacy of the state in economic matters because gov't enforcement of private property IS a form gov't intervention. Any way you slice it, capitalism is inherently statist.
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife said: "Any way you slice it, capitalism is inherently statist. "
WRONG! That is like saying "any way you slice it, a tomato is a base ball because they are both round."
Preventing gov't intervention is not the same thing as gov't intervention. Why not just say "stopping a fight IS a fight because they both require a certain amount of violence."?
Half-truths are the BLACKEST of lies because they are partially defendable. THAT is why people HATE lawyers & politicians
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 WTF?!? state protection of private property rights = "preventing gov't interference" ??? Your analogies would be accurate, had I suggested that gov't interference and the prevention thereof were one and the same, which I don't think is what did.
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife Gov't JOB is to keep We, the People FREE from tyranny, NOT become tyrannical. THAT is why Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."and why the founders FEARED the tyranny of "democracy'" which is Lynch-Mob rule.
The Constitution GRANTS powers which means that ANY power not SPECIFICALLY granded to the Federal Gov't by our supreme law belongs to the States or to the People! READ!
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I love self appointed constitutional experts who take time out of their busy schedules to regurgitate things they read on ron paul forums so as not to use their own arguments. What you write is true, but it doesn't change the fact that gov't protection of private property is still an act of the state (statism). Also, you should try getting in touch with the "founders' " definition to "republic". (Res- publica) As in PUBLICLY OWNED or COMMON WEALTH or in the PUBLIC interest.
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government A republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government.
NOT "publically owned" boywhosucksatfacts!
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I don't really see that we disagree as to what a republic is. As we understand that a republic can be anything that is in the "public" realm, it doesn't make much sense to run a res publica in the PRIVATE interest. That's why democracy and republic are NOT mutually exclusive. "in which THE PEOPLE or some significant portion ... retain supreme control". There's a word for that, I'll give you a hint: it starts with a 'D'
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife
Democracy & Republic ARE mutually exclusive because Democracy does not allow recognize INalienable rights like a Republic.
In Democracy, privaledges are granted or taken by the majority aka "mob" rule. Democracy is easily manipulated by an oligarchy which controls the media (message) and the gov't education system.
Democracy quickly dies of regulation & redistribution which makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients & crony TYRANTS of the politicians
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Inalienable rights aren't a product of a republic or a democracy, they're universal and not dependent on the form of gov't or it's laws nor charters. BTW, when you vote for reps, there's also a word for that, which also starts with a D. But this gets away from the point that democracy vs republic argument is false, it's just a word game played on people who read Ayn Rand. In any case, Jefferson and Paine didn't see a contradiction in calling themselves "democratic-republicans''
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife Inalienable righst are just that, inalienable. HOWEVER, pure democracy would usurp them with a simple majority vote. The lynch mob "votes" to take away your right to life, the democratic mob regulates your property and control IS ownership, so progressives regulate away your right to property and libery? EVERYTHING is regulated and "progressive" democrat-socialists and Neocons call THAT "progress".
A Representative Republic is NOT a Democracy. Learn the difference!
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 But you didn't really explain the difference, you just used a rhetorical flourish. "Representative" is explicitly democratic. Nobody has EVER suggested that we are a pure democracy in the classical Greek sense. But our repr. republic is still run by majority rule(democratic), there's no escaping that. In any case you're making a case FOR oligarchy. If it's not the majority, you'd better believe it's a tiny few controlling everything. Your rejection of democracy enables the few
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife
Simple google Representative Republic vs Pure Democracy for your answer.
Olicarchy is ONLY possible when a strong central gov't can be corrupted via the power to buy influence with unlimited fiat currency from a central bank and pass the costs to the taxpayers throuth pubic debt and inflation. In this case, the oligarchy is the Fed and the corporations they control via debt-slavery. Politicians are just cronies of Wall Street, the Fed & "special" interest takers.
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I'm NOT going to google anything, dude. Although I agree with your NWO-ish description of oligarchy, that's no way to research anything. For the simple reason that the first results usually take me to a freeper site. Not to mention people who have an interest in making you believe that this is not a democratic republic are the ones scrubbing google search results. But at least you accept that democracy isn't the problem, but rather, the perversion/corruption thereof.
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife First, we are a Constitutional Republic and NOT a "democratic" republic. The word "democratic" is not even IN the Constitution so I don't know where you pulled that out of unless it was one of your progressive (socialist) indoctrinators. Article IV does however gurantee us a "Republican form of government".
How about watching: "The American Form of Government" here on YouTube. It's like TV so you won't have to struggle through big words or complex hard to grasp concepts.
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I got the crazy idea from Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, both of whom understood the concept of a democratic republic. "Constitutional" doesn't make it any less democratic. We've already established that "republican" means nothing more than "public" affairs. Inalienable rights are not in the description of the original meaning of the word republic. They exist INDEPENDENTLY of the constitutions of democratic republics.
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Also, constitutionality is not dependent upon whether or not a word appears IN the constitution. The word slavery wasn't in the constitution either, and that didn't make slavery unconstitutional. And FYI Jefferson believed in public (socialist) education. And one more thing, progressives aren't the only socialists that exist. My "indoctrinators" are Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin, hardly social-democrats. Who are yours' Ayn Rand, the Kochs, "liberty" university?
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife You know the names, but don't read their words!
United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Bastiat: The Law, The Jefferson Letters, Anti-Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Washington's Farewell Address, Patrick Henry: "Give Me Liberty" Speech, Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, John Adams: Thoughts on Government, John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government. Also read Hamilton's Curse!
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Please don't put them in the same basket, those names belong to people who were generally on polar opposites.
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife Again, you don't know what your talking about. Way too much time in "progessive" (socialist) circles and not enough time thinking for yourself. Some day perhaps you can be deprogrammed.
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I just told you, I'm not a progressive, I don't view gov't as a positive force for the worker. I think the state is an anti-worker institution. And again, you didn't refute anything, you just have keyboard diarrhea. You're not connecting your rebuttals to anything substantive. And I'm right. There is a reason why Jefferson omitted Locke's "property" in exchange for the "pursuit of happiness". Common Sense is not the only thing Paine wrote, read Agrarian Justice
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife BTW, anyone who describes themselves as a "Factotum, Laborer" really has no clue what liberty really is.
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Silly goose, fac totum (do everything) describes what i do (everything). I don't mean it in the housekeeper/servant sense. I like different types of work, I don't like to be tied down. It's more of a reference to Bukowski
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
@boywhosucksatlife Again proving that you don't know SQUAT!
The Constitution GRANTS power to gov't and reserves what what not specifically granted for the people. THAT is liberty. The Constitution was AMENDED (14th) to prohibit slavery but the Bill of Rights were NEVER amended.
Read the 10th!
yakyakyak69 11 months ago
@yakyakyak69 What proves that I "don't know SQUAT"? Article 1 section 9 allowed for slavery. Slavery was constitutional so your arguments against democracy can also be used against constitutionalism. For some reason it rarely is. In any case you're just robotically spewing things I already know, you're not really refuting anything. Going back to the original premise of this debate, you acknowledge the need for a state. That puts you more in line with the progressives than myself
boywhosucksatlife 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is NO SUCH THING as "Crony Capitalism".
Political Cronies can NOT HAPPEN in a FREE Market Capitalist System because politicians can not GIVE taxpayer money or special regulation to corporate backers in a FREE system therefore politicians can NOT become Corporate Cronies in the first place.
This is Crony CORPORATISM aka Progressive-Corporate SOCIAL FASCISM.
NEVER confuse Cronyism with Capitalism because FREE CAPITALISM is where you can NOT give TAXPAYER money to Corporations!
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 Free-market capitalism is an oxymoron. If we ever had genuinely free markets, they would lead to socialism. Free of restrictions on union action and on the various state monopolies, the market would be dominated by worker self-managed enterprises, creating a decentralized form of socialism. Privately-owned corporations would be replaced by worker and consumer coops and self-employed individuals.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax Again, you confuse FREE market Capitalism with REGULATED Corporate Socialism aka Corporatism. Cronism can ONLY happen when politicians are ALLOWED to interfere. Politicians ALWAYS interfeer to line their own pockets and/or increase their power by favoring their power corporate backers.
Marxist collectivism & forced redistribution is NOT for "fairness"!
Redistribution makes SLAVES of the taxed, DEPENDANTS of the recipients, TYRANTS of the powerful while killing FREE competition!
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 But capitalism is not the result of a free market. Capitalism in the sense of private ownership of the means of production can only exist in the context of heavy government regulation. If government regulation were to cease entirely, a socialist society would result. Socialism is the inevitable effect of a free market. That's where the term "free-market anti-capitalist" comes from.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax said:
"Capitalism in the sense of private ownership of the means of production can only exist in the context of heavy government regulation."
Drinking the cool aid again? You have that EXACTLY backwards.
Heavy government regulation REMOVES the benefits of private ownership. Private ownership has NO MERIT when what you "own" is controlled by others.
Example: You buy a car, but I control who drives it, where it's parked and when it's driven. Control is possession 9/10ths?
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 Yes, but without government regulation, private ownership wouldn't be able to exist at all. Excess government regulation may make private ownership less desirable, but private ownership would be impossible in the absence of government regulation. Without government, workers' bargaining power would increase, and workers would be able to take over businesses and set them up as worker coops. This is rudimentary socialism, not capitalism.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 There are a number of government regulations that ensure that the means of production remain in private, and not social, hands. One is the land monopoly: the government enforces absentee land claims, preventing the population from taking vacant plots of land for their own. Another is the credit monopoly: the government heavily regulates financial activity, preventing workers from developing mutual credit schemes. Another is patenting, which keep technology in private hands.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax Backwards AGAIN & STILL!
Regulated is the OPPOSITE of Free!
Regulated ownership is not ownership at all. You may owe the debt to the bankers for the loan on the property, but as long as OTHERS control the property it is NOT truly yours!
When gov't enforce contracts while NOT regulating what you do with your own property (house, boat, body) then that's good.
When gov't helps you protect your right to use YOUR property as you wish, that is good.
Regulation anti-FREE!
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
Comment removed
QuatFax 1 year ago
Comment removed
QuatFax 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 Government enforcement of property is a form of regulation. Governments impose Lockean ideas of property on the market. Absentee ownership is enforced because governments demand it.
In a truly free market, there would be no government enforcement of property. Different communities would decide for themselves what constitutes "property." Property based on occupancy and use, rather than some arbitrary concept of ownership, would likely predominate.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 Capitalism relies on government-enforced Lockean property. In this sense, capitalism cannot exist without government regulation. To say that enforcement of property rights doesn't constitute "regulation" is arbitrary, and the burden of proof is on you to explain why property can be imposed on the economy but other market distortions cannot.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@yakyakyak69 I notice you've never explained why government enforcement of property is consistent with a free market. Tsk, tsk.
QuatFax 9 months ago
@QuatFax The "Free Market" depends on Property Rights!
For a complete explanation watch:
"Collectivism/Anarcho-Communism - Planned Chaos" here on YouTube
watch?v=AMSMQHpIEQU&feature=channel_video_title
Perhaps this will help you understand.
Watching: "The Philosophy of Liberty" will also help you.
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Property can be defended without the government's protecting it. That's my point: I have no problem with the existence of private property, but it should not be protected by the government any more than health care should be provided by the government. If people want private property, they should have to hire private defense agencies to defend it themselves.
QuatFax 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Your belief that the government should protect private property is no less statist than the "progressive" belief that the government should offer universal healthcare. If you were a true libertarian, you'd oppose the EXISTENCE of the state as I do. Protection of property should be left up to the free market, not provided by the state.
QuatFax 9 months ago
@QuatFax Are you KIDDING?!?!?
Protecting Property Rights (one's right to keep the fruits of their OWN labor is Directly Opposite of Forced Redistribution.
Again the Anarcho-Communism that YOU promote is the OPPOSITE of True Liberty because Anarcho-Communism DEPENDS on Big Gov't Central Planning by a "strong leader" and his cadre of OLIGARCHY.
Protecting Property Rights is what the founders called "PROMOTE the General Welfare"
watch?v=AMSMQHpIEQU&feature=channel_video_title
LEARN!
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 I'm not an anarcho-communist; I'm a Mutualist.
People don't have the right to have their property protected. They have every right to protect it themselves, but society doesn't owe them the service.
You never have a right to a service at someone else's expense, whether it be protection of property or healthcare.
That the founding fathers believed it is irrelevant. The founding fathers also supported slavery; does that make slavery right.
QuatFax 9 months ago
@QuatFax Mutualism is something between classical economics and socialism, with some characteristics of both. Modern-day Mutualist Anarchism's Kevin Carson, considers anarchist mutualism to be "free market socialism." [oxymoron]
Half-Pregnant?
Mutualism supports exploitation when it does not recognize a right of an individual to protect land that he has mixed his labor. Mutualism will ALWAYS lead to Oligarchy when people cry out for a "strong leader" & his "friends" to restore order.
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Bullshit. We recognize the right to Lockean property in communities where people want to have Lockean property (i.e.- property is anything you mix with labor). We simply don't want that system to be IMPOSED on us for a government.
There is nothing oxymoronic about free-market socialism. Socialism is worker control over production, which could easily happen under free market conditions. How in any way is free-market socialism an oxymoron?
QuatFax 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Who's to say that a strong leader would be needed to "restore order?" Order can be established by a free market of competing private defense agencies. Market forces will prevent them from abusing their power (who would buy from an aggressive defense agency?) I'm not going to debate you if you just make shit up.
QuatFax 9 months ago
@yakyakyak69 Of course, you STILL haven't explained to me why the government should protect people's property. You are no libertarian if you think people have a right to someone else's service. If you own property, you should defend it or pay to defend it YOURSELF. You have no right to have it defended at the taxpayers' expense.
QuatFax 9 months ago
@QuatFax How do you convince that simple moral point to some one who's grown up expecting those things? Doesn't seem possible. The whole idea is so hard to comprehend for the average person.
JessAtlas 7 months ago
@JessAtlas You mean that people don't have a right to others' services? I think the main reason people object to it is that they don't believe it can work; they don't see how order can exist in society without government. The trick is to show examples and theories that demonstrate that the free market could handle things like protection of property and establishing order. It isn't easy, but it's certainly possible.
QuatFax 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yakyakyak69 Even today, you have yet to explain to me how "free market socialism" is an oxymoron or why government is necessary to protect property or restore order. Please don't make points if you can't back them up; you are only wasting our time.
QuatFax 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The emotional urge to move away from free markets will lessen as technology continues to advance, quality of life improve, and opportunities become more diverse. Hopefully before that point socialists don't destroy the true force behind technological progress - capitalism.
MadPutz 1 year ago
You mean as technology continues to advance and robots increasingly replace menial workers putting millions of people out of work just to increase profit?
Yay for greed!
soyousay18 1 year ago
@soyousay18
Well, one could argue that if you implemented the right kinds of robotic automation, you wouldn't need jobs anymore, you wouldn't need income to support yourself. If people don't need to support themselves to live, you don't need profit, and if you don't need profit, you don't need money, and if you don't need money, you don't need a free market to use it in.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
This wouldn't happen under capitalism where the corporations (along with their governments) would do everything possible to prevent people from gaining access to these machines and living self-sufficient lives. This would put an end to wage slavery, which they wouldn't like.
So I think you are correct assuming we could escape the expolitation of capitalism.
But while capitalism and corporatism rule robots will only be a negative for the vast majority of workers.
soyousay18 1 year ago
@MadPutz
Ha! Here I thought innovation was the driving force behind technological advancement. Silly me.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@MadPutz Somebody didn't listen to the video :)
PavedStones 1 year ago
Thanks
TheHagueCityTHC 1 year ago