Capitalism, is not the issue, and Michael Moore, does not make this clear in his movies.Capitalism, is the biggest reason why America, and other nations from have been so successful. Socialism, has failed, and we need Capitalism if we want a successful economy.
Wow idiot . Socialism is not about more state control. The good part you pictured in the video is more anarchy or socialism. Where the people or workers are in control is NOT capitalism. Capitalism allows stockholders who DO NOT WORK but make money. Socialism is democracy within a company you could say. Wouldn't you like that? Where work actually pays off. Stockholders who don't work should not make money. Socialism is the answer. Socialism is not more power to government.
"Wow idiot. Socialism is not about more state control"
Sure, if you define "socialism" as anarchism. However, most of the definitions of "socialism" put the state as the vehicle for the kind of changes you are talking about.
I think 90% of the disagreements in politics have to do with disagreements about semantics - I don't care what label you use, using force and violence against non-violent people (aka "statism") is still wrong.
Whether special interests are affecting the Federal Reserves motives are obvious; they are.
My point is that the Federal Reserve does not cause the boom and bust cycles. The heart of the current financial crisis lies within the Shadow Banking Industry, which is exempt from regulations pertaining to deposit banks.
Since the late 90's, 31 regulatory proposals were heavily lobbied against, and successfully shot down. The folks we hate love deregulated industry, as seen by what they lobby for.
The folks we hate LOVE regulation if it drives out their competitors, gives them a monopoly, or mandates the purchase of their products and services. They just don't like the regulations that make them less profit. Luckily for them, they have a disproportionate say in which regulations pass and which do not.
However, ALL regulation is a threat of violence - first through fines, then through arrest and imprisonment. Control of such violence is extremely attractive to them.
If the banks love financial regulation, why lobby so aggressively against it?
Taxes aren't violence. They're part of the paradigm of society, in which everyone chips in for mutual benefits.
If you don't like taxes, quit driving on roads, don't go to public school, don't ever receive emergency medical care, don't call the police or fire department if you're in danger, etc.
Everybody "chipping in" would be voluntary. If you threaten to kidnap me, tie me up, and throw me in a cage if I don't give you money, I consider that a violent act.
The government has a monopoly, enforce by violence, on many essential services. Why is this a good thing?
@somecomputergeek it's their money anyway. every dollar you have, unless you own a gold mine, is essentially a loan from the government. they are the ones who give your money value. Right there, you have essential government intervention. unpaid loans from anyone else, and you get broken limbs, or worse.
Now, this system of Lazze fair, essentially what you're advocating, has been tried. and it resulted is a horrible state of affairs. Relative slavery, disregard for health, and mass pollution.
Currency don't have intrinsic value unless backed by a commodity, like gold. YOU give the dollar it's value, by WORKING for it. If nobody worked for dollars, they would be completely valueless.
"Lazze fair" essentially means "without violent coercion".Taxation is a FORM of slavery, the health of the U.S. populace doesn't correlate to the size of government, and the USG is the biggest polluter on the planet. Your argument is one of effects, and those effects are debatable.
@somecomputergeek All currency today, no matter where it comes from, is backed by nothing but the word of a government. the gold standard was retired long ago. it doesn't matter how hard I work for my dollar, it's just a piece of paper (or a cluster of bit in a computer) if the government can't vouch for it. We have this system because Gold wasn't cutting it. if all income had to correspond to a certain amount of precious metal, then there wouldn't be enough money to pay everyone.
@somecomputergeek "Lazze Faire" means to let it be, to let the chips fall where they may and people act in what way suits them. it meant people could be as tyrannical as they wanted; and led to forced child labor, high work related mortality rates, unhealthy food, and poisonous pharmaceuticals. The government is, in fact, not the largest polluter, it is individuals who consume the most energy, and corporate entities who base factories in areas with no pollution laws.
"unpaid loans from anyone else, and you get broken limbs, or worse."
Loan sharks STILL EXIST, as do other lenders who DON'T resort to breaking limbs. To say that, without the state, ALL loans would be backed by violence is RIDICULOUS.
@somecomputergeek How is it ridiculous? if people (especially large, impersonal corporations) didn't think that the state would harshly punish them for engaging in violence in order to ensure that a loan is repaid, then they would most certainly use it. Violence is in fact quite an effective deterrent to delinquency. Government reprisal isn't anywhere near that harsh. you spend a few months in a minimum security prison.
@somecomputergeek You're essentially paying for the right to do business within the United States. But you're also paying for all the services that come along with living and doing business in the U.S.. You have various public service entities that protect your safety from natural and man made situations; you're paying for a safety net, so that all is not lost if you hit a snag; for national defense. but more importantly, you're represented within government. you have a say in decision making.
@somecomputergeek it's the same principal as a hotel, you pay for the room, you pay for the cleaning service, for the food, for the security, for the entertainment, for electricity, for the communications. you're certainly free to do business elsewhere, but you'd have to pay for nearly anywhere else, and not likely get the same services, or you can find an area free of all regulation, and be subject to anyone else who wants to do business there.
Actually, the boom and busts became severe in the late 1800's because of the Industrial Revolution. The Fed has stabilized the economy in the past, but they've also fucked up. It's not a conspiracy; it's a matter of incompetence.
For example, after the 1929 crash, the Fed reduced the money supply, which amplified the blow. In the early 2000's, interest rates were set low to lessen the effects of the dot-com burst and 9/11.
The Fed is used to inflate/contract an economy in disequilibrium.
There's only so much incompetence can account for. The fact is each of these booms and busts have had some clear winners and some clear losers, and the general population has always been the clear loser. This is about the dominant institutions we have and the inequity that arises from their conflicts of interests.
When I refer to unmanaged Capitalism, I am speaking of the parallel banking phenom which is similar to the stock market - which is right next to agriculture in defining ideal capitalism. Parallel banking was the culprit behind the collapse.
I wasn't referring to the entire US economy.
The cycle can be determined by the Fed, but that isn't usually the case. The Fed uses interest rates and monetary supply to stabilize the already occurring cycles.
Yes, that's what the Federal Reserve claims. That is the "purpose" of it, but that's not exactly what the historical evidence suggests, is it? The business cycle has become much more pronounced since the FED's inception in 1913, and each cycle has concentrated more wealth into fewer hands.
The "shadow banking system" consists of people who are not affiliated with banks lending money. "Regulating" this would give MORE power to the banks.
I couldn't find your comment on Current's video, so I'll reply here.
Section 5000A waives criminalization of not complying with the mandate. No liens or levies can be filed against your assets, so it's basically just a fine. The fine cannot exceed more than 1% of the violator's income. The IRS may be involved with the fine, but not in the conventional manner of taking your shit.
Whether or not the law unfolds consistently according to the bill is a different scenario...
How does the bill "require" people to get insurance, but that requirement is not enforced? Why else would the IRS get involved?
Where in the bill does it EXPLICITLY state that these penalties are exempt from TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 75, Subchapter A, PART I, Section 7203 of the US Code?
At some point, men with guns will have to be involved. Otherwise, the 40 million people who don't have health insurance right now simply won't pay into it.
Blaming the predatory lending and sub-prime loan crisis on the CRA is inaccurate.
The CRA used incentives and disincentives to prevent banks from Redlining certain demographics. There was no mandate, and there weren't even incentives to lend sub-prime loans.
The reason sub-prime loans were so popular is because risk could be swapped through a CDS, and short term profits were excessive through the use of derivatives.
Moore's movie was showing the results of Capitalism being unmanaged....
I see your point about the CRA, and I've made a note in my video.
However, the idea that our current system (with is hundreds of thousands of laws) is "unmanaged" is also inaccurate. The fact that the state operates in such as a way as to protect the banks and not the people is no surprise, as the banks practically own the state.
If you call this "unmanaged capitalism", I share your hatred of it, but I call it "plutocracy", and don't think violence can solve the problem.
The problem I have stated is not because the system isn't 100% free market, it is as explain voter apathy, total free market would only guarantee it would quickly become a Elites with not hope of the middle class to control it, the reason now that market manipulation is going on and system support corporatism is because people sit back and allow lobbyist to run the show, imagine how fast political area would clean up if all politicians where to be audited and the findings be publicly available.
Yeah, without social policies and regulation, the middle class would be non-existent.
Capitalism is great at wiping out the little guys with its natural boom and bust cycles that obliterate small business, and thus competition. After that, you have the gargantuan wealth gap.
The "business cycle" has a lot more to do with the Federal Reserve than GM or Coca-Cola.
The biggest obstacle to small business is government regulation and taxes, especially when those regulations are written by lobbyists working for the big guys, as MOST of the regulations are.
The illusion is that the American People have control over the state. If Moore's film does anything, it shows us that this is a fantasy.
ya but the problem i keep saying isn't government, it is "voter apathy," votes are more important then lobbyist funds but if you know you can take cash from anyone and people will vote for you all the same then you can be a lobbyist pet, if all people became politically active and all government spending was open for public to see, we'd see a change. People do have control over the state, there just to lazy or ignorant to use it and Moore's film help wake people up.
So how do you solve the problem of voter apathy? Make a new law? FORCE people to vote? FORCE people to read about the issues?
The phrase "if all people became politically active" may as well be "if only magical faeries were in charge of congress". The question is "WHY are people apathetic?". People are apathetic because they have come to the realization that the government doesn't give a shit about them and never has.
how do you solve voter apathy, easy you make lots of load noise like what Moore did. You demand and explain this to as many people as possible so you build a block that pushes for politicians pockets be open for the public to see what $ is going in from who. You change the education system to promote voter activism.
Also because gov do what is popular, e.i. if racism is popular be racist, or if the opposite is popular do that, suggest the gov does care what the pop thinks.
There's already lots of laws regarding campaign finance. More laws doesn't change the system.
Notice that all of the things you mentioned don't involve violence? Why, then, do you insist on using popular movements to attempt to influence violent institutions rather that deal directly with those individuals who are causing the problem?
Politicians do care about what people think during campaigns to get elected, and to manipulate people in supporting their actions.
because the pen is mightier then sword, getting rid of the government wouldn't solve anything, and taking out system that we do need and rely on even if they are tainted with poison will not help. Also ya you could look as Australia where is law that you vote, not law that you be aware of what going on but they get 99% vote turn out, and places of higher education like Sweden you have large number of common political activists.
I'm not talking about "getting rid of" the government. I don't think that would be practical. What I'm advocating is the UNDERSTANDING of the nature of the state. Once people understand what the state actually is, I don't think rational, ethical people can willingly support it.
Why do you think violence is the best way to solve societal problems?
never once supported violence, actually opened my last comment saying words care more weight then violence, i do call for action, the marching, sign waving, information, and letters to leaders...but with my opening statement damned violence calling it weak, so please do not misrepresent my position.
While i like that your advocating awareness of government, i do think your misrepresenting it as an inhuman machine that controls people.
I'm sorry, I thought you were advocating passing laws against non-violent acts.
Whenever you make a law, you are, in effect, saying "do this and bad things will happen to you". Those "bad things" vary greatly, but they ALL eventually use violence to back them up.
I don't think government is a machine. It is an institution, like any other institution. The only difference is that governments murder and enslave millions of people.
Ya that is the failure of democracy when the people become content, lazy, apathetic and ignorant of the ongoing of there government, I understand the US founding fathers words "a state strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take it all away." The more power to government the more active the people need to be, that why i detest notion of 100% free market it an excuse for the population to be lazy and allow a few elites to manipulate an unguided system.
I think you're assessment of the problem is correct. However, the fact that you detest the notion of a 100% free market indicates, to me, that you are still clinging to a solution that has never worked.
The idea that a free market makes people lazy and allow a few elites to manipulate "an unguided system" doesn't really hold water. Elites, right now, manipulate a GUIDED - a system that already has the kind of consolidation of power that they can most easily exploit.
Do not get my wrong I'm very much a centralist and see the value in Capitalism it raw economic power and libertarian freedoms it can offer, but i understand that is if i can afford it. When a system favors Person over People, if I'm not that person then I'm powerless to effect proper change, though being apart of the People you can effect change so just pointing out error in your comment on being fighting the state (and i mean democratic state when i say "The State" not commy USSR or China ect.)
I agree. Allowing power come into the hands of too few people is a dangerous idea, and groups of people need to leverage their numbers to achieve social justice.
There's nothing wrong with getting together and using our numbers to defend ourselves from imbalances of power, like banks.
However, there is an imbalance of influence over the state. The people inside those concentrations of power have a disproportionate say in the very same institution that is supposed to offset this imbalance.
Okay i think i should point out something "The State" is but the embodiment of peoples will........so if the majority of people decide to discriminate against a group, guess who the "The State" will discriminate against, if the majority become aware of a discrimination and decide to end end it, guess what "The State" will abolish.
"The State" = We The People
that is why i prefer Social Democratic ideals, because I have power over the State being apart of it, while Capitalism = Person
I understand what you mean. Better the criminal that you can vote out than the criminal you can not.
As long as democratic forms FUNCTIONED, as Chomsky would put it, the government would be the will of the people, but "the people" are a diverse group of individuals. Some of them gravitate toward collectivism, and I would never threaten them with violence for doing so.
You have power over the state? Prove it. Get them to stop arresting people for smoking pot.
You're not understanding how the Shadow Banking Industry works. They aren't affiliated with the banks because they practically ARE the banks.
This was enabled by the conglomeration of commercial and investor banks following deregulation in 1999. Because of that, the banks used deposit money to trade around ABS's with other financial institutions such as Beare Sterns. This was the incentive for sub-prime loans.
Parallel banking was just an opening for the banks to escape regulations...
Maybe you're right. Maybe we need more laws. If we just threaten the right people with arrest and imprisonment, everything will be better. That's your position, right?
It doesn't bother you in the least that the people writing and promoting the laws are affiliated with the very same institutions that you feel need to be regulated?
Do you intend on throwing people in prison for giving too much to a political campaign? Yes, I would consider that too violent, never mind the fact that campaign finance reform can't work. (When you legislate what is bought and sold, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislation)
Modern society consists of many institutions, may of which I like. I am simply advocating the removal of those institutions that initiate violence against other human beings.
I advocated campaign finance reform. You like to straw-man a lot.
Campaign finance reform doesn't throw anyone in jail, it just prohibits corporations from influencing legislation. It's similar to the separation of church and state. Is that too violent for you as well?
Again, taxes are not violence. To live in this society, you must pay taxes to utilize the benefits. If you aren't doing so, you are breaking the law, and consequences ensue. If you don't like it, go live in the woods.
The government is made up of people, and the problem is that these people are corporation's bitches...I as a citizen like you believe this is wrong, but i think the government should be the citizen bitch, "government's should fear there people."
Ya i believe that but i think the people in government should be afraid of there people for unemployment reasons.
The government is large concentration of violent power, consisting of individuals paid by tax dollars, which are collected under the threat of arrest and imprisonment. As such, it is extremely attractive for those with great power to have a hold of.
As long as the government takes money from the people under threat, government will NEVER be the "citizen's bitch". EVER.
It's like a mafia thug coming to collect protection money - a new mob boss doesn't change anything.
If politicians accept contributions, they are removed from office. If the fraud is extensive, then I favor jail time because I have little sympathy for corporate whores in Congress.
You argue against laws, yet you are in favor of society. What you fail to acknowledge is that society only exists because of laws and governance. In the lawless society (oxymoron) that you advocate, it's just pure anarchy, and basically survival of the fittest.
Laws are the only reason you have property rights.
"Laws are the only reason you have property rights."
Think about that for a second. The reason why I have property rights is because of laws and a government which has the right to violate my "property rights".
Rights have nothing to do with government. You don't get your rights from the government. They can take them away, but they cant' give them to you.
I advocate for a voluntary society based on the non-aggression principle, not some hellish mad max vision of chaos.
No, according to the constitution, the government cannot just come and take your property for no reason.
On the other hand, without government, somebody else could steal your property from you. Without government, who's to stop them? You could shoot them, but that would be "violent"; something you're strongly against.
You could pay for private police forces, but what if you cannot afford protection, or what if they deny you coverage for whatever reason, like most insurance companies do?
"the government cannot just come and take your property for no reason."
Yes, it has to have a reason, just like kings had reasons for taking property from the serfs.
Do you really think that we need an institution which has the right to take your property in order to preventing people from taking your property? Without a government, there would be a DEMAND for property protection, which can be fulfilled by many means, both private and communal, which don't involve theft.
People NATURALLY group together. Voluntary collectivism and socialized institutions are the true basis for society. A state masquerades as an organic, bottom-up institution, but they are nothing of the kind. They are really a cancerous growth on society that just keeps getting bigger and bigger - their solution to every problem in society is to pass a law - to threaten people with violence. This is impractical, unreasonable, and unethical.
so what do you propose, also i love how people miss this, what is the tax money you spent on used for?
Also do you drive on roads?
Did you receive or send your children to public education?
Do you use the public sewage system?
all this cost money, and guess how you pay for that, taxes, i go to a restaurant eat there and leave without paying you bet I'd get tossed in jail so why is i different when i use public services that i don't have the money to buy all for myself.
Most of it goes to medicade and medicare, which causes my health care to go up and is practically a subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry. It also goes to social security, which, at my age, I'll never see. A huge chunk of it goes toward the development and use of technology used to kill people.
The tiny fraction that remains goes toward services which the state enforces its monopoly on, and toward uncountable bureaucracy.
Nobody is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to eat. There aren't any restaurants that go around shutting other restaurants down using violence.
If you want to stay with the restaurant analogy, imagine if all restaurants were owned by McDonalds, and if you wanted to sell food, you would have to ask their permission. They demand money from you, regardless of whether you eat out, or whether you approve of what's on the menu.
I work from home, but yes. However, I don't use them as often as most people do.
"Did you receive or send your children to public education?"
I suffered through the public indoctrination system's youth prison, yes.
"Do you use the public sewage system?"
Yes, and I'm completely willing to pay for the service. However, I don't think people who own a septic system or a leech field should pay for it, do you?
well people who use septic typically live outside of town/city so they only pay provincial taxes cheaper then city don't know what it is like for US.
But still you work at home, how many of your customer what ever use roads to make there wealth that they give to you. How expensive would you're food be if it had even greater shipping cost having traveled on private roads.
Would be able to read to be able to use a computer, and same with your customers without your public schools
True, a state funds these things, and yes, it does bring the cost down if we force others to pay for the services we think we need.
My parents taught me how to read before I entered school. In school, I learned to sit still, shut up, and obey authority. I was also taught that learning is a boring, tedious chore.
At what point does something become so expensive that you justify threatening people with violence if they don't give you money to pay for it?
i haven't said violence in justifiable in anyway. I can't comment on US tax rates but i figure it like the Canadian system, based on income, lower for families, and nothing on low income, most people in my country who get send to jail over taxes are normaly steeling and into criminal activity, and police should never use force on non-violent people. And how would you bar non-tax paying citizens from everything in your country?
"police should never use force on non-violent people"
Is refusing to pay taxes a violent act? Is smoking marijuana? Out of all the laws that have ever been written, how many of them do you suppose only prohibit acts of violence? Is it more than 1%?
There was a political activist in my city who passed away at the proud age of 87, he had been a big pain in the ass of city council for that past 64 years making noise, protesting, exposing corruption, he got dubbed as an unpaid civil servant. He had been arrested many times for "disturbing the peace", and never once fought, always was polite and knew the drill very well, and you know what, he had the media with him taking picture of him calmly being arrested and carried away.
If I put a gun to your feet and tell you to dance, you can choose not to comply. If you dance, and I in turn don't shoot you in the foot, is it then not violence? Yes, we can dance with the current political system all day long, and if we focus enough time and energy, and get arrested a few times, maybe we'll make a dimes worth of difference.
However, shouldn't the first step in ending this kind of corruption be to stop supporting it?
you know the the cops stopped putting hand cuffs on him because big pictures of him being calmly arrested looked back and only made the public backlash that much worst. Guy never incited violence and was never held for more then 24 hours and was always cleared of any charges. Gandhi really taught the world how to herd, how to resist and not use violence, and guess how many time he had been arrested.
You want cannabis to be legal, create a larger block then the anti-block.
Gandhi is a great example of what I'm talking about. He is proof that you can solve societal problems without the need for violence, by having courage and determination, and not backing down from your principles.
Cannabis laws aren't in place because the masses overwhelming demand laws against cannabis.
there isn't I'm not sure if you haven't heard of the "moral right" you know that large christian political block and huge media campaign that paints cannabis along side meth, and one thing about the moral right...there more active then pot smokers, see if your pissed about law against something you seem to know how to protest and inform the public, have at it instead of bitchen about it, bitch about it to other people and make change.
"you seem to know how to protest and inform the public, have at it instead of bitchen about it"
What is the difference between "protesting and informing the public" and "bitching about it"? Aren't YOU a member of the public? Aren't we communicating? The key here is change - which means attempting to influence the thoughts and actions of individuals. As long as change is seen in purely legal terms rather than cultural, nothing will change.
"We do naturally urbanize, and eventually govern one another."
We eventually govern one another? I disagree. Maybe my understanding of sociology leaves something to be desired, but when you go out with your friends or family, which one of them governs you?
As long as "government" does not INITIATE violence, it is not impractical or unreasonable. What IS impractical and unreasonable is the initiation of violence. Violence for any act other than self-defense is wrong.
If it's family, my mother/ father will, and if it's friends, the biggest/strongest alpha male will govern.
Hierarchy is hardwired into our brains because of our evolutionary history. Forming groups that were lead by a member[s] was evolutionarily advantageous. The same reason we learn communication so easily is the same reason we urbanize.
Without the initiation of enforcing taxes, so many people will opt out, the government will become useless, thus impractical.
Taking a leadership role is one thing. When that leader forces others to give him money under threat of violence, that is quite another. How long would you keep an "alpha male" friend that taxed you?
"Without the initiation of enforcing taxes, so many people will opt out, the government will become useless, thus impractical."
Was the government useless and impractical prior to the implementation of the income tax in 1913?
Taxes have been progressively added over time to provide the lower classes with more benefits and opportunities.
Just because there wasn't an income tax, that doesn't mean there weren't any taxes before 1913.
Also, by pointing out the alpha male, I was simply answering your question by showing that humans are naturally hierarchical. You're moving the goal posts around to avoid the inevitable - you're wrong.
Point taken about the income tax. I'm glad you at least agree that the the lack of an income tax would not make the government "useless, thus impractical". I'm highly skeptical of the idea that government really helps us in the lower classes, however.
I'm not trying to move the goal post. You offered an example, and I showed you why it was not apt because it didn't involve the threat of violence. Authority comes in many forms, not all of which are arbitrary, like the state.
If you were going to put a label on what I'm talking about, it is not "marxism". It is "agorism".
You can't make EVERYONE chip in voluntarily. Some will chip in voluntarily and some won't. To make EVERYONE chip in, it can not be voluntary, and thus needs to be backed up by the threat of violence, which is the system we currently have.
Yes, violence works. If I put a gun to your head, chances are you'll do what I say. Is that a good reason for putting a gun to your head?
Without the enforcement of chipping in, nobody will chip in at all. This has been extensively proven in human sociology and psychology, scientifically. The tragedy of the commons goes through this pretty well.
Without the enforcement aspect, civilization remains in its social darwinist stage of "everybody for themselves" and "no rules apply".
Who is forcing Americans to donate over $200 Billion per year to charity?
The tragedy of the commons results from "public" ownership (which means no ownership), not in the lack of violence. Voluntary, distributed ownership does not have this problem, as is demonstrated in cooperatives.
People will ALWAYS depend on other people, and there are countless rules in every social situation, the vast majority of which do not need any threats of violence to enforce.
You claimed that people will not contribute unless they are being forced to. You're right, however, in that it might be true that people won't contribute to the charities YOU LIKE without being forced to. It also won't be possible to wage wars of aggression unless people are forced to pay for them.
We all like the idea of caring for the elderly and the impaired, and of helping the poor. Why do you think this "can't be" done without force?
I'm not the only one who likes those charities. If that were true, the representatives who want to enact them wouldn't be voted in.
The government vastly helps us in the lower classes. Without public programs like education, roads, healthcare, student loans, and other entitlements, there wouldn't be nearly as much opportunity. Capitalism naturally gravitates toward very rich and poor classes. It's up to the government to provide opportunities for a middle class to exist.
I understand that is the theory. However, how is it practiced? If what you said were true, there should be a negative correlation between the size of government and the number of people below the poverty line. However, the actual data shows that poverty remains relatively steady while government grows. This is because those entitlements that supposedly increase opportunities is contrasted with government regulation creating various barriers to entry, removing opportunity.
For one, it's not the physical size of the government that changes poverty levels. Secondly, poverty is down significantly since the 1950's, and hit an all time low in 2000.
I understand your point about government programs crowding out private sector opportunities, and that can only be determined case by case. If you extract Medicare, Medicaid, police, fire, education, roads, FDA, VA, SS, SCHIP, and various other programs, poverty WILL rise.
I think Michael Moore's next shitty movie should be called Buffet: A Love Story. Remember this fat retard said George W. Bush was going to bring back the draft....pretty close Michael.
I am allways amazed how uneducatd libertarians are when it come to "The State".
They allways discribe it as some ominous coherent entity, that we simply would have to get rid off and out of a sudden the sun will shine and it will rain gold from the sky for all of us.
The worst is how libertarians allways equal capitalism with free markets. Capitalism is a form of free market economy, like a whale is a mammal. That doesnt mean all mammals live in the ocean.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I definitely don't agree with libertarians who think that getting rid of the state will magically transform society into a utopia. I'm more of an agorist than a libertarian, myself.
However, I also don't think that the unidirectional monopoly on the legal initiation of violence is a rational, necessary, or ethical way of solving societal problems.
I thought that my tree analogy was more apt than your whale analogy, but I see how it fits.
But then most of your critique falls apart. Its not surprising, that most artrocities caused by Capitlism involve "The State" as an Executor of Capitalism, like the artrocities of Fascism, Racism, Communism or Religion involve the state too.
To say the state is responsible, not capitalism, is like saying it wasnt antisemitism that caused the holocaust, but bureaucracy.
Again your argumentation follows the common libertarian pattern which is based on a logical fallacy: States commit crimes, thus we must abolish states. Well, cultures make ideologies, thus we must abandon culture? Societies tend to discrimination, thus we dissolve community? Humans commit artrocities, thus we must abolish humans?
Its pointless to debate on such a level, no insult intended.
"States commit crimes, thus we must abolish states"
That's not my argument against the state, but the fact that states do horrible things is not exactly an argument FOR the state, either.
Culture, societies, and humans all have their flaws. Take humans, for instance. Humans CAN initiate violence against others, but you're right. The fact that they CAN is not an argument against humans. The problem is with the initiation of violence, and I think we should stop supporting it.
@somecomputergeek If people can free renege on contract obligations, the contract is worthless, but mostly to the poor and those that cannot fund private armies. To use your rape analogy, the current system, those with control use lube, in a free market, forces will come by that arent so kind, and there isnt much to stop them if theyre the only game in town.
@somecomputergeek The rape part analogy you started makes it difficult to retort using your analogy framework.
And those DROs sound like a euphemism for a State.
Anarchy only works if no one group tries for a power grab, regardless of whether people think govt are some evil massively oppressive entity (in not like statist just dont want the Wrong Lizard to get into power). Anarchist sound a lot like pacifist throwing up the peace sign while staring down the barrel of a rifle
Love the Hitchhiker's reference - the wrong lizard is the PERFECT analogy.
Maybe "agorist" is a better term than "arnachist".
I have no problem with self-defense, even collective self-defense. However, I don't like having a small group of people that you're not allowed to defend yourself against.
I don't know if DROs are the way to go, but they are NOT like states, as they are VOLUNTARY and allow for COMPETITION, unlike the state.
I understand you disagree, but it doesn't really help me understand why unless you point out my flaws.
"Anarchy versus capitalism versus socialism?"
I thought it was more about state coercion vs. voluntary free association.
In Moore's film, "capitalism" is a system which uses state coercion to enforce arbitrary property rights that favor the rich, and "socialism" is the proposed solution to this by increasing state power.
The whole thing is not a question of big vs small government. The government/police is also not evil per se. The job of the police is just to enforce the law. If you don't like it, change the law (probably by changing the government).
If you perceive the government/police as the bodyguard of the big business, you have to change the laws in favor of the people/consumers/workers. That's all. In some cases that requires regulating the markets in others not..
I understand what you're saying. That, after all, is the common solution - change the laws. However, it is exactly this method that has brought about the failures seen in the film.
Even if you were to somehow figure out the magic law that would make everything better, you still need to pass it in a system that is controlled by the people who necessitate such changes in the law. It's a catch-22.
The Government IS The People. The "State" is run by Corporations through puppet politicians making "regulations" and giving them "corporate welfare." So, Corporations are the new "State." The State is supposed to be the People.
The political system is a capitalist system. It is a class system where the propertied class oppresses the non-propertied class. The non-propertied class can only sell their labour power to the capitalist and get exploited as a result. That's how the capitalist gets his profits - surplus value.
Free market? Haven't you heard the saying "Money makes money"? Somebody with no money can't take part in the free market. There is no free market for him.
"Somebody with no money can't take part in the free market."
Who is forcing people with no money not to take part in the free market? Even beggars take part in the free market. The only way you can't take part in the free market is if you hide in a cave somewhere.
If you think "capitalism" is the political system, then I agree with you, as I don't like the political system. I also agree that this political system is oppressive and favors the very rich.
@somecomputergeek I am sorry, I don't understand you. Look at your sentence "Who is forcing people with no money not to take part in the free market?" Nobody is forcing people, the fact that they have no money is enough. "Even beggars take part in the free market." How?
The free market is the world around you that doesn't involve violent coercion, including your relationships between friends and family. Everything you do is part of the free market as long as there is no force involved. Begging somebody for money is part of the free market. Giving money to charity is part of the free market.
The only time an action is not part of the free market is when "freedom" does not apply, as in when somebody FORCES you to give them something.
"money" is simply a way to represent CAPITAL. Capital is any kind of possession, which includes money, but also includes clothing, tools, and products. Individuals use their LABOR to convert one form of capital into another form of capital.
When somebody FORCES you to give up your capital or FORCES you to labor for them, they are claiming ownership of the product of your labor. We call this "slavery" or "theft", unless it's the state doing it. Then, we call it "taxation".
@somecomputergeek I am sorry, money is not always capital. It's capital if you use it to buy machines, build a plant, hire workers, and make profit from their labour, which you then add to your capital. When you invest money to win more money, it's also capital.
When you save money to go on a holiday, it's not capital. Read "Capital" by Karl Marx. :)
Sure, you're probably right about the semantics. I guess it depends on intent. Money doesn't necessary represent capital, but it can. Whether or not it does depends on your own decisions, if you are free to make them.
The key here is being free to make those decisions. I don't want to force you to make the decisions that I think you should make. Why do you want to force others to make the decisions that you think they should make?
Have I said that I want to force anybody to make any decisions?
You say "Money doesn't necessarily represent capital, but it can. Whether or not it does depends on your own decisions, if you are free to make them." It's not so simple. If it was, almost everybody would have capital. As you know, this is far not the case.
As it happens, I am making a serious of videos about Marx, and I'll continue very soon, and I'll be talking about capital.
"Have I said that I want to force anybody to make any decisions?"
Yes. Unless you want to give people the choice to pay taxes or not? I disagree with you about people not having capital. Almost everybody DOES have capital, or a way of getting it. Not everybody has the same amount of capital.
I look forward to your videos on Marx. Please PM me when they're ready.
If the government controlled all food production, taxes would pay for food, which everybody needs. Collectivism, I believe, is necessary. We need to contribute to groups for survival, and a democratic process of voting is great for that group. The problem comes when this group decides to use force against people not voluntarily supporting that group.
In other words, if YOU do not have the right to rob me, why do you have the right to VOTE for somebody else to rob me?
The first paragraph of your comment sounds well-intentioned, but it's very simplistic. How do you propose to organize this 'collectivism'? I come from one of the previous socialist countries and have an allergy to the word 'collectivism'.
I just said that there are millions of institutions in society OTHER THAN the state. How do they raise funds, help people, organize for a common purpose, etc... without violence? How do THEY do it? If I were to "name" it, I would name it "voluntaryism".
Since when did Robin Hood become the bad guy? Allowing the government to redistribute a country's wealth does not mean giving them the right to take away your human rights.
You don't have the right to keep the product of your own labor? If you grow a plant, care for it, weed it, fertilize it, water it, prune it, and harvest it, do you not have the right to consume it's fruit?
Sharing is great, and should be encouraged, but when somebody threatens you with violence unless you give it to him, for whatever reason, it is against your human rights.
Robin Hood is about an OUTLAW. The serfs were poor because of people like the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Do you get beaten up if you don't pay taxes in the US? Isn't it just like breaking any other law, you're held accountable in a court of law?. You don't mind laws right?
you want the freedom to eat what you have produced, which is fair enough, but this is not about your freedom. This is about those are not capable of growing their own fruit. guaranteeing them a certain standard of life. I think that is worth giving up a fraction of your fruit for.
"Do you get beaten up if you don't pay taxes in the US?"
No. Men with guns come to your house, break down the door, tie you up, and haul you off to a prison cell where you MAY be beaten, raped, or killed.
"Isn't it just like breaking any other law?"
No. Most laws PROHIBIT unethical behavior. Tax laws FORCE YOU into unethical behavior, such as paying for wars. Do you really need a law to tell you not to kill people? To steal? To rape? Why do the consequences need to be arbitrary?
"Not paying taxes to help others, when everyone else is paying taxes to help you is EXTREMELY unethical if you ask me."
Not paying the money that people are FORCING me to pay is unethical? Why? Because SOME of the money will go toward helping others? By that logic, if the mafia gives money to an orphanage, it is unethical not to pay protection money.
If you want to give up a fraction of your fruit, that's fine. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't help those less fortunate than us. Why, though, do you the right to demand that somebody else give up a fraction of their fruit? How is that any different than theft?
The PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES of being FORCED into such an arrangement (like mafia protection money) is corruption, cronyism, war, and people being thrown into jail for having the wrong vegetation in their pocket.
simply allowing people to share if they want does not ENSURE the weaker members of society a fundamental standard of life. I believe a society is no more wealthy than it's poorest member. without regulation all we have is a frenzy where the strong pray on the weak. Jungle law basically.
You have this conception that the state prevents the strong praying on the weak, but that's not the case. The state ENSURES that they do. When you talk about "ENSURE" people have a certain standard of life, you're talking about violence and coercion. It is those SAME SYSTEMS of violence and coercion that were highlighted in Moore's film.
We HAVE a system where the strong pray on the weak - it's called the state. Who do you think are in prison? The POOR, working as SLAVE LABOR.
No, you're not talking about GIVING anyone anything. You're talking about FORCING people to "give" to others.
The problem comes when we FORCE others to do anything. This ENSURES corruption. It ENSURES war. It ENSURES a prison industrial complex.
There is NOTHING WRONG with providing these things to people. I fully support it. However, can we be guaranteed that our money won't go toward killing people? NO! Not if we're being FORCED to pay.
I promised myself I wouldn't get into heated arguments... as I always do. oh well.
where I live we pay 60+% tax. I'm okay with that. and all those nasty things that you predict? tbh I see far less of that here than in the US, but I might be wrong
I realize that I probably have an emotional bias somewhere, but it's hard to disregard empirical evidence that you have right between your fingers.
If a slave got to keep 40% of the product of his labor and was well-treated by his masters, and could even vote for who ran the plantation, he is much better off than a slave whose master beats him and takes all of his money. However, he is still a slave. The difference is choice.
You are OK with 60% tax, but it doesn't matter what you are "OK" with, because you are forced to pay for it. Regardless of how we FEEL about paying taxes, the REASON WHY we pay it is the same - force.
I think I weigh the later higher. I think every society should strive for the highest standard of life even if that means losing some of that precious choice.
Isn't that a false dichotomy? Aren't you saying that you can not increase the standard of your life or somebody else' life unless you don't have a choice? If you, and other people, will FREELY vote for being FORCED to help people, doesn't that mean that you WANT to help them? You don't have a problem with helping people, as long as you are FORCED to?
Are you saying that a society in which 100% of the people were happy slaves with high standards of living is ideal?
I think it is more effective to have a safety net, than having a couple of people here and there extend a hand, some of them may be making valiant efforts, but with a safety net no one falls through, no man is left behind.
I do not consider myself a slave, I have just as much freedom as you have, if not more, I just have to share it with others.
Are you willing to pay into this safety net? I am, too. Are you willing to pay to help other people? So am I. Are you willing pay for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, and for the use of torture or rendition, and for people to be thrown into slave labor camps called prisons for smoking pot? Maybe you are, but I am not.
That's the problem with force. The safety net you are talking about is a great idea. FORCE corrupts this idea and turns it into something ugly.
I already responded to this, saying that those nasty things are no where to be found in here. in fact it seems that a prime of a place where these nasty things are happening is the US, but wait don't they have like the lowest taxes in the world...?
There are other reasons why the US is the way it is. The past 60 years of wealth has been due to a collapse of their competition, and the government grew dramatically during that time, justified by the very same arguments you have, and leading to the monster we have today.
The US has the highest corporate taxes. As far as personal income taxes, they ARE pretty low compared to Most European countries. Almost as low as Japan and Ireland, much higher than New Zealand.
@Glo0myWizard I don't think anyone disagrees about your system. Here in the U.S., things are very different. In your country, there might be more people involved with the political system who actually give a shit.
To me it seems like government can't work in a huge economy, but it can in a smaller one, where corporate interests are not ubiquitous. In the U.S., the amount of corporate interest is INSANE. In other parts of the world, not so much.
"government can't work in a huge economy, but it can in a smaller one"
I agree to an extent. The more people are under the control of a government, even a democratic one, the less say each individual has, and because we have a fixed number of representatives while the population increases, this problem is only getting worse.
The solution, in my opinion, is to make government voluntary. That's the only way it will have any real level of accountability.
"The solution, in my opinion, is to make government voluntary. That's the only way it will have any real level of accountability."
Agreed. Governments can function to an extent when a large portion of the community has vested interest and participation, because the community is then looking after itself. I still disagree with it, and would prefer 100% voluntary government. But you won't find as much corruption and corporatism in a government with more community involvement.
"money hogging bastard"? What does that mean? Savings? People don't have the right to save? Or people only have the right to save up to a certain amount? Just how much money can I save before you call me a "money hogging bastard"?
Also, if I contribute to various charities but withhold my income taxes because I am philosophically opposed to war, am I still a "money hogging bastard" that should be put in prison?
I thought it was funny when he brought up Robin Hood. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor, yes, but the rich were the tax collectors - the Evil Sheriff of Nottingham, and gave it back to the serfs - the people who had their property taking from them, via taxes.
I missed the point of the movie? I don't think so. In fact, I agree with a lot of what he said. I just disagree with him about the government being this wonderful thing that will stop this kind of thing. After all, the government was involved in a lot of the problems described in the movie. Do you disagree? If so, why? EXPLAINING why I'm wrong will help me understand your position much more telling me I make you sick.
The level of leverage different people and groups in society have differs, due to the position in society in which they are born. Equality of oportunity (in law) does not mean equality of oportunity (in reality) when distracting stress in home life, less nutritious diets, lower ability to deal with learning difficulties, etc, caused by poverty are taken into account. We don't need to scrap government, we need to reform it to improve competition and social mobility.
I gave plenty of examples where the very poorest people in this country used the leverage of their NUMBERS to enact change.
Law has nothing to do with equality or justice. "Law" is about violence being in the hands a small minority.
I'm all about improving competition and social mobility. Why would you choose a vehicle for this that has historically blocked social mobility and put up barriers to entry for competition?
The current legal system grows out of capitalism as branches on that tree, unless its regulated by some external influence, wealth and the power it brings will accumulate from generation to generation, and competition will wane alongside social mobility as the educational and health starting point of the middle class /poor decreases. 'Socialism' seemed to work in Europe, well, limited regulation in certain market sectors to limit this kind of cycle. We do need to think harder about solution tho
Capitalism, is not the issue, and Michael Moore, does not make this clear in his movies.Capitalism, is the biggest reason why America, and other nations from have been so successful. Socialism, has failed, and we need Capitalism if we want a successful economy.
KevZen2000 3 weeks ago
awesome!
i have a counter argument, but i cant explain myself... xD
MrSanktjakob 10 months ago
Wow idiot . Socialism is not about more state control. The good part you pictured in the video is more anarchy or socialism. Where the people or workers are in control is NOT capitalism. Capitalism allows stockholders who DO NOT WORK but make money. Socialism is democracy within a company you could say. Wouldn't you like that? Where work actually pays off. Stockholders who don't work should not make money. Socialism is the answer. Socialism is not more power to government.
3bajs 1 year ago
@3bajs
"Wow idiot. Socialism is not about more state control"
Sure, if you define "socialism" as anarchism. However, most of the definitions of "socialism" put the state as the vehicle for the kind of changes you are talking about.
I think 90% of the disagreements in politics have to do with disagreements about semantics - I don't care what label you use, using force and violence against non-violent people (aka "statism") is still wrong.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Whether special interests are affecting the Federal Reserves motives are obvious; they are.
My point is that the Federal Reserve does not cause the boom and bust cycles. The heart of the current financial crisis lies within the Shadow Banking Industry, which is exempt from regulations pertaining to deposit banks.
Since the late 90's, 31 regulatory proposals were heavily lobbied against, and successfully shot down. The folks we hate love deregulated industry, as seen by what they lobby for.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
The folks we hate LOVE regulation if it drives out their competitors, gives them a monopoly, or mandates the purchase of their products and services. They just don't like the regulations that make them less profit. Luckily for them, they have a disproportionate say in which regulations pass and which do not.
However, ALL regulation is a threat of violence - first through fines, then through arrest and imprisonment. Control of such violence is extremely attractive to them.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
If the banks love financial regulation, why lobby so aggressively against it?
Taxes aren't violence. They're part of the paradigm of society, in which everyone chips in for mutual benefits.
If you don't like taxes, quit driving on roads, don't go to public school, don't ever receive emergency medical care, don't call the police or fire department if you're in danger, etc.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
Everybody "chipping in" would be voluntary. If you threaten to kidnap me, tie me up, and throw me in a cage if I don't give you money, I consider that a violent act.
The government has a monopoly, enforce by violence, on many essential services. Why is this a good thing?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek it's their money anyway. every dollar you have, unless you own a gold mine, is essentially a loan from the government. they are the ones who give your money value. Right there, you have essential government intervention. unpaid loans from anyone else, and you get broken limbs, or worse.
Now, this system of Lazze fair, essentially what you're advocating, has been tried. and it resulted is a horrible state of affairs. Relative slavery, disregard for health, and mass pollution.
beren082 1 year ago
@beren082
Currency don't have intrinsic value unless backed by a commodity, like gold. YOU give the dollar it's value, by WORKING for it. If nobody worked for dollars, they would be completely valueless.
"Lazze fair" essentially means "without violent coercion".Taxation is a FORM of slavery, the health of the U.S. populace doesn't correlate to the size of government, and the USG is the biggest polluter on the planet. Your argument is one of effects, and those effects are debatable.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek All currency today, no matter where it comes from, is backed by nothing but the word of a government. the gold standard was retired long ago. it doesn't matter how hard I work for my dollar, it's just a piece of paper (or a cluster of bit in a computer) if the government can't vouch for it. We have this system because Gold wasn't cutting it. if all income had to correspond to a certain amount of precious metal, then there wouldn't be enough money to pay everyone.
beren082 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek "Lazze Faire" means to let it be, to let the chips fall where they may and people act in what way suits them. it meant people could be as tyrannical as they wanted; and led to forced child labor, high work related mortality rates, unhealthy food, and poisonous pharmaceuticals. The government is, in fact, not the largest polluter, it is individuals who consume the most energy, and corporate entities who base factories in areas with no pollution laws.
beren082 1 year ago
@beren082
"unpaid loans from anyone else, and you get broken limbs, or worse."
Loan sharks STILL EXIST, as do other lenders who DON'T resort to breaking limbs. To say that, without the state, ALL loans would be backed by violence is RIDICULOUS.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek How is it ridiculous? if people (especially large, impersonal corporations) didn't think that the state would harshly punish them for engaging in violence in order to ensure that a loan is repaid, then they would most certainly use it. Violence is in fact quite an effective deterrent to delinquency. Government reprisal isn't anywhere near that harsh. you spend a few months in a minimum security prison.
beren082 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek You're essentially paying for the right to do business within the United States. But you're also paying for all the services that come along with living and doing business in the U.S.. You have various public service entities that protect your safety from natural and man made situations; you're paying for a safety net, so that all is not lost if you hit a snag; for national defense. but more importantly, you're represented within government. you have a say in decision making.
beren082 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek it's the same principal as a hotel, you pay for the room, you pay for the cleaning service, for the food, for the security, for the entertainment, for electricity, for the communications. you're certainly free to do business elsewhere, but you'd have to pay for nearly anywhere else, and not likely get the same services, or you can find an area free of all regulation, and be subject to anyone else who wants to do business there.
beren082 1 year ago
Actually, the boom and busts became severe in the late 1800's because of the Industrial Revolution. The Fed has stabilized the economy in the past, but they've also fucked up. It's not a conspiracy; it's a matter of incompetence.
For example, after the 1929 crash, the Fed reduced the money supply, which amplified the blow. In the early 2000's, interest rates were set low to lessen the effects of the dot-com burst and 9/11.
The Fed is used to inflate/contract an economy in disequilibrium.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
There's only so much incompetence can account for. The fact is each of these booms and busts have had some clear winners and some clear losers, and the general population has always been the clear loser. This is about the dominant institutions we have and the inequity that arises from their conflicts of interests.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
When I refer to unmanaged Capitalism, I am speaking of the parallel banking phenom which is similar to the stock market - which is right next to agriculture in defining ideal capitalism. Parallel banking was the culprit behind the collapse.
I wasn't referring to the entire US economy.
The cycle can be determined by the Fed, but that isn't usually the case. The Fed uses interest rates and monetary supply to stabilize the already occurring cycles.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
Yes, that's what the Federal Reserve claims. That is the "purpose" of it, but that's not exactly what the historical evidence suggests, is it? The business cycle has become much more pronounced since the FED's inception in 1913, and each cycle has concentrated more wealth into fewer hands.
The "shadow banking system" consists of people who are not affiliated with banks lending money. "Regulating" this would give MORE power to the banks.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
I couldn't find your comment on Current's video, so I'll reply here.
Section 5000A waives criminalization of not complying with the mandate. No liens or levies can be filed against your assets, so it's basically just a fine. The fine cannot exceed more than 1% of the violator's income. The IRS may be involved with the fine, but not in the conventional manner of taking your shit.
Whether or not the law unfolds consistently according to the bill is a different scenario...
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
How does the bill "require" people to get insurance, but that requirement is not enforced? Why else would the IRS get involved?
Where in the bill does it EXPLICITLY state that these penalties are exempt from TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 75, Subchapter A, PART I, Section 7203 of the US Code?
At some point, men with guns will have to be involved. Otherwise, the 40 million people who don't have health insurance right now simply won't pay into it.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Blaming the predatory lending and sub-prime loan crisis on the CRA is inaccurate.
The CRA used incentives and disincentives to prevent banks from Redlining certain demographics. There was no mandate, and there weren't even incentives to lend sub-prime loans.
The reason sub-prime loans were so popular is because risk could be swapped through a CDS, and short term profits were excessive through the use of derivatives.
Moore's movie was showing the results of Capitalism being unmanaged....
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
I see your point about the CRA, and I've made a note in my video.
However, the idea that our current system (with is hundreds of thousands of laws) is "unmanaged" is also inaccurate. The fact that the state operates in such as a way as to protect the banks and not the people is no surprise, as the banks practically own the state.
If you call this "unmanaged capitalism", I share your hatred of it, but I call it "plutocracy", and don't think violence can solve the problem.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
The problem I have stated is not because the system isn't 100% free market, it is as explain voter apathy, total free market would only guarantee it would quickly become a Elites with not hope of the middle class to control it, the reason now that market manipulation is going on and system support corporatism is because people sit back and allow lobbyist to run the show, imagine how fast political area would clean up if all politicians where to be audited and the findings be publicly available.
whydid666 1 year ago
Yeah, without social policies and regulation, the middle class would be non-existent.
Capitalism is great at wiping out the little guys with its natural boom and bust cycles that obliterate small business, and thus competition. After that, you have the gargantuan wealth gap.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
The "business cycle" has a lot more to do with the Federal Reserve than GM or Coca-Cola.
The biggest obstacle to small business is government regulation and taxes, especially when those regulations are written by lobbyists working for the big guys, as MOST of the regulations are.
The illusion is that the American People have control over the state. If Moore's film does anything, it shows us that this is a fantasy.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
ya but the problem i keep saying isn't government, it is "voter apathy," votes are more important then lobbyist funds but if you know you can take cash from anyone and people will vote for you all the same then you can be a lobbyist pet, if all people became politically active and all government spending was open for public to see, we'd see a change. People do have control over the state, there just to lazy or ignorant to use it and Moore's film help wake people up.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
So how do you solve the problem of voter apathy? Make a new law? FORCE people to vote? FORCE people to read about the issues?
The phrase "if all people became politically active" may as well be "if only magical faeries were in charge of congress". The question is "WHY are people apathetic?". People are apathetic because they have come to the realization that the government doesn't give a shit about them and never has.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
how do you solve voter apathy, easy you make lots of load noise like what Moore did. You demand and explain this to as many people as possible so you build a block that pushes for politicians pockets be open for the public to see what $ is going in from who. You change the education system to promote voter activism.
Also because gov do what is popular, e.i. if racism is popular be racist, or if the opposite is popular do that, suggest the gov does care what the pop thinks.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
There's already lots of laws regarding campaign finance. More laws doesn't change the system.
Notice that all of the things you mentioned don't involve violence? Why, then, do you insist on using popular movements to attempt to influence violent institutions rather that deal directly with those individuals who are causing the problem?
Politicians do care about what people think during campaigns to get elected, and to manipulate people in supporting their actions.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
because the pen is mightier then sword, getting rid of the government wouldn't solve anything, and taking out system that we do need and rely on even if they are tainted with poison will not help. Also ya you could look as Australia where is law that you vote, not law that you be aware of what going on but they get 99% vote turn out, and places of higher education like Sweden you have large number of common political activists.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
I'm not talking about "getting rid of" the government. I don't think that would be practical. What I'm advocating is the UNDERSTANDING of the nature of the state. Once people understand what the state actually is, I don't think rational, ethical people can willingly support it.
Why do you think violence is the best way to solve societal problems?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
never once supported violence, actually opened my last comment saying words care more weight then violence, i do call for action, the marching, sign waving, information, and letters to leaders...but with my opening statement damned violence calling it weak, so please do not misrepresent my position.
While i like that your advocating awareness of government, i do think your misrepresenting it as an inhuman machine that controls people.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
I'm sorry, I thought you were advocating passing laws against non-violent acts.
Whenever you make a law, you are, in effect, saying "do this and bad things will happen to you". Those "bad things" vary greatly, but they ALL eventually use violence to back them up.
I don't think government is a machine. It is an institution, like any other institution. The only difference is that governments murder and enslave millions of people.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Ya that is the failure of democracy when the people become content, lazy, apathetic and ignorant of the ongoing of there government, I understand the US founding fathers words "a state strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take it all away." The more power to government the more active the people need to be, that why i detest notion of 100% free market it an excuse for the population to be lazy and allow a few elites to manipulate an unguided system.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
I think you're assessment of the problem is correct. However, the fact that you detest the notion of a 100% free market indicates, to me, that you are still clinging to a solution that has never worked.
The idea that a free market makes people lazy and allow a few elites to manipulate "an unguided system" doesn't really hold water. Elites, right now, manipulate a GUIDED - a system that already has the kind of consolidation of power that they can most easily exploit.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Do not get my wrong I'm very much a centralist and see the value in Capitalism it raw economic power and libertarian freedoms it can offer, but i understand that is if i can afford it. When a system favors Person over People, if I'm not that person then I'm powerless to effect proper change, though being apart of the People you can effect change so just pointing out error in your comment on being fighting the state (and i mean democratic state when i say "The State" not commy USSR or China ect.)
whydid666 1 year ago
I agree. Allowing power come into the hands of too few people is a dangerous idea, and groups of people need to leverage their numbers to achieve social justice.
There's nothing wrong with getting together and using our numbers to defend ourselves from imbalances of power, like banks.
However, there is an imbalance of influence over the state. The people inside those concentrations of power have a disproportionate say in the very same institution that is supposed to offset this imbalance.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Okay i think i should point out something "The State" is but the embodiment of peoples will........so if the majority of people decide to discriminate against a group, guess who the "The State" will discriminate against, if the majority become aware of a discrimination and decide to end end it, guess what "The State" will abolish.
"The State" = We The People
that is why i prefer Social Democratic ideals, because I have power over the State being apart of it, while Capitalism = Person
whydid666 1 year ago
I understand what you mean. Better the criminal that you can vote out than the criminal you can not.
As long as democratic forms FUNCTIONED, as Chomsky would put it, the government would be the will of the people, but "the people" are a diverse group of individuals. Some of them gravitate toward collectivism, and I would never threaten them with violence for doing so.
You have power over the state? Prove it. Get them to stop arresting people for smoking pot.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
California is working on it.
(Marijuana comment)
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
You're not understanding how the Shadow Banking Industry works. They aren't affiliated with the banks because they practically ARE the banks.
This was enabled by the conglomeration of commercial and investor banks following deregulation in 1999. Because of that, the banks used deposit money to trade around ABS's with other financial institutions such as Beare Sterns. This was the incentive for sub-prime loans.
Parallel banking was just an opening for the banks to escape regulations...
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
Maybe you're right. Maybe we need more laws. If we just threaten the right people with arrest and imprisonment, everything will be better. That's your position, right?
It doesn't bother you in the least that the people writing and promoting the laws are affiliated with the very same institutions that you feel need to be regulated?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Another regulation I'm in favor of is campaign finance reform. That might be too violent though, right?
We should do like you want, and just dismantle all forms of governance. You want to be like hunter-gatherers. That's your position, right?
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
Do you intend on throwing people in prison for giving too much to a political campaign? Yes, I would consider that too violent, never mind the fact that campaign finance reform can't work. (When you legislate what is bought and sold, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislation)
Modern society consists of many institutions, may of which I like. I am simply advocating the removal of those institutions that initiate violence against other human beings.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
I advocated campaign finance reform. You like to straw-man a lot.
Campaign finance reform doesn't throw anyone in jail, it just prohibits corporations from influencing legislation. It's similar to the separation of church and state. Is that too violent for you as well?
Again, taxes are not violence. To live in this society, you must pay taxes to utilize the benefits. If you aren't doing so, you are breaking the law, and consequences ensue. If you don't like it, go live in the woods.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
So you want to pass campaign finance laws, but you don't want to enforce them? I'm not sure what the straw man is, if that's not the case.
When you "prohibit" something, you make laws against that activity, and set up policies to enforce those laws. Enforcement IS a violent act.
Repeating "taxes are not violence" doesn't change the fact that the threat of violence is used to collect them.
I'm not against society, but society is NOT government.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
The government is made up of people, and the problem is that these people are corporation's bitches...I as a citizen like you believe this is wrong, but i think the government should be the citizen bitch, "government's should fear there people."
Ya i believe that but i think the people in government should be afraid of there people for unemployment reasons.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
The government is large concentration of violent power, consisting of individuals paid by tax dollars, which are collected under the threat of arrest and imprisonment. As such, it is extremely attractive for those with great power to have a hold of.
As long as the government takes money from the people under threat, government will NEVER be the "citizen's bitch". EVER.
It's like a mafia thug coming to collect protection money - a new mob boss doesn't change anything.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
If politicians accept contributions, they are removed from office. If the fraud is extensive, then I favor jail time because I have little sympathy for corporate whores in Congress.
You argue against laws, yet you are in favor of society. What you fail to acknowledge is that society only exists because of laws and governance. In the lawless society (oxymoron) that you advocate, it's just pure anarchy, and basically survival of the fittest.
Laws are the only reason you have property rights.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
"Laws are the only reason you have property rights."
Think about that for a second. The reason why I have property rights is because of laws and a government which has the right to violate my "property rights".
Rights have nothing to do with government. You don't get your rights from the government. They can take them away, but they cant' give them to you.
I advocate for a voluntary society based on the non-aggression principle, not some hellish mad max vision of chaos.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
No, according to the constitution, the government cannot just come and take your property for no reason.
On the other hand, without government, somebody else could steal your property from you. Without government, who's to stop them? You could shoot them, but that would be "violent"; something you're strongly against.
You could pay for private police forces, but what if you cannot afford protection, or what if they deny you coverage for whatever reason, like most insurance companies do?
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
"the government cannot just come and take your property for no reason."
Yes, it has to have a reason, just like kings had reasons for taking property from the serfs.
Do you really think that we need an institution which has the right to take your property in order to preventing people from taking your property? Without a government, there would be a DEMAND for property protection, which can be fulfilled by many means, both private and communal, which don't involve theft.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
People NATURALLY group together. Voluntary collectivism and socialized institutions are the true basis for society. A state masquerades as an organic, bottom-up institution, but they are nothing of the kind. They are really a cancerous growth on society that just keeps getting bigger and bigger - their solution to every problem in society is to pass a law - to threaten people with violence. This is impractical, unreasonable, and unethical.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
so what do you propose, also i love how people miss this, what is the tax money you spent on used for?
Also do you drive on roads?
Did you receive or send your children to public education?
Do you use the public sewage system?
all this cost money, and guess how you pay for that, taxes, i go to a restaurant eat there and leave without paying you bet I'd get tossed in jail so why is i different when i use public services that i don't have the money to buy all for myself.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
"what is the tax money you spent on used for?"
Most of it goes to medicade and medicare, which causes my health care to go up and is practically a subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry. It also goes to social security, which, at my age, I'll never see. A huge chunk of it goes toward the development and use of technology used to kill people.
The tiny fraction that remains goes toward services which the state enforces its monopoly on, and toward uncountable bureaucracy.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@whydid666
Nobody is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to eat. There aren't any restaurants that go around shutting other restaurants down using violence.
If you want to stay with the restaurant analogy, imagine if all restaurants were owned by McDonalds, and if you wanted to sell food, you would have to ask their permission. They demand money from you, regardless of whether you eat out, or whether you approve of what's on the menu.
THAT is analogous to the state.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@whydid666
"Also do you drive on roads?"
I work from home, but yes. However, I don't use them as often as most people do.
"Did you receive or send your children to public education?"
I suffered through the public indoctrination system's youth prison, yes.
"Do you use the public sewage system?"
Yes, and I'm completely willing to pay for the service. However, I don't think people who own a septic system or a leech field should pay for it, do you?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
well people who use septic typically live outside of town/city so they only pay provincial taxes cheaper then city don't know what it is like for US.
But still you work at home, how many of your customer what ever use roads to make there wealth that they give to you. How expensive would you're food be if it had even greater shipping cost having traveled on private roads.
Would be able to read to be able to use a computer, and same with your customers without your public schools
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
True, a state funds these things, and yes, it does bring the cost down if we force others to pay for the services we think we need.
My parents taught me how to read before I entered school. In school, I learned to sit still, shut up, and obey authority. I was also taught that learning is a boring, tedious chore.
At what point does something become so expensive that you justify threatening people with violence if they don't give you money to pay for it?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
i haven't said violence in justifiable in anyway. I can't comment on US tax rates but i figure it like the Canadian system, based on income, lower for families, and nothing on low income, most people in my country who get send to jail over taxes are normaly steeling and into criminal activity, and police should never use force on non-violent people. And how would you bar non-tax paying citizens from everything in your country?
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
I realize that it is difficult to see the violence inherent in the statist system, but there ARE laws forcing you to pay and those laws ARE enforced.
"And how would you bar non-tax paying citizens from everything in your country?"
I wouldn't. It would be far too expensive and not worth the trouble. The question is not how to force people to pay, but how to raise funds.
There are many ways to raise funds without resorting to threatening people with prison.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@whydid666
"police should never use force on non-violent people"
Is refusing to pay taxes a violent act? Is smoking marijuana? Out of all the laws that have ever been written, how many of them do you suppose only prohibit acts of violence? Is it more than 1%?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
There was a political activist in my city who passed away at the proud age of 87, he had been a big pain in the ass of city council for that past 64 years making noise, protesting, exposing corruption, he got dubbed as an unpaid civil servant. He had been arrested many times for "disturbing the peace", and never once fought, always was polite and knew the drill very well, and you know what, he had the media with him taking picture of him calmly being arrested and carried away.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
If I put a gun to your feet and tell you to dance, you can choose not to comply. If you dance, and I in turn don't shoot you in the foot, is it then not violence? Yes, we can dance with the current political system all day long, and if we focus enough time and energy, and get arrested a few times, maybe we'll make a dimes worth of difference.
However, shouldn't the first step in ending this kind of corruption be to stop supporting it?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
you know the the cops stopped putting hand cuffs on him because big pictures of him being calmly arrested looked back and only made the public backlash that much worst. Guy never incited violence and was never held for more then 24 hours and was always cleared of any charges. Gandhi really taught the world how to herd, how to resist and not use violence, and guess how many time he had been arrested.
You want cannabis to be legal, create a larger block then the anti-block.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
Gandhi is a great example of what I'm talking about. He is proof that you can solve societal problems without the need for violence, by having courage and determination, and not backing down from your principles.
Cannabis laws aren't in place because the masses overwhelming demand laws against cannabis.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
there isn't I'm not sure if you haven't heard of the "moral right" you know that large christian political block and huge media campaign that paints cannabis along side meth, and one thing about the moral right...there more active then pot smokers, see if your pissed about law against something you seem to know how to protest and inform the public, have at it instead of bitchen about it, bitch about it to other people and make change.
whydid666 1 year ago
@whydid666
"you seem to know how to protest and inform the public, have at it instead of bitchen about it"
What is the difference between "protesting and informing the public" and "bitching about it"? Aren't YOU a member of the public? Aren't we communicating? The key here is change - which means attempting to influence the thoughts and actions of individuals. As long as change is seen in purely legal terms rather than cultural, nothing will change.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
I agree, humans are a hierarchically hardwired species. We do naturally urbanize, and eventually govern one another.
However, government is only unethical in your subjective views. Government, within itself, is not impractical, nor unreasonable.
What you're describing is Marxism. "Everyone chips in voluntarily" That idea was discredited for being unworkable, long ago.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
"We do naturally urbanize, and eventually govern one another."
We eventually govern one another? I disagree. Maybe my understanding of sociology leaves something to be desired, but when you go out with your friends or family, which one of them governs you?
As long as "government" does not INITIATE violence, it is not impractical or unreasonable. What IS impractical and unreasonable is the initiation of violence. Violence for any act other than self-defense is wrong.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
If it's family, my mother/ father will, and if it's friends, the biggest/strongest alpha male will govern.
Hierarchy is hardwired into our brains because of our evolutionary history. Forming groups that were lead by a member[s] was evolutionarily advantageous. The same reason we learn communication so easily is the same reason we urbanize.
Without the initiation of enforcing taxes, so many people will opt out, the government will become useless, thus impractical.
You got it all backwards.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
"the biggest/strongest alpha male will govern."
Taking a leadership role is one thing. When that leader forces others to give him money under threat of violence, that is quite another. How long would you keep an "alpha male" friend that taxed you?
"Without the initiation of enforcing taxes, so many people will opt out, the government will become useless, thus impractical."
Was the government useless and impractical prior to the implementation of the income tax in 1913?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Taxes have been progressively added over time to provide the lower classes with more benefits and opportunities.
Just because there wasn't an income tax, that doesn't mean there weren't any taxes before 1913.
Also, by pointing out the alpha male, I was simply answering your question by showing that humans are naturally hierarchical. You're moving the goal posts around to avoid the inevitable - you're wrong.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
Point taken about the income tax. I'm glad you at least agree that the the lack of an income tax would not make the government "useless, thus impractical". I'm highly skeptical of the idea that government really helps us in the lower classes, however.
I'm not trying to move the goal post. You offered an example, and I showed you why it was not apt because it didn't involve the threat of violence. Authority comes in many forms, not all of which are arbitrary, like the state.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
If you were going to put a label on what I'm talking about, it is not "marxism". It is "agorism".
You can't make EVERYONE chip in voluntarily. Some will chip in voluntarily and some won't. To make EVERYONE chip in, it can not be voluntary, and thus needs to be backed up by the threat of violence, which is the system we currently have.
Yes, violence works. If I put a gun to your head, chances are you'll do what I say. Is that a good reason for putting a gun to your head?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Without the enforcement of chipping in, nobody will chip in at all. This has been extensively proven in human sociology and psychology, scientifically. The tragedy of the commons goes through this pretty well.
Without the enforcement aspect, civilization remains in its social darwinist stage of "everybody for themselves" and "no rules apply".
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
Who is forcing Americans to donate over $200 Billion per year to charity?
The tragedy of the commons results from "public" ownership (which means no ownership), not in the lack of violence. Voluntary, distributed ownership does not have this problem, as is demonstrated in cooperatives.
People will ALWAYS depend on other people, and there are countless rules in every social situation, the vast majority of which do not need any threats of violence to enforce.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
$200 billion wouldn't even cover Medicaid. Plus, the majority of those donations go to the super needy, disasters, etc.
People will be much less willing to donate for unemployment benefits.
Taxes our needed to run our current society with all the public programs that can't be extended to everyone from the private sector.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
You claimed that people will not contribute unless they are being forced to. You're right, however, in that it might be true that people won't contribute to the charities YOU LIKE without being forced to. It also won't be possible to wage wars of aggression unless people are forced to pay for them.
We all like the idea of caring for the elderly and the impaired, and of helping the poor. Why do you think this "can't be" done without force?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
I'm not the only one who likes those charities. If that were true, the representatives who want to enact them wouldn't be voted in.
The government vastly helps us in the lower classes. Without public programs like education, roads, healthcare, student loans, and other entitlements, there wouldn't be nearly as much opportunity. Capitalism naturally gravitates toward very rich and poor classes. It's up to the government to provide opportunities for a middle class to exist.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
I understand that is the theory. However, how is it practiced? If what you said were true, there should be a negative correlation between the size of government and the number of people below the poverty line. However, the actual data shows that poverty remains relatively steady while government grows. This is because those entitlements that supposedly increase opportunities is contrasted with government regulation creating various barriers to entry, removing opportunity.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
For one, it's not the physical size of the government that changes poverty levels. Secondly, poverty is down significantly since the 1950's, and hit an all time low in 2000.
I understand your point about government programs crowding out private sector opportunities, and that can only be determined case by case. If you extract Medicare, Medicaid, police, fire, education, roads, FDA, VA, SS, SCHIP, and various other programs, poverty WILL rise.
IFloridaMotocrossI 1 year ago
I think Michael Moore's next shitty movie should be called Buffet: A Love Story. Remember this fat retard said George W. Bush was going to bring back the draft....pretty close Michael.
TheAndrew668 1 year ago
@TheAndrew668
I thought that was a valid prediction. I'm not surprised that he was wrong, but I wouldn't have been surprised if the draft was reinstated, either.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
I agree 100%!
hanzo138 1 year ago
@hanzo138
Oh, come on, now. No 100%. I don't trust anyone who agrees with me any more than 99%. Hell, I don't even agree with myself 100%.
Just kidding. Thanks.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
I am allways amazed how uneducatd libertarians are when it come to "The State".
They allways discribe it as some ominous coherent entity, that we simply would have to get rid off and out of a sudden the sun will shine and it will rain gold from the sky for all of us.
The worst is how libertarians allways equal capitalism with free markets. Capitalism is a form of free market economy, like a whale is a mammal. That doesnt mean all mammals live in the ocean.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay
I agree with much of what you are saying. I definitely don't agree with libertarians who think that getting rid of the state will magically transform society into a utopia. I'm more of an agorist than a libertarian, myself.
However, I also don't think that the unidirectional monopoly on the legal initiation of violence is a rational, necessary, or ethical way of solving societal problems.
I thought that my tree analogy was more apt than your whale analogy, but I see how it fits.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
But then most of your critique falls apart. Its not surprising, that most artrocities caused by Capitlism involve "The State" as an Executor of Capitalism, like the artrocities of Fascism, Racism, Communism or Religion involve the state too.
To say the state is responsible, not capitalism, is like saying it wasnt antisemitism that caused the holocaust, but bureaucracy.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay
"Its not surprising that most artrocities caused by Capitlism [...] Fascism, Racism, Communism or Religion involve the state."
Yes. And yet you can't see the pattern?
"...is like saying it wasnt antisemitism that caused the holocaust, but bureaucracy"
Who was promoting the antisemitism? Who paid to build the concentration camps? Who gathered people into gas chambers? Who carried out the executions?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Again your argumentation follows the common libertarian pattern which is based on a logical fallacy: States commit crimes, thus we must abolish states. Well, cultures make ideologies, thus we must abandon culture? Societies tend to discrimination, thus we dissolve community? Humans commit artrocities, thus we must abolish humans?
Its pointless to debate on such a level, no insult intended.
13otany13ay 1 year ago
@13otany13ay
"States commit crimes, thus we must abolish states"
That's not my argument against the state, but the fact that states do horrible things is not exactly an argument FOR the state, either.
Culture, societies, and humans all have their flaws. Take humans, for instance. Humans CAN initiate violence against others, but you're right. The fact that they CAN is not an argument against humans. The problem is with the initiation of violence, and I think we should stop supporting it.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
"...Lack of violence in a transaction"
Then there never can be a widespread truly free market.
brutus149 1 year ago
@brutus149
So what you're saying is that transactions without the initiation of force can not be possible without the initiation of force?
It's that like saying you can't decide who you will have sex with unless you are occasionally raped?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago 2
@somecomputergeek If people can free renege on contract obligations, the contract is worthless, but mostly to the poor and those that cannot fund private armies. To use your rape analogy, the current system, those with control use lube, in a free market, forces will come by that arent so kind, and there isnt much to stop them if theyre the only game in town.
brutus149 1 year ago
@brutus149
"If people can free renege on contract obligations, the contract is worthless"
Not so at all:
watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw
"there isnt much to stop them if theyre the only game in town. "
But you ARE supporting "the only game in town". You're justifying being raped because you're comparing it to people who rape you without lube? WTF?
Why don't you just say that rape is wrong in the first place, rather than support people who rape others out of fear of some rapist who is even worse?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek The rape part analogy you started makes it difficult to retort using your analogy framework.
And those DROs sound like a euphemism for a State.
Anarchy only works if no one group tries for a power grab, regardless of whether people think govt are some evil massively oppressive entity (in not like statist just dont want the Wrong Lizard to get into power). Anarchist sound a lot like pacifist throwing up the peace sign while staring down the barrel of a rifle
brutus149 1 year ago
@brutus149 (oh the irony you might be thinking).
brutus149 1 year ago
@brutus149
Love the Hitchhiker's reference - the wrong lizard is the PERFECT analogy.
Maybe "agorist" is a better term than "arnachist".
I have no problem with self-defense, even collective self-defense. However, I don't like having a small group of people that you're not allowed to defend yourself against.
I don't know if DROs are the way to go, but they are NOT like states, as they are VOLUNTARY and allow for COMPETITION, unlike the state.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
I completely disagree on almost all levels. This was just non-sense. Anarchy versus capitalism versus socialism?
Unsubscribed :(.
77gustavo 1 year ago
@77gustavo
I understand you disagree, but it doesn't really help me understand why unless you point out my flaws.
"Anarchy versus capitalism versus socialism?"
I thought it was more about state coercion vs. voluntary free association.
In Moore's film, "capitalism" is a system which uses state coercion to enforce arbitrary property rights that favor the rich, and "socialism" is the proposed solution to this by increasing state power.
How is this assessment incorrect?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
The whole thing is not a question of big vs small government. The government/police is also not evil per se. The job of the police is just to enforce the law. If you don't like it, change the law (probably by changing the government).
If you perceive the government/police as the bodyguard of the big business, you have to change the laws in favor of the people/consumers/workers. That's all. In some cases that requires regulating the markets in others not..
77gustavo 1 year ago
@77gustavo
I understand what you're saying. That, after all, is the common solution - change the laws. However, it is exactly this method that has brought about the failures seen in the film.
Even if you were to somehow figure out the magic law that would make everything better, you still need to pass it in a system that is controlled by the people who necessitate such changes in the law. It's a catch-22.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
The Government IS The People. The "State" is run by Corporations through puppet politicians making "regulations" and giving them "corporate welfare." So, Corporations are the new "State." The State is supposed to be the People.
xxxLibertinexxx 1 year ago
The political system is a capitalist system. It is a class system where the propertied class oppresses the non-propertied class. The non-propertied class can only sell their labour power to the capitalist and get exploited as a result. That's how the capitalist gets his profits - surplus value.
Free market? Haven't you heard the saying "Money makes money"? Somebody with no money can't take part in the free market. There is no free market for him.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago 2
@dewinthemorning
"Somebody with no money can't take part in the free market."
Who is forcing people with no money not to take part in the free market? Even beggars take part in the free market. The only way you can't take part in the free market is if you hide in a cave somewhere.
If you think "capitalism" is the political system, then I agree with you, as I don't like the political system. I also agree that this political system is oppressive and favors the very rich.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek I am sorry, I don't understand you. Look at your sentence "Who is forcing people with no money not to take part in the free market?" Nobody is forcing people, the fact that they have no money is enough. "Even beggars take part in the free market." How?
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
The free market is the world around you that doesn't involve violent coercion, including your relationships between friends and family. Everything you do is part of the free market as long as there is no force involved. Begging somebody for money is part of the free market. Giving money to charity is part of the free market.
The only time an action is not part of the free market is when "freedom" does not apply, as in when somebody FORCES you to give them something.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
"money" is simply a way to represent CAPITAL. Capital is any kind of possession, which includes money, but also includes clothing, tools, and products. Individuals use their LABOR to convert one form of capital into another form of capital.
When somebody FORCES you to give up your capital or FORCES you to labor for them, they are claiming ownership of the product of your labor. We call this "slavery" or "theft", unless it's the state doing it. Then, we call it "taxation".
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek I am sorry, money is not always capital. It's capital if you use it to buy machines, build a plant, hire workers, and make profit from their labour, which you then add to your capital. When you invest money to win more money, it's also capital.
When you save money to go on a holiday, it's not capital. Read "Capital" by Karl Marx. :)
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
Sure, you're probably right about the semantics. I guess it depends on intent. Money doesn't necessary represent capital, but it can. Whether or not it does depends on your own decisions, if you are free to make them.
The key here is being free to make those decisions. I don't want to force you to make the decisions that I think you should make. Why do you want to force others to make the decisions that you think they should make?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Have I said that I want to force anybody to make any decisions?
You say "Money doesn't necessarily represent capital, but it can. Whether or not it does depends on your own decisions, if you are free to make them." It's not so simple. If it was, almost everybody would have capital. As you know, this is far not the case.
As it happens, I am making a serious of videos about Marx, and I'll continue very soon, and I'll be talking about capital.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
"Have I said that I want to force anybody to make any decisions?"
Yes. Unless you want to give people the choice to pay taxes or not? I disagree with you about people not having capital. Almost everybody DOES have capital, or a way of getting it. Not everybody has the same amount of capital.
I look forward to your videos on Marx. Please PM me when they're ready.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Yes, I will.
Look, capital is only money that makes more money. It is not identical to money in meaning.
Taxes pay for schools, fire departments, police... and other things that everybody needs.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
If the government controlled all food production, taxes would pay for food, which everybody needs. Collectivism, I believe, is necessary. We need to contribute to groups for survival, and a democratic process of voting is great for that group. The problem comes when this group decides to use force against people not voluntarily supporting that group.
In other words, if YOU do not have the right to rob me, why do you have the right to VOTE for somebody else to rob me?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
The first paragraph of your comment sounds well-intentioned, but it's very simplistic. How do you propose to organize this 'collectivism'? I come from one of the previous socialist countries and have an allergy to the word 'collectivism'.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
"How do you propose to organize this 'collectivism'"
There are millions of institutions in society, but only a few - thes state, the mafia, gangs, use violence.
There are many methods of organizing this kind of collectivism non-violently. I "propose" using what has historically worked for billions of people.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
What has "worked historically for billions of people"? Name it.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning
I just said that there are millions of institutions in society OTHER THAN the state. How do they raise funds, help people, organize for a common purpose, etc... without violence? How do THEY do it? If I were to "name" it, I would name it "voluntaryism".
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
all good points.
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
Since when did Robin Hood become the bad guy? Allowing the government to redistribute a country's wealth does not mean giving them the right to take away your human rights.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
You don't have the right to keep the product of your own labor? If you grow a plant, care for it, weed it, fertilize it, water it, prune it, and harvest it, do you not have the right to consume it's fruit?
Sharing is great, and should be encouraged, but when somebody threatens you with violence unless you give it to him, for whatever reason, it is against your human rights.
Robin Hood is about an OUTLAW. The serfs were poor because of people like the Sheriff of Nottingham.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Do you get beaten up if you don't pay taxes in the US? Isn't it just like breaking any other law, you're held accountable in a court of law?. You don't mind laws right?
you want the freedom to eat what you have produced, which is fair enough, but this is not about your freedom. This is about those are not capable of growing their own fruit. guaranteeing them a certain standard of life. I think that is worth giving up a fraction of your fruit for.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
"Do you get beaten up if you don't pay taxes in the US?"
No. Men with guns come to your house, break down the door, tie you up, and haul you off to a prison cell where you MAY be beaten, raped, or killed.
"Isn't it just like breaking any other law?"
No. Most laws PROHIBIT unethical behavior. Tax laws FORCE YOU into unethical behavior, such as paying for wars. Do you really need a law to tell you not to kill people? To steal? To rape? Why do the consequences need to be arbitrary?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Sure some people would maybe spend the tax money poorly, but that's why we have democracy.
Not paying taxes to help others, when everyone else is paying taxes to help you is EXTREMELY unethical if you ask me.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
"Not paying taxes to help others, when everyone else is paying taxes to help you is EXTREMELY unethical if you ask me."
Not paying the money that people are FORCING me to pay is unethical? Why? Because SOME of the money will go toward helping others? By that logic, if the mafia gives money to an orphanage, it is unethical not to pay protection money.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
If you want to give up a fraction of your fruit, that's fine. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't help those less fortunate than us. Why, though, do you the right to demand that somebody else give up a fraction of their fruit? How is that any different than theft?
The PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES of being FORCED into such an arrangement (like mafia protection money) is corruption, cronyism, war, and people being thrown into jail for having the wrong vegetation in their pocket.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
simply allowing people to share if they want does not ENSURE the weaker members of society a fundamental standard of life. I believe a society is no more wealthy than it's poorest member. without regulation all we have is a frenzy where the strong pray on the weak. Jungle law basically.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
You have this conception that the state prevents the strong praying on the weak, but that's not the case. The state ENSURES that they do. When you talk about "ENSURE" people have a certain standard of life, you're talking about violence and coercion. It is those SAME SYSTEMS of violence and coercion that were highlighted in Moore's film.
We HAVE a system where the strong pray on the weak - it's called the state. Who do you think are in prison? The POOR, working as SLAVE LABOR.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
When I'm talking about ensuring people a certain standard of life I'm talking about giving everyone:
- health care
- education
- food
- shelter
- clothes
how are these bad things?
You CAN redistribute wealth without giving the state the power to fuck people over.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
"I'm talking about giving everyone"
No, you're not talking about GIVING anyone anything. You're talking about FORCING people to "give" to others.
The problem comes when we FORCE others to do anything. This ENSURES corruption. It ENSURES war. It ENSURES a prison industrial complex.
There is NOTHING WRONG with providing these things to people. I fully support it. However, can we be guaranteed that our money won't go toward killing people? NO! Not if we're being FORCED to pay.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
"You CAN redistribute wealth without giving the state the power to fuck people over. "
I agree. We actually don't disagree as much as you may think.
Americans give over $200 billion to charity every year, and no guns or prisons are necessary.
I recommend Stefan Molyneux's "statism is dead" series to better understand what I'm talking about:
watch?v=PGIgOIFdnMQ
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Let's agree to disagree for now :)
I promised myself I wouldn't get into heated arguments... as I always do. oh well.
where I live we pay 60+% tax. I'm okay with that. and all those nasty things that you predict? tbh I see far less of that here than in the US, but I might be wrong
I realize that I probably have an emotional bias somewhere, but it's hard to disregard empirical evidence that you have right between your fingers.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
If a slave got to keep 40% of the product of his labor and was well-treated by his masters, and could even vote for who ran the plantation, he is much better off than a slave whose master beats him and takes all of his money. However, he is still a slave. The difference is choice.
You are OK with 60% tax, but it doesn't matter what you are "OK" with, because you are forced to pay for it. Regardless of how we FEEL about paying taxes, the REASON WHY we pay it is the same - force.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Choice... and standard of life
I think I weigh the later higher. I think every society should strive for the highest standard of life even if that means losing some of that precious choice.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
Isn't that a false dichotomy? Aren't you saying that you can not increase the standard of your life or somebody else' life unless you don't have a choice? If you, and other people, will FREELY vote for being FORCED to help people, doesn't that mean that you WANT to help them? You don't have a problem with helping people, as long as you are FORCED to?
Are you saying that a society in which 100% of the people were happy slaves with high standards of living is ideal?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
I think it is more effective to have a safety net, than having a couple of people here and there extend a hand, some of them may be making valiant efforts, but with a safety net no one falls through, no man is left behind.
I do not consider myself a slave, I have just as much freedom as you have, if not more, I just have to share it with others.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
Are you willing to pay into this safety net? I am, too. Are you willing to pay to help other people? So am I. Are you willing pay for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people, and for the use of torture or rendition, and for people to be thrown into slave labor camps called prisons for smoking pot? Maybe you are, but I am not.
That's the problem with force. The safety net you are talking about is a great idea. FORCE corrupts this idea and turns it into something ugly.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
Aaaaaand we're back to square 1
I already responded to this, saying that those nasty things are no where to be found in here. in fact it seems that a prime of a place where these nasty things are happening is the US, but wait don't they have like the lowest taxes in the world...?
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
There are other reasons why the US is the way it is. The past 60 years of wealth has been due to a collapse of their competition, and the government grew dramatically during that time, justified by the very same arguments you have, and leading to the monster we have today.
The US has the highest corporate taxes. As far as personal income taxes, they ARE pretty low compared to Most European countries. Almost as low as Japan and Ireland, much higher than New Zealand.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard I don't think anyone disagrees about your system. Here in the U.S., things are very different. In your country, there might be more people involved with the political system who actually give a shit.
To me it seems like government can't work in a huge economy, but it can in a smaller one, where corporate interests are not ubiquitous. In the U.S., the amount of corporate interest is INSANE. In other parts of the world, not so much.
TheJacolyte 1 year ago
@TheJacolyte
"government can't work in a huge economy, but it can in a smaller one"
I agree to an extent. The more people are under the control of a government, even a democratic one, the less say each individual has, and because we have a fixed number of representatives while the population increases, this problem is only getting worse.
The solution, in my opinion, is to make government voluntary. That's the only way it will have any real level of accountability.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek
"The solution, in my opinion, is to make government voluntary. That's the only way it will have any real level of accountability."
Agreed. Governments can function to an extent when a large portion of the community has vested interest and participation, because the community is then looking after itself. I still disagree with it, and would prefer 100% voluntary government. But you won't find as much corruption and corporatism in a government with more community involvement.
TheJacolyte 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard What about the right to property.
TruthahnDerRuin 1 year ago
@TruthahnDerRuin
You have that, but not the right to be a money hogging bastard.
Glo0myWizard 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard
"money hogging bastard"? What does that mean? Savings? People don't have the right to save? Or people only have the right to save up to a certain amount? Just how much money can I save before you call me a "money hogging bastard"?
Also, if I contribute to various charities but withhold my income taxes because I am philosophically opposed to war, am I still a "money hogging bastard" that should be put in prison?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@Glo0myWizard When he started evicting people and handing out false promises. But in all actuality, the government never was Robin Hood.
Rights are only as good as the consensus to uphold them, and I don't see anyone fighting for them.
TheJacolyte 1 year ago
@TheJacolyte
I thought it was funny when he brought up Robin Hood. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor, yes, but the rich were the tax collectors - the Evil Sheriff of Nottingham, and gave it back to the serfs - the people who had their property taking from them, via taxes.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
your video misses the point on every level and you make me sick.
kingtafari9 1 year ago
@kingtafari9
I missed the point of the movie? I don't think so. In fact, I agree with a lot of what he said. I just disagree with him about the government being this wonderful thing that will stop this kind of thing. After all, the government was involved in a lot of the problems described in the movie. Do you disagree? If so, why? EXPLAINING why I'm wrong will help me understand your position much more telling me I make you sick.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
The level of leverage different people and groups in society have differs, due to the position in society in which they are born. Equality of oportunity (in law) does not mean equality of oportunity (in reality) when distracting stress in home life, less nutritious diets, lower ability to deal with learning difficulties, etc, caused by poverty are taken into account. We don't need to scrap government, we need to reform it to improve competition and social mobility.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption
I gave plenty of examples where the very poorest people in this country used the leverage of their NUMBERS to enact change.
Law has nothing to do with equality or justice. "Law" is about violence being in the hands a small minority.
I'm all about improving competition and social mobility. Why would you choose a vehicle for this that has historically blocked social mobility and put up barriers to entry for competition?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
The current legal system grows out of capitalism as branches on that tree, unless its regulated by some external influence, wealth and the power it brings will accumulate from generation to generation, and competition will wane alongside social mobility as the educational and health starting point of the middle class /poor decreases. 'Socialism' seemed to work in Europe, well, limited regulation in certain market sectors to limit this kind of cycle. We do need to think harder about solution tho
unassumption 1 year ago