RE: "rescue package"? voisted down

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: "rescue package"? voisted down

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/1/2008 8:49:40 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

You're describing Rock Soup.

Okay, I had no idea what the hell you were talking about but a Google search eventually reminded me of the old story of Stone Soup.

I disagree. I am not describing Rock Soup. The story is about social co-operation, specifically, how everyone pitching in just a little can yield great results. That is just a part of what I am describing. Co-operation is just one of the two ways that humans interact with each other. The other of, of course, is competition. Individuals use both in their daily lives.

What I am describing is the cumulative effects of millions of individuals making decisions and choices – based upon their needs, desires, and their perception of reality – every day. The cumulative effect of both the co-operation and the competition that we not only participate in, but is constantly going on around us.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/1/2008 11:03:26 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Meanwhile value of assets increase to a point everyone knows assets are way over valued, banks look in their portfolios and find that their 100 billion of assets is really ownly worth 40 billion. No other bank will lend to any other bank because they don't know which banks are secure or whether their asset base is as bad as their own so no one is willing to give anyone credit. Meanwhile, the market seizes up. So much for Adam Smith's invisible hand in the market place!

You appear to misunderstand what Smith meant by the invisible hand. That’s okay, most socialists don’t understand simple economics (if they did, they wouldn’t be socialists). I glanced at the Wikipedia article on it and it seems to know what it is talking about, particularly this excerpt:

“Contrary to common misconceptions, Smith did not assert that all self-interested labour necessarily benefits society, or that all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. His proposal is merely that in a free market, people usually tend to produce goods desired by their neighbours.”

I was being flippant. I know what Smith meant and it is true that Marx was very critical of Smith for a simple reason but to get round a long boring treatise on value and labour etc. etc. Take this quote all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. That is patently not true today and never has been, never mind in Smith's day or Marx's day. Labour is trapped in a system that largely doesn't reward it fairly. You can even see that in this crisis when labour will be picking up the tab on behalve of capital.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 62

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/2/2008 10:29:15 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I was being flippant. I know what Smith meant and it is true that Marx was very critical of Smith for a simple reason but to get round a long boring treatise on value and labour etc. etc. Take this quote all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. That is patently not true today and never has been, never mind in Smith's day or Marx's day. Labour is trapped in a system that largely doesn't reward it fairly. You can even see that in this crisis when labour will be picking up the tab on behalve of capital.

Yeah, I was being flippant, too. I like to tweak noses now and then, particularly those of socialists because y’all really do baffle me sometimes.

As for the rest: I disagree. I think you are mixing up different concepts here – namely, the value of labor, the motivation behind labor and the motivation for performing particular kinds of labor. The primary motivation behind labor is the same thing that motivated the cave man to go out with a spear and run it through an animal – namely, a desire to eat. In other words, self interest (which is not the same thing as selfishness) is the motivator.

Smith was stating that a pig farmer doesn’t raise pigs because he has an altruistic motive to supply his neighbors with bacon and pork chops. He raises pigs because his neighbors like bacon and pork chops and will trade for it. By raising pigs the pig farmer gets things he needs and desires for him and his family. It is self interest that motivates him to labor at raising pigs. It is his neighbor’s preferences that have him raising pigs instead of chickens.

Likewise today, the man standing on the assembly line at an auto factory isn’t primarily motivated by desire to put people in safe and affordable cars – he’s motivated by a desire to earn money so he can buy the things he wants and needs for himself and his family. It is the consumer’s desire for safe and affordable cars that has him making cars instead of bicycles.

Now, the quote you disagree with above (that you wish me to consider) states that all public goods are produced through self interested labor. The all in that makes the statement either an absolute or a generality. Neither works because there are no absolutes (change is the only constant in the universe) and specific exceptions do not render known generalities invalid (the fact that woman X is taller than man Y – a specific - does not render invalid the generality that men are taller than women).

In both of my above examples the pig farmer and the auto worker don’t necessarily dislike their jobs or derive no emotional satisfaction from them (motivations to perform or not perform certain labors). The pig farmer may feel a sense of pride when he sees people digging into a plate a ham with enthusiasm. So too the auto worker who reads about an accident in which the driver survived because of the safety features the auto worker installed on the assembly line. Nor does it mean that either person doesn’t have other options as to what labor to perform. The pig farmer may succeed at raising cows and the auto worker may find a job at a bicycle factory because there are people who like beef and people who like to ride bicycles.

The point, to reiterate, is that the pig farmer and the auto worker are performing their labor in order to survive. What labor they are performing is influenced not only by their own needs and desires, but by the needs and desires of others. What if, over the course of time, the pig farmer’s neighbors were to gradually convert to Judaism? In order to survive the pig farmer would have to give up pig farming and perhaps raise chickens instead. What if, due to rising gas prices, car sales go down? The auto worker may find himself out of a job and applying for a job at a bicycle factory (whose sales are going up).

To say that all of this is, “patently not true today and never has been, never mind in Smith's day or Marx's day,” is to say that human beings never interacted with one another, never had needs or wants, and never did anything to supply those needs and wants for each other.

Okay, it’s time I got back to work (in other words, it’s time I performed the labor that I’m being paid for

). As for part two (about labor being trapped in a system that largely doesn’t reward it fairly), I’ll get to later.

If it’s worth my while.

(get it?)

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 63

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/2/2008 1:52:02 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I was being flippant. I know what Smith meant and it is true that Marx was very critical of Smith for a simple reason but to get round a long boring treatise on value and labour etc. etc. Take this quote all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. That is patently not true today and never has been, never mind in Smith's day or Marx's day. Labour is trapped in a system that largely doesn't reward it fairly. You can even see that in this crisis when labour will be picking up the tab on behalve of capital.

Yeah, I was being flippant, too. I like to tweak noses now and then, particularly those of socialists because y’all really do baffle me sometimes.

As for the rest: I disagree. I think you are mixing up different concepts here – namely, the value of labor, the motivation behind labor and the motivation for performing particular kinds of labor. The primary motivation behind labor is the same thing that motivated the cave man to go out with a spear and run it through an animal – namely, a desire to eat. In other words, self interest (which is not the same thing as selfishness) is the motivator.

You come from a right wing view of the world where you assume freedom of choice is at work, most labour in the world is not of free choice but of no other choice. Flexible labour came about by the capitalist establishments removing people from their land and into cities through force of circumstance. Without the power to stand up to capital, one has no freedom of choice other than a choice to starve. Most labour in the world is not motivated labour but forced labour, the inability through lack of power to break ones chains to wage slavery. We in the west think we can tootle down to a job agency and get a new job that suits our ambitions but we are a minority. Smith was talking about ideals, not reality which was why Marx was critical of him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The point, to reiterate, is that the pig farmer and the auto worker are performing their labor in order to survive. What labor they are performing is influenced not only by their own needs and desires, but by the needs and desires of others. What if, over the course of time, the pig farmer’s neighbors were to gradually convert to Judaism? In order to survive the pig farmer would have to give up pig farming and perhaps raise chickens instead. What if, due to rising gas prices, car sales go down? The auto worker may find himself out of a job and applying for a job at a bicycle factory (whose sales are going up).

To say that all of this is, “patently not true today and never has been, never mind in Smith's day or Marx's day,” is to say that human beings never interacted with one another, never had needs or wants, and never did anything to supply those needs and wants for each other.

Okay, it’s time I got back to work (in other words, it’s time I performed the labor that I’m being paid for ). As for part two (about labor being trapped in a system that largely doesn’t reward it fairly), I’ll get to later.

If it’s worth my while.

(get it?)

I get it but since the markets are skewed and rigged by the capitalist establishments, in reality Smith remains as I pointed out above, an ideal, an abstraction. As Sartre said "Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete." Marx realized the nature of Smith's work. Smith never addressed the poverty, corruption and the slavery that surrounded him, he never addressed the cruelty of capitalism he wirtnessed himself. It was such the aloof nature of works like Smith's that gave rise to Marx saying "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is, to change it". Rightwingers are happy with Adam Smith because he sanitizes capitalism, he turns its theory into some politie parlour discussion. Smith never touches on the reality that was in front of his face, in the same way the Greek philosophers could wax lyrically of the dignity of the human spirit while slaves died building Athens around them.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 64

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/2/2008 2:05:34 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

To say that all of this is, “patently not true today and never has been, never mind in Smith's day or Marx's day,” is to say that human beings never interacted with one another, never had needs or wants, and never did anything to supply those needs and wants for each other.

Not true. You make the assumption that the only human interaction is that of a market motivation. Maybe you really do think that life is that shallow.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 65

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/2/2008 10:09:04 PM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

You come from a right wing view of the world where you assume freedom of choice is at work, most labour in the world is not of free choice but of no other choice. Flexible labour came about by the capitalist establishments removing people from their land and into cities through force of circumstance. Without the power to stand up to capital, one has no freedom of choice other than a choice to starve. Most labour in the world is not motivated labour but forced labour, the inability through lack of power to break ones chains to wage slavery. We in the west think we can tootle down to a job agency and get a new job that suits our ambitions but we are a minority. Smith was talking about ideals, not reality which was why Marx was critical of him.

And

quote:

I get it but since the markets are skewed and rigged by the capitalist establishments, in reality Smith remains as I pointed out above, an ideal, an abstraction. As Sartre said "Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete." Marx realized the nature of Smith's work. Smith never addressed the poverty, corruption and the slavery that surrounded him, he never addressed the cruelty of capitalism he wirtnessed himself. It was such the aloof nature of works like Smith's that gave rise to Marx saying "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is, to change it". Rightwingers are happy with Adam Smith because he sanitizes capitalism, he turns its theory into some politie parlour discussion. Smith never touches on the reality that was in front of his face, in the same way the Greek philosophers could wax lyrically of the dignity of the human spirit while slaves died building Athens around them.

And

quote:

Not true. You make the assumption that the only human interaction is that of a market motivation. Maybe you really do think that life is that shallow.

First, I want to say that no you didn’t get it. It was a joke. "If it’s worth my while," meant: "if I decide that the benefits of continuing the argument are worth (have value) the time and effort to continue."

I do not come from a right wing view of the world. I do not come from a left wing view of the world. I come from a Marc2b wing view of the world. I’m never one hundred percent certain of what that is, but that’s only because I don’t allow myself to be one hundred percent certain of anything.

I do not make the assumption that the only human interaction is that of market motivation. I think you misunderstand my use of the word market in this context (note that I do not say free market). I mean the (didn’t I go over this once already?) cumulative effect of all human interactions with each other and their environment. I see life as shallow? On the contrary (and at the risk of sounding arrogant) I sometimes think that I am one of the few people on these boards who sees life, the universe, and everything, as something of immense complexity, depth and magnificence. A beautiful mystery that we can never truly comprehend.

You are correct that in one sense all labor is forced labor. Those cavemen hunted because they were forced to hunt. If they didn’t, they would likely starve. This did not mean that they had no choices within the matter. In fact they had to make some choices. Which animals to hunt, what kind of weapons to use, when to hunt, stalking strategies, etc. Constrained choice (wether imposed by environment or other humans) does not mean no choices. Nor does having choices necessarily mean palatable choices.

You are also correct in that we in the west are a minority when it comes to being free to make choices ("suits our ambitions"). Where we separate is (I believe) is in two points:

First, that you seem to consider the existence of forced (or merely coerced) labor throughout history as proof of the failure of free labor to meet the needs and desires of a free populace.

Sidebar – my definition of labor is not restricted to physical labor only. Labor (in this context anyway) is any physical and/or mental endeavor with the goal of securing needs and wants. A construction worker is labor. A cab driver is labor. A doctor is labor. A musician is labor. A wall street broker is labor. A CEO is labor. In this context we are all labor, and free labor and a free populace is the same thing.

I do not see the existence of forced labor to be proof of the failure of free labor. I see it as the problem. Sometime back I got into a similar argument with another CM poster. They sighted the Jim Crow laws as proof of the failure of the free market to provide prosperity for African-Americans. My point back was that the only thing the Jim Crow laws proved was that if you don’t allow the free market to be free – it will fail!

This brings me to the second point where we separate. What is the solution to the existence of forced labor? Or, to put it another way, what is the solution to the corruption of power? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I truly do not understand why so many people believe that the solution to a small group of people at the top abusing their power is to hand that power over to another small group of people at the top to abuse. That, in my view, is all that socialism will accomplish. What does it matter if it’s a cabal of corporations or a government that is interfering in the free market if the result is the same? Trading in a George Bush is no good if you get a Hugo Chavez in exchange. The only difference is, who is benefitting from the corruption?

So Marx said that the point is to change the world. So what? Every philosophy, ideology, political party, etc, want’s to change the world. The Republicans want to change the world. The Democrats want to change the world. The Ku Klux Klan want to change the world. Radical Muslim fundamentalists want to change the world. You want to change the world. I want to change the world. So what?

Wanting to change the world does not confer upon anybody a special morality, insight, or wisdom. We are not superior just because we find the world odoriferous (I stole that from somebody, I forget who so all due credit to whoever credit is due). Setting aside the fact that the world is constantly changing anyway (wether we like it or not), the questions we have to ask our selves is: Should we change the world? Can we change the world? What do we want to change it into? How do we change it? Who will be harmed as we change it? And, ultimately, will we really change it or only create the surface appearance of change? Does the oppressed man really care what slogan is being used to justify his oppression?

At this point you’re probably thinking that I don’t understand what socialism truly is. I won’t argue the point because if I did we would probably never stop arguing. I do know this much: the point of socialism is to not allow that pig farmer and corn farmer the freedom to haggle with each other. The point of socialism, at the vary least, is to dictate to the two farmers that one pig equals three and a half bushel of corn, wether they like it or not. At it’s worst socialism will take their farms away from them because they now "belong to the people." What is the difference between that and some powerful wealthy capitalist owning all the land. If the two farmers end up working the land not for their own benefit but some one else’s, what is the difference?

So what was this thread talking about?

Sorry if this thread looks like a hijack, seeksfemslave. I do love to go off on tangents sometimes.

Peace and prosperity to you and yours meatcleaver.
(Is it okay to wish a socialist prosperity? I mean, it’s not like an insult or anything, is it?)

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 66

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/3/2008 12:30:37 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

First, that you seem to consider the existence of forced (or merely coerced) labor throughout history as proof of the failure of free labor to meet the needs and desires of a free populace.

It was noted in the middleages by merchants (Well before Mr Smith) that peasants with land are wasted labour as they only tended use what they need which did nothing to improve commerce and profits and spent most of the year idle in the eyes of the merchants. Peasants had the name of being lazy good for nothings but the truth was, they were free because having their own land they were independent of the markets. One of the most important events in the birth of capitalism in Britain, was the enclosures act which enclosed the fields and common land which stopped poorer people grazing animals which had the effect of driving people to urban areas to seek work. The modern idea of capitalism which started in Britain only worked because so many people had their land stolen from them which stopped them being free agents and pushed them onto the labour market where excess labour cut the cost of labour to such a point, people couldn't earn enough to live. Those with the means of production (Usually the same people that effectively stole the land) hired cheap labour which was not free but coerced through manufactured conditions. This is where Smith falls short, he doesn't address the power issue in the market, he pretends the markets are free when markets are never free. That was what Marx recognized.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Sidebar – my definition of labor is not restricted to physical labor only. Labor (in this context anyway) is any physical and/or mental endeavor with the goal of securing needs and wants. A construction worker is labor. A cab driver is labor. A doctor is labor. A musician is labor. A wall street broker is labor. A CEO is labor. In this context we are all labor, and free labor and a free populace is the same thing.

I do not see the existence of forced labor to be proof of the failure of free labor. I see it as the problem. Sometime back I got into a similar argument with another CM poster. They sighted the Jim Crow laws as proof of the failure of the free market to provide prosperity for African-Americans. My point back was that the only thing the Jim Crow laws proved was that if you don’t allow the free market to be free – it will fail!

There never have been free markets, we don't have free markets now and never have. The nearest to free markets there has been which was in the 18th and 19th centuries which led to revolutions, that is why we don't have free markets, the powers that be are happy to give enough away to keep the majority populace satisfied. Even Churchill recognized the need for intervention when he introduced unemployment insurance, as he pointed out, 12 shillings and sixpence is cheap at the price to stop a revolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

This brings me to the second point where we separate. What is the solution to the existence of forced labor? Or, to put it another way, what is the solution to the corruption of power? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I truly do not understand why so many people believe that the solution to a small group of people at the top abusing their power is to hand that power over to another small group of people at the top to abuse. That, in my view, is all that socialism will accomplish. What does it matter if it’s a cabal of corporations or a government that is interfering in the free market if the result is the same? Trading in a George Bush is no good if you get a Hugo Chavez in exchange. The only difference is, who is benefitting from the corruption?

Like so many people you miss the point and you are the one that believes in the capitalist markets. Capitalism is not about fulfilling peoples needs and its not about freedom, it is about creating profit through consumption and over consumption. The majority of consumption in western society is unnecessary luxury and waste because the environment is classed as a free asset to be exploited. It is not necessary for labour to be tied to a job for 40 + hours a week to create the needs of a modern society but it is necessary to keep labour tied to 40+ per week to control society. Handing power from one corrupt bunch to another dioes nothing, one has to change how society works and that is the crux of the problem, try to change how society works and you have the troops on the street within 24 hours because you challenge capital and be the man in Washington or Venezuala, it is capital that is the ultimate arbiter of power. This was also recognized by Marx.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
So Marx said that the point is to change the world. So what? Every philosophy, ideology, political party, etc, want’s to change the world. The Republicans want to change the world. The Democrats want to change the world. The Ku Klux Klan want to change the world. Radical Muslim fundamentalists want to change the world. You want to change the world. I want to change the world. So what?

The Republicans and Democrats don't want to change the world, they want power which is how western democracies work. When you vote you don't vote to change the socio-economic system, you vote for someone to run the system. Marx was responding to what he saw in front of his own eyes and what sometime earlier Smith refused to see with his own eyes ie. markets aren't free, they have power brokers. But Marx was right, philosophers (Marx referring to philosophers only, see the quote, not terrorists) analyse the world, they do not try to change it and he was implying that philosophy ends up being polite parlour conversation, such as Smith's wealth of nations because it was an ideal and Smith ignored the failure of the market he was witnessing in order to make a rounded treatise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Wanting to change the world does not confer upon anybody a special morality, insight, or wisdom. We are not superior just because we find the world odoriferous (I stole that from somebody, I forget who so all due credit to whoever credit is due). Setting aside the fact that the world is constantly changing anyway (wether we like it or not), the questions we have to ask our selves is: Should we change the world? Can we change the world? What do we want to change it into? How do we change it? Who will be harmed as we change it? And, ultimately, will we really change it or only create the surface appearance of change? Does the oppressed man really care what slogan is being used to justify his oppression?

The majority of people in the world would love change because they are dirt poor, in poverty and oppressed, while westerners would probably not want change because we are the fat cats of the world, we overconsume which is having a detrimental effect on our environment but are happy to ignore that, even at the cost of our grandchildren. People love ignorance when they are comfortable. We buy and consume products made by slave labour while condemning slavery because we think to condemn slavery is the right thing to do, even if are effectively happy to use slavery for our own comfort and profits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
At this point you’re probably thinking that I don’t understand what socialism truly is. I won’t argue the point because if I did we would probably never stop arguing. I do know this much: the point of socialism is to not allow that pig farmer and corn farmer the freedom to haggle with each other. The point of socialism, at the vary least, is to dictate to the two farmers that one pig equals three and a half bushel of corn, wether they like it or not. At it’s worst socialism will take their farms away from them because they now "belong to the people." What is the difference between that and some powerful wealthy capitalist owning all the land. If the two farmers end up working the land not for their own benefit but some one else’s, what is the difference?

So what was this thread talking about?

Sorry if this thread looks like a hijack, seeksfemslave. I do love to go off on tangents sometimes.

Peace and prosperity to you and yours meatcleaver.
(Is it okay to wish a socialist prosperity? I mean, it’s not like an insult or anything, is it?)

Marc, look at the subsidies the west gives to its farmers, the west is more socialist when it comes to farmers and capitalists than any communist ideal would ever be to the majority. The west is supposed to believe in free markets, you tell me you believe in free markets, then pray tell me, why is the west so scared of free markets? Why won't the west open up its markets, drop subsidies and tariffs and embrace the market system? You know the answer to that as well as I do, western markets aren't free and never have been and the powers that be would lose the control over the markets in a truely free market system because chaos would reign.

Everything you say might make sense if we had free markets, we don't have them which undermines your whole argument. In fact in western European democracies there are large strains of socialism and its those strains of socialism that has allowed more social mobility and a longer life span than our counterparts in America.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/3/2008 12:36:22 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Profile

Post #: 67

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/3/2008 3:30:36 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

Marc, you will also notice that capitalism grew and thrived in captive and protected markets, be they in the European empires or of the American empire of the 18th & 19th century. Resources were cheap because they were mainly stolen, the environment treated as a free resource, labour under rewarded and if labour wanted to practice freedom and withdraw its collective labour, it was attacked, with individuals often imprisoned and even killed. This scenario is not a million miles away from what is now being played out in emerging markets such as India and China etc. The west has long since abandoned the notion of free markets but western capital aided and abetted by western governments uses the argument of free markets and the control valves of regulation and deregulation to keep their populations in check. One can witness the west's control of its population by how it allows protection with emerging markets that suit its wealthy, while at the same time refusing to protect its labour. Unless national interest is involved of course, which is not much different than protecting the rich.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/3/2008 3:31:19 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 68

RE: "rescue package"? voisted down - 10/3/2008 9:42:01 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

I’m going to be heading out soon for a weekend of bonfires, wine and good friends, so I am going to try and discipline myself from my usual wordiness in such matters, and parse this down to its bare minimums.

Once again, the lack of a free market is the problem! Not proof of its failures! Claiming that some people are abusing other people is proof of the failure of the free market is like claiming that smashing up the engine of an auto with a sledge hammer is proof that automobiles don’t work. Replacing one tyranny (runaway unchecked capitalism) with another (socialism) is not the answer. You state repeatedly that capitalism seeks to control markets. I agree! It is a myth that capitalists and big business love the free market. The truth is the opposite. They hate the free market. They hate it because it allows competition (that is why the West… and the East… and pretty much everywhere… is so scared of free markets). Your solution, socialism, is no better because it too seeks to control markets and ends up with the exact same situation – a small group at the top manipulating things for their own benefit while fucking over the little guy (the fact that they claim to do it for the benefit of the little guy just adds salt to the wound as far as I’m concerned). The various ideologies are merely lip service given to justify the latest round of oppression and thievery that human beings have perpetuated upon each other throughout history. Once again I ask - if you’re being oppressed, does it matter what bullshit slogan is being used to justify it?

Part of our contention appears to be just what the definition of a free market is. I certainly do not advocate a no holds barred, free wheeling, do what ever you want, no regulations, version of the free market. That would be anarchy and anarchy is one of the extremes in the Chaos/Order continuum. Nor do I advocate the opposite extreme, a market in which all aspects are controlled by the government (socialism – or communism, if you prefer). It has been my experience that one never finds the answer at the extremes.

So what do I advocate? Well, I don’t have time to write the Marc2b manifesto right now. Maybe I’ll take it up when I get back. Short version:

The diffusion of power within the context of a just body of laws applied impartially and a society that understands the meaning of “live and let live.”

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 69