Pinochet, Stalin or Ghandi?

[Danoff]

laissez-faire belongs in the 19th Century, gentlemen, and unless you want your government to be the puppet of industry then you'd better rein in Big Business

Big government collapsed with the soviet union. Unless you want your businesses to collapse under the government you'd better rein it in.

Greed is as natural as man. It is inherent in man. To pretend otherwise is to fool yourself. Better to have a system based on greed than one based on attempted control. Mankind hates to be controlled.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Big government collapsed with the soviet union.

Wrong. Government control over private goods collapsed with the Soviet Union.

Unless you want your businesses to collapse under the government you'd better rein it in.

Wrong again. Businesses need government for their welfare payments, pork, infrastructure (among many other things).

Greed is as natural as man. It is inherent in man. To pretend otherwise is to fool yourself. Better to have a system based on greed than one based on attempted control. Mankind hates to be controlled.

He's like a real life Gordon Gekko... greed is so 80s.

Anyway, let me get this straight: it's OK for corporations to control mankind, just not the government...

 

[Danoff]

Anyway, let me get this straight: it's OK for corporations to control mankind, just not the government...

Corporations cannot control mankind, because corporations are not above the law. Only the government is above the law.

 

[sukerkin]

{cue strained voice}Must ... not ... let ... myself ... get ...dragged ... into ... this{de-cue strained voice}.

It's an interesting subject (viz why monetarist economics, at it's basis, is schoolyard claptrap ) and one that deserves it's own thread but it's too complex to discuss substantively on the net. This is particularly true when you get American and British points of view on the social side of the equation coming into play and thoroughly muddying the waters.

For those interested, I'd suggest either taking a degree in Economics or reading a few key texts rather than trying to argue it out via sound-bites on-line (here's a rich source of references http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/home.htm).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Only the government is above the law.

So eliminate government -- entirely. It's of no use having an institution that is above the law since it can abuse its power (unlike a corporation of course -- they can't abuse power). Don't "diminish" government so that it's small of enough to fit through a Cheerio -- eliminate it entirely and allow privately-owned corporations (since they are bound by law) acting in their own rational self-interest to protect our freedom and provide infrastructure. Clearly that the most efficient way to do it.

For those interested, I'd suggest ... taking a degree in Economics

I guess I'm on the right track then. 1st a degree in International Business (as a foundation) -- then the MBA (or better yet, PhD) in Economics.

 

[Danoff]

So eliminate government -- entirely. It's of no use having an institution that is above the law since it can abuse its power (unlike a corporation of course -- they can't abuse power). Don't "diminish" government so that it's small of enough to fit through a Cheerio -- eliminate it entirely and allow privately-owned corporations (since they are bound by law) acting in their own rational self-interest to protect our freedom and provide infrastructure. Clearly that the most efficient way to do it.

...and that, of course, is a bad idea. Because once government is gone, gangs rule. Corporations cannot exist without government because the law does not exist to protect them from force.

Brian, sometimes it feels like you're not listening to me. You acuse me over and over of being an anarchist, you don't seem to understand where the principled line is that I draw. You argue against my statements by claiming that I'm using reasoning that I'm not, it's quite frustrating.

and one that deserves it's own thread but it's too complex to discuss substantively on the net

We have several threads on the subject. "Capitalism vs. Communism" became the token thread for the subject. These day's it's the libertarian thread that we battle in.

For those interested, I'd suggest either taking a degree in Economics or reading a few key texts rather than trying to argue it out via sound-bites on-line

Don't make the mistake of thinking that you're the only one with an interest in or an understanding of economics in this forum. In fact, given some of your statements, I claim that I understand economics better than you do. (<- that ought to drag you in nicely)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Corporations cannot exist without government because the law does not exist to protect them from force.

That's not true! Corporations can make their own laws. They can become their own de facto state!

Brian, sometimes it feels like you're not listening to me.

I'm listening. I just don't like what I'm hearing:

Better to have a system based on greed than one based on attempted control.

...for example...

Someone has to refute the propaganda. It might as well be me.

You acuse me over and over of being an anarchist, you don't seem to understand where the principled line is that I draw.

I'm not accusing you of being an anarchist. I'm talking about a slippery slope.

 

[Danoff]

That's not true! Corporations can make their own laws. They can become their own de facto state!

They cannot do that without initiating force, at which point I recategorize them as a gang.

I'm not accusing you of being an anarchist. I'm talking about a slippery slope.

I've explained why there is a principled line drawn, removing all slipping and sloping.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

They cannot do that without initiating force, at which point I recategorize them as a gang.

Corporations initiate force through intellectual property rights. Unless you believe we should do away with patents, copyrights and trademarks, you cannot say that you're against all forms of initiating force. Do you mean you're only against new initiations of force?

Why do "right" Libertarians limit "freedom" to being defined as non-inititation of force ("freedom from")? Whatever happened to "freedom to"?

 

[FoolKiller]

Not to be repetitive, but...

...stuff...

...stuff arguing Danoff's stuff...

Oh no.
New thread, same arguments.

See, Sukerkin, I warned you it would happen. Now you just want to jump in. I quit doing that a while back. Eventually one of these two will say what you think over time.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Better to have a system based on greed than one based on attempted control.

Which is System of Successfull Total Control Based on the bait of Greed under the Corporate Cover of some Egalitarian/Libertarian claptrap that pleases nobody 'cept those whose only avenue of Greed left is seeing others squirm in their greed trough . An analyzed & then enforced trough . meh 2.49c

 

[Danoff]

Which is System of Successfull Total Control Based on the bait of Greed under the Corporate Cover of some Egalitarian/Libertarian claptrap that pleases nobody 'cept those whose only avenue of Greed left is seeing others squirm in their greed trough . An analyzed & then enforced trough . meh 2.49c

I'd call it a system of voluntary parcipation.

Corporations initiate force through intellectual property rights.

No, the government initiates force, including enforcing intellectual property rights. The only time when you can exert force is to protect yourself from force initated against you.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

& where does one off-parcipitate ??

 

[Danoff]

& where does one off-parcipitate ??

Basically on a farm. But, in general, one can choose the degree to which one wishes to participate - the extent of which is entirely voluntary.

 

[sukerkin]

See, Sukerkin, I warned you it would happen. Now you just want to jump in. I quit doing that a while back. Eventually one of these two will say what you think over time.

Aye, you did FoolKiller ... I didn't recognise it for the warning it was until it was too late .

Fear not, I'm wise enough to stay out of the wheels and not become grist for the debate mill.

Oh, and sorry Dan, I don't take offence at your earlier taunt (because I've grown more used to your 'tone' over the months) but I'm not going to fall into a discoursive trap either.

In real life I'd close the meeting, shut the briefcase and walk away and the same applies on-line.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No, the government initiates force, including enforcing intellectual property rights.

Would you prefer to eliminate intellectual property rights, then?

I'd call it a system of voluntary parcipation.

What would happen if a majority of citizens in a "right" Libertarian society vote for a public welfare system?

 

[Danoff]

Brian,

This would be more appropriate to move to the libertarian thread. But these questions have quick answers.

Would you prefer to eliminate intellectual property rights, then?

Government initiates force all the time. Some of it is justified, some is not. The simple response to your earlier question is that corporations do not initate force via property rights, only the government does that. Whether or not the government force is justified is a whole nother issue.

What would happen if a majority of citizens in a "right" Libertarian society vote for a public welfare system?

Any lawmaker that tried to do the "public will" in this regard would be violating the constitution - just as much as if the majority of the public wanted a law against jewish people living here.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, and sorry Dan, I don't take offence at your earlier taunt (because I've grown more used to your 'tone' over the months) but I'm not going to fall into a discoursive trap either.

Ah, perhaps because I pointed it out.

Oh well, perhaps some other time, or in some other thread, you'll be willing to have a discussion. Until then.

 

[sukerkin]

You did indeed point it out, Dan. I don't think I quite caught the proper inference tho' and took it as part of the taunt (as oppossed to an emotive modifier to it).

I hope I didn't sound 'snippy' in response - I didn't intend to.

👍 to the possibility of productive discourse at another time.

 

[Duke]

Someone has to refute the propaganda. It might as well be me.

But you're not refuting the propaganda. You're continuously and seemingly purposely mis-representing what we believe, and then telling us we believe it.

I agree with Dan, it's annoying, and tiresome in the extreme. In fact I'd say it borders on the juvenile in an intellectual way.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

But you're not refuting the propaganda.

Interesting...

You're continuously and seemingly mis-representing what we believe, and then telling us we believe it.

If I am, it's not intentional. I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of these beliefs... I want to know the truth.

For example:

Would you prefer to eliminate intellectual property rights, then?

Government initiates force all the time. Some of it is justified, some is not. The simple response to your earlier question is that corporations do not initate force via property rights, only the government does that. Whether or not the government force is justified is a whole nother issue.

In no way did this answer my question. Then if I make a statement along the lines of "so you don't believe in intellectual property rights, but you believe in soverign property rights... sounds contradictory to me"...

I am accused of "... continuously and seemingly mis-representing what we believe, and then telling us we believe it."

Same thing here:

Any lawmaker that tried to do the "public will" in this regard would be violating the constitution - just as much as if the majority of the public wanted a law against jewish people living here.

This did not answer the question. Of course it would be a violation of the Constitution -- I'm just trying to find out whether the anti-poverty law would pass or not (but he did eventually answer this in the Libertarian thread when I rephrased the same basic question).

I wouldn't "continuously and seemingly mis-represent what you believe, and then tell you that you believe it" if I had straight answers.

2 more unanswered questions:

Do you mean you're only against new initiations of force?

Why do "right" Libertarians limit "freedom" to being defined as non-inititation of force ("freedom from")? Whatever happened to "freedom to"?

You tell me what I'm suppose to believe then...