Save or Else

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Jan 7 2005, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Jan 7 2005, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What? That's pretty jaded, why not tear down the government along with Social Security, and truly allow each to fend for themselves, hmm?

Actually, I think that's what Flame of Liberty is saying.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Yes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jan 7 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jan 7 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually, I think that's what Flame of Liberty is saying.

Cowperson

Yes.[/b][/quote]
Oops, sorry. You're crazy.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by albertGQ@Jan 7 2005, 07:30 PM
I am in favour of a small government, but not no government

What do you consider a small government?

I would say that small government means that the government has a monopol on production of defense and law only, ie. small government consists of:

1. police
2. army
3. legislatory body (parliament, senate etc.)
4. courts

Or do you mean that government should play lesser role in everything it is involved in now, rather than completely abandon areas other than those 4? In other words, do you think there is a place for the government in education system, economy, etc. and this involvement needs to be only reduced?

[Agamemnon]

Who fills the _massive_ power vaccuum that 'big' governments (by this thread's definition) currently occupy? By removing government oversight in many industries/institutions, those bodies are left wide open to 'private' (corporate) exploitation. As much as I hate to have to do it, I'll trust a Government long before I'll trust a Corporation for my overall welfare. Both have shabby records, but at least one claims to have my best interest at heart, regardless of how good a job they do at fulfilling it.

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jan 7 2005, 12:37 PM
do you think there is a place for the government in education system, economy, etc. and this involvement needs to be only reduced?

Short answer since I don't have time right now. YES!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 7 2005, 08:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 7 2005, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yes.

Oops, sorry. You're crazy. [/b][/quote]
If its crazy to believe people are born free rather than born to be ruled upon, then I`m guilty as charged

[Flame Of Liberty]

Who fills the _massive_ power vaccuum that 'big' governments (by this thread's definition) currently occupy?

No one, because the massive power governments has is illegitimate. From the free society point of view any monopoly on coercive authority is illegitimate.


By removing government oversight in many industries/institutions, those bodies are left wide open to 'private' (corporate) exploitation.

Corporate exploitation is a marxist term. How can a private corporation exploit anyone on a free market? Give me one example where free market capitalism exploits anyone.


As much as I hate to have to do it, I'll trust a Government long before I'll trust a Corporation for my overall welfare. Both have shabby records, but at least one claims to have my best interest at heart, regardless of how good a job they do at fulfilling it.

Why not trust yourself for your overall welfare?

A corporation cannot force its will upon you, the government can. On a free market you have a freedom of choice now you dont (or its severely limited). It is not about having your best interest at heart. Bakers dont have your best interest at heart when they sell you bread. They want to make money. The more the better. And on a free market, the only way to make money is to satisfy your need - ie the baker HAS TO give you what you want. And to survice long term, he has to satisfy your needs again and again.

The government has to do no such thing. No one cares if you dont want their `products` and `services.` You are forced to pay for them anyway, without any real chance to change anything. All the goverement has to do is to look for its best short term interest - because they may not hold the power after the next election. Therefore its only understandable they want to milk you NOW regardless of what happens next.

[Agamemnon]

Who fills the _massive_ power vaccuum that 'big' governments (by this thread's definition) currently occupy?

No one, because the massive power governments has is illegitimate. From the free society point of view any monopoly on coercive authority is illegitimate.

Thats all fine and good. But as soon as the absence of government authority becomes a reality, people will organize themselves into smaller political/economic units. Its what people do. Whether they be a community association, company, or commune, there will be organizations that will replace government types of service (security, health, welfare,). Also, once the government is gone (and its municipal security structure), why can't I just take a gun and rob you of all you've got? I'm using monopolistic coercive authority (if I have a gun and you don't) on you, isn't that illegitimate in the New Order? Who helps you out? You?

By removing government oversight in many industries/institutions, those bodies are left wide open to 'private' (corporate) exploitation.

Corporate exploitation is a marxist term. How can a private corporation exploit anyone on a free market? Give me one example where free market capitalism exploits anyone.

This is definitely one I bet we'll agree to disagree on. First off, there is no 'free market capitalism', every market in the world lives under massive regulation and subsidization. Secondly, a semi-example would be something as simple as child-labour in East Asia. American companies legally employ millions of very under-paid and impovershed workers to do dangerous, and often unsanitary work that American counterparts would charge much, much more. Shifting some of these societies to dependence on subsistance US (West) corporate handouts is 'exploitation' in my books. If you'd like to go further into your theory that the free market has never exploited anyone, I'd love to hear more, it sounds very interesting.

As much as I hate to have to do it, I'll trust a Government long before I'll trust a Corporation for my overall welfare. Both have shabby records, but at least one claims to have my best interest at heart, regardless of how good a job they do at fulfilling it.

Why not trust yourself for your overall welfare?

Mainly because of my above example. Fine enough that I should take care of myself, but what if I get hurt? What if I get cancer? What if I'm a computer programmer, who doesn't have the skills required to 'trust myself with my overall welfare'? You seem to think some kind of natural order will just create itself in the absence of government authority. I'd call it anarchy, and suggest that people would act a little differently than the utopian image I'm getting from you.

A corporation cannot force its will upon you, the government can. On a free market you have a freedom of choice now you dont (or its severely limited). It is not about having your best interest at heart. Bakers dont have your best interest at heart when they sell you bread. They want to make money. The more the better. And on a free market, the only way to make money is to satisfy your need - ie the baker HAS TO give you what you want. And to survice long term, he has to satisfy your needs again and again.

Sure, but thats how it works now. And corporations often inflict their will on US citizens and individuals around the world. You've identified the most important aspect of this thought, that companies want to make money. If they secretly dump mercury into the water to save a few bucks, thats all good, they're doing what they can to make money. Shoot a couple dissident workers? Of course! Remember, they don't care about us, they care about making money. Regardless of human considerations. If you're not a customer of theirs, what do they care if you live or rot in an alley? They don't, under your system, no one does. I don't see that as some sort of peaceful or productive institution. Removing any social conscience, (barely forced on them by govt's currently) corporations are going to care _less_ about the individual, not more.

The government has to do no such thing. No one cares if you dont want their `products` and `services.` You are forced to pay for them anyway, without any real chance to change anything. All the goverement has to do is to look for its best short term interest - because they may not hold the power after the next election. Therefore its only understandable they want to milk you NOW regardless of what happens next.

So, exactly what would you suggest in place of organization? Disorganization? Survival of the fittest? Natural Selection and all that? I'd suggest that organizing into nation-states was probably one of the most significant institutions in history.

Basically, I'm on the exact opposite side of you. I see the (potential for) responsible power of the nation-state being steadily and quickly eroded in the face of Neo-Corporate domination. Tools like the IMF, WorldBank, and (above all) WTO are working hard to ensure a 'free-market' accross the entire world, where all human, environmental, and social/cultural issues are trumped by the almighty dollar.

I guess you see a world run by corporations, I see one run by government. If you think that somehow no one will step into the 'artificial void' of power that the government has created for itself, I'd suggest your dead wrong. A matter of opinion at this point, I'm sure.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jan 8 2005, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jan 8 2005, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Oops, sorry. You're crazy.

If its crazy to believe people are born free rather than born to be ruled upon, then I`m guilty as charged [/b][/quote]
Totally agree with you. Where we differ (polarize) is that I believe I'm born in chains owned by GM, McDonalds, and Microsoft, not the Federal Government of Canada.

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 10:15 AM


Totally agree with you. Where we differ (polarize) is that I believe I'm born in chains owned by GM, McDonalds, and Microsoft, not the Federal Government of Canada.

Sucks to be you then.

Thank god that rather be chained down by these corporations my life is greatly improved by them.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon+Jan 8 2005, 07:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Jan 8 2005, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 10:15 AM


Totally agree with you. Where we differ (polarize) is that I believe I'm born in chains owned by GM, McDonalds, and Microsoft, not the Federal Government of Canada.

Sucks to be you then.

Thank god that rather be chained down by these corporations my life is greatly improved by them. [/b][/quote]
Care to explain why it 'sucks to be' me?

[badnarik]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 10:11 AM

This is definitely one I bet we'll agree to disagree on. First off, there is no 'free market capitalism', every market in the world lives under massive regulation and subsidization. Secondly, a semi-example would be something as simple as child-labour in East Asia. American companies legally employ millions of very under-paid and impovershed workers to do dangerous, and often unsanitary work that American counterparts would charge much, much more. Shifting some of these societies to dependence on subsistance US (West) corporate handouts is 'exploitation' in my books. If you'd like to go further into your theory that the free market has never exploited anyone, I'd love to hear more, it sounds very interesting.

if a kid is free to choose and is not a slave, then its not exploitation

the corporation is just offering an opportunity.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by badnarik+Jan 8 2005, 09:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (badnarik @ Jan 8 2005, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 10:11 AM

This is definitely one I bet we'll agree to disagree on. First off, there is no 'free market capitalism', every market in the world lives under massive regulation and subsidization. Secondly, a semi-example would be something as simple as child-labour in East Asia. American companies legally employ millions of very under-paid and impovershed workers to do dangerous, and often unsanitary work that American counterparts would charge much, much more. Shifting some of these societies to dependence on subsistance US (West) corporate handouts is 'exploitation' in my books. If you'd like to go further into your theory that the free market has never exploited anyone, I'd love to hear more, it sounds very interesting.

if a kid is free to choose and is not a slave, then its not exploitation

the corporation is just offering an opportunity. [/b][/quote]
Exactly.

The corporation is giving the kid another option. And the simple fact that the kid is working there should tell you that this kid values this option more than every other option he has.

Sure you can say it is a crappy option. But it is the BEST option out of all the kid has.

Another important thing is to ask - why there is no better option for the kid out there? Well, precisely because there is a lack of capitalism in his country, because there is a lack of other corporations, competition, etc. In short, capital in his country is not accumulated highly enough, thus productivity in the country is low (and the family cannot survive if the kids dont work).

Now suppose this big corporations leave. What then? Kid is out of work and has to settle for option he values less (searching dumpsters for food). His family has bigger trouble to survive. How they are better off WITHOUT big corporations?

The trouble for the poor is NOT capitalism and globalization. The trouble for the poor is lack of capitalism and globalization and leftist who fight hard against both.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 06:11 PM
Thats all fine and good. But as soon as the absence of government authority becomes a reality, people will organize themselves into smaller political/economic units. Its what people do. Whether they be a community association, company, or commune, there will be organizations that will replace government types of service (security, health, welfare,). Also, once the government is gone (and its municipal security structure), why can't I just take a gun and rob you of all you've got? I'm using monopolistic coercive authority (if I have a gun and you don't) on you, isn't that illegitimate in the New Order? Who helps you out? You?

The important point here is that those relationships must be voluntary in order to be legitimate. If people voluntarily form communities (and I agree they most probably will) then its fine. However, if they force others to join them or pay them `fees` for their services (democracy) then it is neither voluntary nor legitimate.

Of course there will be people attempting to do harm to other people. People are not angels. But the thing is - you will be able to defend yourself legally. How can you defend yourself against governments now? Well you can not.

Why can't you just take a gun and rob me of all I've got? Well, because you have no right to do so and I have a right to defend myself. The reasoning behind this is based on property rights theory. In a nutshell - you have a exclusive right to your body/mind, products of your labor and all resources/goods previously unowned. I can explain this theory further if it is unclear.

Who helps me out? Private security service for example. You have said it yourself - those will most likely be created. Security will be just another good sold and bought on the market.

An article that explains this further:

The private production of defense

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 06:11 PM
This is definitely one I bet we'll agree to disagree on. First off, there is no 'free market capitalism', every market in the world lives under massive regulation and subsidization. Secondly, a semi-example would be something as simple as child-labour in East Asia. American companies legally employ millions of very under-paid and impovershed workers to do dangerous, and often unsanitary work that American counterparts would charge much, much more. Shifting some of these societies to dependence on subsistance US (West) corporate handouts is 'exploitation' in my books. If you'd like to go further into your theory that the free market has never exploited anyone, I'd love to hear more, it sounds very interesting.

You know, funny thing - I agree there are no free markets in the world, I have argued that many times before. That is why I am in favor of removal of all governemnts.

Re:child labor - look up my previos post (and badnarik`s). So try another example where free markets (will) exploit anyone, I`m definitelly waiting for such an example.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jan 9 2005, 01:45 PM
The corporation is giving the kid another option. And the simple fact that the kid is working there should tell you that this kid values this option more than every other option he has.

Sure you can say it is a crappy option. But it is the BEST option out of all the kid has.

Another important thing is to ask - why there is no better option for the kid out there? Well, precisely because there is a lack of capitalism in his country, because there is a lack of other corporations, competition, etc. In short, capital in his country is not accumulated highly enough, thus productivity in the country is low (and the family cannot survive if the kids dont work).

Now suppose this big corporations leave. What then? Kid is out of work and has to settle for option he values less (searching dumpsters for food). His family has bigger trouble to survive. How they are better off WITHOUT big corporations?

The trouble for the poor is NOT capitalism and globalization. The trouble for the poor is lack of capitalism and globalization and leftist who fight hard against both.

Interesting concept you have there. So by that argument, the same child, before these glamour jobs arrive, is put into prostitution by the same parents that are going to hand them over to the factory. The kid is forced to work, to help feed the family, and gets paid by a Westerner a couple of bucks for their service. It beats begging, or foraging through the ever present Bangladesh dumpster, so they aren't being exploited? This kind of crap happens, kids are sold into slavery, prostitution, drug-muling, etc., because the money is shown to them.

These multi-million dollar companies have a purpose for going to poor, third world countries, they can get around child labour laws, minimum wages, and safety regulations, to EXPLOIT the under-privileged. Is the money helping the family? yes, but at the cost of the child's health and education. Are the jobs offered to the parents? No, because they can pay less, and intimidate the kids easier.

Reality is, the rich will get richer, and the poor much poorer. Crime will increase, as the desperate look for a way to survive.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by duncan@Jan 9 2005, 03:37 PM
Interesting concept you have there. So by that argument, the same child, before these glamour jobs arrive, is put into prostitution by the same parents that are going to hand them over to the factory. The kid is forced to work, to help feed the family, and gets paid by a Westerner a couple of bucks for their service. It beats begging, or foraging through the ever present Bangladesh dumpster, so they aren't being exploited? This kind of crap happens, kids are sold into slavery, prostitution, drug-muling, etc., because the money is shown to them.

These multi-million dollar companies have a purpose for going to poor, third world countries, they can get around child labour laws, minimum wages, and safety regulations, to EXPLOIT the under-privileged. Is the money helping the family? yes, but at the cost of the child's health and education. Are the jobs offered to the parents? No, because they can pay less, and intimidate the kids easier.

Reality is, the rich will get richer, and the poor much poorer. Crime will increase, as the desperate look for a way to survive.

If the child is put into slavery/ forced prostitution that is not OK. I dont see where did you get that from - that I think child slavery is OK.

Minimum wages and safety regulations are just another tool of etatist regulations that have no place on free markets. You dont think your workplace is safe enough? Dont work there! But dont ban people who want to work there if they want to because they have no other choice! Who`s going to employ people whose productivity is lower than minimum wage? No one! These people will be UNEMPLOYED. How is that better than being able to work? Dont forget they want to work - you just dont let them because YOU think their conditions are not good enough. But for them, these conditions are the best they have.

Additionaly, capital growth, rise of the productivity and competition will force employers to increase workplace safety and wages. Neither of those 3 things take place in countries where captialism and globalization are fought against. In fact, you are fighting forces that could and will improve lives of people.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 06:15 PM
Totally agree with you. Where we differ (polarize) is that I believe I'm born in chains owned by GM, McDonalds, and Microsoft, not the Federal Government of Canada.

How are you born in chains owned by GM, McDonalds, and Microsoft? Who`s forcing you to buy their products?

The thing is (I have said it in the other forum as well) - free market corporations have no control over their customers. Customers stop buying their products - they will go bankrupt. In other words, free market companies MUST give you what you want in order to survive.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jan 9 2005, 02:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jan 9 2005, 02:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 06:15 PM
Totally agree with you. Where we differ (polarize) is that I believe I'm born in chains owned by GM, McDonalds, and Microsoft, not the Federal Government of Canada.

How are you born in chains owned by GM, McDonalds, and Microsoft? Who`s forcing you to buy their products?

The thing is (I have said it in the other forum as well) - free market corporations have no control over their customers. Customers stop buying their products - they will go bankrupt. In other words, free market companies MUST give you what you want in order to survive.[/b][/quote]
Well, simply, because those companies own the Government. The only thing I agree with you on is that the Government is not doing its job appropriately. Where we differ is that you think that removing Government is somehow the answer, leaving everyone to fend for themselves. I'd suggest Government simply has to be redefined back into what it is supposed to be, a service for the citizens of a nation-state, providing security, legislation, and order through democratic means.

Why can't you just take a gun and rob me of all I've got? Well, because you have no right to do so and I have a right to defend myself. The reasoning behind this is based on property rights theory. In a nutshell - you have a exclusive right to your body/mind, products of your labor and all resources/goods previously unowned. I can explain this theory further if it is unclear.

Soooo... good will is supposed to stop me from taking your stuff? The 'law' which no longer has any government backing (funding)? Who makes the 'law' now to say that I'm breaking it? You make your own, and say that I'm violating it? Sure you've got a right to defend yourself, but what if you're disabled?

Please explain this theory further, it is unclear. I'm not exactly sure how you enforce order in this new (lack of) system. Also, what happens to handicapped individuals, those who are sick, orphans, etc. Are you expecting all of these issues to be taken care of by goodwill? Utopian.

Your system seems to be a 'survival of the fittest' state. I find that somewhat distasteful.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by badnarik+Jan 8 2005, 08:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (badnarik @ Jan 8 2005, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Jan 8 2005, 10:11 AM

This is definitely one I bet we'll agree to disagree on. First off, there is no 'free market capitalism', every market in the world lives under massive regulation and subsidization. Secondly, a semi-example would be something as simple as child-labour in East Asia. American companies legally employ millions of very under-paid and impovershed workers to do dangerous, and often unsanitary work that American counterparts would charge much, much more. Shifting some of these societies to dependence on subsistance US (West) corporate handouts is 'exploitation' in my books. If you'd like to go further into your theory that the free market has never exploited anyone, I'd love to hear more, it sounds very interesting.

if a kid is free to choose and is not a slave, then its not exploitation

the corporation is just offering an opportunity.[/b][/quote]
I love how eating or not eating is a 'choice'. Just like being gay is a choice imo, there isn't one. You were born wanting to eat, you'll die wanting to eat, and anyone that has the ability to feed you or starve you 'owns' you. You can choose not to eat, but that's a pretty poor 'choice'.

If you think its cool for children to work in various (highly dangerous) textile factories and manufacturing jobs, then we have different ideas on Children's rights. I figure they've got to right to food w/out hard labour, regardless of how 'voluntary' it is. I recall as a child I wasn't 'voluntarily' looking for back-breaking labour for a few nickels an hour.

Maybe its just me, but I find the notion that corporations and starving children somehow enter these labour agreements mutually, as if this naked, impovershed kid has a lawyer there with him negotiating his contract, purely hilarious.