Save or Else

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jan 9 2005, 02:52 PM
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!

As far as I'm concerned, this basically sums up your argument. We definitely won't be finding middle ground, some pretty interesting theories here.

Are you Libertarian or something? (No offense) I've heard some Libertarian stuff and am wondering if this is from that ideology or not.

[Agamemnon]

John Downen says this, and I guess it sums up the issue. My problem is w/ the 'powerful and well-connected' and yours appears to be the 'coercive apparatus of the state'. Interesting paragraph.

When government exerts influence over the lives of its citizens, the powerful and well connected use the coercive apparatus of the state for their selfish ends. This comes at the expense of the less fortunate and less well organized and the environmental systems on which we depend. The perennial problem is how to reduce the power of the state to generate such abuses while maintaining its ability to protect the weak from the powerful.

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 8 2005, 01:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 8 2005, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sucks to be you then.

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

Care to explain why it 'sucks to be' me? [/b][/quote]
Well if you are born into these chains of corporations that you so obviously hate then it would suck to be you.

[snowdude]

As bad as the CPP is (from a few comments above) at least it's a good set up that won't bankrupt the country like plans in Germany and other European nations. The are moving to a Canadian like system because of the stability it provides for the Nations finances....

I know i can't spell, but i don't need my brain till tom so its all good.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon+Jan 9 2005, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Jan 9 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Care to explain why it 'sucks to be' me?

Well if you are born into these chains of corporations that you so obviously hate then it would suck to be you. [/b][/quote]
So, it sucks to be me because of the way I think? Thanks for contributing.

[flamesfever]

A very interesting debate. From an "old fart" who now collects CPP and OAS I'd like to make a few comments:

1. Social Security Programs provide a great comfort to those, who for whatever reason (haven't the ability to save because of low wages, poor health, bad luck in investing, etc.) are unable to acquire enough for a decent retirement. I recall my father-in-law back in the 50's retiring after 45 years with the Canadian Post Office with $60.00 a month pension, and having to take in boarders just to survive.

2. I believe that governments realize that society is changing i.e. moving to the right, and they will not always be able to provide the necessary funds for retirement. They also see that most corporations are no longer interested in taking us from "cradle to grave". This is why they provide incentives to invest in
RRSP's, which are the best investment you can make in Canada.

3. I have always found it strange that many people, including myself, will go to great lengths to learn whatever is needed to be successful in their occupation, yet, they will act on a whim to invest the money they earned from their occupation, with a bare minimum of effort and understanding, and afterwards wonder why they lost money. As governments and industry are now leaving it up to us to create our own retirement incomes, it is becoming increasingly important to learn the art of investing. l believe that success in investing comes from a lifetime of study and personal trial and error, so the sooner you start the better.

4. I think too much of anything can be a bad thing, including capitalism and government. Alberta's practise of industry working in partnership with government has done a lot for the province, especially with regard to oil and gas development. However, allowing the clearcutting of an old fir forest eg. Porcupine Hills, encouraging large international pig farms, etc. is not my view of responsible government or industry.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jan 9 2005, 02:52 PM

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.

Do you honestly think a 5 year old child chooses to work in some sweat shop? Where is reality here? The parents see a chance to make some cash off their kids, and PUT them into the factory. You seem to feel the kids aren't exploited because some corporation gives them a dollar a day to work 15 hours in poor conditions, just because without that dollar, the family would have less. How is it different from the same parent renting the kid to a tourist? It's a fast buck for the parents, that the kid doesn't want to earn.

Some day you may have a child, would you feel comfortable putting them in danger (lack of safety regulations), because they can make a few bucks? As far as the crap that these companies are improving standards in any of these countries, all they are improving is their bottom line, at the expense of the lives of the kids. Capital growth and a rise in production will line the corporations pockets, competition for workers will cause the corporation to move the factory to another country where the can exploit cheaper labour. This has happened with the move of factories from Canada to the USA, to Mexico, to Taiwan, and now to Bangladesh.

I'm sure a 6 year old kid, that has been kept out of any kind of school, forced into a textile sweatshop, to work 15 hours a day for a dollar, is seeing a grand improvement in his life. Maybe the family that loses their child in a factory accident feels enriched too. If we are all lucky, they will open up the coal/uranium mines again, and we can have our friends and family work long hours, for low wages. Bring back the environment where men worked 5-6 years so they could die of cancer, spending their cheques at the company store, hoping the money would at least put enough food on the table to feed the kids. As long as the company makes money, since they want to work there.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Well, simply, because those companies own the Government.

? Are you saying those companies can influence (through bribery and what not) what the governement does? Is that not an argument for removing government since it is used as a tool to pursue companies own interest at the expense of others?

Basicaly, in your words the government itself is the tool you are fearing most – tool the rich use when they squeeze out the poor for what they`ve got.


The only thing I agree with you on is that the Government is not doing its job appropriately.

No, not really. I understand that the governments very purpose is to act as outlined above – as a parasite. In other words, if I say the government acts as a parasite, I am not saying it is not doing its job appropriately. For me, personaly, there`s neither no place for the government in a free world, nor it can do its job appropriately (in a metaphysical kind of sense).


Where we differ is that you think that removing Government is somehow the answer, leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

I`m not too sure why you always suggest that everyone will be left alone. Do not people tend to help each other? Family, friends, completely strange people too? How about charities, see the world wide donations to South East Asia after the catastrophe. It clearly is happening - people are not left alone to fend for themselves where the state fails.

If anything, the belief that the state wil take care of weak and poweless kills sympathy and philantrophy among people. Because you can always say – I paid enough taxes so the state has enough money to take care of the poor, why should I donate again? Long time ago I posted here an article how American Red Cross spoke against government donations because of this very reason. Maybe I`ll be able to look it up again.


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.

This comes back to my previous post where I tried to define minimal state. Originally, in classical liberalism point of view, that was the way government was supposed to be. I could somewhat accept that as a starting point, as a mean, but not as a goal. But without adding additional "ingredients" of a democratic state.

[Flame Of Liberty]

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?

What I was talking about is called Natural Law, and the thing is – no one creates it, it is discovered by reson. It follows from the simple fact that people act in a world of scarce resources. Because resources are scarce, there needs to be a way how to allocate them. One way is through violence, where the fittest survive and other way is through private property rights paradigm. I`m not too sure going into details here is appropriate for a hockey board, but for a full full debate, check out this: Ethics of Liberty mainly
Part One - Natural Law. Then we may discuss particular elements you disagree with.


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.

As for the defense and law enforcement, you did not read the article I linked, did you? Its not too long. Then we can talk about details you have issues with, it will be much clearer.

And again, I dont know where is that coming from – handicaped individuals not being taken care for. Guess what – weak and powerless were being taken care for looong before state pension system came into place late 19th century and are taken care for now in places where the government fails totaly. Thinking that the state is a babysitter, the only one who will save people, that is utopian.


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

To me it seems to be the exact opposite. It allows everyone to pursue their own happiness in cooperation with others. Somewhere I have read that people privately donate more money to charities that the state spends on its social programs. Hmm I wonder why.

Also, I have read that people spend more money on private security than the state spends on the police. Hmm I again wonder why.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jan 9 2005, 05:49 PM
As far as I'm concerned, this basically sums up your argument. We definitely won't be finding middle ground, some pretty interesting theories here.

Are you Libertarian or something? (No offense) I've heard some Libertarian stuff and am wondering if this is from that ideology or not.

Come on, dont give up so early. Its not like I`ve became a libertarian overnight.

And yes, you can call it libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. Theoretical background are people like M. Rothbard, L. von Mises, H.H. Hoppe, Locke etc.

BTW I would be interested as what stuff have you heard. I have heard some supposedly libertarian stuff on this board too, and let me tell you, its apples and oranges. Not even close.

[Agamemnon]

? Are you saying those companies can influence (through bribery and what not) what the governement does? Is that not an argument for removing government since it is used as a tool to pursue companies own interest at the expense of others?

Yes they can, and no its not. Just because a good institution has been hijacked by selfish forces is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd suggest that the government is supposed to shield us from these insidious corporate forces, not act as their tool. I'd prefer complete governmental and corporate reform, redefining their places appropriately, to abolishing central organization as we know it.

Basicaly, in your words the government itself is the tool you are fearing most – tool the rich use when they squeeze out the poor for what they`ve got.

Exactly, identify the 'rich' as the problem, and deal with them. Tossing the government away will just force them to find another avenue to use their resources to control and manipulate the 'poor' to generate more resources for themselves.

The only thing I agree with you on is that the Government is not doing its job appropriately.

No, not really. I understand that the governments very purpose is to act as outlined above – as a parasite. In other words, if I say the government acts as a parasite, I am not saying it is not doing its job appropriately. For me, personaly, there`s neither no place for the government in a free world, nor it can do its job appropriately (in a metaphysical kind of sense).

I'm no lover of the US founding fathers, but I've got to believe that many people began setting up responsible government as a way to protect individual rights and at the same time ensure individual freedom. Not to act like a parasite. Its pretty important to note that its parasitic nature revolves around its infiltration by selfish institutions, not because it was set up and designed to screw you over. To what end?

Where we differ is that you think that removing Government is somehow the answer, leaving everyone to fend for themselves.

I`m not too sure why you always suggest that everyone will be left alone. Do not people tend to help each other? Family, friends, completely strange people too? How about charities, see the world wide donations to South East Asia after the catastrophe. It clearly is happening - people are not left alone to fend for themselves where the state fails.

So basically, charity from the rich will be the final safety-net for the poor? I'm starving, so I'll rely on the good nature of those around me to eat? Sounds Utopian to me.

Pretty important to note that a massive amount of these donations to SE Asia are being coordinated... and donated by 'governmental' institutions. In fact, I'd suggest governments combined are giving a whole lot more than corporations combined.

If anything, the belief that the state wil take care of weak and poweless kills sympathy and philantrophy among people. Because you can always say – I paid enough taxes so the state has enough money to take care of the poor, why should I donate again? Long time ago I posted here an article how American Red Cross spoke against government donations because of this very reason. Maybe I`ll be able to look it up again.

Again, I don't believe that individual welfare can be ensured by the goodwill of the rich. In times where individual rights were not entrenched, the elite tended to 'exploit' the hell out of poor, abundant labour pools. I'd suggest basing social welfare on donations from the rich is no way to assure the well-being of everyone.

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?

What I was talking about is called Natural Law, and the thing is – no one creates it, it is discovered by reson. It follows from the simple fact that people act in a world of scarce resources. Because resources are scarce, there needs to be a way how to allocate them. One way is through violence, where the fittest survive and other way is through private property rights paradigm. I`m not too sure going into details here is appropriate for a hockey board, but for a full full debate, check out this: Ethics of Liberty mainly
Part One - Natural Law. Then we may discuss particular elements you disagree with.

This basically sounds like Utopian economics. People who won't take more than they need, help others for the sake of helping others. I'm thinking violence is going to overrule sharing in several instances, and that will lead to problems. Welcome to Thunderdome

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.

As for the defense and law enforcement, you did not read the article I linked, did you? Its not too long. Then we can talk about details you have issues with, it will be much clearer.

And again, I dont know where is that coming from – handicaped individuals not being taken care for. Guess what – weak and powerless were being taken care for looong before state pension system came into place late 19th century and are taken care for now in places where the government fails totaly. Thinking that the state is a babysitter, the only one who will save people, that is utopian.

Yeah, the handicapped were taken care of all right. Tossed into institutions and basically jailed until they died. I'm pretty sure I could point out some instances where the disabled are doing a whole lot better now than they would have in 1800's England. I skimmed the article. It also seemed to dwell on philosphical niceties to sharing and equitable distribution, without admitting that the realities of this ideal rely almost solely on good-will.

Come on, dont give up so early. Its not like I`ve became a libertarian overnight.

And yes, you can call it libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. Theoretical background are people like M. Rothbard, L. von Mises, H.H. Hoppe, Locke etc.

BTW I would be interested as what stuff have you heard. I have heard some supposedly libertarian stuff on this board too, and let me tell you, its apples and oranges. Not even close.

Well, I don't think that I'm giving up, but I doubt either of us will be swayed to the other's point of view. Besides, we're using up board space boring the hell out of everyone

I think there was a thread here a month or two ago that mentioned Libertarianism. I thought somehow Chomsky was a Libertarian, so maybe that's what I've heard.

In the end, I'd love for everyone to just start helping everyone else out, so that we didn't need protection of our rights from institutions like governments. But as long as someone out there is willing to violate your 'Natural Law' of respecting each other's property and liberty, then it won't work.

Utopian. I love Utopias, but I can't argue in favour of their validity, it just doesn't work like that for us.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Yes they can, and no its not. Just because a good institution has been hijacked by selfish forces is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd suggest that the government is supposed to shield us from these insidious corporate forces, not act as their tool. I'd prefer complete governmental and corporate reform, redefining their places appropriately, to abolishing central organization as we know it.

This is where we differ. I certainly do not think that the governement was established with the purpose of protecting people. To put it in a sarcastic way, that was just a cover.

Again, the important point here is to understand "corporate power" and markets. On a free market, there is no other way to make money than to satisfy a need of someone else. People and companies who satisfy needs of other people grow bigger and bigger. In other words, you want the government to shield us from companies that serve us the best.

Exactly, identify the 'rich' as the problem, and deal with them. Tossing the government away will just force them to find another avenue to use their resources to control and manipulate the 'poor' to generate more resources for themselves.

See, again. You define the rich as the problem. I define them (on a free market of course) as those who proved to be the best at satisfying needs and anticipating future preferences.

How can you manipulate the poor to generate more resources for yourself, if you do not have governmental backing? If the poor dont buy your products you are broke. But if you do have governmental backing, they can protect you with direct subsidies, import quotas and tariffs etc, all in the name of "protecting strategic industry/company" or "protecting employment." In other words, you are protected by the government eventhough consumers do not want you on the market because you do not satisfy their needs properly. Yet they are forced to keep you there. So how are the poor protected by the governments? They are not.

[Flame Of Liberty]

I'm no lover of the US founding fathers, but I've got to believe that many people began setting up responsible government as a way to protect individual rights and at the same time ensure individual freedom.# Not to act like a parasite.# Its pretty important to note that its parasitic nature revolves around its infiltration by selfish institutions, not because it was set up and designed to screw you over.# To what end?

I`m no lover of the US founding fathers either, but they are the best thing that has ever happened to the US. Since then, it`s been a downfall.

What do you mean by selfish institutions? Politicians, I suppose? So they created an institution (government) supposed to protect people. Innocent and pure intent.

The fact that this innocent government was infiltrated by the very people who set it up with the best intentions seems to you as a problem of the infiltrating instutions? Get rid of selfish politicians/parties and the system will flourish? No, the system was designed with this very intention - to flourish as a tool of selfish and parasitic.

Of course they needed a good PR to sell their ideas as pure and innocent. But dont let that fool you.

Some more stuff about nature of the government and origins of the state:

Anatomy of the State

So basically, charity from the rich will be the final safety-net for the poor?# I'm starving, so I'll rely on the good nature of those around me to eat?# Sounds Utopian to me.

Well first, off - capitalism as the most efficient, effective and just system lets more people to escape poverty. You are not going to argue that more capitalist countries are richer than less capitalist countries? And the poor in a rich country are relatively better off that poor in poor countries?

Recently I have read an interesting article. It was about children of immigrants and children of the poor in the USA. The findings were - children of immigrants were FAR more likely to escape the poverty than children who were taught to depend on the welfare state. Children of immigrants had better working habbits (their parents often had 2 jobs), attended schools and put effort to improve their situation. On the other hands, kids of the american poor never wanted to work, and depended solely on the welfare payments. From their childhood, they were taught to be dependent.

Second - if you are totally helpless, then you depend on others, regardless of the political system. The thing is - capitalism creates more wealth therefore other people will have more funds to help you. Who is going to help the poor if there is no one around with free funds to help? See Africa. No one. Only citizens of richer countries can afford to help. In capitalist countries, even the poor (and I mean literally those at the bottom) can use products of capitalism poor in other countries cannot even dream bout (medical attention, infrastructure, accessible food and water etc.)

Third - if you arent helpless, there is no reason others should feed you. Whatever happened to personal responsibility for your own life?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Pretty important to note that a massive amount of these donations to SE Asia are being coordinated... and donated by 'governmental' institutions.# In fact, I'd suggest governments combined are giving a whole lot more than corporations combined.

Government is not giving its own money, because it has NO its money. All money it has was previously taken from the private sector. In fact, what the government did was to steal the money first and then brag about how it donates its money. That is Robin Hood solidarity.

Again, I don't believe that individual welfare can be ensured by the goodwill of the rich.# In times where individual rights were not entrenched, the elite tended to 'exploit' the hell out of poor, abundant labour pools.# I'd suggest basing social welfare on donations from the rich is no way to assure the well-being of everyone.

You still haven`t explained how can the elites exploit the hell out of poor.

What do you mean by well being of everyone? Some kind of social egalitarianism? First, you have to justify that as a desirable outcome, then you have to justify means to achieve this end (which involves violating individual rights) and third you have to prove your means actually CAN achieve this end of social egalitarianims. Can you do that?

This basically sounds like Utopian economics.# People who won't take more than they need, help others for the sake of helping others.# I'm thinking violence is going to overrule sharing in several instances, and that will lead to problems.# Welcome to Thunderdome

Utopian economics? People who won't take more than they need, help others for the sake of helping others? I dont think I follow. Where did I say anything about `taking more than I need` ? That is communist thinking. Certainly not what I was talking about.

Yeah, the handicapped were taken care of all right.# Tossed into institutions and basically jailed until they died.# I'm pretty sure I could point out some instances where the disabled are doing a whole lot better now than they would have in 1800's England.# I skimmed the article.# It also seemed to dwell on philosphical niceties to sharing and equitable distribution, without admitting that the realities of this ideal rely almost solely on good-will.

Equitable distribution? What is that? You are arguing something I never said. Libertarianism is not based on niceties to sharing - if you share and you are being nice then it is your own virtue, nothing more nothing less.

Well, I don't think that I'm giving up, but I doubt either of us will be swayed to the other's point of view. Besides, we're using up board space boring the hell out of everyone

Oh well... But we`re doing our best

I think there was a thread here a month or two ago that mentioned Libertarianism.# I thought somehow Chomsky was a Libertarian, so maybe that's what I've heard.

Let me assure you he is no libertarian, actually he`s on the other side of the spectrum. Also, people like Ann Coulter or O`Reily make the impression they are all there is to "right wing" thinking whereas they are both jokes and not even close to modern antisocialistic thinking. It is only sad people believe they are the only alternatives to the left.

In the end, I'd love for everyone to just start helping everyone else out, so that we didn't need protection of our rights from institutions like governments.# But as long as someone out there is willing to violate your 'Natural Law' of respecting each other's property and liberty, then it won't work.

Utopian.# I love Utopias, but I can't argue in favour of their validity, it just doesn't work like that for us.

If people will have interest in protecting their rights and liberty, it will work.

Government free societies did exist in the past. That is simply a historical fact. So it is not an utopia. Yes, finally the state took over, but thats a whole another debate...

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 9 2005, 01:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 9 2005, 01:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well if you are born into these chains of corporations that you so obviously hate then it would suck to be you.

So, it sucks to be me because of the way I think? Thanks for contributing. [/b][/quote]
No problem!!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon+Jan 11 2005, 08:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Jan 11 2005, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So, it sucks to be me because of the way I think? Thanks for contributing.

No problem!! [/b][/quote]
Darn, I hate getting sucked in by trolls. What a waste of time.

I thought that in saying something, you actually had something to say. My bad.

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 11 2005, 02:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 11 2005, 02:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

No problem!!

Darn, I hate getting sucked in by trolls. What a waste of time.

I thought that in saying something, you actually had something to say. My bad. [/b][/quote]
I did and I have already said it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon+Jan 11 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Jan 11 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Darn, I hate getting sucked in by trolls. What a waste of time.

I thought that in saying something, you actually had something to say. My bad.

I did and I have already said it. [/b][/quote]
Whatever, classic troll.

[moon]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 11 2005, 03:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 11 2005, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I did and I have already said it.

Whatever, classic troll. [/b][/quote]
Whatever you have to tell yourself