- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
I see your point, but I still view an actor or an athlete and being somewhat different than a corporation. Yes, they provide a service, and people are willing to pay for it. The odds are great that if the amount of their compensation was reduced, say through taxation, that they would still do what they do. Perhaps not some of the worst ones of our time - but that wouldn't be so bad would it? To have the people performing and creating because they actually love it? You might be able to notice more substance without the noise... anyway that's not really relevant.
They are behaving rationally: they can ask for more money, and they can get it. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that capitalism isn't rational - at least to the self. It's perfectly rational given the frame in which it lives. The argument has always been, I thought, that what is rational for the self is not necessarily the best for everyone.
Admin
You should heed your own advice. Really.
I am "seriously challenging" your implication that your "sovereign authority" over your own life does not or can not be interfering with that of others around you:
How? What right did you have to the materials used to make it? You purchased them? With what? The money you earned? Doing what? What right did you have to do that? What effect did it have to those that live nearby? Who did you purchase it from? What right did they have to sell it? How did they happen up on it?
If you continue this line of questioning, you will always, always arrive at some (quaintly dressed up) version of: "I took it." and this is why your natural law libertarian argument is considered full retard.
The rest of your post deriving from the above statements, I've not replied to, since it has become void.
Your participation in society is more than just an individuals path carrying whatever "rights" they have bestowed upon them (self-appointed or otherwise), it is more than just "me and mine" - you affect people, you affect many people, and when you claim to have made something, you're failing, miserably, to understand everything involved in doing so.
Admin
"The argument has always been, I thought, that what is rational for the self is not necessarily the best for everyone."
So a rational capitalistic decision is only 'good' if it takes into consideration what is best for everyone?
Does that sound like it could possibly be an efficient process? How much knowledge would every single decision have to involve? How long would it take to acquire such knowledge? How would it be updated over time? How much would it cost? How much would that impact prices?
Perhaps what is best for everyone is if we ditch the hubristic notion that we can dictate what is good for all, and instead enforce the more axiomatic/atomic laws against force and fraud.
Admin
If I can do it, anybody can. It wasn't easy and it certainly wasn't handed to me, nor need it have been.
Let's agree to disagree. 88% of millionares+ today are first-generation money.Saving and investing is as much or as little as one commits to. I am not and will not be a multi-millionaire. There are more important things to me. I won't begrudge those who have nothing more important.Finally, before you waste your time replying to the charity which I accepted: There is a big difference in choosing to help others and being forced to help others.
Admin
Interesting how you use the term "force and coercion" as if it were two words for the same thing. The truth is, there are many other forms of coercion besides (the threat of) physical violence.
One is the interaction of simple necessity and Hobson's Choice. "Pay what I ask or do without" sounds like a fair proposition, until the thing being requested is necessary to sustain life and physical well-being. Things like food, shelter, access to medical care, and clean water. When "choosing to do without" is not a viable option, the statement "pay what I ask or do without" is itself a form of coercion.
Admin
"Most of the elite and powermongers didn't earn wealth anyways, they were born into it. Most business owners either had wealthy family to finance their endeavor, inherited it from a family member, or had some kind of outside connections that gave them a stepping stone that others don't have." - Bob
You say that most of the "elite" didn't earn wealth, and this may be true to an extent; such people born in wealth have great access to various benefits which was gotten from their family. Where did their family get it from? Do you believe that the elite were simply in that position from the beginning of time? Before the elite existed, how would one acquire the "outside connections" that would give them a unique advantage.
Of course not. The elite exist, because some ancestor of their's ran a business and turned a profit. This profit allowed them to accumulate wealth, and pass it down to their children, who in turn grew that wealth and passed it down. If the generations down the line reap the rewards for that, that is the result of the collective efforts of their forefathers.
Not everyone requires a "special advantage" to advance, and there is nothing wrong with having said advantage. Should we blind everyone in the world, because they have an unfair advantage over people who are born blind?
Admin
Capitalism enslaved and killed millions of Africans. Go Capitalism!
Admin
"I am "seriously challenging" your implication that your "sovereign authority" over your own life does not or can not be interfering with that of others around you: "
That is not my implication at all. My sovereign authority over my life is an entirely different consideration from whether or not I 'interfere' with anyone else.
"If you continue this line of questioning, you will always, always arrive at some (quaintly dressed up) version of: "I took it.""
Actually, I more-or-less agree with you here. You ultimately do recurse all the way down to this kind of realization. How can it possibly be otherwise? The author Lee Harris had a wonderful example of the genesis of property rights using nothing more that a big man and a little man with a rabbit.
"your natural law libertarian argument"
Not my bag, baby. If it is such a thing, it is coincidental.
"The rest of your post deriving from the above statements, I've not replied to, since it has become void."
Void in your mind, it would seem.
"when you claim to have made something, you're failing, miserably, to understand everything involved in doing so."
Au contrair - I am profoundly aware (in the abstract, of course) of the miraculous wonder of our economy. See http://ipencilmovie.org/ for a wild ride.
Admin
When you are required to work for a living in order to support yourself, buy food and pay rent, then there is an element of force involved in any working relationship. So I guess Capitalism is just another criminal "ism"
Admin
Well, capitalism didn't start the slave trade; actually, the black slave trade was started by the Africans when European traders (From Portugal, I believe) came to make trade in Africa. Part of the tribal warfare at the time involved taking the defeated tribes as slaves, and these slaves were offered up as barter.
So... go Tribalism?
Admin
Africans captured and enslaved other Africans and sold them to whitey. Go racial solidarity!
Admin
Really? Who? Because even though I voted for Obama, I would have loved to elect someone with Socialist tendencies. Social Democracy has done wonders for most of Scandinavia.
Admin
People around the globe captured and enslaved other people to Get Shit Done. Go humanity!
Admin
No, it is just the workers who produce. Those with Capital are simply leeching off of their work, and have the idiotic idea that their contribution of Capital was somehow more valuable than the actual work that was done.
Where the fuck did he say that? Oh wait, he didn't, you made something up to try and save face.
Probably because you started it. Not a thing you have said has not been insulting to everyone else.
Admin
"When you are required to work for a living in order to support yourself"
Welcome to reality. Every living thing on this planet has to deal with it. So can you. No free rides.
Or you could incoherently attempt to argue the injustice of your existence forcing you to actually do something to continue your existence. But that might require some actual work, thus revealing the violence inherent in the system. Or something.
Admin
I'm guessing it comes down to the fact that we found we were all much, much, much better off distributing the costs of things like Police and Fire protection amongst everyone, instead of only letting those who could afford it have it. Clearly you believe this too, otherwise you would have moved to a country that doesn't have these things a long time ago.
Also, only a complete idiot believes that taxes are "theft".
Admin
Two points on that. One, I used to be in the business of selling $1 widgets for $16, they were called CDs. There's a reason that CD cast you $16 in the record store: there's at least four layers of handling needed to get the CD from the press to your hot little hands, and each layer has to pay expenses. Assuming something like a doubling at each layer, it's not hard to see how you end up with $16 CDs.
Two, if you actually make and pocket a 1000% profit (that would be selling for $11, not $10, by the way :) ) someone else will come in and be happy with a 900% profit, and they'll eat your lunch. So if you manage to make and keep a 1000% profit, it implies a huge market failure - this is basic markets.
Admin
At least slavery got the unemployment numbers down pretty low. So there's that.
Admin
Doesn't exist. Capitalism will cause that to happen, because it is far more beneficial to those with "capital" to do so.
Admin
No, this is a fucking retarded argument. YOU made the claim it is voluntary, YOU must back it up.
Admin
Failure to differentiate between "do what you need to survive" and "do what I want you to in order to survive". Typical mistake.
The fact you think you can differentuate the actions you take within your soverignity and the consequences of said actions says a lot.
Admin
No. You still have not actually provided any kind of citation proving this assertion. And it's no different than the "force" they use to keep companies from polluting your water or to keep you from robbing a bank.
Admin
The reason governments are formed is for the purpose of protecting property. This this end, things such as militaries, police and firemen are formed, and these things are payed for by everyone for the good of society. There is nothing wrong with this, and it makes a good deal of sense to do so.
The problem only occurs when the government acts outside of this one role; taxes for the basic funding of necessary services is not theft, but punitive taxes (like for smoking) and redistributive taxes (like food stamps) are theft.
Admin
The thing to remember is the "old rich" made their fortune in the days when it was easier to get started on that path, while now it's much harder, so those born into wealthy families have more than just a leg up on the average person it's more like exclusive entry to the club that isn't accepting new members anymore.
Before the days of megacorps it was easier to start a business and easier to turn a profit, so if John Q. Pennybags' great great grandfather managed to amass a fortune in the 1900s, he had an easier time getting invested in it than if Jimmy Average from a regular middle-class family decided he wants to go into business for himself today; there's going to be more competition, more regulations, more capital required, so John Q. Pennybags IV has it worlds easier.
Admin
(that would be selling for $11, not $10, by the way :) )
Ha ha ha I just knew some smartass would kick my balls over my lazy math! ;)
"someone else will come in and be happy with a 900% profit, and they'll eat your lunch"
Exactly. Isn't self-regulation a wonderful thing? Of course, I'm going to take my early profits and lobby government to pass a law requiring expensive regulation of such widgets to keep such competitors from entering the marketplace. Maybe a nice splash of licensing requirements too.
"So if you manage to make and keep a 1000% profit, it implies a huge market failure - this is basic markets."
Perhaps, but not necessarily. I may have invented something so revolutionary that I leave others behind. of course, over time, things tend to level out. Apple is an interesting object study in this.
Admin
I don't know if I could really go with that, actually. It just gave employers a choice of whether to rent or buy their employees.
Admin
You could think of redistributive taxes as insurance rather than theft. Its insurance against desperate maginalized people attacking you and taking your life over a loaf of bread. Do you feel better using one word instead of another? I ask because you're not actually interested in thinking about the subject. You just want to equivocate something with theft because it reaffirms your selfishness and narrow mindedness.
Admin
And nowadays they just use the H1 and L1 visa do to the same thing!
Admin
Actually it did exist and it can. Corporations can only bribe the legislators and use them to screw everyone else if the legislators actually have the power for that screwing, so to speak. If the government acts within its intended role, then corporations can not use them to create unfair regulations which squash small business competition.
Southwest Airlines was started up as a result of reduced regulation in the airline industry, and they were able to function by kicking the competition in the nuts with reduced flight costs.
Admin
Despite your perceived obstacles, the IRS data show that we still enjoy enormous levels of mobility upward through the quintiles.
Plenty of John Q. Pennybags end up penniless too.....nobody is immune from failure.
Admin
Who is the one "voluntarilly paying" for the executive's salaries? I know I'm not the one who's allowed to have any say in it, yet it definitely affects every company I've worked at.
When you actually look into it, the ones who set the pay levels for CEOs are other CEOs. People who have a VESTED INTEREST in keeping executive level salaries high. There is no way you can say that is a purely voluntary exchange in that situation.
Admin
You forget all the leisure time spent in fine linen suits drinking juleps. Having to work the fields really cramps your style.
Admin
You really, really, really should knock it off with that "I've heard X" stuff. It's not helping you at all, and is just making it seem like you're some anti-government nut.
Admin
While you can make that case, there are 2 key differences between insurance and redistribution.
I choose to buy insurance, and I choose what I wish to insure. This means that, for instance, as a man, I might not want an insurance policy that covers mammograms (unless I put on a good deal of weight). I cannot choose not to pay redistributive taxes (well, not without armed men storming my house).
I can expect that an insurance I provide will provide that service. If they do not, I can take them to court. If the government fails to provide my service, or does a lousy job of it, to whom can I turn? I can sue the government, but most (granted, not all) such cases get smacked down.
Although the two seem similar, they cannot be more different. One is a personal choice, and the other is mandatory.
Admin
I never forgot a single moment spent in fine linen suits drinking juleps. They were wonderful, I remember each of them as a shining jewel. I intend to spend next summer the same way, too.
Admin
The problem with trying to treat everyone equally is that not everyone is equal. Even if you got a shitty start (ahem... unequal start) in life, you have to make due with what you are given. If you refuse to work at mcdonalds so that you can eat, I fail to see how that is my problem. I have my own family to feed. I don't want to spend my extra money on other people, but i tend to be more socially conservative than most. I like the few social programs that make sense. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Military, I can get on board with that. Thats all I really want. I believe the post office should be sold off and privatized.
The government doesn't need to get involved when the private sector can do it better, faster, and cheaper. That is a capatilist advantage, is chisling the production process into a finely tuned machine. Government just says "this is what we are going to spend on this" and they just write giant checks.
The less the government gets involved and the less it spends on entitlement, the better off the economy, and by proxy, the better off the people are.
If you disagree with me, thats ok. Find me an example where government spending leads to a better environment for the people.
The governments job is not to take care of it's people; The gonernments job is to create an environment in which it's people can take care of themselves.
Addendum (2012-12-03 16:29): And fml for my shitty typos.
Admin
[quote user="[Your Name]"][quote user="Dave Insurgent"]No, he acquired it through investment, likely through money and connections supplied to him by family and friends. He will continue to grow wealthier and wealthier while those that actually do the work in his shop gain very little.[/quote]
Umm what? When did investment become a bad thing?[/quote]
When it was decided that rewarding people simply for already having money was more important than rewarding the people who actually do the fucking work.
[quote]What is preventing these poor down-trodden from investing on their own?[/quote]
Having to spend all their money on rent and food? Having to work multiple jobs, leaving them no time to actually do the research needed to be a competent investor?
[quote]Could it be that there is real risk to investment? No, because if one is to admit there is risk involved, than one must concede that return on investment is earned.[/quote]
Wrong again. Just because there is risk does NOT mean that a return is earned. Further, it also does NOT mean that one should be rewarded more for "taking a risk" than they should be for actually doing work and being productive.
[qoute]Don't try to play at this. In my life, I've gone from earning 7.25USD/hr while supporting a wife and child -- without family or government assistance (No foodstamps, medicaid, housing, etc.). What I have managed to accumulate in the 12 years since I left home should be mine. Fair share would, to me, indicate that everyone else should be paying the same 28% I pay, or in reverse I should be paying the same rate everyone else is.[/quote]
This entire story is completely full of shit. You did NOT make it without any "government assistance". Your entire life you had lots of government assistance, you just didn't recognize it.
Admin
Admin
"Who is the one "voluntarilly paying" for the executive's salaries?"
The ones that have the legal right to do so.
"I know I'm not the one who's allowed to have any say in it"
Why should you have a say in it? Are you a CEO/CFO?
Sure it's voluntary...does anyone have a gun to their head?
Admin
That's the thing these people never, ever get. They think that the only way to get someone to do something against their will is to threaten to hit them. They don't think that economic coercion exists, because if you didn't want to do it, you just wouldn't.
Admin
Admin
"rewarding people simply for already having money"
No. 'Simply having money' is of great value to somebody that does not have money, and wishes to get something off the ground, or expand etc. Making that money available for them to use is itself valuable, therefore worthy of profit. Hence, "it takes money to make money"
Admin
Yes, I've seen that this is true. Doesn't change anything with my argument. But thanks for trying to turn it into something it wasn't, and thereby admitting you don't have a rebuttal to the actual argument.
Admin
As I've said repeatedly: those people aren't the ones who are actually the "wealthy". Yes, they have wealth, yes they have more money than you and I, but we're not talking about them. In my "100x" example, the minimum wage would be say, $10 for simplicity, meaning you can make $1000 an hour. That's still $2 million a year.
There are 392 people on Forbes list who are worth 1000x my 100x the "minimum wage" (here in Canada). Yes, some of them are self-made, but are they really worth 100000x what someone else is?
Admin
I'm not saying I can't "deal with it". I am, however, pointing out that your idea of everything being completely "voluntary" is wrong, and thus most of your arguments are faulty.
Oh, and FUCK YOU for implying that people who are for more equality are against work.
Admin
And I am a moron who completely missed your point.
"Insurance against marginalized people..."
However, do you really feel it's an acceptable option to keep the poor pacified by doling out free stuff? Would not the better solution be to allow them to lift themselves from poverty by providing the environment that allows for personal advancement?
Admin
Right, but you can see how that amounts to a positive feedback loop, can't you? Positive feedback loops tend to go gangbusters until they fail catastrophically.
Admin
You chose to continue living in this country.
This statement smacks of smug idealism. Reality is far, far different, otherwise we wouldn't be constantly hearing about health insurance companies trying to weasel out of paying claims.
And if your government isn't doing the job, you either vote for different people, or you leave the country.
No, not really.
Admin
There really isn't a whole lot of data to back up this assertion that the private sector is always better than government. For one, take most of the municipal fiber optic services started by local governments. Just about every one of them has done something that the private sector has not wanted to do, and has done it faster and cheaper than the private sector was going to do it, if they were going to do it at all.
Again, there really is not any data to support this.
Chattanooga, TN and their 100MB fiber service. Superior to any private sector company that was in the area before it got started, and superior to just about all of the private sector companies in other areas.
Entirely wrong.
Admin
Without doubt. The "free stuff" is the rhetoric of the capitalists, it's used to demonize the poor and the sick. Most people don't want "free stuff" (I mean, sure, we all want free beer, but my point is that most people want to feel sufficient and self-reliant). The people who actually want the 'free ride' are the ones who will find one no matter what you do (even if it culminates in their becoming of a professional criminal).
Free, universal, health care and education. That's your environment for personal advancement. A strong social safety net allows people to bounce back in the most metaphoric way.