You asked a lot of questions, @dystopianfuturetoday. Let's jump in.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

Patently false. Slavery was held over from early British rule. And a lot of industrialized nations followed the same trend of slavery and child labor, but that's more endemic of the path of civilization than free markets. To think child labor or slavery would come back to the US if we deregulated the markets is ridiculous.

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

I had to reread that a couple times. Always results in massive unemployment? Where has that happened once in history? Regulations have lead to less employment, because less people can create jobs. If you want to open a florist in some states, you must pay several grand to take a test and get a license. Or be a barber. And so on. Regulations kill employment opportunity.

And inflation is caused mainly by growing the money supply. And you have the central bank system and the government to thank for that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

There was no evidence to suggest an individualist society would work prior to the US. Good thing they took a chance.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

What movement is that exactly? Not too many corporations are really for a free market. A free market would add unwanted competition that would decrease their profits. But I take it you meant the Koch brothers supporting CATO? That's hardly my movement.

But for every one corporation you find in favor of Libertarianism, I can find you twenty against it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

If you mean the Libertarian Party, then they're acting in accord with capitalism just as Democrats and Republicans are. Because that's the current economic system. You want a better system? Then offer one up... oh, oops, you can't because we're not allowed those kinds of freedoms in this society, are we? It's the US Dollar or else.

For those of us who are libertarian in name (not party), it doesn't have to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be money. It just has to be voluntary.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Interesting choice of words. The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

I doubt adoption of free markets is primarily done at the butt of the gun. I think you're alluding to Friedman and Chile. I doubt Friedman lead an army of Libertarians through Chile, but I know he was consulted regarding their economy. And according to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

But, to get back to your question, I don't know of any Libertarians that want to "bring" free markets to other countries; they just want to be able to freely provide for themselves and their families without other people telling them how to do it. Again, why not use your power of perception to look at the countless acts of violence perpetrated on the people by their government. And Chile is no different.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not answer some tough questions?

@blankfist, since you seem to be too chicken to take up DFT's challenge, how about I try to play devil's advocate and try to argue the libertarian position for you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

We wouldn't return to those days. To take on each in turn:

1. Slavery
   
   No one would be compelled by violence to do anything they like. People may choose to sell their entire lifetime worth of labor voluntarily if they so choose, but they will not be coerced to do so with violence.
   
   
2. Child labor
   
   Again, no one would be compelled by violence to do (or not do) things. If children don't want to work, they may choose not to. But if you're 9 years old and want to work 80 hours a week to help your family, what right does the government have to coerce people not to?
   
   
3. Monopolies
   
   Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.
   
   Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
   
   
4. Labor abuse
   
   Everyone is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. It isn't abuse if you voluntarily subject yourself to it.
   
   
5. The Great Depression
   
   This was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
   

Of course there's no guarantee that none of these dark things will come back, I'm just saying it's totally legitimate for them to come back provided no violence is used to coerce people. Coercion in the form of economic desperation is totally okay though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story. Ditto for China, Ireland, southeast Asia, etc.

On the other hand, the economies of Cuba and North Korea have remained depressingly stagnant. Everyone's equally poor.

To use John McCain's turn of phrase "I'm not worried about who's getting a bigger slice of the pie, I'm trying to grow the pie!"

Just...don't ask me about Sweeden, they give me a rash with their high equality, high tax, high growth model. Must be something unique and exceptional about Scandinavians that's superior to us Americans.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

It's about doing what's right. When Lincoln tried to free the slaves, no one knew how the economy could function without slave labor. They did it anyway, because you have to do what's morally right!

In this case, we're talking about ending violent coercion, because everyone knows that only people who work for the government ever use violent coercion. Eliminate government, and it'll be gone forever!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Good question, it must be patriotism, or altruism. Rich people are actually really nice, and very generous!

They're willing to adopt a radically unregulated, untaxed world, knowing that it's somehow against their interests. Much more altruistic than agreeing to let their taxes go up so the government can waste it on children's education, helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, maintaining roads...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

No, you must adopt my narrow conception of liberty! Government telling you that you have to serve black people = tyranny, businesses telling you that you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment = liberty.

Once properly understood, it's about fealty to nonviolence, at least government-based nonviolence. Corporations using violence to enforce their rules on the use of their property is self-defense, and therefore totally morally justifiable. Duh.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...

Why not answer some tough questions?

Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?



(for starters)

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^smooman:
So we should let the west borough baptist church stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers and otherwise disrupt funeral processions lest we suppress their first amendment rights. Gotta agree with bareboards, you are irrational and incoherent
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^smooman:
In what way is it a bad law? It's bad because it seeks to preserve the tranquility of the memorial? Or is it bad only because it's infringing on your god given right to dance horribly and cause a scene?
You not being allowed to dance in one particular spot and then crying tyranny over it just makes you look like a child

What tranquility? You're talking about policing behavior. Look, you may not like that people dance at the Memorial, but that's the price of freedom. Freedom means we're all free as long as we don't hurt others. It doesn't mean because I was in the military I get more rights than you, or that because I'm part of the majority of people you have to act like us. It means sometimes you have to put up with the fringe of society and put up with things you don't like on public property.
There are people out there who believe you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat on public property. Or you shouldn't be allowed to drive if you're a woman. Or you shouldn't be allowed to wear leather. Or eat certain foods that are unhealthy like hamburgers and fries. Or drink sodas. Or have the right to pray. Or marry someone of the opposite sex. Or of another race. Or dance.


Stomp on the graves of fallen soldiers? Yes, exactly the same as people dancing at a public place paid for by public tax dollars.


it is the same in principle. analogies are hard to follow i know, i'll spell it out in play-doh terms so you can keep up. the crux of what you are saying is that those who wish to dance inside the memorial as a form of free expression should be allowed to do so, even if it disturbs those around them, lest we become victims of a totalitarian dictatorship. In the same way, The WBC clan should then be allowed to protest a funeral within the actual procession even if it disturbs those who are observing the departed...

...in the same way a couple could have indiscreet sex in a public park even if it disturbs others enjoying the park. in the same way one could take a shit on the middle of a city bus even if it disturbs the other passengers.

put another way, if not being allowed to dance inside the jefferson memorial is suppressing our right to dance, is not being aloud to have indiscreet sex in a public place suppressing our rights to fornicate? is not being aloud to dump in the middle of a public transportation vehicle suppressing our rights to go number 2?

thats what this whole charade is about. and its fucking obnoxious. its made even more obnoxious by gobshites like you who then compare their struggle to the struggle of black men and women in the 60's.

Charlie Veitch, the founder of the peace activist group ‘The Love Police’, was pre-emptively arrested on Thursday the 28th of April 2011, around 1615h, on an allegation of a conspiracy to cause public nuisance. As the video evidence shows, Charlie was not read his rights, and no warrant was presented for his arrest or for the search of his living space.

He was held for 16 hours at Parkside Police Station in Cambridge. Outraged locals, students, and activists protested outside the station, and concerned citizens from around the world inundated the station with phone calls to voice their concern of this totalitarian police behaviour. Parkside police were obstructive to his lawyer, family, and partner, let alone friends and supporters, by not providing any information of his wellbeing or whereabouts.

At around 1000h on Friday the 29th of April 2011, Charlie was collected by the Metropolitan Police from Parkside and taken to an undisclosed police station in London for 8 hours. Efforts by his lawyer, family, and partner to locate him were made in vain – he had effectively been ‘disappeared’ into the police system. Charlie was denied his right to a phone call from London, again continuing the obstruction of his access to his lawyer, family, partner and supporters. He requested that the police telephone his partner to inform her of his whereabouts, which was promised but not performed. With his family in the dark as to his whereabouts, concern was considerably growing.

Charlie was eventually released on bail 23 hours and 45 minutes after his arrest at approximately 1600h on Friday 29th April from Edmonton Police Station, London – just within the 24 hour limit that a person can be lawfully arrested and detained without charge. - http://www.cveitch.org/

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great comment, buddy. You must have spent hours working out that little beauty.
(PS: I think the first word is missing an 'ism'.)
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Keynes ended a depression. Hayek created one. I'm siding with the guy that got positive results.

Totalitarian is a stable form of economics.



Indeed on the ism! I do highly recommend late night drinking comment drive-bys, you never regret them.

On one end 0% government. Anarchy.

On the other 100% government. Totalitarianism.

Great comment, buddy. You must have spent hours working out that little beauty.

(PS: I think the first word is missing an 'ism'.)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Keynes ended a depression. Hayek created one. I'm siding with the guy that got positive results.

Totalitarian is a stable form of economics.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Keynes ended a depression. Hayek created one. I'm siding with the guy that got positive results.


Totalitarian is a stable form of economics.

When I speak of "God" to Christians, I usually speak to them in terms of a colloquial personal god, and sometimes I use the Einsteinian meaning of creation or nature. I find it bizarre, and frankly a bit misleading, to use it to mean their fundamental teachings and their effects. That's very bizarre indeed.

Quick point of information: it's not volunteerist society; it's voluntaryist society. I don't want you thinking I'm talking about people volunteering out of the goodness of their hearts to run some form of public works projects.

Just like your bizarre and revisionist definition of God, you're also following a bad trend of modern society to change the definitions of free markets to suit a political end; in your case, conflating free markets with the negative impacts of corporatists. When I point out the differences, you loudly profess that you don't care if you're painting the two with the same broad brush. That's where ignorance begins, dft. And ignorance isn't a moral high ground.

Free markets are as idealistic and utopian as freedom itself. There's no more an invisible deity that guides free people to make free choices than there's an invisible hand guiding their free exchanges.

1. Wait, wait, wait. I never said selfishness was a virtue while empathy and compassion was evil. Please don't put words in my mouth. That said, what assertions in favor of free markets require evidence? That they've helped humanity? I think you mean capitalism. There are loads of examples, dft. The entire industrialized revolution which lifted poorer generations out of poverty is a good place to start. Today live longer, healthier lives which is the result of capitalism. Even Karl Marx understood the necessity of capitalism in the betterment of human lives and saw it as an evolution.

2. Corporations are fair-weather. They enjoy regulated markets as long as they're regulated in a way that benefits them. Corporations hate competition, which is the cornerstone of free markets. There's absolutely zero connection between corporations and free markets (i.e., the free and voluntary exchange of people without coercion).

3. My view isn't "utopic"; it's the real definition. You speak here again about capitalism, which is dangerous, I agree. Corporations collude with government to use unilateral aggression in areas of the world that have plentiful natural resources. It's robbery. It's greed. And it's horrendous. And I stand in open opposition to it. But to me this is ultimately the failing of government and the centralized bank system, but that's a whole other conversation.

4. Meh.

5. Doesn't matter. If we have to change the definition of free markets, then so be it. We had to change the definition of liberal from it's original meaning to now embody anti-liberals like yourself.

6. Surely. But go back and read what you initially wrote. Comes off as alarmist and paranoid.

7. No. This was about government "implementing" reforms as being part of the free market. You're changing the criteria now. I would NOT agree that "taking power away from labor" is a principle of the free markets. Remember, free markets are voluntary exchanges between people without coercion.

8. I have no idea what you're getting at. This started with a comment about chaos where there's no taxation. Still irrelevant.

9. Hahaha. Talk about utopian! That's what we have today.

Nah, you don't need to purchase the book for me. I can do that myself. And, to be honest, I don't want to give you a reading assignment, because I doubt that will benefit our differences in world beliefs.

And I know you're more of a Social Democrat than a Docialist. Funny thing, the social democrat is disliked by both the Libertarians and the Marxists equally. Marxists tend to think Social Democrats perverted the socialist movement. Marxists and Libertarians (don't think the party) have a lot in common in terms of how they view human interactions and the evolution of human society. Tangent.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Response to your 10 reasons list below.

1. Patently false. Free markets do not "state" anything, as it's a system of free exchange between people without coercion. Free markets do not have an opinion of altruism or empathy or greed or selfishness anymore than it can of Biblical literalism, axiology, utilitarianism, happiness, Chinese philosophy and so on.

2. Also false. Corporations enjoy corporate welfare, government subsidies, franchise monopolies and crony-capitalism. All of those things are not part of a free market, as they constitute intervention.

3. Ridiculous on its face. How can voluntary interactions without coercion (aka, a free market) be implemented through "force" and "terror"? Here again, you're conflating free markets with government/corporate collusion.

4. Free markets don't promote anything. It's the free exchanges between people without coercion, and was used effectively to aid science in the past. Jonas Salk gave the polio vaccine away without a patent. He was free to patent it and charge through the nose for it, which is what a corporation would do, but he chose to voluntarily give it away. Free market in action.

5. Meh. Republicans speak the rhetoric of free markets, but they believe in them as much as the Democrats do.

6. Sounds like someone is paranoid.

7. False. Government "implementing" anything is not free in nature. Government uses the threat of violence to "implement" their policies, which is antithetical to free markets.

8. I like how you added this to the list. Irrelevant to free markets, except at least as far as governments encroach on free markets by regulating private exchanges among the people.

9. Free markets are capable of faults. So is capitalism. I'd charge you to offer a better system. An ad hoc system of government plus capitalism is a regulated market, and we've seen those fail countless times in the past 100 years. Our current economic mess comes from central planning and interventionism, not free markets.

10. I don't listen to those people, so I cannot respond.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

OK Winstonfield, I'll tell you why you're a (religious) idiot. You seem to be asking for it after all.

1. All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers. It probably goes further back than that, but we only have records up to the Greeks. Religions at that time did not concern themselves with ethical matters, at least not in any systematized way (it was a collection of old wives' tale about what happened to the boy who cried wolf, etc.). Judaism was one of the first, if not the first, religion to do this. This is why it was laughed at. Everyone in the ancient world knew that religion had nothing to do with raising good people: the City did. Nowadays we would say: the school, or the government or whatever. Only when religion takes over the schools or the government (like Judaism did in Judea or Christianity in medieval Europe) does it serve that purpose. And all monotheistic religions, by their nature, seek to become the only power, so it makes sense that they would encompass all things about life. Which makes their message too spread out and (philosophically) weak. This is why a religion like Christianity, that was proliferated by Roman slaves, could itself become the basis for Black slavery centuries later.

2. Churches do not want to build better people for a better world. They want to indoctrinate people so that the Church becomes the World. They want uniformity of thought. They are totalitarian in their very nature. Especially monotheist Churches. But then again, polytheisms usually do not have Churches.

3. Churches do not teach moral behavior. They preach moral behavior. Anyone can preach. Few can teach. The ancient Greek and Roman nobility would pay fortunes to get a good teacher for their children, and the City was seen as having a duty to educate all children to become proper citizens. And here you say we must put our faith in the words of preachers, who recite two thousand year old parables about a supposed King of the Jews that lived in a Roman controlled desert? What the fuck is wrong with you?

4. You should learn about Evolutionary Stable Strategies. For a strategy to be evolutionary stable, it is not required that it do anyone any good, only that it be good at reproducing itself. Religions are such strategies. They are parasitic. They hijack the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.

5. He means what I said at 4. Since it's important, I'll repeat it here: religions are hijacking the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.


To be on topic, as an aikidoka I believe this is a perfect example of the good usage of violence (or force). Once you cannot peacefully avoid conflict anymore and the opponent still presses for combat, you give him the fight of his life. It may very well mean that you failed to avoid conflict, but that is why we learn to fight: so that when we do fight, we can prevail without killing or maiming (this kid probably does not know aikido so give him a break). But even so, in very rare and specific circumstances, you will have to kill to preserve your life or that of someone close. But if you tried to avoid conflict as the precepts of aikido dictate, it is safe to say that you are still a better person than he was*. After all, sometimes a good razing is the only thing that will keep a forest alive. Individual trees do not matter in the long run.

*Some aikidoka would be reluctant to say this. They are either Japanese people and thus have a hard time admitting to unpopular/controversial opinions or they are deluding themselves and being weak. How can there be good if no one is better than anyone else, if no one is worth more than anyone else? Of course, it's easy to say "worth less" = "worthless", but that is only being cynical and misses the point. As for me, as an atheist I do not believe in Good or Evil and so goodness is more like IQ: normal people in a given society get a median of 100 points of goodness or virtue or whatever you want to call it. Even psychopaths need to be good sometimes in order to live in society (some may say they fake it, but faked or not their actions are sometimes good). Inter-cultural comparisons, while not impossible, are difficulty to do and ultimately arbitrary.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.
Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior. I've never been in a church (Baptist, Lutherain, Catholic, 7th Day, Mormon, Jewish, whatever) where I heard the message, "Its OK to steal, lie, cheat, sleep around, or be intolerant to others." Quite the opposite. Most churches teach what would be called 'positive morality'. The relative degree of success each church achieves then becomes represented in the population.
2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.
You are using absolutes here. I did not say "all the morals". I said that churches teach morality codes that encourages the "build a better world by building better people" outcome that some were saying was a preferable dynamic to a soceity where we cheer the slamming of bullies into the sidewalk.
3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.
4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to
producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.
This I DID say. Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people. Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.
Let's move it away from religion for a second. For the sake of argument, let's say that we're talking about a completely non-religious group which has as its sole purpose the desire to teach people the societal benefits that come from adhering to a Utilitarian philosophy. This group goes around, building charities, helping the poor, caring for the sick, and otherwise providing a bunch of service and societal benefits. In short - they are doing good and helping people.
But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy. They begin to loudly shout that these Utilitarians should be eliminated, ignored, and marginalized because what they believe is 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned'. They acheive a certain degree of success, and the Utilitarian group starts getting fewer people showing up, and therefore has less ability to continue doing its good deeds.
Now - how exactly has society been advanced by this scenario? It hasn't. These hypothetical Wittgenstienians are not doing good themselves. They exist only as a parasitical contradiction to the Utilitarians. They are not replacing the good deeds, actions, and benefits that were being done by the group they disagreed with. They are doing nothing except reducing the number of people who were doing good things. How is that "building better people?"
Now - that is an exaggeration of course. In real life, not all of Group "A" are necessarily doing good things, and not all of Group "B" are not contributors to the good. But by and large the example serves the purpose of illustrating that religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.
5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.
I... have no clue what you mean with this statement. At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"? All I said was that one of the main functions of religion is to teach morality to people. Well - that's true. When you sit down in a church & listen to a sermon or go to Sunday School, 99 times out of 100 the message is one of personal morality. I've been in all kinds of different denominations, and this is a characteristic that they all pretty much share.

...and, like all these kinds of videos on the utubes, no rating nor comments allowed. Viva internet totalitarianism!

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker I think I'm just about ready to write you off as someone worth replying to.

I asked how you thought what Beck said compared to blood libel, and you said:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The use of propoganda by a totalitarian government to inspire hatred and justify violence towards a genetic race is not comparable to a private citizen's non-violent opinions being presented in a public forum as opposition to a differing political philosophy that others accepted independantly. There is no equivalency.

When I challenge you on your assertion, you deny the assertion:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No - I described what Glenn Beck said, which was necessary because of the inaccurate, incomplete citation and the subsequent misinterpretations of others. I made no statement about it being 'violent, or non-violent'. If we are to talk of making assertions, I will kindly request that you cease making inaccurate assertions about what I say.

(emphasis in both is mine)

This is the fundamental problem I have with you. Whatever fact someone uses as the basis of a conclusion, you accuse the speaker of fabricating that fact, even if it's trivially and incontrovertibly validated.

It's just not conducive to civil discourse to casually accuse people of lying. Assume I misunderstood, and just try making your point more explicitly.

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.