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.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

As someone who has spent almost zero time reading up on education policy, but who's a total junkie for reading politics, I can explain why the current merit pay/charter school/standardized testing thing is pretty transparently a load of horseshit.

Let's start with who's in favor of it. Is this a popular idea in the Washington press corps? Yes, undoubtedly. Do they ever back good policy? I've never known them to. Conservatives love it, as do the perennially "moderate" Democrats. More bad signs. As for Waiting for Superman, all my pinko-commie friends tell me it was made and promoted by big money interests. That's not good, either.

Where else in the world do they have an education system like this? How's it working for them? Not having researched it, I can't answer that question, but no one who's for it ever says "look at how well <some country>'s education system works! We should copy them!" However the people who oppose it, like Ravitch, point to Finland, and the fact that it's almost entirely the polar opposite of what the big money wants for America, and Finland is almost always ranked #1 internationally for education.

Mostly, I just hear more union-busting in a lot of this talk. Ravitch sounded like she did too -- it's all about rooting out the "bad teachers", as if our education system's sole flaw is a lousy crop teachers that are bilking the system, with the aid of the eeeeevil teacher's unions.

It can't be poverty and budget cuts, noooooo, that'd mean admitting those dirty fucking hippies are right yet again...

I'm pretty sure Maddow's hairstylist is a dirty commie!

Oh shit, it's on!
>> ^thinker247:
Yer ass gonna done be kicked now mofo! Grrrrrr! takes out my redneck gun and shoves it in yer SoCal liberal elitist commie face

Yer ass gonna done be kicked now mofo! Grrrrrr! *takes out my redneck gun and shoves it in yer SoCal liberal elitist commie face*

Agreed, but religion is a special consideration because it claims to know of a divine, metaphysical truth of enormous importance. Being an atheist, I've no issue with people subscribing to religion - not at all. I take issue with religion being imposed on children, inserted into the wrong canals of education and being so significantly involved in politics and government.

You've just said, in so many words, that you have no problems with religion, as long as it's invisible and has no effect on society. Children are incapable of making rational, informed decisions (same with a lot of "adults"). While Bertrand Rusell is correct that children's religious beliefs is installed at the mother's knee, there's not a better way. The State has no morality.

Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

You've also just described liberalism. Liberals believe they are doing only good and that liberalism is altruistic. Who's going to argue against caring for the poor? But when the latest social program not only fails to reduce an evil but instead legitimizes and expands it, it's depressing. It has to be the fault of The Other. It's the Republican/Devils' fault--or lack of money--when the real answer is flawed human nature.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

Atheism is not neutral. It is a declaration that there are no deities and no supernatural influences, because they have never been scientifically proven. Yes, the religious are 'dependent' on their God/s, but the idea that atheists are Vulcan geniuses is equally absurd. Man remains a vicious animal with only a thin veneer of reason. If a stranger struck your child for no reason, rare is the fellow who would stop and say, "This stranger is obviously mentally unbalanced or just having a bad day, that's why he did that." The other 999 out of a thousand would have to be restrained to keep from killing the SOB.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

There has never been a successful State sans religion. Remove God and the State becomes god, and the results of that are never good. Put another way, "As long as there is poverty, there will be gods."

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^mizila:
In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.
Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:
"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)
So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.
EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.


Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

Red blood huh...thought so commie!

>> ^quantumushroom:

cause célèbre of liberal apoplexy

Go back to France, you European elitist commie.

I'd like to say that I'd walk, but if I'm going to visit my brother in Boston, 2000 miles (3200 km for you non-American commies) is a long way to hoof it. Shit, that's a long goddamn way to even drive. Thankfully my brother is an asshole.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Is this guy really being held up by the left as some sort of Big Thinker? You know he advocates torture for terrorists, right? As do I.


You really have a strange worldview. To you, "The Left" is the entire part of the world that discusses things, read books, write articles, critizise religion and dogma, thinks critically, disagrees internally and just plain THINKS, isnt it?( in addition to being all Stalin-supporters, naturally)

Your thoughts mirrors exactly Stephen Colberts rule of thumb: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"

To me, Sam Harris is a thinker, but its not because I'm "on the left" or because he is, its because he fucking thinks. I dont really care if he cheers for Sarah Palin, if his ideas are interesting and good, they are interesting and good. Why the fuck does every thinking person need to conform to your idea of some "leftist agenda"?

The use of torture is to me a question with a weird property: Its difficult to answer in principle, but easier to answer in reality. The ticking bomb example has probably never happened in real life, probably never will. The other thing is that if it ever happens, torture probably wouldn't work: imagine you had like 1 hour till the bomb goes, you got the bad guy, and start torturing, whats to stop him from giving in after 15 minutes, only to give a false address, and have the police waste another 45 minutes?

So basically I disagree with Harris on the torture question, so there you have it, qm: leftists commies disagree! its like Hitler and Stalin all over! (Except Hitler was a rabid right wing loon, but who cares, thats just in liberally biased reality.)

Roddenberry was a capitalist selling a commie fantasy. Shatner had unkind things to say about ole Gene.

The Ferengi purportedly represent "unfettered" capitalism.

Nazi's and Commies, same thing, right?

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^misterwight:

Seriously, the Republican congressmen are actually the dumbest people in America, right?!

Actually, Republican politicians are pretty smart. They're succeeding in pushing this blatantly hypocritical agenda. It's the voters, the people that are allowing this charade to go on, that are the dumbest people in America.

I don't agree that they're dumb. They're just busy and not being told the truth and there's tons of reasons why they're allowing and have been allowing America to be run this way but it's not cause they're dumbs.


So, people are incompetent? Because that is the word that comes to my mind with your description of busy/sloppy. They are too busy? Maybe people need to stop being so busy while a bus crashes into their god-damn living rooms.

People are busy because; A-they have made themselves busy searching for the next stupid fad, app, or gizmo they really do not need in life but crave so they can say they are cool B-Because people cannot accept a normal care free lifestyle.

In fact, a care free political system cannot be stood for either by people. We love sensationalism!!! And we love it now!!! How dare the evil commie Liberals ruin everything!!! I am voting republican and for freedom! Of course they are commies too!!! I am voting democrat!

What would people have to complain about then? That is the reason we have both parties being a bunch of softblows... It is the same reason atheists need religion to feel important... bash bash bash.