*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, June 9th, 2010 1:09am PDT - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good Stuff.

Everyone keeps mentioning all the jobs in the Gulf area that are being destroyed and the huge environmental impact. Don't forget that eleven men were also killed in the initial explosion.

*quality idea. But I really think we could do without corporations period. They have proven government regulations and restrictions on business are simply shams to embolden and strengthen the corporations by giving special privileges to the rich and shrinking the small business sector.

But we can start with revoking their charter. But before we do that, I'd like to see those fisherman and other business owners personally affected by this sue for damages. Oh silly me, like they'll ever receive what they're owed. The politicians will make sure of that.

It's also hilarious that she links to this guy. If you remember him, he's the guy who said FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY. Just had to point that out. Ahem. Quietly exiting room now.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

An interesting article that explains how free markets would take care of the BP oil spill problem:

http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/in-a-truly-free-market-bp-would-be-toast

great vid

By that reasoning you'd have to revoke about 90% of all corporate charters issued, because almost all of the corporations are fueled by greed and thus are destructive instead of serving the public good.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'd be interested to know what institution you would replace corporations with.>> ^blankfist:

quality idea. But I really think we could do without corporations period. They have proven government regulations and restrictions on business are simply shams to embolden and strengthen the corporations by giving special privileges to the rich and shrinking the small business sector.
But we can start with revoking their charter. But before we do that, I'd like to see those fisherman and other business owners personally affected by this sue for damages. Oh silly me, like they'll ever receive what they're owed. The politicians will make sure of that.
It's also hilarious that she links to this guy. If you remember him, he's the guy who said FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY. Just had to point that out. Ahem. Quietly exiting room now.

@dag, do we need to replace corporations with other "institutions"? How about we just let enterprising people freely create services and goods? How does that sound?

I doubt many corporations that exist today would last more than a year in a Laissez-Faire free market. Maybe Ben and Jerry's, but that's just because their ice cream is tits.

90% would be an excellent start. >> ^campionidelmondo:

By that reasoning you'd have to revoke about 90% of all corporate charters issued, because almost all of the corporations are fueled by greed and thus are destructive instead of serving the public good.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Pardon me - but that sounds a little naive. Sole proprietors aren't going to build oil rigs. A group of people are going to get together, pool their money and invest in big projects to make a profit - and there's your corporation. >> ^blankfist:

@dag, do we need to replace corporations with other "institutions"? How about we just let enterprising people freely create services and goods? How does that sound?
I doubt many corporations that exist today would last more than a year in a Laissez-Faire free market. Maybe Ben and Jerry's, but that's just because their ice cream is tits.

That's simply because many of the people, even the average joes, idolise the all mighty dollar. The next time you see a manager take credit for one of their staff's work, or a colleague screw over another workmate to get ahead, convert that mentality to huge corporations. If anything, it would be easier as a corporate bigwig because they are insulated against the retribution they should rightly receive for their malfeasance (well, until they kill 11 people and create one of the biggest environmental disasters in history, I guess we'll see what happens).

You can't change the corporate macro culture if many citizens (particularly the ones that actually bother to vote or lobby their representatives) subscribe to the same values and ethics, that being making a buck first, everything else secondary.
>> ^blankfist:

quality idea. But I really think we could do without corporations period. They have proven government regulations and restrictions on business are simply shams to embolden and strengthen the corporations by giving special privileges to the rich and shrinking the small business sector.
But we can start with revoking their charter. But before we do that, I'd like to see those fisherman and other business owners personally affected by this sue for damages. Oh silly me, like they'll ever receive what they're owed. The politicians will make sure of that.
It's also hilarious that she links to this guy. If you remember him, he's the guy who said FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY. Just had to point that out. Ahem. Quietly exiting room now.

I don't think this is the solution. The solution is jail time for masses of executives.

^It would be nice if corporations feared the public, rather than the other way around.

@dag

I don't think you get it. Blankfist is actually Amish. You don't need a corporation to churn butter.

Blanky, let me tell you the rags to riches story of young entrepreneur Terry Gou. He fled communist China to Taiwan, where he used $7500 borrowed from his mom to start a business manufacturing TV dials. In 3 and a half decades, he turned his small business into Foxconn, a billion dollar manufacturing corporation which employs a million workers and produces popular items for Apple, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft.

Foxconn operates a huge facility called 'the campus', which is a humongous all inclusive structure/city that includes factories, work facilities, living quarters, stores, shops, markets and entertainment. Employees spend almost their entire lives in 'the campus'.

Foxconn is pretty much regulation free, which makes it an ideal environment for workers. Workers on average make $5 to $10 a day and are expected to work multiple 12 hour shifts. They have little recourse for the many injuries and deaths caused by unsafe working conditions and the negative psychological effects of not sleeping. They are not allowed to congregate in groups of more than 2 people on the sidewalk. They have access to one single corporate TV channel, which is produced in house. Motivational slogans are posted all over the campus for encouragement. Anyone who steps out of line or questions authority is met with punishment and intimidation. Employees are also not permitted to leave or enter the campus without a corporate ID badge in good standing.

Foxconn has been in the news recently because its employees have started committing suicide in increasingly larger numbers. Terry Gou has attempted to slow this trend by raising pay from a nickel an hour to a dime.

This is how your free market utopia went wrong.

This is an Orwellian nightmare, but from a purely capitalist perspective, this place is a raging success. It provides millions of jobs and produces high quality, popular consumer products for a very reasonable price; products that you and I both own and cherish.

In a deregulated free market, how does anyone compete with this? What's to keep this from becoming the status quo if it isn't already? This, in a nutshell, is why I fear the Ron Paul Love-o-lution. Foxconn could not happen today in America because of regulations, but with each little bit of accountability that republicans, libertarians and democrats strip away, the closer we get.

Your vision is a beautiful one. The tiny village with a baker, a butcher, a tailor, a shopkeep, a barber and a 5 cent nickelodeon, all working hard and living well together in peace and harmony. It's beautiful. I want to live there too, at least until Terry Gou discovers it and builds a factory there.

To play devil's advocate here a little bit, I find it a little bit strange when people target upper management for some company's wrong doing. It's not the CEO's fault the rig blew up, sank, and killed 11 people, then caused a massive leak. Blame the people at the root of the problem. Engineers? Safety inspectors? Platform workers? It's easy to blame the ONE GUY at the top because he's the most publicly visible and probably makes the most money. This is like chastising the CEO of General Motors for the lethal actions of drunk drivers.

>> ^dag:

Pardon me - but that sounds a little naive. Sole proprietors aren't going to build oil rigs. A group of people are going to get together, pool their money and invest in big projects to make a profit - and there's your corporation.


No, I agree. A group of people would certainly pool their capital for the larger projects, if there's a demand for it. That's still not the same thing as the modern day Corporations we have today, is it? They wouldn't be able to corner a market and nudge out competition like they're allowed to do now by our government. In fact competition would surge because anytime a demand is high enough the supply will rise to meet it.

That's not naive. That's economics 101. It's the naiveté of the cult of government that emboldens bad governmental polices to restrict small businesses from appropriately competing with big businesses, therefore tipping the playing field (crony capitalism). The cult of government thinks the economy should be manipulated and controlled like it's a game of WOW. To me, that's not only naive, it's dangerous.

Now downvote this comment if reading this causes cognitive dissonance.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

What's to keep this from becoming the status quo if it isn't already? This, in a nutshell, is why I fear the Ron Paul Love-o-lution. Foxconn could not happen today in America because of regulations, but with each little bit of accountability that republicans, libertarians and democrats strip away, the closer we get.


You vote with your wallet, that's how. If you don't like the Foxconn way of business stop buying their products. It's more powerful and effective than any politician will ever be.

Not all corporations are monolithic evil entities. Most professional artists that I know are incorporated. Almost all non-profits in the US are corporations. But these facts don't fit into BF's narrow-minded narrative.

Also, BF: Your link was a joke. Another article from someone who doesn't know wtf he's talking about. The $75million cap is nothing. There's this thing called the "Oil Pollution Act" of 1990. You break it, you pay bigtime, and the measly $75million is a drop in the bucket.

Here's a bigger picture...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118677584137994489.html

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Blanky, let me tell you the rags to riches story of young entrepreneur Terry Gou. ---Snipped---

BP is partially responsible for a disaster that we expect them to fix. So, lets revoke their corporate charter?


... okay. So is the plan then to seek billions through litigation from a company that no longer operates in the U.S.? Or is there something I'm missing about how Exxon or Shell would purchase the U.S. BP assets and, out of the goodness of their cold, black hearts, bankroll the cleanup?

I have the slightest suspicion that these people aren't folks we should be listening to, and are just lighting digital torches and "rabble-rabble"ing on youtubez

>> ^volumptuous:

Not all corporations are monolithic evil entities. Most professional artists that I know are incorporated. Almost all non-profits in the US are corporations. But these facts don't fit into BF's narrow-minded narrative.
Also, BF: Your link was a joke. Another article from someone who doesn't know wtf he's talking about. The $75million cap is nothing. There's this thing called the "Oil Pollution Act" of 1990. You break it, you pay bigtime, and the measly $75million is a drop in the bucket.


Why are you so angry all the time? No need for ad hominem. I suppose my information stirs the cognitive dissonance too much for my leftist brethren.

Because retard blanket statements like "all corporations are bad" bore the shit out of me and it seems most videos you post are just trying to prove the same sophomoric thing over and over and over and...

*promote the corporate death penalty

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, June 9th, 2010 4:10am PDT - promote requested by kronosposeidon.

>> ^blankfist:

An interesting article that explains how free markets would take care of the BP oil spill problem:
http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/in-a-truly-free-market-bp-would-be-toa
st


The real problem with that is that it means in order to have a free market, you also need an incorruptible court. How did things go for people hitting up Exxon for money after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill? Not well. How is that likely to go this time? Also, not well.

If you do find a way to keep courts incorruptible and just, why not put these perfect people in Congress and the White House too, and let them use their own untainted judgment on what should and should not be the role of government?>> ^blankfist:

No, I agree. A group of people would certainly pool their capital for the larger projects, if there's a demand for it. That's still not the same thing as the modern day Corporations we have today, is it? They wouldn't be able to corner a market and nudge out competition like they're allowed to do now by our government. In fact competition would surge because anytime a demand is high enough the supply will rise to meet it.
That's not naive. That's economics 101.

So corporations can only corner markets because the government allows them to do so? That seems to me like the only way to prevent that is to have a government that...doesn't allow them to do what they would naturally do, like get into rate wars or other anti-competitive practices.

What you're saying is indeed Econ 101. But Econ 101 is hopelessly naive. Hell, it only gets slightly more realistic even at the highest levels.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
What's to keep this from becoming the status quo if it isn't already? This, in a nutshell, is why I fear the Ron Paul Love-o-lution. Foxconn could not happen today in America because of regulations, but with each little bit of accountability that republicans, libertarians and democrats strip away, the closer we get.

You vote with your wallet, that's how. If you don't like the Foxconn way of business stop buying their products. It's more powerful and effective than any politician will ever be.


In a world where the most abusive corporations are the most successful, where wage slavery, layoffs and outsourcing equal Wall Street success, where Wal*Mart is the President of our consumerist democracy, the concept of "voting with you wallet" is impotent to the point of meaningless.

Foxconn makes products for both Apple and Microsoft, so people who want to vote against Foxconn with their wallets don't get to use computers or the internet. No food from big agra either, or drugs from big pharma, so dissenting members of a consumerist democracy don't get the luxury of produce or medicine.

Consumerism is not an effective form of democracy. "Voting with your wallet" is the kind of pseudo-populist nonsense that corporate think tanks come up with to manipulate gullible people. I'm surprised how successful they are in getting regular folks to regurgitate their propaganda, but I guess that's why they get the big bucks. A world champion has no business regurgitating this kind of propaganda.

Look at all these pro-corporate, statist-apologist Daily Kos talking points in here.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Foxconn makes products for both Apple and Microsoft, so people who want to vote against Foxconn with their wallets don't get to use computers or the internet.

Wow. Ok first of all Foxconn manufactures hardware, so you'd still be ok to use Windows if you so choose. You wouldn't have to, since Ubuntu is a great alternative and as its userbase grows so will its usability. Damn, you can even install OSX on a non-Apple PC if that's worth the trouble for you. Let's start with your private use and not get into how you're forced to use certain things to earn a living just yet.

Second, you talk about food and medicine and how you could buy neither. There are always viable alternatives for these fundamental needs, but why not start small? If you want to boycott Foxconn you can't have any of the current generation gaming consoles. No Wii, PS3 or X360. If you own them already make a point by throwing them out. If you're willing to take that step, we can further discuss the more elemental human needs such as medicine and food, but my bet is that it's not gonna happen, because your attachment to some plastic piece of entartainment far outweights your bullshit rage at Foxconn that you spew. You're probably too confortable with the level of wealth and consumerism you live in, which is the real reason why "vote with your wallet" won't work.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Foxconn makes products for both Apple and Microsoft, so people who want to vote against Foxconn with their wallets don't get to use computers or the internet.
Wow. Ok first of all Foxconn manufactures hardware, so you'd still be ok to use Windows if you so choose. You wouldn't have to, since Ubuntu is a great alternative and as its userbase grows so will its usability. Damn, you can even install OSX on a non-Apple PC if that's worth the trouble for you. Let's start with your private use and not get into how you're forced to use certain things to earn a living just yet.
Second, you talk about food and medicine and how you could buy neither. There are always viable alternatives for these fundamental needs, but why not start small? If you want to boycott Foxconn you can't have any of the current generation gaming consoles. No Wii, PS3 or X360. If you own them already make a point by throwing them out. If you're willing to take that step, we can further discuss the more elemental human needs such as medicine and food, but my bet is that it's not gonna happen, because your attachment to some plastic piece of entartainment far outweights your bullshit rage at Foxconn that you spew. You're probably too confortable with the level of wealth and consumerism you live in, which is the real reason why "vote with your wallet" won't work.


To each his own. Good luck with your ineffective political ideology.

Ineffective because you'd rather keep your consoles, eh? Ok, how about you can keep one and get rid of the other two? Still not worth it?

^Let's be honest, you've not put an ounce of thought into 'voting with your wallet'. It's a catchy slogan that you heard someone else say, and now you are regurgitating it here. By all means, feel free to back up your bumper sticker politics with an argument. I'm all ears and willing to read as much text as you are willing to type. Prove me wrong.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Let's be honest, you've not put an ounce of thought into 'voting with your wallet'. It's a catchy slogan that you heard someone else say, and now you are regurgitating it here.


In all honesty I've put alot of thought into it, but apparently you haven't even thought about my previous two comments. What's the point in talking about it with you if you state that stopping to buy Foxconn products would prevent you from using computers and the internet altogether? You're either trolling for attention or are completely unable to grasp the very first principle of the idea, which would be to collect information about the company you want to "vote against" and its alternatives.

Go play some more Super Mario Galaxy 2, it'll make you forget all about your fake outrage. Enjoy your Foxconn products and stop worrying about these issues.

P.S. Next time you want to start a discussion don't do it by claiming the other side hasn't put "an ounce of thought" into their idea. It's not only insulting but it'll make people want to ignore you big time.

Can I just comment on how insanely annoyingly this thing is edited with jump cuts every few seconds... f*ck... do a few takes and get ONE RIGHT.

Sorry, back to your in depth discussion on corporations and the good of human kind

OK, champ, you've convinced me. Let's put this slogan, er... concept into action. But, before we get started, I do have a couple of nagging questions that I'd like you and your exceedingly thoughtful brain to answer.

1) How do we get everyone to stop buying sweatshop products?

2) How does throwing away a paid-for Nintendo Wii impact Foxcomm in the slightest?

3) Why do greedy and abusive entities like Wal*Mart, Monsanto and Foxcomm seem to thrive in a wallet democracy? Is that what the people want?

4) There don't seem to be any examples of wallet democracy making the world a better place. Why is this? Is the liberal media covering it up?

5) Aren't there less abstract ways of stopping corporations from hurting people? Regulation perhaps? Revoking of corporate charters and whatnot?

6) Were the underpants gnomes involved in creating this concept somehow?

Thanks in advance for what is sure to be a brilliant, witty and thoroughly satisfying response.

This lady must be the lovechild of Max Headroom and Janeane Garofalo.

@dystopianfuturetoday, first, the reason big corporations thrive in a "wallet democracy" is because of a couple different factors, but mainly A) a lack of consumer knowledge or understanding where their money goes and B) the market has a lot less competition thanks to regulations that stifle small business.

Secondly, you can't stop people from buying sweatshop goods in a free market except by persuasion. This is part where you say "so we have to leave it up to human nature? Then we're all screwed! The sky is falling!" Not true. The majority of people want to coexist and do the right thing. Cynics like yourself may think otherwise, but I'd ask to give it some more thought.

Think of it this way: America has the most people jailed in the entire world with 1% of the population! At least half of them are locked up for victimless crimes, so that means roughly 1 in every 200 people don't want to coexist. That's not bad. Everyone else seems to know that hurting other people and stealing from other people and generally breaking the law is a bad thing. This is a good sign.

Then factor in how we're biologically communal creatures who instinctually have a tribal desire to coexist with one another. Then factor in the altruistic gene that gives people physiological pleasure for doing good while depressing them when they do something bad. I say the majority of people are capable of doing the right thing.

blankfist, ever thoughtful blankfist. We often butt heads, but you always mount an intelligent argument. I appreciate this. This is why I will allow you to bear my sift butt babies when you come of age.

I think most consumers understand that their money goes towards evil. I myself, socially conscious politico that I am, buy clothes made of Indonesian children, play Super Mario Galaxy (don't have the sequel yet, champ) on Chinese suicide victims and put dead Iraqis in my gas tank. I do my small meaningless part for wallet democracy by boycotting Exxon/Mobil, Wal*Mart and McDonalds, but those corporations thrive despite of my best efforts. Aside from that, I am completely complicit in oppression, as are we all. It's easy to ignore the suffering when it's so far away and there are so many everyday low prices. Any change in this arena certainly won't come from consumers, because we all play a part in this circle of misery. The system needs to be busted in two.

(note for campiondelculo: Yes, of course we could all move to a forest, use Ubunto and live off the grid, but get serious dude, that is an absurd and semi-retarted expectation for a world population of billions.)

Foxcomm had little or no regulation and started out as a small business. This empirical evidence would seem to completely contradict your hypothesis. How might a true free market have affected Foxcomm or prevented its ills?

I do think the majority of people want to do the right thing, that's why I support democracy. Without democracy, there is no civic means of expressing the public will, which means the guy with the most money calls the shots. Not really all that different than what we have already, just with less voting and more slavery.

Not sure how the jail thing fits into the larger context, but solidarity with you on that brother. Set the prostitutes and weed users free.

You sound a little red when you talk about majorities, communalism, tibal desires and coexisting. Are you becoming a Marxist? Either way, I've got wood. Baby making time?

>> ^spoco2:

Can I just comment on how insanely annoyingly this thing is edited with jump cuts every few seconds... f ck... do a few takes and get ONE RIGHT.
Sorry, back to your in depth discussion on corporations and the good of human kind


Totally aggree. She reminds me of Max Headroom.

Edit: Just noticed that the same likeness was spotted a few posts above. Upvote for that comment then

Actually, DFT, if you allow me a tangent. I don't deny our communal urges at all. I understand that's a primal instinct that is meant to ensure our survival as a species. If you didn't get along with the tribe, you were either killed or banished (which surely meant you would die without the protection of the tribe).

There's also downsides to this communal desire. Think about this. When one tribe ran across another tribe, they were not primally driven to coexist but rather to murder them and take their women as booty, right? That, or just run from the other tribe. That's because it's also instinctual to identify with a social community with specific identifiable similarities. That can mean race, class, geographical location, belief systems, etc. Would you agree? This is where nationalism and racism and any other type of segregational thought comes from.

So, when one tribe met another tribe, they would instantly recognize a difference in the other tribe whether that be race or simply that they were not part of their tribe (geographical location). That difference sparked a primal fear, and that primal fear is a necessary survival mechanism. I mean, no species would last very long if it didn't have a fear of that which is different. A mouse should not instinctively suspect the best of a cat's intentions.

So, in that way, I think our primal instincts are detrimental to our survival today, because we have a society in which we don't need to fear our neighbor as much as primitive man needed. This is why I believe in individualism, because we don't need to live in such fear of our neighbors anymore. We can now work to persuade people to "judge a man by the content of his character, not by his..." geographical location, belief system, race, class, etc.

Tangent over.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

blankfist, ever thoughtful blankfist. We often butt heads....


>> ^blankfist:

Actually, DFT, if you allow me...


Would you two just fuck and get it over with?

>> ^kronosposeidon:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
blankfist, ever thoughtful blankfist. We often butt heads....

>> ^blankfist:
Actually, DFT, if you allow me...

Would you two just fuck and get it over with?


Only if you make it a threeway.

^That's what you got NetRunner for.

NutRubber.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

^That's what you got NetRunner for.


@blankfist doesn't mount intelligent arguments for me anymore. He just trolls with some mishmash about talking points and DailyKos and ignores any point I make.

...and if he doesn't mount intelligent arguments for me, I'm not letting him mount anything else of mine either.

If we revoke BP's corporate charter, who's going to pay for the clean-up? The 75 million cap does not apply if oil spill is due to negligence, so we need BP to continue being profitable so it can pay for the clean-up (which could be as high as 100 billion)

^It's a pipe dream that will never happen, and they'd probably find a way to use it to their advantage anyway. I say we nuke BP from orbit. Only way to be sure.

Seriously though, just planting this seed in the public consciousness would be enough to make me happy.

@dystopianfuturetoday: here are some of the mechanisms that DOJ can use to force BP to pay for oil spill, even if it's not due to negligence http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/06/09/perrelli-doj-will-pursue-bp-for-wide-range-of-damages/

I look at you all, see the floor it needs sweeping.

While the pipes gently seep.

Ubuntu?

Yeah, I'll just do that. Because you know, I don't need things like Adobe CS4/5, Logic Audio, Pro Tools, Ableton Live, Max/MSP, Final Cut, Color, Motion, Lightroom and basically every other piece of software I use for my professional and fun purposes.

After scanning around some Ubuntu forums and finding out just what a nightmare it is to run any of my required software, I called a friend @ JPL, and one at Oracle to ask if my summation was correct, and they said "for what you need, Ubuntu makes zero sense". Yep, there you go campion.

Why are we talking about Ubuntu? Oh right, to show that we don't need sweatshops to live our wetern lifestyles. Which for me, (aside from about 1/2 the tech I own) is absolutely true.

I work from home, my GF takes mass transit. We have a massive garden where we get most of our food from. We buy all other food from locally grown, sustainable sources (mostly south central farmers market). We make all of our own cleaning agents, use soap nuts for washing clothes, recycle all water, harvest rainwater, solar dry food, hardly ever use a heater, have no A/C or central air. We use canvas bags to shop with, compost 100% of all food waste, recycle or reuse all plastic/paper/glass etc. Our combined trash for a full month is 1/2 of a normal small plastic bag.

I DO NOT buy Nike products, have never bought anything from WalMart, don't buy fastfood (aside from the ocassional In-n-Out) and we both study the source where all of our merch is made. In this ugly web of global corporate confusion, it's not always easy to find out where every piece of every camera or MIDI controller or PS3 you buy comes from.

It is very easy to "vote with my wallet" although I am not so naive to think it makes a dent on the big picture. But a lot of people would rather just scream "just buy Ubuntu and the world is saved" that's a load of bullshit.

>> ^volumptuous:

Ubuntu?


I'm using Ubuntu right now on my spare laptop and I really like it. For general use it's fine but I can't do any real work on it, if I define work as anything that uses MS Office.

Just to go super off-topic, anyone know anything about it? My only problem is that I have to do a recovery boot, and choose the low graphic mode before it will boot. And then it boots just fine with no apparent compromises.

This all happened after I tried to upgrade to 10.4.

I used to dislike sweatshops and avoided with open disdain any company that used them. Then I realized I love my goddamn Nikes. Fuck off and sweat, motherfuckers.

Kidding. Though I do think the majority of "sweatshops" in underdeveloped and poor countries give better working wages than laborers in those areas typically receive. To us, $5 a day is impossible to live on, but over there that may be a decent wage when adjusted for their economy.

As for @volumptuous claim that Ubuntu cannot handle the software he uses, he is correct, but only because there isn't a market for it - if people chose Ubuntu all that software would be created for it. But Ubuntu isn't sexy like Mac, and all of volumptuous' low fat soy latte sipping, Prius driving, Sig bottle drinking, iPhone calling, Oliver Peoples glasses wearing, carbon credit buying, The Standard in Downtown going, CNN text alert receiving, CFL bulb using, Obama Biden bumper sticker having friends use Mac because they're the "in" thing here in LA.

^To us Americans, living in a cage and being beaten by your employer seems wrong, but to the Chinese, it's like staying at a 5 star hotel. There are soooo many ifs, ands, buts, qualifiers and convoluted rationalizations to free market thinking. I would think having to constantly make excuses might set off your bullshit detector.

That's good information to know. When armageddon comes, I know whose home I'm going to invade.

JK. I only eat what I kill. I'll throw a blankfist on the barbie for you. >> ^volumptuous:

I work from home, my GF takes mass transit. We have a massive garden where we get most of our food from. We buy all other food from locally grown, sustainable sources (mostly south central farmers market). We make all of our own cleaning agents, use soap nuts for washing clothes, recycle all water, harvest rainwater, solar dry food, hardly ever use a heater, have no A/C or central air. Blah blah blah, I'm a dirty hippie, etc.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^To us Americans, living in a cage and being beaten by your employer seems wrong, but to the Chinese, it's like staying at a 5 star hotel. There are soooo many ifs, ands, buts, qualifiers and convoluted rationalizations to free market thinking. I would think having to constantly make excuses might set off your bullshit detector.

Not a compelling argument when you compare violence (and presumably kidnap) to wage earning. I suppose that's your ego defense working overtime to make voodoo of sound reasoning.

>> ^volumptuous:

Ubuntu?
Yeah, I'll just do that. Because you know, I don't need things like Adobe CS4/5, Logic Audio, Pro Tools, Ableton Live, Max/MSP, Final Cut, Color, Motion, Lightroom and basically every other piece of software I use for my professional and fun purposes.
After scanning around some Ubuntu forums and finding out just what a nightmare it is to run any of my required software, I called a friend @ JPL, and one at Oracle to ask if my summation was correct, and they said "for what you need, Ubuntu makes zero sense". Yep, there you go campion.
Why are we talking about Ubuntu? Oh right, to show that we don't need sweatshops to live our wetern lifestyles. Which for me, (aside from about 1/2 the tech I own) is absolutely true.
I work from home, my GF takes mass transit. We have a massive garden where we get most of our food from. We buy all other food from locally grown, sustainable sources (mostly south central farmers market). We make all of our own cleaning agents, use soap nuts for washing clothes, recycle all water, harvest rainwater, solar dry food, hardly ever use a heater, have no A/C or central air. We use canvas bags to shop with, compost 100% of all food waste, recycle or reuse all plastic/paper/glass etc. Our combined trash for a full month is 1/2 of a normal small plastic bag.
I DO NOT buy Nike products, have never bought anything from WalMart, don't buy fastfood (aside from the ocassional In-n-Out) and we both study the source where all of our merch is made. In this ugly web of global corporate confusion, it's not always easy to find out where every piece of every camera or MIDI controller or PS3 you buy comes from.
It is very easy to "vote with my wallet" although I am not so naive to think it makes a dent on the big picture. But a lot of people would rather just scream "just buy Ubuntu and the world is saved" that's a load of bullshit.


Ubuntu. If you need it, write it. That's how Linux works.

^I'm sure that never occurred to him. "Each according to their needs" isn't easily or typically interpreted as "if you need it, then make it for yourself." It's always "I need it, so I'm entitled to it."

Oh yeah, I forgot I was arguing with Marie Antoinnette. You are probably confusing sweatshops with saunas. Two very different things. Sweatshops are cheap labor facilities set up by corporations to exploit the poor and powerless. They are known for forcing their labor to work long hours for very little compensation under unsafe working conditions. Violence is common and living conditions are filthy and cramped. But please, put it out of your head, I don't want to spoil the dream.

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!"

Look, if they're coerced into working at the sweatshop, then I'm against it in a big way. My family comes from the early US mill towns where they tricked people into debt, forced people to live in and buy supplies from the mill town, and then used the local sheriff to ensure no one escaped from there under threat of violence. I'm for free markets not indentured servitude, which is what the mill towns effectively were.

"Work for us or starve" is how sweatshop coercion generally works. "Make trouble and we'll kill you" is another popular sweatshop refrain. This is why sweatshops are set up in places where people are poor, powerless and easy to bully. They have all of the qualities of your worst 'statist' nightmares. Of course, these tyrannies are private, so no big deal, right?

"Work for us or we'll kill you" is pretty bad. Do we have conclusive evidence of any US corporations using those sweatshops with prior knowledge? If so, then that's terrible. I say we should launch a persuasive campaign against that.

That aside, private or public, I'm not sure either are devoid of expressing "tyranny". Either there's anarchy where there's a huge chance of individuals (what you euphemistically call private) where people rule themselves. Or there's statism where a government (proven to yield fascism over time) that rules the government, and then there's minarchism that believes in people ruling themselves yet sees that fundamental necessity of government. [this example excludes divine rights and monarchism]

All of those are capable of tyranny. There's no foolproof system. They're all flawed. Show me a better system. Testicle's in your court.

I can't write for shit when I'm half cocked with four margaritas in me.

You guys should argue in e-prime so you stop speaking in absolutes every other sentence. It would be a cool exercise.

>> ^blankfist:

"Work for us or we'll kill you" is pretty bad. Do we have conclusive evidence of any US corporations using those sweatshops with prior knowledge? If so, then that's terrible. I say we should launch a persuasive campaign against that.
That aside, private or public, I'm not sure either are devoid of expressing "tyranny". Either there's anarchy where there's a huge chance of individuals (what you euphemistically call private) where people rule themselves. Or there's statism where a government (proven to yield fascism over time) that rules the government, and then there's minarchism that believes in people ruling themselves yet sees that fundamental necessity of government. [this example excludes divine rights and monarchism]
All of those are capable of tyranny. There's no foolproof system. They're all flawed. Show me a better system. Testicle's in your court.


Well, we've talked about Foxconn, which Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Dell have all admitted to using. There are small pockets of outrage in the press and public, but in general, I think most Americans (and our government) are OK with this kind of exploitation as long as it's done far away and as long as we get all the benefit.

I've heard you mention minarchism before and it sounds nice in the hypothetical, but how do you get the powerful to honor it and not just do as they please? I don't see any mechanism in anarchy or minarchy for suppressing private tyranny.

>> ^mgittle:

You guys should argue in e-prime so you stop speaking in absolutes every other sentence. It would be a cool exercise.


In my opinion, I believe it is generally clear - at least to myself and possibly to others - that the points we are attempting to make here are [in my own personal opinion (which may or may not reflect the opinion of others)] completely subjective, despite the use of what some (you perhaps) might call aggressive and inflexible verbs. Still, the use of more passive language might, generally, in my own opinion, lighten the general tone of the general interaction generally in general.

Better?

Good point. Point taken.

>> ^mgittle:

You guys should argue in e-prime so you stop speaking in absolutes every other sentence. It would be a cool exercise.

Wow. I kinda feel owned now.

^We've had far bloodier interactions than the ones in this thread. Heck, these are downright polite compared to the blank-dyst Hitler wars of ought nine. I think we've been getting better lately.

While were on the meta, one more pet peave. Many times people avoid tough questions. This one... In a deregulated free market, how does anyone compete with (Foxconn)? What's to keep this from becoming the status quo if it isn't already? ...in particular. I try to answer questions I find troubling, but I probably have and do avoid tough questions on occasion as well. We need a *satisfaction invocation for times like this.

I'm officially demanding *satisfaction on this question to you blankfist: In a deregulated free market, how does anyone compete with (Foxconn)? What's to keep this from becoming the status quo if it isn't already?

Feel free to demand answers from me as well.

^A duel at dawn, you say?

In a deregulated free market, how does someone compete with Foxconn? By doing it cheaper or better or persuading consumers to purchase slightly more expensive goods for questionably more "moral" working conditions?

I'm sure someone will compete with Foxconn, but it won't be a company here in America. Not sure I understand the question. How do you compete in a market? You offer better goods and services.

Nothing will keep Foxconn from not being the status quo. Cheaper goods and services is the status quo (e-prime be damned!). Though if you're alluding to Foxconn's reputation as an "evil company warlord", I think there are factors in China that make it less free as a society, therefore people probably don't have the ability to compete locally and create jobs. I simply don't know enough about China's sociopolitical climate (outside of the occasional news clip) to speak effectively to that.

>> ^blankfist:

Nothing will keep Foxconn from not being the status quo. Cheaper goods and services is the status quo (e-prime be damned!).


Plutocracy by any other name would smell as rank.

What do we have now? Crony Capitalism. It's not a free market. How's that working out for you?

What is to stop a completely unrestrained free market from becoming a network of corporate dictatorships?

What is to stop 16th century mercantilism and protectionism in your regulated statist market?

The people. Now you answer my question.

I think the problem with your extreme version of capitalism is the same with the Soviet Union's extreme version of socialism; they become increasingly harder to maintain the bigger they get, until they eventually come to contradict everything they stood for in the first place. I know your road to a laissez faire utopia is paved with good intentions, but it's so light on practicality and specifics and there are no success stories to point to.

1. Deregulate the market
2. ?
3. Utopia

It's faith, not science (IMO).

@blankfist @dystopianfuturetoday

haha...I like e-prime because even thinking about it gets you to take a second look at what you say. Despite the benefits it can provide, it seems like there are plenty of completely reasonable ways to use "to be" and still comply with the spirit of the thing.

As for the topic at hand, I tend to agree with dft. I constantly see evidence that deregulation has gotten us into trouble. I would never try to claim that all regulation is efficient or worthwhile, but it seems far better than the alternative, which has given us all sorts of corporate-themed disasters. Most recently and most obvious, financial/housing crap, and oil crap.

You can blame it all on crony capitalism if you want, but clearly someone needs to make corporations care about potential widespread damage from unlikely but inevitable events. I simply don't see any evidence that markets can provide incentive not to run roughshod over everyone and everything in pursuit of profit.

Have you guys read "The Black Swan"?
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

Also, I believe this video applies:
http://videosift.com/video/What-motivates-us

Specifically, the parts about monetary reward vs. performance. IMO, it gets right to the heart of the science behind markets being stupid.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The people. Now you answer my question.


Yes, the people have done very well in stopping the ills of government: war, hegemony, cronyism, etc. With a limited government and free markets, I can safely say the people can and will stop a corporate dictatorship, because they'll have direct control of the market run by, of and for the people. In your system, we elect representatives who then assign bureaucrats to manipulate the market which leads us back to mercantilism.

That's what we should change the Democratic Party to: The Mercantilist Party.

This is the kind of vague, feel good hokum I'm talking about. What exactly does 'people have direct control of the market' mean, and how does this specifically translate into either 'stopping a corporate dictatorship' or achieving anything worthwhile at all? More wallet democracy?... like the kind that already exists and has made Wal*Mart one of the most profitable businesses in the multiverse?

It's good to see you're a well-behaved and practiced apologist indoctrinated by the cult of government. It sounds like the corporatists' message has finally sunk in and it's a party of you now. Sad.

Why don't you take a gander at this decent article about the free market vs. corporatism, and hopefully that'll get your cognitive dissonance churning enough for you to come back with more red herrings and the always tiring appeals to spite.

Oh. I see the problem. You guys basically want the same thing but the sheer number of labels for things being used makes it so you can't even talk to each other meaningfully. That article cleared things up for me with regard to your opinions quite nicely. You'd both prefer to eliminate or modify corporations to limit their ability to externalize virtually all risk, correct?

The biggest problem I see is that even if you somehow remove the ability for businesses to incorporate and therefore socialize their liability, that still doesn't completely remove their ability to do ridiculous things. What it does accomplish, however, is the addition of personal consequence into a realm where it basically doesn't currently exist. I guess it's this motivator that blankfist is counting on to reform the system?

I've never looked at the phrase "free market" while including the concept that the existence of corporations is a form of regulation. INTERESTING. I think I see where a lot of people get their wires crossed when they argue this stuff.

It was a simple question. Here, I'll say it again sans spite to avoid any more non-sequitors:

What does 'people have direct control of the market' mean, and how does it specifically translate into either 'stopping a corporate dictatorship' or achieving meaningful change?

If I'm reading all this right, pretty sure "free market" for blankfist means getting rid of corporations. More specifically, getting rid of the limited liability and legal personhood it provides them. If you didn't have incorporation as an option for creating a business, things would be a lot different.

Currently, forming a corporation allows a group or single person to create a separate immortal entity that can own property, be taxed, be sued, etc, under a completely different set of laws from other people, including its shareholders. So, the existence of corporations means people do not control the market directly. The corporate entity, shareholders, owners, boards of directors, labor, etc, are all separated and have separate legal status.

Limited liability of corporations means they're not liable to the full amount of their assets. If you sue a corporation, you're suing that created entity, not its shareholders, investors, or owners. Basically, this is supposed to encourage economic growth by reducing risk for investors. So, just by being a corporation, BP's liability for how much can be ordered to be paid out in damages by courts is limited. I'm guessing these are the sorts of "meaningful change" blankfist is referring to.

I don't want to put words in blancos mouth (goodness knows what else has been in there), but I believe the major catalyst for blankfist's politics is anger at paying taxes. Government and democracy is the major focus of his ire. Our political feud is a years-long battle that goes far beyond the subject matter of this video.

He believes the free market is a benevolent, intelligent, almost supernatural force that somehow is able to right all wrongs. Oppressive sweatshops are put out of business by angry citizens who stop buying their products or open their own competing businesses. I've never seen any evidence to suggest the market works like this. To me, it seems to reward low prices at any cost, be it human rights, environmental carnage, livable wages, the exploitation of the 3rd world, squandered resources or otherwise.

I believe the concept of 'the free market' was created to justify greed, selfishness, gross inequity and to absolve the wealthy and big business of all personal responsibility for the part they play in this world. Those with wealth earned it with hard work and ingenuity (or more likely inherited it from their parents); those without are lazy bums who are receiving just desserts for their lack of ambition (or more likely inherited it from their parents). If only those lowly wage slaves would pick themselves up by their bootstraps, they could be the next Bill Gates.

We are pretty much together in our disgust for corporations, but what constitutes an oppressive work environment differs greatly between the two of us.

Boo, @dystopianfuturetoday, you're not even trying to comprehend free markets; you're simply labeling me as a misguided moron who prays at the alter of big business. When have I ever alluded that free markets are an "almost supernatural force"? It's like you're purposely trying to associate my politics with theism. Another subtle appeal to spite logical fallacy. Your favorite these days.

@mgittle's open-mindedness is what allows him to see another perspective on free markets vs regulated markets/corporate markets/crony capitalism, but you (as with NR and volumpy) are traditional Dems with traditional ideas of market based on partisan politics, and you'll never budge.

Remember, dft, I used to vote Democrat, so I've only recently changed my perspective.

I'm not trying to offend you brother. I think you are the cats pajamas. That's just how I see it. I could claim that you aren't trying to comprehend democracy, or decry the long list of shallow epithets (statist, authoritarian, communist, nazi, fascist, socialist, Moaist, Stalinist, Marxist, government cock sucker, cult member, proponent of violence, thief etc.) that you use here on a daily basis - terms which are twice as offensive as anything I've said above - but I don't, because your opinion is your opinion and I feel perfectly comfortable in our disagreement. It doesn't offend me that you think what I believe is wrong. More power to you.

You don't seem to see the double standard here, probably because you believe yourself to be absolutely objective in your judgments. You are just as partisan as I, if not more so, and your point of view is no less subjective than mine or V's or NR's.

I believe you mean well, and I try to be open minded, but the fact that I can't get a straight answer to...

"What does 'people have direct control of the market' mean, and how does it specifically translate into either 'stopping a corporate dictatorship' or achieving meaningful change?"

..makes me think you don't have an answer. If I could get a satisfying answer to this question - a tough task no doubt - it would do a great deal to improve my confidence in your ideology. It's at the crux of my skepticism towards free marketism. If you don't like tough questions, then by all means, feel free to turn the tables and hit me with your own. If I can't answer them, then you win!!!

I haven't always had such a negative view of the free market. It's only after studying it and talking to free market libertarians that I've changed my perspective. For what it's worth, you are probably the person who has informed me the most on free market politics, so either you need a better sales pitch or our world views are just dramatically different.

Yes, I do think you are misguided, but isn't that always the tacet implication in political argument? You've called me a cult member and a kool aid drinker, which sounds like you think I'm misguided too? I'm OK with this. Why do you fucking care so much? If I think you are wrong, it doesn't mean you are wrong, just wrong to me.

love, your friend and sparring partner, distoepeeanfewchertooday

TL;DR

Kidding. That comment was for NetRunner who is always lurking in the shadows of VS, waiting to say I never read anything these days. He gets a thought in his bean and there's no tearing him away from it.

By the way, I'm not avoiding your question, DFT. I'm just not a monkey here to work for the grinder whenever he beckons. Your question "what does 'people have direct control of the market' mean, and how does it specifically translate into either 'stopping a corporate dictatorship' or achieving meaningful change?"

In a free market there would be no corporations. There's a great string of videos from an author that does a great job of explaining the corporations and how they came to power during the Renaissance when monarchs centralized money and created cooperatives for employment. This was contrary to what came before, which was free trade and local competing currencies, which was making the rich poorer and the poor richer. I'll post it in a bit and send you the link.

It's this individual competition within markets that helps people compete, and ultimately makes the rich less rich. This is what I mean by direct control of the market. But it's a complicated issue. First you have to allow pure freedom of currency, trade should be anything desired by both parties trading, and then the market must be unregulated. Government's role is to protect the rights of people, and the courts should serve as an unbiased third party for grievances in a free market.

When I say "it's a complicated issue", you'll undoubtedly come back with "it's always 'if', 'ands' and 'butts' in the Libertarian free market." If I point out the simplicity of it once it's allowed to work, you'll undoubtedly come back with "such a simplistic, naive and nearly supernatural occurrence this free market." It's as if I cannot win for losing with you. Your fallacies are abundant, and very unfair.

Love, your butt buddy, blankfist the impaler.

Dance, monkey, dance. Thank you for introducing me to a new nerd term.

So, to be clear, you have found justifications for not giving me either simple or complex answers. You've stated that you are not a trained monkey here to answer questions. You've said that in a free market, corporations would not exist. You've accused me of using fallacious arguments. You've accused me of being closed minded. You've accused me of being a big meany.

If you were as skilled at answering my questions as you were at finding ways to rationalize not answering my questions, I'd probably be licking Ron Paul's snatch as we speak.

(^That's possibly the finest sentence I've ever written)

^I thought I did answer it.

My question is not about how things play out in theory, it's about how things play out in reality.

I and a few investors decide to take on Wal*Mart. We open a competing store that pays it's workers a fair wage, treats them with dignity, is environmentally conscious and does not subsidize sweatshops. My products are high quality, socially conscious and cost 5 times more than Wal*Mart. I'm out of business in a matter of months. What did I do wrong? Why did the market favor authoritarianism over liberty?

Can you paint me a happier picture that's still plausible?

^Wal*Mart is already perfectly legal in America, which makes my argument flawed. Change Wal*Mart to Foxconn.

Allow me to adjust your analogy as you've missed a few crucial points. We've removed government involvement in the market, so Walmart can no longer profit from tax abatements, billions in taxpayer bailouts, protectionist tariffs, eminent domain, state franchise monopoly privileges, subsidized land and other taxpayer funded subsidies. In fact, laws are no longer structured to create better conditions for corporate charters vs. individuals going into business, because there would be no corporate charters.

There will also no longer be costly licensure requirements, regulatory fees, etc. that currently keep less wealthy business owners from competing or even starting a business to begin with. Walmart also takes advantage of China's authoritarian regime which manipulates the market and forces its people to work in bad conditions under the threat of violence. Workers make up to 70% less than they should, which is the only real area you'd have to compete with. But! Being that more local companies could compete with a local Walmart (given the examples above), more companies like yours would open, thus creating more jobs. A little economics 101 here: The more jobs, the higher the wages. The more companies, the higher the competition, thus the lower the cost of goods and services. And given more options and better wages, people wouldn't need to shop at Walmart and probably would choose a store like yours.

Eventually a huge hierarchal company like Walmart would have to reduce themselves to something smaller, because competition would slowly edge them out. The world we live in today would be absolutely transformed. That's your happier picture, and it's 100% plausible.

Your argument is fallacious. You are begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reality contradicts your assumptions. Foxconn, a business with no government constraint, is far worse than Wal*Wart in every category I concerned my argument with. This is an excellent illustration of the disconnect I see between free market theory and free market reality.

You're talking about China, DFT. If you think anything in their economic and sociopolitical structure is free, you're not seeing the picture clearly. China is a state-capitalist system, not a free market.

It's just more of the same corporate/government collusion. The rich corporatist corner the markets, create all the jobs, and use the coercive nature of government to stifle competition. It's thuggery of the likes of the Mafia. So, your comparison of Foxconn as a failure of the free market is fallacious. It's shows a failure of state-capitalist markets, yes!

Your lack of comprehension of free markets is what's keeping this conversation from progressing. I don't mean for that to sound harsh, brother, I'm just pointing out that you have a terrible deficiency in even the most trivial and basic understanding how government involvement does not make a market free. Therefore, my "argument" above remains and will remain relevant and true until you give me evidence to the contrary. The ball is in your court, dearest DFT. I await the next serve.

Well, go ahead and tell me what constraints China puts on Foxcomm. There are obviously no minimum wage laws, work safety regulations, environmental protections, unions or any of the others things you whine about. Sounds like a business fantasyland. Educate me. Also, you didn't address the fallacious nature of your argument. Assumptions are not facts.

To be truthful, I'm not sure what China does specifically, because there's a lot of government secrecy. I can tell you that they're a state-capitalist system, and that's not a free market. So, regardless what they do, it's not a free market by definition, so continuing to discuss Foxconn is moot. Because the government gives capital subsidies, the businesses probably enjoy certain one-sided opportunities that create harsh and unrealistic work environments for their worker's. That's not a free market, though.

Let's talk about my "fallacious" argument. It's that you believe I showed theoretical evidence, right? But it was just as theoretical as the questions posed by you? When a free market advocate shows the mistakes of the regulated market by systematically listing how government uses corporate law to tip the playing field so egregiously in the direction of big business, the last ditch effort to discredit him or her is then to demand they show a system where free markets existed and thrived in their purest form. You want to talk logical fallacies, dear boy, you've pwned that can of worms.

Argument from fallacy: analyzing an argument for free markets and inferring that, since you believe it's begging the question, then its conclusion must be false.
Red Herring: A change of questioning to divert the attention on the topic.
Negative Proof Fallacy: Because something cannot be proven true it must be false.
Proof by example: If there are no free markets, then free markets are false.
Argument from repetition: You claim my defense of free markets is ad nauseum.
Appeal to ridicule: Oh my lord, this is probably your favorite fallacy to employ. It's when you present my argument as being ridiculous.
Appeal to consequences: Free markets are won't work because their lack of regulation may lead to some bad consequences.
And finally, your own begging the question: "Without democracy, there is no civic means of expressing the public will, which means the guy with the most money calls the shots."

I could do this all day. Maybe it's impossible to have an online political discussion without some fallacious rhetoric? Either way, I think it's important we stay on course with the discussion. Where were we?

I'm not making assumptions as much as I'm pointing out the biases of government intervention within the marketplace. I've given you a laundry list of corporate welfare and regulations that tip the playing field for Walmart, which are NOT theoretical, and you've not commented about those. Walmart's profit margins are immense, and you cannot deny that a large portion of those are directly caused by government intervention.

How would you feel if when you brought up some controversy about representative democracy, I said, 'well, that's not a true democracy. In a true democracy, none of these problems would exist.'? That's how I feel arguing with you. You accept no responsibility for the many likely vulnerabilities your hypothetical doctrine has to corruption.

Assumptions can be right. - Yes, just because you've made an assumption doesn't mean that it's wrong, but if you have no evidence to back up your claim, or if your entire body of evidence consists of criticism of competing ideas, it makes your own assumption less persuasive.

Your assumption vs. my assumption - Your 'assumptions' are hypothetical, as a free market system has never existed or been attempted (unless you count Darfur or Rwanda). My 'assumptions' about representative government are based on evidence of a system that has been around for a long time. It's strengths and weaknesses are well known. There is a huge difference between hypothetical assumptions and assumptions based on observable evidence.

Argument from fallacy - That's actually pretty hilarious that calling out a fallacy is itself a fallacy. Ironic.... dontcha think? Guilty as charged, but you do this too hypocrite.

Red Herring - Half of your PQ is filled with Red Herrings. We both use these.

Negative proof - Yes, because something cannot be proven true doesn't mean it is false. How appropriate. Religious people use this one often and atheists usually rebut 'yes, but that's where evidence comes in'. Yes, blanky, that's where evidence comes in. I know you believe the free market would work as you want it to, but without any evidence to prove this, my brain will not allow me to believe in it, just as my brain will not allow me to believe in God. It doesn't mean you are wrong. You may be right. Bigfoot might be real. Aliens might abduct cows. Could be? Who knows?

Ridicule - You make political jokes too. Are you really suggesting we take humor out of the equation? Fuck that. No jokes and this becomes a droll exercise. It's getting a little stale as it is, but you've pumped some life into the discussion with this whole fallacy thing.

Example - I never said free markets are false, just impossible to achieve as you envision them. Considering that no political ideology has ever existed in its purest, corruption-free form, I feel like history backs me on this one. To clarify, my belief is that the 'free market' is too prone to corruption to make the world a better place, and would almost certainly make the world a worse place, not that it's false.

Repetition - I've never used the fact that you repeat the same arguments over and over as a way of trying to prove you wrong. I'm just noting personal frustration.

Repetition - I've never used the fact that you repeat the same arguments over and over as a way of trying to prove you wrong. I'm just noting personal frustration.

Consequences - I'm not saying deregulation MAY lead to problems, I'm saying it DOES. There are plenty of real life examples of the consequences of deregulation, one big one at the top of the page. We've lived them for decades. Is observable evidence really a fallacy?

Your example of me 'begging the question' - If you limit the role the public plays in affairs of state and country, the public will have less of a role in affairs of state and country. Lewd cat is lewd. Those with means would absolutely have more influence without having to compete with the will of the people. This doesn't seem like a controversial statement to me. What do you find untrue, unproven or unrealistic about this statement?

How does your system end a corporate dictatorship or achieve things? This is the simple question that has prompted much monkey dancing and tangents from you. I want to know specifically how we get from a to b, and doctrinal hypotheticals don't do it for me. Tell me a story, something that could make this seem real and possible.

Example: Dick and Jane open up a competing corporate dictatorship, make a shit ton of cash, then they buy a majority share of the other company and put it out of business. That's not a very believable story. If I could think of a good believable story, I would probably become a libertarian. That's where you come in. This is your bright shining moment to make some sense of this bullshit.

Wasn't expecting that vagina monologue. You could probably cut out at least half of that and it would still be saying the same thing. I didn't think you would protest the fallacies so much. Hmmm.

How much do you know about the Renaissance? Preceding it in the Medieval times, monarchs had large royal treasuries, so they maintained the power and influence. If you were born into a lower class, then that's where you stayed. Then the merchant class arose, and they created competing currencies, a way to trade amongst themselves, a way to create wealth for themselves, and eventually they developed influence over the ruling class.

It was the traders vs. the nobility. A major power shift was transpiring as royal treasuries were no longer sustainable because they weren't producing 'new wealth', however 'new wealth' was being created by commerce among the commoners. Effectively, the common families pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and created a new class (the middle class). This threatened the monarchs, so they decided to lay claim to the wealth created by the merchant class, they forced them to use a centralized currency, and they created these charters where the merchant class were granted permission to do various jobs. Eventually the monarch took the power back and the people were offered a chance to create wealth in trade for a centralized currency.

This shows how the free market was working and working well. It also shows how government, or in this case the monarch, created a centralized currency (Keynesian anyone?), laid claim to the wealth created by the merchant class (income tax, property tax, etc), and ultimately forced people to acquire permission to work by forming corporate charters (corporation/government collusion).

Today, if you want to start a business, you must file with the government and get permission to do so. Sure you can file as DBA which is less expensive than becoming incorporated or filing an LLC, but it's still asking permission. And you must use the centralized currency of the Federal government to trade and pay debts. And the government is entitled to your wealth, through property tax, income tax, sales tax, etc. And it becomes too prohibitively expensive to keep a business afloat unless you're part of the elite rich nobility that can afford to keep their corporate charter. See any parallels?

But corporations ARE merchants and merchants ARE the ruling class. Who protects us from the merchant monarchy? That's my question. How many times will you avoid my question? I believe this is the 5th time I've asked, for the record.

Example: Zorloc is sick of the powerful Mars Mining Co abusing the Shnnarr'Ghol people and forcing them to choose between abusive labor in the Adamantium mines or starvation. So, after stumbling across an ancient alien artifact which is worth krillions of space credits, he buys the Mars Mining Co and pays the workers a fair wage, until the old Mars Mining Co opens up a new business, the Jupiter Mining Co. Zorloc cannot compete with Jupiter's wage slave labor and is forced to return his mine to old, abusive conditions. At first he feels bad, but eventually, after several protests from his former workmates, he grows to loathe them and feels entitled to what he refers to as 'the sweat of his brow'.

I think the Renaissance Faire is in town. Live the dream.

Okay, wait a second. First you claim I'm not answering some fundamental question which I clearly at least attempted to answer though you claimed my attempt was specious at best.

Then, you come at me with a theoretical Walmart scenario and ask me how free markets would "theoretically" solve that; when I reply with real FACTS how the corporate playing field for Walmart is tipped in its favor because of crony capitalism, gov't subsidies and intervention you claim I'm being "theoretical" and therefore my argument is debunked. Facts be damned, I suppose.

Then you throw a "China is a free market heaven" smokescreen at me, which I aptly debunk the position of your argument by showing you China as a state-capitalist system which is antithetical to free markets.

Then you counter with a misdirection by claiming I'm not answering some fundamental elusive question, and you claim I must have proof of a free market's existence otherwise it's all bunk. Fine. I gave you proof how the merchant class rose and started balancing the distribution of power between monarch and commoner, but then you counter with "but corporations are merchants!" WTF? It's like some juvenile circular logic game you're playing.

Look, I cannot be clearer than this. Yes, corporations are doing the jobs common of merchants and bankers. Yes, they're the ruling class. BUT, and I really need you to pay attention here: The merchant class were not corporations, because corporations were the cooperative charters CREATED by the government/monarch/nobles/ruling class to control the merchants, aka the working class, aka the majority of people. The same as it is today. They're your proof of a free market working to balance the wealth and control between government/ruling elite and the people. Corporations were created by government to control the wealth and industry of all people in the kingdom (or nation). To say they "are" merchants therefore they're bad on their face is like saying they also eat and shit like the rest of us so eating and shitting is bad.

It's history. Crack a book. Now, for something really smart ass: "I suppose we can chock this up to another failure of our public school system!" There's no bad blood here, brother. Don't read my tone as angry. Bemused? Yes. Angry? No.

@blankfist, if you're talking about the history presented in Life, Inc., I think you're misrepresenting it a bit. It wasn't "corporate charters" they invented (as in legally recognized business entities that can own property), but charter corporations, as in the nobility picks a company and makes them a state-sanctioned monopoly.

Basically it's a great liberal thesis of history -- corporations were invented to be tools of the aristocracy, but then the aristocracy became their tools (at which point the corporations became the new, real, aristocracy), and the main way they've kept rebellion to a minimum is through the promotion of the ideology of individualism, selfishness, and viewing society through the lens of the market, all while demonizing unions, sharing, community social interaction, and anything that might lead to collective solidarity at all.

Also, his argument against central currency is essentially that it lowered the barriers on long distance trade too much, and removes the strong incentive for people to make purchases of locally produced goods that they had under the barter system.

He's not talking about Ending the Fed and returning to the gold standard, or even returning to gold coins -- he's talking about ending the concept of legal tender itself. Again, this is not because of a general suspicion of government influence, but because he fears that common currency encourages globalization of our economy, which he sees as a cultural illness.

He's also not an authority on either history or economics. His background is in fine arts, and media.

You never answered my question. You've given me doctrinal bull, a list of fallacies, medieval times among other monkey dances, but you've yet to explicitly spell out a believable scenario in which the free market brings down a merchant monarch. This is now the 6th time I've asked and I've also given you two examples.

Can you do it or not? Can you give me a plausible scenario that I can't easily take apart in seconds.

You are asking people to accept a fairly radical, untested, political doctrine. If you want to change minds, you need to earn it, and to me, you could earn this by giving me a scenario in which freemarketology brings down a corporate dictator.

I'll set the stage: Ron Paul is elected as world dictator tomorrow, a minarchy is put into place, corporate welfare comes to an end, but so does labor protections, environmental protections, regulation and oversight. Hundreds of super-powerful corporations start making plays in the newly created power vacuum. The bigger ones eat the smaller ones, there are mergers, corporate mercinary armies are built up. The skies grow dark and it seems that all is lost until........

Win my heart and mind.

I cannot debate two people at once.

>> ^blankfist:

^I'm sure that never occurred to him. "Each according to their needs" isn't easily or typically interpreted as "if you need it, then make it for yourself." It's always "I need it, so I'm entitled to it."


Ridiculous comment. What are you, Amish?

I'm not going to build my own car or my own computer or my own vastly complex graphic software because I need these things. Just the same as you don't build your own video cameras.

I thought you liked the idea of the exchange of goods and services.

Then debate NetRunner, since you don't want to answer my question.

>> ^blankfist:

I cannot debate two people at once.


I'll yield to DFT, then.

@dystopianfuturetoday, I want him to answer your question too.

@blankfist, maybe rephrasing the question would help. DFT and I think that coercion by economic extortion is only slightly different from coercion done with threats of violence. We also think there's a huge difference between the implicit threat of "violence" leveled on those who would break the laws that are passed through a lawfully elected government in which they have representation, and the kind of system you describe, where the only legitimate use of force is to enforce the whims of unelected private citizens when it comes to their property.

In our eyes, the problem with monarchy was that you had an unelected sovereign who makes law by capricious dictate, who can use violence to back it up. The problem with the libertarian ideal of a state that only enforces property rights is that it's effectively the same as monarchy -- you make property owners an unelected sovereign who makes law by capricious dictate, and can use violence to back it up.

Now sure, you will say "but in a free market, no one has to do anything they don't choose to", but that's exactly the same logic as my "all taxes and laws are voluntary, because you can always choose to leave the country and rescind your citizenship" argument. There's no guarantee you'll be given your non-property-related rights that we in modern society generally believe to be universal.

Essentially, the question is "how would your system prevent the erosion of equal rights, when the right to property reigns supreme?"

Okay, I'll answer your question, but first answer mine: @NetRunner, do you condone and accept the middle eastern wars and sustained hegemonic rule in 130 foreign countries even though it's the creation of these democratically and lawfully elected officials?

>> ^blankfist:

Okay, I'll answer your question, but first answer mine: @NetRunner, do you condone and accept the middle eastern wars and sustained hegemonic rule in 130 foreign countries even though it's the creation of these democratically and lawfully elected officials?


No. There's plenty I'd change about our government.

Now answer our question.

But these unprovoked wars and the US hegemony exist, and they're a creation of Democratic and Republican government. Local law enforcement is becoming militarized brownshirts thanks to a large central government. This is a far worse outcome than even the worst that can come from a Libertarian utopia. But you're more worried about a theoretical "economic extortion" from private landowners over the current realistic government tyranny and government's own economic extortion.

What rights in a Libertarian society aren't protected? I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so I see government having a specific role, and that is to protect human rights and serve as unbiased arbiter for disputes. I don't understand why you'd think your rights would not be protected, but I'll chock that one up to a lack of understanding what a free society really means. Libertarians don't believe government's role to be forced taxation (theft, servitude), offensive wars, babysitting the world, social engineering by force, imperialism, espionage, suspending habeas corpus, etc. But Democrats and Republicans do.

Now contrast that simple minarchist belief with your own statist belief, and you tell me which society protects rights and which does not. Because in your society I can give you loads of examples where your large government has done the opposite of protecting rights, and has instead encroached upon them.

>> ^blankfist:

What rights in a Libertarian society aren't protected? I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, so I see government having a specific role, and that is to protect human rights and serve as unbiased arbiter for disputes.

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights, I'll pick this right at semi-random:

Article 23.

* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

@blankfist, I take from your lack of response that you have no answer.

These shouldn't be hard questions if what you have is what you say it is -- a solution to all the problems of military hegemony and individual rights.

They're very hard if what you actually have is what DFT and I say you have -- an unworkable utopian ideal that doesn't solve problems, just describes a world where problems magically cease to exist.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Deano.