-I said "more likely" to help me. Not guaranteed. I've been cheated many times. I've also had a lot of support and opportunity dropped in my lap. It would be illogical to assume that being nice to people in NO WAY affects their behaviour towards me, wouldn't it?
-What's really great is compassion results in generally better results for me personally. So I would argue that there is no difference between "enlightened selfishness" and "compassion". We are hard wired to feel compassion because it's a useful trait that has generated useful results for millions of years. I don't know where you are getting your very arbitrary definition of "compassion" from. In my book, it's simply treating people with respect and caring. You might be MORE compassionate if you give your last crust of bread to a starving child and tighten your belt another notch, but that doesn't mean that it's not compassionate to give the child half of the bread and to keep half of it for yourself.
-If you're calling hunger "illusory", then I doubt we really have much more to discuss. You're so far into a semantical playground this isn't going to go anywhere even remotely interesting. You go ahead and ignore that hungry feeling, and let me know how illusory the message it's trying to send you is. If you don't eat, you'll die. Are you arguing that survival is not a "real", or "rational" enough of a motivation for you?
You apparently do need faith to achieve any measure of understanding, then.
Co-operative living is a survival trait. In a more subjective level, it makes me feel good to help people, but on a more objective level, it also makes them more likely to help me should I need it. As long as I do not give more than I can afford to lose, I can easily consider that an investment in my future.. like any other investment, it may pay off, or it may not. So don't invest more than you can afford to lose.
Luckily, since it makes me feel good to help someone, I can invest quite a bit without really hurting myself. There is nothing detrimental about it. Never mind the fact that my emotional well being does have a direct, real, observable impact on my health (stress kills, remember?), as well as a more indirect impact on my quality of life (or more to point, how I perceive my quality of life.. better, when I feel better). So as long as I am not giving away my food until I starve, my money till I go broke, or my time until I lose my job, my wife, or what have, what is so detrimental about it again? Once I've met my survival standards, the rest is gravy. At some point X, more resources, power, or money don't help my standard of life increase any more. Wouldn't then the pursuit of maximum profit, power, etc, then start being detrimental to me? What then, should I do with all that extra time any energy? Post on slashdot?;)
That's Faith? That's basic understanding right there. You'd have to either be an idiot, or a slave to Logic.. not reason, Logic.. not to see that. Observe. Emotions have basic functions in our existence, which is to help us out in situations where logic and reason are too slow, or too limited to generate acceptable results. Paying attention to them.. not giving control to them, but paying attention.. results in better quality of life. There is no faith in that. That's direct observation and experience at work.
I don't know what you're talking about claiming there is no proof of their existence... the chemical reactions involved are getting better defined every day. Understanding that we have not fully solved the puzzle of life yet is not faith. That's truth. Realizing we have emotions, whether we know EXACTLY what they are or not, is not faith.. that's obvious.
You can play semantics if you want, but Faith in the context we have been discussing in this thread involves belief in religious systems, and there is nothing faith based or even particularly illogical about accepting emotions as a part of your existence as a human being, and a necessary one at that. Fear has, historically, been a pretty freaking important survival trait, after all.
It may not always obey the laws of reason. That, however, is a good thing. Reason is limited too. That is why using both, and being a slave to neither, results in optimal responses to the most number of situations. Ah, but that's faith, right, because a study hasn't been done. Oh well.
I disagree. Compassion, Humanity, Empathy are all traits that exist without needing Faith, thank you very much, and those are the traits.. that is, a respect for and an understanding of the emotional content of life.. that prevent rationalized atrocities from occurring, not faith.
You might need Faith to balance reason. I just need some human understanding. Faith not only does not have a monopoly on that, and I would argue that for the common practitioner, it is an obstacle to real understanding by short circuiting the critical thinking process. Those who take their faith very serious AND use reason can of course take it to a much higher level of understanding than most. But it's not a necessary component, just one possible route to understanding.
I love Jon stewart, but I have to disagree that his interviews are the best. Charlie Rose on PBS not only gets AMAZING people to come be interviewed by him.. man, I still don't know how he gets the real players in there, but he does.. but it's a seriously in depth interview when he does. Excellent stuff right there.
For a couple of particular bad boys (heroin, meth) that might happen. Of course, they would be cheaper, so I do think overall there would be less theft and robbery associated with drug usage, though you have an interesting point and the vendors would probably need to take greater precautions.
But then, with their increased revenue stream, they could probably hire a couple of extra security guards I would think. And a small fraction of what we're spending on the war on drugs could be diverted into maintenance and treatment programs. Still cheaper than jail.
Judging by the fact that alchohol prohibition did not reduce alchohol consumption, and the netherlands with its much more permissive legal behaviour regarding drugs does NOT see appreciably higher use of hard drugs than we do, no, I don't think making them illegal deters most people. It does, however, creative a gigantic, violent black market. Lucky you, you don't live in a place where you have to see the repercussions of that side of things, eh?
That seems pretty nebulous then; I can't express my dissension with the goals of any organization because it might cause their assembly to be "Unpeaceable"?
So if you went to a union rally, as a member, and argued, that would be ok.
But if you paid someone else to go, that wouldn't be ok.
Though a popular conception is your spending of your money is an extension of your free speech.
I don't think this line is quite as clear as you think; but I think your head is in the right place, for whatever that is worth coming from me, whose head is most definitely in some very strange places;)
Do you remember the financial industry before the big round of deregulation? There are a *lot* less players in that game now that the rules for seperation are gone.
If you think there are *more* major players around these days, you are really sleeping at the wheel my fellow politico.
I'm not saying nothing can ever happen outside of the major arena in a capitalistic society nor that there is never an infusion of new blood. I'm saying the barriers to entry are artificially high when you have to up against someone with huge bankrolls behind them. Microsoft doesn't get as much loving media coverage these days and they are having problems, but they still hold a 90%+ market share that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You know their story better than I do I'm sure. So exactly how long are deceptive and immoral business practices to be allowed to prosper? It's been ten years. Another ten? Twenty? "Until the market figures it out"?
That's a whole lot of innovators, inventors, and startups crushed or assimilated into "the machine" along the way.
That is not efficient. Nor is it the best value for the consumer. In fact, it's anti-competitive. And that happens in the lack of proper enforcement and/or regulation. I know, it can happen due to regulation as well, and we agree on that. System's broken, needs to be fixed, yada yada yada.
I consider my business "successful" on the scale I'm interested in, and I'm from lower middle class background too. Again, I'm not saying it's not possible, though I do believe you are wearing some very rosy glasses if you think it's even close to "the norm". One "big boy" gets me in their sights and decides to make me an offer I can't refuse (either way), and I have *nothing* to fight back with. But I'm small, no threat to anyone, and my market isn't mature and established yet or I wouldn't even be in business in the first place. As the MFGs conglomerate though, my potential avenues decrease.. competition itself decreases.
I would put forth that it is ONLY in non-mature markets that true innovation through new blood CAN exist. I eagerly await your examples to the contrary.
You're just focusing on the good, and acknowleding it is great, but glossing over the shortcomings of the market with colorful phrases ignores the real deprivation and pain it can needlessly cause in the name of profit.
Frankly, profit really isn't everything. Some profit is very important. Maximum profitability, however, is not of supreme importance over human welfare. When it comes down to it, even if it means we need to progress a little more slowly in terms of technology and services, it's worth it if it means not leaving our humanity behind along the way.
Harms what rights? If I hire some guys who willingly help me cause strife in a union, without hitting anyone, what libertarian law or principle does that violate? It's immoral, but libertarianism provides nothing for it unless there is a direct victim involved. Being an asshole is fine, even a secretive asshole. right?
You can look me in the face in a world were very few companies own all of these 'competitors', and say that with a straight face? Have you not been paying attention?
I forget exactly, what are we down to for major players these days; 15, 30 worldwide?
You make some good points there and I'm out of time for today, but seriously. The conglomeration has occurred. You've fallen for the appearance of diversity here. There are fields not snapped up yet.. I'm in a niche market, for example.. but even in my niche market the companies doing manufacturing are gobbling each other up and being gobbled up by outside companies.
And that is a totally, completely, 100% inevitable chain of events in a capitalistic system. You don't get maximum profitability by competing in a market. You get maximum profitability in CONTROLLING a market. You keep talking about ideas not being stoppable and such and I just say wake up. I may know there is an awesome idea for a widget out there, but if I can't go buy it, it doesn't matter. And it is that market control with capital can be used to achieve; determining what is on the market to a very large degree.
Your rags to riches stories are a few romantic exceptions.. not the norm.
Hate to burst that extremely well stated and worded bubble, but in one breath you indicate that politicians (or people) are not smart enough to assess the impact of their decisions and think only short term.
Then in the same breath, you claim that businessmen think long term and really care about building lasting businesses that succeed long term.
Only one problem with that. Any given person is only on this planet for a limited period of time. Why would I do all the "right" things to make sure my business lasts the test of time when I can exploit everything I can think of to its maximum potential and retire in style at an earlier age? It would be *irrational* for me to think long term, as long as I can get myself enough profit short term for it not to matter.
If all these people are so noble and so clear thinking and so intelligent and so long-thinking in their views, why don't we just pay them competitive market wages to run the country directly?
Actually I lied. more than one problem. Your refutation assumes that there are wealthy people capable of production and R and D who are noble enough to "blow the whistle" on market forces that have not corrected yet. That's a pretty big assumption. A pretty damn big one.
If you have to gloss over years of gross injustice and point to a few examples of things that actually work as intended while ignoring the mountains of evidence history provides that you cannot trust either businessmen NOR politicians, then you're making some huge leaps of faith.
The businessmen need to be held in check by non economic forces. They can do lots of damage in their quest for cash, and believe it or not, they don't know all the impacts of their decisions either. The politicians need to be held in check by immediate accountability for their actions, transparency, a constitution, etc. the multiple branches is a good idea too, but an overhaul of the leglislative branch would go a long, long way.
any system based on trust that people "will do the right thing" is doomed to failure. I know, your happy land of rational power thinking gurus is a great place to muse about. But we need systems that work with real people in the real world.
And if a system does NOT address the needs of day to day life of humanity in HUMAN timeframes, then it too is doomed to failure through revolution. Because if a member is a part of a society and that society is not making his or her life better than it would be without it, what possible reason would those members have to sustain societal stability?
I mean really. Come on chowda.. how much progress do you think the world sees in unstable environments. You can point to all the beuracracy and failures of government you want, but there are some things to consider;
-since we started taking a direct hand in macroeconomics, we haven't seen a single real depression. Not even the energy crisis spurred one last time (maybe it'll be strong enough to this time, but still). That is unprecedented in recorded human history. Keynsian (sp, I know) economics has proved itself beyond the shadow of a doubt to work, and work better than anything else we've ever done.
-whether you think we "could have done better" or not, we are innovating at tremendous rates, historically speaking.
-The free market elements in our current system already show us where things can lead. Elminating corporate personhood would not, for example, suddenly change CEO compensation levels of large companies or even do it over time, though it would certainly have plenty of great effects. Capitalism, by its very nature, widens income gaps; if you HAVE capital, YOU CAN EXCERCISE IT UNDER CAPITALISM. Shit, it's CALLED "capital"ism, right?? If you don't have capital, you're not in the game, period. Capitalism is a good thing.. to a point. but it does have limits. Naturally, that limit is bloody revolution as the super rich are overthrown and killed by the poor. I'm sure you can think of a few examples. Perhaps, for
It does NOT always matter what is better. That's blind faith man. There are many ways for capital to trump competition. Eventually, someone insane might choose to work themselves to death to fight a big company and even then the capital can be used to crush them.
Eventually, things hit some minimum baseline, but you guys never seem to remember the goal of capitalism is maximum profit, not maximum value. For many things, like health care, the profit incentive is quite simply not adequate. A cure for cancer wouldn't be nearly as profitable as an ongoing treatment for cancer you have to take for the rest of your life, for example.
So I agree, some things are fixed over time. I disagree that it's ok to allow things to suck for large numbers of people for extended periods of time while the "market corrects itself"... IF it ever does, and that is by no means as guaranteed as you'd like to think. The market might take twenty years to correct itself, and in meantime people held in check by that system have had to endure years of oppressive "rule".
That's not ok. Patience is not a virtue in the face of such instances. These are people's lives at stake, not just rows of numbers on a balance sheet.
If the "wild market" is so great, why don't we take it a step further and just live in the wild? You know why we don't do that? Because wild forces of any kind don't give a shit about people, and we're people, and we have heads we can use to improve upon wild states of being to better our own lives as people.
The world may not always be fair, but there is no reason why we should have to take our hands off the reigns completely and just let the chips fall where they may. We do need to be judicious in our excercising of power, but the last thing we need to do is surrender a big chunk of it to a select few that are adept at gathering capital.
You like your world better, I'm sure. Come join us in the real one someday and take a look at what's going on. It's not all rooted in government meddling and ineptitude. A lot of it is (which is why the system must be fixed), but take a hard look at what the profit motive allows people to do to each other.
My favorite joke lately, just for you: How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb? None, OBVIOUSLY market forces will take care of it;)
Well, that's typical, acting like competition in the employment market is the be all and end all of the story.
First, that attitude is completely off base. You guys keep acting like free markets continue indefinitely. They continue until one, or a small number of companies gets a significant lead on the competition. Then that or those companies can basically make the rules. A threat comes along, buy it. Or slash your profits for awhile and starve them out. Doesn't matter if your product is better, or theirs, or how well informed the consumer is; you can use your capital as a weapon to stifle competition and retain your market position. That's not "free market" economics; that's economic warfare.
Let me put that in a real world position for you; I'm a business owner. I love what I do, but I am sick of working 70 hour weeks and when we're where I want us to be, even then it'll be at least a full time occupation to run the company. We're very good at what we do.. much better than most of our "peers" in the field. We provide a good service. I *believe* in doing this to do it right for a price that can be affordable, and you know what? If a large company plunked down a large enough check, I'd have to give serious thought to selling, because at some point it would be completely irrational for me not to (though, a big part of me would be comfortable with being irrational in that way, I do have a new wife and future family to think about as well). But "the market" doesn't win there; I'm happy, but competition is reduced because I have an easy path out to my life of luxury, and my competitor can keep churning out its high-profit, substandard products without fear of future competition.
Then, once you've "won" (and before long, INEVITABLY, someone does) things can get *really* fun. If you're down a few major players in a region, or a field, then hey; just talk to the other company owners you "compete" with. You don't need the WHOLE market, right? Then all you have to do is say "hey guys, we can cut our own throats all day long with price wars or raising wages to attract better and better employees. Then we'll all be so cash starved someone else could come along and wipe us out or we can go bankrupt. OR, we can all just agree on a few things; we won't pay more than blah, we won't lower our prices against each other, and we'll just split the market amongst ourselves at much higher profitability!".
Money IS power. Very disproportionate power, compared to the power of this "free market" ideal you guys worship. Sure, maybe at some point the workers revolt and organize and maybe negotiate some stuff for themselves. If they aren't kept in check, which is quite achievable if you can pay people to instigate conflicts among workers, sabotauge organizational efforts.. hell, frame some people, everyone has a price, right? Those sorts of tactics have been in heavy use throughout the last century in our own country to forestall and break up various movements (IMHO, a big reason why movements don't last long.. they flash up, do some stuff, and get taken down).
None of those tactics would be illegal in a libertarian ideal, because none involve direct violence. But to say that harm is not being done is a gross glossing over of the truth. Exploitation and subjugation is violence just as surely as a smack in the face. And that is why we need regulation.
Though you're right, regulation through our current system is obviously not in the interest of the people. We need a better system. But we do need the power to check power. Without money polluting the field.
Depends on your definition of violence. Is it violent if you *practically* force people to accept your terms for employment? That's been done many times in the abscence of regulation.. that's why we have regulations, in some cases. Of course you aren't *really* forcing them, but finding a bunch of poor people you can exploit to the fullest with no competition is hardly non violent. It is, however, legal if you remove the legal safeguards against it, as a libertarian would.
Sounds like you are arguing that money is not power, even while you acknowledge its effects on our current government. How can this be?
We've never seen it because it cannot exist. The free market is a myth my friend, always has been. A power grab inevitably ensues, terms dictated, nothing can stop that. Nothing short of effective mass organization of people; and that, in any suitably powerful form, would be a government of some sort. Short movements made big strides at certain times and that's great; too bad that only happens when things are so bad that people are a step away from revolution. Wouldn't it be far better if instead, people had access to that kind of collective power in an ongoing basis?
Agreed, our current "democracy" is horribly broken. I would not see a plutocracy as an improvement, however. I also wouldn't see it as a very big shift;) but the answer must be to make the system MORE democratic, MORE responsive to people, MORE empowering of its citizens, not less.
come on now chowda, you know the libertarian definition of violence, and government hardly has a monopoly on it. any sufficiently powerful force in a region can dictate terms of oppression. Remove government from the equation and money itself is practically the only source of influence.
government is the only possible tool to circumvent this; unfortunately, not our government as it currently stands, but one that is transparent, and properly able to be held accountable, preferably in real-time.
hardly. You can use that power to influence the state, or circumvent the state, in ways far disproportionate to your personal rights.
The state should be more powerful than any individual or small groups of interests, by virtue of the participation of the people en mass. Of course a lot of work remains to be done before the state is truly accountable to the people to the degree which it would need to be for that to be "ok".
There are differences. I'm saying there is also a lot of overlap. And frankly, if money is power, then I agree that you can have "too much", as an individual in a society. Unelected, unaccountable power is a threat to society itself.
No, there is another name for that. It's called Plutocracy, rule by the rich. You're right though, that's where libertarianism leads, inevitably, as restricting the power of a democracy (yes, I know we're not in one yet, but someday...) to regulate such power for its own well being MUST lead to such power growing unchecked. It's pretty simple, really.
Not if you're a radical anarchist, I guess not. To anyone willing to recognize that there are, in fact, limits to personal freedom and do and should exist in any SOCIETY of people, then the Greens and Libs have an awful lot of overlap in the civil liberties and democratic principle departments.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I think I get what you're saying.
Basically, there is no such thing as reason in your book, since nothing can be known for sure to truly objective standards.
Yet you say we have reason.
Maybe I don't get it after all then.
You're doing nothing but playing semantics.
-I said "more likely" to help me. Not guaranteed. I've been cheated many times. I've also had a lot of support and opportunity dropped in my lap. It would be illogical to assume that being nice to people in NO WAY affects their behaviour towards me, wouldn't it?
-What's really great is compassion results in generally better results for me personally. So I would argue that there is no difference between "enlightened selfishness" and "compassion". We are hard wired to feel compassion because it's a useful trait that has generated useful results for millions of years. I don't know where you are getting your very arbitrary definition of "compassion" from. In my book, it's simply treating people with respect and caring. You might be MORE compassionate if you give your last crust of bread to a starving child and tighten your belt another notch, but that doesn't mean that it's not compassionate to give the child half of the bread and to keep half of it for yourself.
-If you're calling hunger "illusory", then I doubt we really have much more to discuss. You're so far into a semantical playground this isn't going to go anywhere even remotely interesting. You go ahead and ignore that hungry feeling, and let me know how illusory the message it's trying to send you is. If you don't eat, you'll die. Are you arguing that survival is not a "real", or "rational" enough of a motivation for you?
You apparently do need faith to achieve any measure of understanding, then.
;)
Co-operative living is a survival trait. In a more subjective level, it makes me feel good to help people, but on a more objective level, it also makes them more likely to help me should I need it. As long as I do not give more than I can afford to lose, I can easily consider that an investment in my future.. like any other investment, it may pay off, or it may not. So don't invest more than you can afford to lose.
Luckily, since it makes me feel good to help someone, I can invest quite a bit without really hurting myself. There is nothing detrimental about it. Never mind the fact that my emotional well being does have a direct, real, observable impact on my health (stress kills, remember?), as well as a more indirect impact on my quality of life (or more to point, how I perceive my quality of life.. better, when I feel better). So as long as I am not giving away my food until I starve, my money till I go broke, or my time until I lose my job, my wife, or what have, what is so detrimental about it again? Once I've met my survival standards, the rest is gravy. At some point X, more resources, power, or money don't help my standard of life increase any more. Wouldn't then the pursuit of maximum profit, power, etc, then start being detrimental to me? What then, should I do with all that extra time any energy? Post on slashdot?
That's Faith? That's basic understanding right there. You'd have to either be an idiot, or a slave to Logic.. not reason, Logic.. not to see that. Observe. Emotions have basic functions in our existence, which is to help us out in situations where logic and reason are too slow, or too limited to generate acceptable results. Paying attention to them.. not giving control to them, but paying attention.. results in better quality of life. There is no faith in that. That's direct observation and experience at work.
I don't know what you're talking about claiming there is no proof of their existence... the chemical reactions involved are getting better defined every day. Understanding that we have not fully solved the puzzle of life yet is not faith. That's truth. Realizing we have emotions, whether we know EXACTLY what they are or not, is not faith.. that's obvious.
You can play semantics if you want, but Faith in the context we have been discussing in this thread involves belief in religious systems, and there is nothing faith based or even particularly illogical about accepting emotions as a part of your existence as a human being, and a necessary one at that. Fear has, historically, been a pretty freaking important survival trait, after all.
It may not always obey the laws of reason. That, however, is a good thing. Reason is limited too. That is why using both, and being a slave to neither, results in optimal responses to the most number of situations. Ah, but that's faith, right, because a study hasn't been done. Oh well.
I disagree. Compassion, Humanity, Empathy are all traits that exist without needing Faith, thank you very much, and those are the traits.. that is, a respect for and an understanding of the emotional content of life.. that prevent rationalized atrocities from occurring, not faith.
You might need Faith to balance reason. I just need some human understanding. Faith not only does not have a monopoly on that, and I would argue that for the common practitioner, it is an obstacle to real understanding by short circuiting the critical thinking process. Those who take their faith very serious AND use reason can of course take it to a much higher level of understanding than most. But it's not a necessary component, just one possible route to understanding.
National Public Broadcasting.
I love Jon stewart, but I have to disagree that his interviews are the best. Charlie Rose on PBS not only gets AMAZING people to come be interviewed by him.. man, I still don't know how he gets the real players in there, but he does.. but it's a seriously in depth interview when he does. Excellent stuff right there.
For a couple of particular bad boys (heroin, meth) that might happen. Of course, they would be cheaper, so I do think overall there would be less theft and robbery associated with drug usage, though you have an interesting point and the vendors would probably need to take greater precautions.
But then, with their increased revenue stream, they could probably hire a couple of extra security guards I would think. And a small fraction of what we're spending on the war on drugs could be diverted into maintenance and treatment programs. Still cheaper than jail.
Judging by the fact that alchohol prohibition did not reduce alchohol consumption, and the netherlands with its much more permissive legal behaviour regarding drugs does NOT see appreciably higher use of hard drugs than we do, no, I don't think making them illegal deters most people. It does, however, creative a gigantic, violent black market. Lucky you, you don't live in a place where you have to see the repercussions of that side of things, eh?
That seems pretty nebulous then; I can't express my dissension with the goals of any organization because it might cause their assembly to be "Unpeaceable"?
So if you went to a union rally, as a member, and argued, that would be ok.
;)
But if you paid someone else to go, that wouldn't be ok.
Though a popular conception is your spending of your money is an extension of your free speech.
I don't think this line is quite as clear as you think; but I think your head is in the right place, for whatever that is worth coming from me, whose head is most definitely in some very strange places
More major players than ever before?
Do you remember the financial industry before the big round of deregulation? There are a *lot* less players in that game now that the rules for seperation are gone.
If you think there are *more* major players around these days, you are really sleeping at the wheel my fellow politico.
I'm not saying nothing can ever happen outside of the major arena in a capitalistic society nor that there is never an infusion of new blood. I'm saying the barriers to entry are artificially high when you have to up against someone with huge bankrolls behind them. Microsoft doesn't get as much loving media coverage these days and they are having problems, but they still hold a 90%+ market share that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. You know their story better than I do I'm sure. So exactly how long are deceptive and immoral business practices to be allowed to prosper? It's been ten years. Another ten? Twenty? "Until the market figures it out"?
That's a whole lot of innovators, inventors, and startups crushed or assimilated into "the machine" along the way.
That is not efficient. Nor is it the best value for the consumer. In fact, it's anti-competitive. And that happens in the lack of proper enforcement and/or regulation. I know, it can happen due to regulation as well, and we agree on that. System's broken, needs to be fixed, yada yada yada.
I consider my business "successful" on the scale I'm interested in, and I'm from lower middle class background too. Again, I'm not saying it's not possible, though I do believe you are wearing some very rosy glasses if you think it's even close to "the norm". One "big boy" gets me in their sights and decides to make me an offer I can't refuse (either way), and I have *nothing* to fight back with. But I'm small, no threat to anyone, and my market isn't mature and established yet or I wouldn't even be in business in the first place. As the MFGs conglomerate though, my potential avenues decrease.. competition itself decreases.
I would put forth that it is ONLY in non-mature markets that true innovation through new blood CAN exist. I eagerly await your examples to the contrary.
You're just focusing on the good, and acknowleding it is great, but glossing over the shortcomings of the market with colorful phrases ignores the real deprivation and pain it can needlessly cause in the name of profit.
Frankly, profit really isn't everything. Some profit is very important. Maximum profitability, however, is not of supreme importance over human welfare. When it comes down to it, even if it means we need to progress a little more slowly in terms of technology and services, it's worth it if it means not leaving our humanity behind along the way.
And where would you draw the line for "free speech"? If you just pay people to go argue, is that preventing a "peaceable assembly"?
Harms what rights? If I hire some guys who willingly help me cause strife in a union, without hitting anyone, what libertarian law or principle does that violate? It's immoral, but libertarianism provides nothing for it unless there is a direct victim involved. Being an asshole is fine, even a secretive asshole. right?
You can look me in the face in a world were very few companies own all of these 'competitors', and say that with a straight face? Have you not been paying attention?
I forget exactly, what are we down to for major players these days; 15, 30 worldwide?
You make some good points there and I'm out of time for today, but seriously. The conglomeration has occurred. You've fallen for the appearance of diversity here. There are fields not snapped up yet.. I'm in a niche market, for example.. but even in my niche market the companies doing manufacturing are gobbling each other up and being gobbled up by outside companies.
And that is a totally, completely, 100% inevitable chain of events in a capitalistic system. You don't get maximum profitability by competing in a market. You get maximum profitability in CONTROLLING a market. You keep talking about ideas not being stoppable and such and I just say wake up. I may know there is an awesome idea for a widget out there, but if I can't go buy it, it doesn't matter. And it is that market control with capital can be used to achieve; determining what is on the market to a very large degree.
Your rags to riches stories are a few romantic exceptions.. not the norm.
Hate to burst that extremely well stated and worded bubble, but in one breath you indicate that politicians (or people) are not smart enough to assess the impact of their decisions and think only short term.
Then in the same breath, you claim that businessmen think long term and really care about building lasting businesses that succeed long term.
Only one problem with that. Any given person is only on this planet for a limited period of time. Why would I do all the "right" things to make sure my business lasts the test of time when I can exploit everything I can think of to its maximum potential and retire in style at an earlier age? It would be *irrational* for me to think long term, as long as I can get myself enough profit short term for it not to matter.
If all these people are so noble and so clear thinking and so intelligent and so long-thinking in their views, why don't we just pay them competitive market wages to run the country directly?
Actually I lied. more than one problem. Your refutation assumes that there are wealthy people capable of production and R and D who are noble enough to "blow the whistle" on market forces that have not corrected yet. That's a pretty big assumption. A pretty damn big one.
If you have to gloss over years of gross injustice and point to a few examples of things that actually work as intended while ignoring the mountains of evidence history provides that you cannot trust either businessmen NOR politicians, then you're making some huge leaps of faith.
The businessmen need to be held in check by non economic forces. They can do lots of damage in their quest for cash, and believe it or not, they don't know all the impacts of their decisions either.
The politicians need to be held in check by immediate accountability for their actions, transparency, a constitution, etc. the multiple branches is a good idea too, but an overhaul of the leglislative branch would go a long, long way.
any system based on trust that people "will do the right thing" is doomed to failure. I know, your happy land of rational power thinking gurus is a great place to muse about. But we need systems that work with real people in the real world.
And if a system does NOT address the needs of day to day life of humanity in HUMAN timeframes, then it too is doomed to failure through revolution. Because if a member is a part of a society and that society is not making his or her life better than it would be without it, what possible reason would those members have to sustain societal stability?
I mean really. Come on chowda.. how much progress do you think the world sees in unstable environments. You can point to all the beuracracy and failures of government you want, but there are some things to consider;
-since we started taking a direct hand in macroeconomics, we haven't seen a single real depression. Not even the energy crisis spurred one last time (maybe it'll be strong enough to this time, but still). That is unprecedented in recorded human history. Keynsian (sp, I know) economics has proved itself beyond the shadow of a doubt to work, and work better than anything else we've ever done.
-whether you think we "could have done better" or not, we are innovating at tremendous rates, historically speaking.
-The free market elements in our current system already show us where things can lead. Elminating corporate personhood would not, for example, suddenly change CEO compensation levels of large companies or even do it over time, though it would certainly have plenty of great effects. Capitalism, by its very nature, widens income gaps; if you HAVE capital, YOU CAN EXCERCISE IT UNDER CAPITALISM. Shit, it's CALLED "capital"ism, right?? If you don't have capital, you're not in the game, period. Capitalism is a good thing.. to a point. but it does have limits. Naturally, that limit is bloody revolution as the super rich are overthrown and killed by the poor. I'm sure you can think of a few examples. Perhaps, for
It does NOT always matter what is better. That's blind faith man. There are many ways for capital to trump competition. Eventually, someone insane might choose to work themselves to death to fight a big company and even then the capital can be used to crush them.
;)
Eventually, things hit some minimum baseline, but you guys never seem to remember the goal of capitalism is maximum profit, not maximum value. For many things, like health care, the profit incentive is quite simply not adequate. A cure for cancer wouldn't be nearly as profitable as an ongoing treatment for cancer you have to take for the rest of your life, for example.
So I agree, some things are fixed over time. I disagree that it's ok to allow things to suck for large numbers of people for extended periods of time while the "market corrects itself"... IF it ever does, and that is by no means as guaranteed as you'd like to think. The market might take twenty years to correct itself, and in meantime people held in check by that system have had to endure years of oppressive "rule".
That's not ok. Patience is not a virtue in the face of such instances. These are people's lives at stake, not just rows of numbers on a balance sheet.
If the "wild market" is so great, why don't we take it a step further and just live in the wild? You know why we don't do that? Because wild forces of any kind don't give a shit about people, and we're people, and we have heads we can use to improve upon wild states of being to better our own lives as people.
The world may not always be fair, but there is no reason why we should have to take our hands off the reigns completely and just let the chips fall where they may. We do need to be judicious in our excercising of power, but the last thing we need to do is surrender a big chunk of it to a select few that are adept at gathering capital.
You like your world better, I'm sure. Come join us in the real one someday and take a look at what's going on. It's not all rooted in government meddling and ineptitude. A lot of it is (which is why the system must be fixed), but take a hard look at what the profit motive allows people to do to each other.
My favorite joke lately, just for you: How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb? None, OBVIOUSLY market forces will take care of it
Well, that's typical, acting like competition in the employment market is the be all and end all of the story.
First, that attitude is completely off base. You guys keep acting like free markets continue indefinitely. They continue until one, or a small number of companies gets a significant lead on the competition. Then that or those companies can basically make the rules. A threat comes along, buy it. Or slash your profits for awhile and starve them out. Doesn't matter if your product is better, or theirs, or how well informed the consumer is; you can use your capital as a weapon to stifle competition and retain your market position. That's not "free market" economics; that's economic warfare.
Let me put that in a real world position for you; I'm a business owner. I love what I do, but I am sick of working 70 hour weeks and when we're where I want us to be, even then it'll be at least a full time occupation to run the company. We're very good at what we do.. much better than most of our "peers" in the field. We provide a good service. I *believe* in doing this to do it right for a price that can be affordable, and you know what? If a large company plunked down a large enough check, I'd have to give serious thought to selling, because at some point it would be completely irrational for me not to (though, a big part of me would be comfortable with being irrational in that way, I do have a new wife and future family to think about as well). But "the market" doesn't win there; I'm happy, but competition is reduced because I have an easy path out to my life of luxury, and my competitor can keep churning out its high-profit, substandard products without fear of future competition.
Then, once you've "won" (and before long, INEVITABLY, someone does) things can get *really* fun. If you're down a few major players in a region, or a field, then hey; just talk to the other company owners you "compete" with. You don't need the WHOLE market, right? Then all you have to do is say "hey guys, we can cut our own throats all day long with price wars or raising wages to attract better and better employees. Then we'll all be so cash starved someone else could come along and wipe us out or we can go bankrupt. OR, we can all just agree on a few things; we won't pay more than blah, we won't lower our prices against each other, and we'll just split the market amongst ourselves at much higher profitability!".
Money IS power. Very disproportionate power, compared to the power of this "free market" ideal you guys worship. Sure, maybe at some point the workers revolt and organize and maybe negotiate some stuff for themselves. If they aren't kept in check, which is quite achievable if you can pay people to instigate conflicts among workers, sabotauge organizational efforts.. hell, frame some people, everyone has a price, right? Those sorts of tactics have been in heavy use throughout the last century in our own country to forestall and break up various movements (IMHO, a big reason why movements don't last long.. they flash up, do some stuff, and get taken down).
None of those tactics would be illegal in a libertarian ideal, because none involve direct violence. But to say that harm is not being done is a gross glossing over of the truth. Exploitation and subjugation is violence just as surely as a smack in the face. And that is why we need regulation.
Though you're right, regulation through our current system is obviously not in the interest of the people. We need a better system. But we do need the power to check power. Without money polluting the field.
Depends on your definition of violence. Is it violent if you *practically* force people to accept your terms for employment? That's been done many times in the abscence of regulation.. that's why we have regulations, in some cases. Of course you aren't *really* forcing them, but finding a bunch of poor people you can exploit to the fullest with no competition is hardly non violent. It is, however, legal if you remove the legal safeguards against it, as a libertarian would.
Sounds like you are arguing that money is not power, even while you acknowledge its effects on our current government. How can this be?
We've never seen it because it cannot exist. The free market is a myth my friend, always has been. A power grab inevitably ensues, terms dictated, nothing can stop that. Nothing short of effective mass organization of people; and that, in any suitably powerful form, would be a government of some sort. Short movements made big strides at certain times and that's great; too bad that only happens when things are so bad that people are a step away from revolution. Wouldn't it be far better if instead, people had access to that kind of collective power in an ongoing basis?
;) but the answer must be to make the system MORE democratic, MORE responsive to people, MORE empowering of its citizens, not less.
Agreed, our current "democracy" is horribly broken. I would not see a plutocracy as an improvement, however. I also wouldn't see it as a very big shift
come on now chowda, you know the libertarian definition of violence, and government hardly has a monopoly on it. any sufficiently powerful force in a region can dictate terms of oppression. Remove government from the equation and money itself is practically the only source of influence.
government is the only possible tool to circumvent this; unfortunately, not our government as it currently stands, but one that is transparent, and properly able to be held accountable, preferably in real-time.
hardly. You can use that power to influence the state, or circumvent the state, in ways far disproportionate to your personal rights.
The state should be more powerful than any individual or small groups of interests, by virtue of the participation of the people en mass. Of course a lot of work remains to be done before the state is truly accountable to the people to the degree which it would need to be for that to be "ok".
There are differences. I'm saying there is also a lot of overlap. And frankly, if money is power, then I agree that you can have "too much", as an individual in a society. Unelected, unaccountable power is a threat to society itself.
No, there is another name for that. It's called Plutocracy, rule by the rich. You're right though, that's where libertarianism leads, inevitably, as restricting the power of a democracy (yes, I know we're not in one yet, but someday...) to regulate such power for its own well being MUST lead to such power growing unchecked. It's pretty simple, really.
Not if you're a radical anarchist, I guess not. To anyone willing to recognize that there are, in fact, limits to personal freedom and do and should exist in any SOCIETY of people, then the Greens and Libs have an awful lot of overlap in the civil liberties and democratic principle departments.
Only if the group of people in question have money.