How To Fight Tyranny.

by **Gouda** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:15 pm

OK Rothbardian, as promised, I want to respond to some of your points. I am drawing from most of your posts in this thread, copying your comment, followed by my response. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I didn't say the liberals support George W. I said they support Orwellian government. They endorse/support/promote...The System. <hr></blockquote> The System is not your "Orwellian Government." The System is less the problem of your “incompetent bureaucrats,” but rather opportunistic, profit-mad private companies, which together with their lobbyists, the Banks and Wall Street, comprise a downright Orwellian Corporate System of business and capital interests. What makes government Orwellian is the gleeful participation of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Choicepoint, Lockheed, Halliburton, Blackwater, Raytheon, Microsoft, General Electric, Bechtel, Boeing, IBM, Google, Pfizer, Walmart, Visa/Master Card, Time-Warner, and that company making RFID chips. Some politicians may want to stay in government for life, but most would rather enjoy the lucrative revolving door between Government and the Orwellian Corporate System. Without such a capitalist System, government would not have the tools to become Orwellian, especially since they are so incompetant and inefficient, as you say. Later you modify True Evil as an “Orwellian centralized government”. Nothing centralized about it. Rule has been increasingly outsourced to complicit private companies and corporatized think tanks like the CFR and Rand, thinking on behalf of private interests. OK, but you do manage to make a distinction, agreeing that some companies are worse than others, but again you blame it on government: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Halliburton would shrivel and die without a corrupt government. The evil in the world is stemming from creepy government bureaucracies. They need to pull the plug on the CIA, the FBI and all these other creepy outfits. <hr></blockquote> I agree about the CIA (although the FBI could do better to serve some good, legitimate functions, like catching pedophiles or corporate criminals) but one could also say that Halliburton would shrivel up and die without Capitalism. One could also posit that H would be put out of business by a sound, competent, law-abiding, uncorrupted Government. This seems to me to be a human problem of power, control, greed and hubris rather than inherent evils of government or business. Everyone wants an edge, an advantage, and the Machiavellians out there in both business and government will leverage what they can for domination of the game. I would say that today, however, the advantage has been gained by the corporate capitalists, who control governments, which help them control or kill people. Take away public government, and the capitalist system will form a private government much worse. Doh, they already have! You are looking at it.  <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is an evil, immoral Orwellian government that, for example, presumes to come to my front door and forcibly extract my young son (at the point of a gun, if necessary) and essentially kidnap him, so as to drag him off to military slavery, where he can get his head blown off in some God-forsaken war.<hr></blockquote> Why are these wars fought Rothbardian? And for whom? Clue: they are not fought to glorify or perpetuate one type or model of government over another. They are not fought to make bureaucrats feel powerful and secure. Going into Iraq is not about defending the US Government or extending control of the Congress over Baquba. Once you start to divorce politics from economy from finance from ideology from government, you have simplified things to an unrecognizable caricature of reality. Clue # 2: Capital, via Banks, Corporations and the Free Market, use governments to further their Orwellian Power. Not the other way round. We are in Iraq for economic reasons, primarily. “Economic reasons” in this era mean free market capitalism. Ditto all interventions in south and central America; ditto Yugoslavia. It is about pipelines and financial hegemony. It is about transferring and concentrating wealth and capital (which equals real power) into an ideologically comfortable corral: Free market, neoliberal, corporate capitalism. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The current war has been backed by...John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and a huge assortment of liberal and neocon murderers. And by my reckoning, they are all willing participants in an evil, immoral, psychopathic, Orwellian government.<hr></blockquote> Yes they have and I agree with you, but you are basically missing more than half the equation. Kerry, Clinton and McCain are primarily backed, funded, advised, guided, inspired and protected by Wall Street - not the Constitution, not the people of this country. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We don't need regime change. We need regime removal.<hr></blockquote> I can’t really argue with you there. You view the regime, however, as simply “centralized government,” whereas I see it as a nexus of government bureaucrats and econ-political appointees corrupted by the predatory capitalist ethos which breed our present government officials, make their rules, butter their toast, set the tone of our politics, and keep everyone in line via capitalist carrots and sticks. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anyone in government who in any way supports the idea of military slavery, among many other things, is participating in immorality and evil.<hr></blockquote> Could I not say, equally correctly: “Anyone in business who in any way supports the idea of military slavery, among many other things, is participating in immorality and evil”? There are more businessmen and women than there are government officials. These are the people of the USA. If these businesspersons and if these companies called for an end to the military-INDUSTRIAL complex, that would be the end of such slavery. However, they do not, because, as you should know, War is a Racket (the biggest one at that) and it is corporate complicity together with capitalist brainwashing that keep The Racket backhanding both the government and the people. We could try, for once, to put people in government who do not support this, who are not beholden to corporate interests. However, we cannot change the way government works without changing the way the economy works – and we cannot change the way the economy works without changing the way government works. They are inextricably linked and even your passionate demonizing of all government cannot change that fact. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The key feature for me (as with everything else in my philosophy)...is freedom. In other words, I feel free to shop for (as an example) household goods for my family, anywhere in the world that I please. If I'm shopping for shoes and they sell them cheaper at a store in the next town, I am entitled to the freedom to buy there.<hr></blockquote> Yes, you have just explicated an ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE around which some people band together to form groups, councils, tribes, bureaucracies, governments and corporations, which is to assert their “freedom” to achieve this end: to get stuff and reap the benefits. You, alone, free man, are nothing without a supportive system with similar beliefs and goals which allows you and your group to get the stuff you want. This is why BAD (as opposed to good) governments, religions, militaries, and corporations form eventually: to impose one version of “freedom” over another version of “freedom", inevitably ensuring that one freedom is more free. Why, that sounds a bit Orwellian to me. *** You euphemistically refer to mafia orgs like Walmart as “international shoppers." Roth sez: If I can find an international shopper (like Walmart) to bring shopping 'finds' to my town...I insist on having the freedom to benefit from such. Only thing is, shoppers pay money in exchange for goods, created from Labor and resources. Walmart, on the other hand, shops for Labor itself (that’s real people, Roth, laborers) as a type of good. They shop for low-cost labor, not products. Oh, and they do so for PROFIT, obscenely so - they profit on those "finds", ie: real people. Feel good about that? You whine: What your problem is with my freedom...I have yet to understand. I have a problem with your “freedom” when your support of Walmart has sent my brother’s job to China and subjugated his wife, my sister-in-law, to slave-labor conditions and relative poverty so that you can have your cheap shoes. My problem with your freedom is that your support of Walmart has forced my family’s small business into bankruptcy and contributed to ugly urban sprawl, soulless commercialism devoid of quality, the demise of artisians and craftsmen, rotting town centers, fractured communities, and an ultra sped-up (convenient) pace of life. Ok, I have the freedom to move away from or avoid this, right? No, because maybe I am too poor to move, and Walmart is making itself a presence EVERYWHERE, encroaching on my freedom. They are reducing my freedom to escape its ugly tentacles of model capitalism. Your freedom ruined my family and destroyed my town! Other than that, I am very happy that at least someone is enjoying his/her “Freedom.” (Note: my sister-in-law is not Chinese, but someone's sister is. And luckily, I have indeed been able to move around, avoiding Walmart zones.) more.... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 6/15/06 12:15 pm

by **Gouda** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If the winds of freedom were allowed to blow across this planet and anyone could do business with anyone else...the "division of labor" phenomenon would bring prices down all across the world.<hr></blockquote> Sounds like a Neolibecon to me, and it is patent bullcrap. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You apparently are proposing I should not have that freedom. Here again is this typical liberal (and neocon also, by the way) bizarre presumption to consign the freedoms of others unto themselves….You would very much like to consign my freedom unto yourself (or some representative of your views) in order to make the shoe-buying decision for me. An all-pervasive micro-managing Orwellian government that literally decides for me which shoes I can buy? Is it also going to tell you what color they should be? Or when to blow your nose?<hr></blockquote> Nope, I would propose that no one has freedom, equally, until we all do. That is exactly what is NOT happening with free market capitalism, which you are supporting to the detriment of freedom for billions of other people worldwide. I am not saying that we appoint a government to make buying decisions for us. Your caricature of “Orwellian government that literally decides for me which shoes I can buy? Is it also going to tell you what color they should be? Or when to blow your nose?” is not helping your argument at all. We could use an honest government beholden to the people, not to capital, to make sure that businesses are not exploiting the freedom of other people. Reduce the greedy profit motive and you might find perfectly good shoes made in your own hometown, down on the corner, right across from the gazebo where everyone (from workers, to managers to owners) can enjoy some leisure time afforded by fair wages and fair costs. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You obviously want to see my shoe purchase outlawed.<hr></blockquote> No, I don’t think so. I want to see a society organized in a way that your shoe purchases do not exploit other human beings.  I want to see you have shoes, Roth, I really do, but I don’t want to see sweat and blood on them. If that is “politically correct”, I am proud of that, because what you do to the least of your brothers, you do to yourself and to all of us. If I were the government, I would dismantle every friggin’ global corporation and send all that capital right back into your town, where shoes can be made and people can be paid enough to be able to afford those shoes. Pretty simple. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Virtually the sole source of economic injustice against Third World countries has been perpetrated by this PTB/IMF (International Monetary Fund) scam-- The IMF has gone around the world shoving bogus loans down the throats of various countries, either by going into corrupt cahoots with the central authorities of the various governments...or by strong-arming the government authorities. These various countries then proceed to drown in the interest payments that come due.<hr></blockquote> I agree the IMF and World Bank own a lion’s share of the responsibility for the injustices in this world. However, the centralized control systems you speak of are not only governments, which rotate, but permanent, unelected, elite private interests which rely on the Orwellian Capitalist System for their ongoing Freedom. These are the guys that make the IMF and World bank happen. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The only way to stop that is to pull the plug on the PTB's power source...centralized control mechanisms. <hr></blockquote> This is weird logic at its finest. The PTB are by definition powerful; they ARE centralized; they are a system; and they control; so they get their power from…themselves? Capitalism is the organizing principle which drives the PTB, to which the PTB do all they can to preserve, extend and reinforce - via war, via corrupt governments, and via economic voodoo: market deception, corporate espionage, market propaganda, consumerist commercial propaganda...basically, by any and all means necessary to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few, that is: the PTB... How do we get it back and achieve economic justice (at minimum)? Not by dismantling government and leaving everyone vulnerable as prey to the lions of the free market (which are just as bad if not worse than the government bureaucrats), but by radically reorganizing society around principles of respect, humility, and equality – I think a nice, limited government might even come out of such a deal. more....

by **Gouda** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I believe that "intermingling" as you say (or globalization) is good for everybody. It has given greatly increased prosperity to the Chinese people, as an example --even though, because of 'centralized government' issues, some of the prosperity is disproportionately distributed.<hr></blockquote> Actually, inequality and disproportionate wealth are far greater in the USA, yet China has a much more centralized government. Hmmm. *** Remember, there was no government after Katrina, and so who stepped in to organize and develop the aftermath? The wealthy businessmen, the Chamber of Commercial Interests, and their private mercenaries. The corporate reorganization of NOLA to further benefit the wealthy in fact relied in the fractured, ineffectual government, using them (a legitimizing rubber stamp) insofar as they were useful to achieve their ends. Note the dog in that picture. Note the tail. Later, I see that you do note this, which I totally acknowledge as encouraging: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Consider for a moment the 'self-organizing' principle of freedom. In the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane, for example, there was immediate, impromptu and effective 'on-the-spot' organization going on among hundreds and thousands of people who spontaneously and instinctively sprang into action.<hr></blockquote> Yes, they did well. But they were trying to save themselves from drowning and starvation. This is much, much different than developing an unregulated free market system. I also see another contradiction in your ideology: you advocate for a " 'self-organizing' principle of freedom" - yet, you leave it to Walmart and Nike to organize sweatshops for people, which seems decidedly unfree to me. Back to the sweatshop economy: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What then would you propose to do with all these people who voluntarily take these jobs?<hr></blockquote> The situation is as it is. There is nothing “voluntary” about taking these jobs; it is a life or death necessity brought on by the very global conditions which led to the existence of these jobs, and it is neither free nor fair. It is not fair or kind to put people in a situation whereby they need to rely on your solution. Yet, we have to work with it as we change it. In order to change this horrid system, we need to reduce the power of these corporations, and that means (in part) wielding our freedom of choice, our informed purchasing (or non-purchasing) power. But that is just a start. The whole economic system of neoliberal globalization, expanded and backed by neocon force, needs to be brought down. Yes, and most governments need to change or be changed. If Chavez and Morales can live up to the promises they made to their peoples, they would be just one example of top-down revolution whereby people have their land returned and the wealth of the nation protected and (more or less) equally distributed. This is impossible under corporate globalization. For a bottom-up approach, see the example being set by the autonomous EZLN Zapatista communities and villages in Chiapas, now spreading through Mexico. These people are again enabled to work and live in dignity, independently of the government and of corporate exploitation. Their “free market” is a short walk away. In the EZLN approach, I find a very sound thrashing of government, politics, and capitalism: the triad proven to subjugate and murder people. Though the Zapatistas are careful to distinguish between good and bad government - whereas they have seen, through hard experience, nothing but bad capitalism. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think it's unfortunate that this even has to be said but...there is nothing evil or immoral about a businessman who takes his wares to market. Hello? Astoundingly, there is no shortage of people who will mindlessly broadbrush ALL corporations (businesses) as evil.<hr></blockquote> There is nothing evil about that as long as their wares were honestly produced and taken to a market that is fair. Not the case these days. There is something very evil about how companies like Nike and Walmart go about taking their wares to market, because, for one, they do not really have any wares. What they are taking to market is their PRICES, which are lowering global wages & increasing corporate profits. And this perpetuates the increasing unfairness of the Market. That's kinda evil. All corporations are not evil, and I would never broadbrush them like that. My family runs a small business (now being put out of business, don’t you know, by the likes of bullying chain corporations with inferior products at lower prices). My family’s business is certainly not evil. But it doesn’t matter cuz they ain’t going to be around much longer. Looks like they’ll have to move to China or Honduras to get a job when the shop folds. DE illustrates this point very well, as well, in his comments. Roth: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Whether there are, as you say, corporations which are being enriched ..it doesn't negate my efforts to aid in the plight of these poor people by doing my feeble part in giving them my business.<hr></blockquote> Now you've got me in a bad mood. Don’t be an idiot. One, you do not give a shit about these poor people because you are primarily concerned with your own “freedom.” Cut the disingenuous crap. Your “efforts”. Yeah, some effort. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Two, you are not giving them your business, you are giving the corporate owners your business. They get the profit. What these workers get is to eat. Barely. They have no choice but to take such jobs if they can get them. Where is the freedom in that? You are enforcing their servitude and the limitation of their choices. What is the alternative for them? Tough question. The answer probably lies in sharing the wealth – allowing for local and equal ownership of all companies doing business in a certain community no matter under what circumstances they found themselves in a certain locale – put a cap on profits, if not eliminate the whole concept of profit. Think corporate junkies are gonna give that up? Well then, seems someone needs to enforce it on them. Educate all workers, management and owners as to their rights under fair and just law (yes Roth, we need laws, untrammeled by corporate interests.) i also think plenty of reparations are in order. What else? Open-source everything – give it away – barter. Get back to the organics. As it goes, we are ALL becoming dependent victims of corporate globalization, cheap labor, low prices – even you Roth, are a victim, not a free actor at all. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>...subsistence level income (or better) can be offered by the hundreds of millions of people who can at least offer to patronize the businesses in these Third World countries... And I say yet again-- The absolute key to enabling the world's poor to gain greater access to the market place is to allow the pricing to drop dramatically... It would require that everyone in the world have the freedom to bid anything in the world down to the lowest price. Thus the cost of living would drop down to rock bottom, and it would bring the entire array of goods and services within reach of vastly greater numbers of the world's poor.<hr></blockquote> And you think the present system is allowing everyone in the world an equal voice in bidding down prices? You will say, no, because of corrupt bureaucrats and politicians. I will say, yes, that, AND because of corrupt businessmen posing as politicians. The entire corporate-government nexus, which is basically Capitalism, baby. Money, greed…the fuel of your “Freedom”. DE makes a great point: DE: “The point is that it is the neoliberals (and I would dearly love for all here to be aware of neoliberalism...just as destructive in the long term, as neoconservatism) have created this FALSE DICHOTOMY. There is a third way...and a fourth and fifth as well. It is possible to bring in business AND have socially acceptable standards of safety and living for workers.” Later in the thread, you begin to emerge from this false dichotomy regarding sweatshops: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> But if there are carefully developed plans out there, I am actually very, very interested in the idea of helping Third World families get set up in a self-sustaining business.<hr></blockquote> That’s nice, but the problem is, who usually, and most powerfully, develops those plans? Why, the World Bank and the IMF (organizaitons controlled and populated by 5-star, tried and true Capitalists) develop those plans. Of course there are better ways. I am not saying what you are saying here is entirely bad: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A seed investment to set somebody up like that is a very satisfying approach to 'charitable giving'. I have a friend who has started (and then sold off) a number of businesses, who is trying to set up a 'connections' website, where people can click on photos of a family or individual, their backstory, the type of business they would like to start, and the amount of investment required...I have been told that for a paltry sum (a couple hundred dollars?) a person could be set up with a knife-sharpening business or a cleaning business etc.<hr></blockquote> because that is a far cry from Sam Walton or Nike or Coke or Exxon literally invading a place, throwing around impressive amounts of money, and making offers no one can refuse.

by **Gouda** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I always believe the quickest way to clear up confusion is to look at the big picture-- Here we have people arguing that Walmart has too much power...a power they have used unjustly. <hr></blockquote> Yes. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> So the proposal being made is...that we raise up an even greater power, a greater entity...of dimwitted bureaucrats with the powers of centralized government. I find that to be utterly and completely illogical and contradictory.<hr></blockquote> No. Where did anyone say that? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The idea that a non-coercive 'monopoly' (such as Walmart) is bad – and that the only way to combat this is to impose a compulsory monopoly (coercive government)...could there be anything more contradictory than that? I don't think so.<hr></blockquote> Walmart is the epitome of coercive monopoly. Your statement just fell apart. And again, I see no one here arguing for coercive government, but I imagine most people here would like to see a government which is able to regulate fairly, in accord with the wishes of the people. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do not ADD power to an already obscenely powerful and corrupt, bloated, dimwitted, inefficient government. Instead, take the power away from them.<hr></blockquote> Internal contradiction alert. How can a bloated, dimwitted, inefficient government be obscenely powerful? Corporations like Walmart and AT&T on the other hand, are obscenely powerful, not inefficient, and rather clever. Seems like they take the cake over government. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The huge and vast majority of the problems associated with economic injustice stem from the ability of businesses to hide in the skirts of coercive, corrupted government. <hr></blockquote> Yes, but mostly vice-versa. Out of office, these state officials retreat back to their lairs in the corporate world. By golly, and what do they find back in corporate land? They find that their work in office has lowered their taxes, deregulated their operations, expanded their market, and thus made them immensely more profitable. Nice trick. I see why it works. See the story of Bill Cohen, Clinton's former SecDef, as one tiny example: <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2006%2F05%2F27%2FAR2006052700919_pf.html">From Public Life to Private Business</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Get rid of the skirts, get rid of the coercive powers...and every business is at the mercy of voluntary customers. Every business would also be at the mercy of any competitor that would come along. <hr></blockquote> Roth, you see us all as customers. We are also workers. Companies should also be at the mercy of voluntary workers. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If they were not treating their employees well, another business could rise up that was offering better things.<hr></blockquote> Oh if this were true. But it is not. Otherwise, almost ALL of my friends and family who I see are very unhappy with their jobs & their working conditions etc, would have jumped ship - but they can’t. Corporate consolidation is the name of the game (because, in part, of business-friendly government which is also government-friendly business - ie. not a government that is coercively anti-capitalist) and thus the choices are getting fewer and fewer for both consumers and laborers. And I remember that earlier in this thread, you were supporting these corporate hegemons (under the fake guise of helping poor people! Shame.) Curiously, you do seem to realize this by saying: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>as things now stand, companies can come into a region and arrange with centralized government, for there to be almost NO competition at all… in the absence of coercive government, Walmart is quasi-nothing. <hr></blockquote> OK, so why are you supporting these sweatshop companies which rely on coercive governments??? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Pull the plug. Reconstitute our communities in terms of freedom and voluntary association. Coercive government has had it's run, and in the twentieth century it has left a huge, bloody, gory legacy of totalitarianism run amok, and wall-to-wall wars.<hr></blockquote> I agree that some plug needs to be pulled. But can’t communities be reconstituted without free market capitalism? Bad government has had its run, this is true. Yes, too many totalitarian systems sprang up. We are being strangled by one now, though I would argue it is less due to coercive central government than to corporate financial hegemony over EVERYTHING: governments, markets, finance, minds, bodies and spirits. Corporate hegemony over government and people is fascism. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The majority of people cannot afford to buy pants at Eddie Bauer for fifty dollars. They need to go to Target or Walmart and spend fifteen dollars. That is the reality.<hr></blockquote> Probably because their job at Walmart does not allow them to afford that. Eddie Bauer does not seem to cut corners or screw people over like Walmart does, thus higher production costs. If executive/owner/shareholder profits were cut dramatically, workers could be paid more. This is a simplistic illustration, but I prefer this loop over the wage-and-standards-basement loop, especially since it dehumanizes and exploits people. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And as far as these workers in Third World countries-- I support them because that IS the present reality. If I don't support them, they starve. How can anyone refuse to support them in their present situation?<hr></blockquote> Thus, you legitimize and perpetuate this inexcusable reality. Good work. By the way, they will not starve without Nike. I am trying to refrain from using strong language, but THAT is condescending bullshit – not the bit about goats. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The absolute key to enabling the world's poor to gain greater access to the market place is to allow the pricing to drop dramatically.<hr></blockquote> “Greater access to the marketplace” is neoliberal code for greater dependency on junk and increased subservience to the owners of society. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> If you want to help poor people, then contribute to the process of making everything cheaper and therefore closer to within reach of the less prosperous. Stay away from Eddie Bauer (assuming DE's categorization is correct).<hr></blockquote> If Eddie Bauer were the norm and not the exception, everyone would be able to shop there. Walmart does not allow that however - and the less government Walmart operates under, the better for their bottom line. Damned pesky decentralized city councils full of informed citizens!! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Am I the only one here who sees the dead-end?-- If everyone in the land had access to the quasi-coercive powers of a union and could set their wages virtually at will...there would be a huge collision with reality. Hey, why not give ourselves all a million dollar salary, while we're at it?<hr></blockquote> Yes, I think there will be and should be a little push and tug between owners and unions. But "Hey, why not give ourselves all a million dollar salary, while we're at it…" You are talking about the company executives, right? No collision with owner reality cuz they is giving themselves million dollar salaries. I do not blame workers for wanting a fair cut. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Meanwhile, only those who are lucky enough to have access to brute political power, get the disproportionate incomes. The union worker gets double or triple wages compared to the non-union guy.<hr></blockquote> Why are you diverting attention away from corrupted owners to corrupted workers? Corrupted owners ARE brute political power. Many unions have been co-opted and correupted by big business owners and executives and opportunistic management. Oh, and who gets disproportionate incomes??? I see which side you are on. more...

by **professorpan** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:15 pm

I must say, this is one of the best threads I've read in a while... and it shows how a collective of very smart minds can demolish intellectually and morally bankrupt "libertarian" mumbo-jumbo, exposing it for the steaming pile of dung that it is.

by **dugoboy** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:31 pm

rothbardian, i think the problem is that you believe this idea of globalization, or rather neo-liberalism economics to be completely precise, was based on at its core some sort of 'speading of the wealth' to enrich the nations..thing. but it isn't. we need to see where this started. it started with bill clinton and his supposed Third Way politics (kind of like Tony Blair before the iraq war). clinton led the way on this stuff, NAFTA, expansion of WTO. you remember the WTO protests in seattle, september 1999? it hard to get into all of it. but in the near future there will be the start of the implementation of a north american union, primarily for economic 'interests'. this stuff isn't about the uplifting of the downtrodden, its about removing the united states as an economic power. what i mean is, neo-liberalist economics is given a pretty face but its goal is to steal money as much as possible. its a completely idealistic virtual world that is meant to implode. edit: to expound further if you ask me you add neo-lib economics with the neo-con politics (and social beliefs) in the world you get a nice little globalist socialism, a kind of nazi 2.0.. call it gazi. i really think this is all about tying two seemingly unassociated threads of political thought at some point in the future. i know i need to explain better but i have to go. but like mussolini said 'fascism should really be called corporatism.' ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT." -Me "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George OrwellEdited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A> at: 6/15/06 2:44 pm

by **Gouda** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You [mentalgonfu] made the comment- "you seem to be insinuating that power held by a centralized government is more dangerous or prone to abuse than power held by a private company." ABSOLUTELY, completely and unequivocally! As I have said elsewhere on this thread... a business has no power to force anything. They have no guns. They have no gun-toting bureaucrats to dispatch. They have no prisons. They can't take my son from me and force him to die in some bloody war. There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison. <hr></blockquote> No power to force anything? They have money. Follow the money, Roth. By the way, private companies now do have their own armies, guns and prisons, their own intelligence agencies and their own government officials, politicians and media. The government is all too happy to privatize and outsource that stuff, and then join them later when they are run out of office.. Yes, big business can take your son and send him to Iraq. Right, Smedley? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We mean NO centralized authority. NO power monopoly...even on a smaller 'city-wide' scale….Therefore the whole "eminent domain" thing goes out the window. If ADM wants to build on somebody else's land, they have to get the agreement from the private owner, period. There are no central authorities to buy off or to elbow in on, even with the big bucks ADM has at it's disposal… Might ADM conceivably hire some goons and try to strong-arm the owner? Not very likely...for a number of reasons. It's hard enough to run a business profitably even in a peaceful scenario...much less if you've created a small civil war for yourself. If a business has been profitable so far...there is nothing to gain and everything to lose in becoming embroiled in a conflict (armed or otherwise). <hr></blockquote> One issue is land. How is it distributed? Two, you cannot possibly believe that ADM will not use it’s money to buy off landowners or offer them other carrots. Also naïve to think that ADM might not resort to goons with sticks, especially when there is no police, or courts in your world, but there is a lot of profit to be had from acquiring that desired land one way or another. Seems you are not living in reality. Competitors? Buy them out too. Easy: no regulations, no government. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Even more importantly....in the absence of coercive government, your ability to function in the community is based solely upon your reputation...upon how your credit is rated (financially and otherwise).<hr></blockquote> Especially if your reputation is that of a shark. You think people will be all self-regulating and fair when stuff and profits and power and control are at stake? You would say, OK, well people will choose to avoid this shark and go to a nicer competitor – yes, that is, if this competitor has not also been swallowed by the shark. I am assuming here that modern PR and advertising wizardry are available, fooling many into believing that these sharks are really sheep. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> And there is something about a private community's ability to make speedy, decisive judgment calls on matters like these. It is usually done with breathtaking lightening quick speed and efficiency...<hr></blockquote> Yes, profits are on the line, better be quick and efficient. Question though: who is allowed into this amazing private community? People do come in all shapes, sizes and dispositions. This bit I can pretty much agree with: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>My view on this is very simple-- If a so-called 'government' wants to truly derive it's powers from my consent...then support of any 'government' needs to be voluntary...otherwise it has NOT received my consent. It has coerced my compliance. Therein lies the end of freedom...and the end of the 'we the people' concept...<hr></blockquote> *** <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why would non-government human beings be less capable of organizing and structuring their own lives? What a bizarre concept!<hr></blockquote> Here, again, we see that you are arguing against your support for sweatshops and the need for corporations swooping in to rescue impoverished 3rd worldians. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As a matter of fact, by contrast, government actions were a disastrous joke. Dimwitted, unmotivated, pompous bureaucrats who were stupidly trying to micromanage the situation from a thousand miles away in Washington DC...and at the same time were systematically squelching and shutting down these organized efforts of private citizens. There has been one horror story after the other about these things.<hr></blockquote> Ditto as regards global corporations, which rely on privatization. Only the denizens of Corpworld are, as opposed to dimwitted inept government bureaucrats, quite capable in their exploitation and coercion of local populations. Who is more dangerous? The bumbling bureaucrat, or the crafty capitalist?  *** Look, like you Roth, I am also pretty much against the state and coercive, corrupt government - however, it is very clear that the state’s present woes are an entirely different animal – a beast of global free market capitalism. I do not see the solution being imposed from above by a capital-corrupted government, and obviously not by the disease which has weakened peoples and governments everywhere: corporate capitalism, the commodification of everything, concentration of wealth etc…. Can’t cure the disease with a disease. Furthermore, whether you have a privately-run system or a public government, you’ve still got a lot of people who are racist, bigoted, and domineering - in my opinion these fine traits are and egged on and amplified by capitalism. “The Capitialist System” is the problem Roth, and it encompasses governments, business and the private sector. Take away government, and the private sector capitalism will not function. Hey, that's it - maybe we need no government AND no free market capitalist system! *** Overthrowing tyranny from below: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The announcement came one day after Mexican Interior Minister Carlos Abascal sought a meeting with the military commander of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN, in its Spanish initials), which has shunned any and all contact with the federal government for the past five years. Abascal worried aloud during a meeting with Catholic bishops about Marcos’ daily vow that the national rebellion he is fomenting “will topple the federal government.” Today, Marcos answered the top functionary of the administration of president Vicente Fox, saying: “What we are proposing is to defeat the evil governments.” Referring to Abascal’s apparent confusion over what that means, he said: “I repeat: we will topple the municipal mayors, the state governments and the government of the republic, put them all in jail, kick the bankers, the big mall owners and capitalists out of the country and defeat the capitalist system!” “We are looking for you to rise up with us,” he told a multitude of thousands. “We are looking for elders… for women… for independent salespeople… for taxi drivers… for store employees… for young people… for children… for people who think that the solution is not found above.” The incendiary discourse grows sharper and more indignant each day of this six-month tour of all of Mexico, as this voice behind a mask listens to the grievances of people pushed to the limit by poverty and systemic disrespect by the demands of government and commerce upon them.<hr></blockquote> ...End Transmission...

by **Dreams End** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:49 am

Bottom line, Roth. You shop at Walmart to get cheap stuff. Walmart gets cheap stuff by using Chinese labor. Chinese labor is cheap because of a coercive government...especially in the meaning you have for "coercive government" which = any centralized government. Hey, how about that enforced one child policy. A libertarian utopia, I tell ya. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> WAL-MART’S DIRTY SECRET Millions of young Chinese men can find neither money nor love because many of the relatively few available single women are being beaten and raped while producing products for the USA, Canada and other world markets in death camps called laogai. chinese sweat shops Or they “voluntarily” work backbreaking hours in what amount to slave labor camps, where the National Labor Committee for Human Rights has documented 98-hour workweeks in factories over 100°F, a ban on talking during work hours, 24-hour surveillance, and compulsory unpaid overtime. Top wages are 10 cents an hour. Average pay in China’s “Special Economic Zones” is three cents an hour. Other workers are paid just 36 cents for more than a month’s work—making just 8/100th of a cent an hour. At the Qin Shi factory, thousands of women work 98 hours a week making Kathie Lee handbags that retail for $8.76 at Wal-Mart. They are paid less than $22 a week. In air thick with dust and chemical solvents, workers handle toxic glues without gloves alongside machines that roar like express trains. The whole production line must often remain at work unpaid for an extra three to four hours, until the inhuman daily quotas are met. girls in china The workers Corpwatch interviewed there “were very upset that they had no idea how their wages were calculated and that they varied so much from month to month.” At the end of typical 18-hour workdays, the Wal-Mart slaves are marched single-file to dorm rooms crammed with 16 metal bunks—and locked in. Armed company security guards are allowed to keep 30% of any fines they levy against the workers. Even the small outdoor Christmas lights that adorn American homes during the festival of Christ’s liberation “are manufactured for the most part in slave labor camps operated by the Chinese military,” said Religious Freedom Coalition Chairman William Murray in an address to the Press Club in Washington, DC on Dec. 17, 2004. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/China.htm">www.willthomas.net/Conver.../China.htm</a>

by **Mentalgongfu** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:50 am

Roth, Well, Gouda pretty much hit all the major points I was going to make from your response to my earlier comments, so I won't bother with a repeat. I will say this - you are either missing or avoiding what was intended to be my main point. ( I think. It's been a while, and this thread really grew. I haven't caught up on it all yet). the point, is that it doesn't matter if the power is held by an appointed board of directors of a private corporation or a small group of elected citizens in a community - what matters is HOW power is distributed, who holds it, and how they use it. There's a little tune I hum, usually when I'm reading the national or international news, that goes "greed and power, same as always." I'd hum it for you if a could. That's the point too. History beckons. And current events too. Look how well Iraq is doing since it's government was dismantled....wow, another point. There are mulitple points. (I can do that, with my mental gong-fu powers). In your response to my water company and ADM examples, you present an interesting example of the community investing in a water tower, digging wells, or starting an economic war of power. How would they go about doing that, do you suppose? Perhaps the citizens of the community would join together, and ask around for the best ideas. Maybe they'd take a show of hands and decide on the best (that is, most favored) idea. For the same of argument, say it's a community well with a water tower. Well Joe and his family have to get back to farming, and Jim has to get back to the industrial plant, and Jane works at the bank, and none of them have a lot of free time. Got families and all. So they propose to share their resources so that a couple people can spend their time taking care of organizing that water-tower gig. The community takes a show of hands again, and they elect Bob and Billy to be the water-tower and well technicians. That sounds suspiciously like government to me. I'll be the first to admit the corruption and evil-doing of the ever growing and increasingly centralized federal government in america, and the impending world government. The issue is confused when you refer to "the government" as if it is an entity unto itself. "The government" did this or that. People govern. There is no physical "machine of government," only a metaphorical one. "The government" can refer to legislators, a group of people, onstensibly elected by the populace (communities) who pass laws. It can also refer to the President and his entourage, the "administration." Or to the CIA, FBI, NSA, GOP, Snoop D-O-double-G, or any other alphabet agency. Behind all of this "government" are groups of people, communities again, and behind them, individuals (presumably). I hope you don't go about picking apart intricacies of my imaginary analogy again. I use the analogy because if you are grasping my line of thought about power and who holds it, you are not responding to my satisfaction. I don't think I can respond to all of the points in your post , but I'll try to do a few <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And there is something about a private community's ability to make speedy, decisive judgment calls on matters like these. It is usually done with breathtaking lightening quick speed and efficiency...in amazingly stark contrast to the bogged down processes of government bureaucracy.<hr></blockquote> Sorry, but that's just a myth. Private companies are full of bureacracy, waste and poor management. Corruption too. Self Interest. I won't go into my work history here, but I can think of numerous examples. Halliburton and Enron spring to mind. And I don't think for one second the bastards that run and ran those companies would be forced or inspired to act like friendly neighbors if the government suddenly disappeared. I guess angry Enron investors could form citizen death squads and go an a spree against employees and/or management - but where they hell would that get us? no corruption in NFL "judges?" I just find that hard to believe. I'm sure somebody's been bought. Re: schools, I think our public school system is screwed up, and I wouldn't send mine there if I had any. I feel lucky to have made it out with some sort of intellect and independent thought intact. Many of my cohorts did not. But as for eliminating the Department of Education in favor of five tutors, I guess the tutors you hire won't have degrees from any public unversities? what about high school diplomas? Enough. Peace.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:56 am

I guess I lied. Roth, on this we can agree, from a separate post of yours: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> My view on this is very simple-- If a so-called 'government' wants to truly derive it's powers from my consent...then support of any 'government' needs to be voluntary...otherwise it has NOT received my consent. It has coerced my compliance. Therein lies the end of freedom...and the end of the 'we the people' concept. <hr></blockquote>

by **Gouda** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My view on this is very simple-- If a so-called 'government' wants to truly derive it's powers from my consent...then support of any 'government' needs to be voluntary...otherwise it has NOT received my consent. It has coerced my compliance. Therein lies the end of freedom...and the end of the 'we the people' concept.<hr></blockquote> I also stated that I can pretty much agree with that, but this statement in the context of Roth's oeuvre herein leads me to suspect that he might mean something a little different than what I take from these words. Say I volunteeer to support a government that taxes fairly, but Roth does not like any taxes because it impinges on his personal concept of freedom, and thus he refuses to grant his consent to this government - well, what do we do then? Game over? If the government to whom I granted my consent based on a promise of fair taxation goes and then cuts taxes for wealthy capitalists like Roth, then I will not support this government and will freely choose to elect one that finally obeys its promises. That is, if this government is not corrupted by capital interests and does not steal elections. If it eventually becomes clear the government does not intend to keep to its promises and will continue to abuse power granted on the basis of broad, informed, voluntary consensus, we are fools to keep supporting this government and more radical measures need to be taken. Holding a government accountable means a lot of work and it means participating in democracy. You can't just cherry pick "freedoms" based on your personal predilictions and decide to withdraw support from government wholesale and retreat to a heavily fortified canyon in Idaho if a few of your feathers get ruffled. That seems a bit easy, and betrays not a small amount of disdain for fellow humans with different aims, backgrounds, colors and cultures: ALL of whom, "We the People", ought to be equally able to negotiate which powers are to be granted to a government; ALL of whom ought to be equally consulted when government fails to perform its granted duties. Hard f-ing work. Not as easy as saying, nope, don't like that bit of red tape, I'm outta here. Should a government, in alliance with and at the behest of capital interests (aka, The Orwellian Capitalist System) form a Tyranny (high taxes doth not make a tyranny in my opinion), as successive US and Mexican corporate governments have, then all is not fair and the People have a right, a duty, to rise up like they have in Chiapas (and like we should do here) and voluntarily withdraw consent wholesale from such a system and start to create an alternative system that does work for the People. In their case, they are not resisting for Ideology, but for dignity and survival. You see, Capitalism's regimes are about more than broken promises - they are about literally wiping these demanding poor people off the map. That is Tyranny.

by **Gouda** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My view on this is very simple-- If a so-called 'government' wants to truly derive it's powers from my consent...then support of any 'government' needs to be voluntary...otherwise it has NOT received my consent. It has coerced my compliance. Therein lies the end of freedom...and the end of the 'we the people' concept.<hr></blockquote> I also stated that I can pretty much agree with that, but this statement in the context of Roth's oeuvre herein leads me to suspect that he might mean something a little different than what I take from these words. Say I volunteer to support a government that taxes fairly, but Roth does not like any taxes because it impinges on his personal concept of freedom, and thus he refuses to grant his consent to this government - well, what do we do then? Game over? If the government to whom I granted my consent based on a promise of fair taxation goes and then cuts taxes for wealthy capitalists like Roth, then I will not support this government and will freely choose to elect one that finally obeys its promises. That is, if this government is not corrupted by capital interests and does not steal elections. If it eventually becomes clear the government does not intend to keep to its promises and will continue to abuse power granted on the basis of broad, informed, voluntary consensus, we are fools to keep supporting this government and more radical measures need to be taken. Holding a government accountable means a lot of work and it means participating in democracy. You can't just cherry pick "freedoms" based on your personal predilections and decide to withdraw support from government wholesale and retreat to a separatist canyon in Idaho if a few of your feathers get ruffled. That seems a bit easy, and betrays not a small amount of disdain for fellow humans with different aims, backgrounds, colors and cultures: ALL of whom, "We the People", ought to be equally able to negotiate which powers are to be granted to a government; ALL of whom ought to be equally consulted when government fails to perform its granted duties. Hard f-ing work. Not as easy as saying, nope, don't like that bit of red tape, I'm outta here. Should a government, in alliance with and at the behest of capital interests (aka, The Orwellian Capitalist System) form a Tyranny (high taxes doth not make a tyranny in my opinion) by actually morphing into a monster that does not even resemble a government, as successive US and Mexican corporate governments have - then all is not fair and the People have a right, a duty, to rise up like they have in Chiapas (and like we should do here) and voluntarily withdraw consent wholesale from such a system and start to create an alternative system that does work for the People. In their case, they are not resisting for Ideology, but for dignity and survival. You see, Capitalism's regimes are about more than broken promises - they are about literally wiping these demanding poor people off the map. That is Tyranny.

by **blanc** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:17 am

I had my duh moment about 20 years ago when doing a stint as a designer for a large uk corp which of course out sourced most of its manufacturing then quickly and briefly jumped on the made in uk bandwagon when a tv docu revealed that workers producing the cute kiddy clothes like I was designing were kiddies themselves, chained to machines, (literally) paid a bowl of rice a day, and oft passed on to brothel owners at age 8. the uk workers were in paradise by comparison, but on piece work and no, not well paid or well endowed with security benefits. the strike a light came when I had, as part of my duties, to work on the costing with those working out labour costs - suddenly I realised just how cheap things get made, even in the relative comfort of uk - where btw machinery had not been updated since year dot, so the garments were far more labor intensive than is necessary. (modern machinery means that standardised types of garments can be made in a fairly hands off way, quicker, cheaper if the labour is pricey enough to be a real element. ) Point is we are being royally conned into thinking that in order to have basic goods priced low enough for those of us near the bottom of the pay heap to buy, others have to be exploited. With modern machinery and equipment we could still enjoy a fashion moment or two, and have workers in our own countries employed at decent rates. The garments which are produced in the conditions described in China should retail for very little more than the fabric costs, and the fabric costs to manufacturers bear no relation to the prices you pay when you decide to do a bit of home dressmaking. I hope this anecdotal post is not too much of a side issue. Many of us are not very free when it comes to consumer choices, but the only ones to gain are the capitalists and shareholders. Incidentally, I watched a travel piece about minorities in China a couple of nights ago. A woman was interviewd. She belonged to a group who produce a very special kind of textile ( an indigo silk, waterproofed with egg white) in a traditional way, handweaving at home, when not working in the fields. She said they can produce 6 metres a day. She had tried leaving her village and working in a factory in town, but found it too hard, the hours too long etc. Industrialisation and the mediatised culture we live in has infantalised our thinking, making us believe we need to be 'consumers' and cannot be producers, except under the auspices of a big brother corp.

by **rothbardian** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:13 am

Gouda-- You claim you wouldn't outlaw my shoe purchase: "No, I don't think so. I want to see a society organized in a way that your shoe purchases do not exploit other human beings." And that would start with outlawing Nike's operations and outlawing the manufacturing plant's operation (because of substandard procedures or whatever)...thus forbidding me the choice of buying those shoes. You're in denial. I say again, if Nike's operations are substandard...get rid of the various governments (whether Indonesia or Malaysia etc.) that have given these companies artificial protection from competition. ----------------------------------------- "I want to see you have shoes, Roth, I really do, but I don’t want to see sweat and blood on them." What "blood" are you talking about? In a huge percentage of cases, these people are flocking to these jobs because the pay, the benefits and conditions are superior to other opportunities. That's not to say things couldn't be better...if we got rid of the governments who are immorally using their powers for protectionism. And all of this handwringing moralizing about "sweat". I've had very few jobs in my lifetime where I wasn't working up a sweat, working my fingers to the bone. In the taxed-to-death world in which we all live these days, most people are having to greatly overwork to compensate for the tax dollar 'gravy train' being extended to the PTB who have all their bought-and-paid-for politicians. This entire scenario could be shut down in an instant if...we pulled the plug. -------------------------------------- "If I were the government, I would dismantle every friggin’ global corporation and send all that capital right back into your town, where shoes can be made and people can be paid enough to be able to afford those shoes. Pretty simple." There you libs go again-- slipping into your totalitarianism. At long last...do you mean this literally, or not? I have observed about a dozen times in your thesis here, where you have slipped back and forth between totalitarianism and libertarianism. Which is it? ------------------------------- "I agree the IMF and World Bank own a lion’s share of the responsibility for the injustices in this world. However, the centralized control systems you speak of are not only governments..." What ARE you talking about? If the government was shut down, these PTB psychopaths would have no way of perpetrating the horrible injustices of these government agencies (the IMF or the Federal Reserve bank). What are you not understanding about that? They could no longer create money out of thin air (or from coerced taxation) then shove these loans (in the case of the IMF) down the throats of the Third World. Period. That's the end of IMF injustice, because it no longer exists. -------------------------------------- "This is weird logic at its finest. The PTB are by definition powerful..." [I had made a comment that the PTB's power source is centralized government] Are you sure about that? So if we removed the government...how could Bush Jr. and Sr., and Kissinger, Rumsfeld (sans his military killing machine, which is only sustained by coercive taxation), David Rockefeller and whoever else fancies themselves a member of the 'power elite'...do much harm (if any at all)? They would have no police, no army, no CIA, no NSA, no money (unless they want to spend their own). George W could write some complaint letters to his local newspaper. He might be able to finagle an appearance or two on Oprah. ------------------------------------- "I also see another contradiction in your ideology: you advocate for a " 'self-organizing' principle of freedom" - yet, you leave it to Walmart and Nike to organize sweatshops for people, which seems decidedly unfree to me." Well again, you are having misperceptions. I want protectionist governments removed from the scene so that Nike and Walmart will be forced to have vigorous competition from other companies offering better pay and conditions, thus greatly empowering the employees in these 3rd world countries. You're also misunderstanding the expression ('self-organizing...etc.). I am simply refuting the false notion forwarded by government bureaucrats that the world would collapse, highways wouldn't be built, and justice wouldn't be served...if 'regular people' and not bureaucrats, were allowed to build and run their own lives. The world IS collapsing, the national highway system IS decrepit, and injustice IS the norm in our bureaucrat-run legal system. It's time to fire the government. This system has been given ample opportunity, and is a failure. ------------------------------------------ "There is nothing “voluntary” about taking these jobs; it is a life or death necessity brought on by the very global conditions which led to the existence of these jobs, and it is neither free nor fair." I don't understand the point. My job isn't voluntary either. This seems to be more handwringing moralizing. There is nothing voluntary about ANYBODY'S job, 99% of the time. In any case, most of the world's poverty is caused by the IMF sucking these countries bone-dry by requiring massive interest payments on involuntary loans forced upon them...loans which were funded by government scams (IMF funny money). You also have all these dictators who live billionaire life-styles, but most of them are PTB creations (like Saddam Hussein). Setting up a series of tin-pot dictators is something the PTB couldn't do if they didn't have the powers of coercive government. A PTB-controlled US government has done all of this. And if there is any slave labor out there, it involves government coercion 99% of the time. Get rid of the government. ------------------------------------------ "Now you've got me in a bad mood. Don’t be an idiot." [You were referring to my idea of giving poor people my business.] You went on to issue a number of personal insults. To me this is a very signature Lib 'panic attack'. You and I both have ideas about how to make the world a better place. I have referred to securing my children's future. I am deadly serious about these issues. But in the typical liberal mindset (that I have repeatedly run into here), it's not enough for the other guy (me) to just be "wrong". No, I have to be evil too. I have to be categorized as murderously greedy, evil and stupid. It's not like I get to have honest motives...or be guilty of an 'honest mistake' (if my views are wrong). So in bizarre fashion, you confer upon yourself mind-reading and heart-reading capabilities, and then pass judgment. Very, very typical stuff. ---------------------------------------------- "No. Where did anyone say that?" [In response to my complaint that libs want government powers to be greater than Walmart powers.] Wow. You have just glibly, breezily brushed aside the entirety of the typical liberal nanny-state, micro-managing, heavily overpowered Orwellian BigBrother government philosophy. "When did anyone say that?" you ask. You can't be serious. ----------------------------------------- "Walmart is the epitome of coercive monopoly. Your statement just fell apart." You're wrong. Walmart has no coercive powers. They cannot arrest me, put me in prison, or send my son to war. What ARE you talking about? The ONLY coercive powers that Walmart may have indirect access to, are the coercive powers of some governments, which in a number of cases, may have coercively frozen out competition. --------------------------------------------- "Internal contradiction alert. How can a bloated, dimwitted, inefficient government be obscenely powerful?" What contradiction are you talking about? The US government IS obscenely powerful...and it IS bloated, dimwitted and inefficient. Bush IS obscenely powerful...and he IS none too bright. You can turn off that flashing alert button now. -------------------------------------------- In my previous post I made the comment: "The huge and vast majority of the problems associated with economic injustice stem from the ability of businesses to hide in the skirts of coercive, corrupted government." Gouda's response was: "Yes, but mostly vice-versa." OK, if that's true then let's kill two birds with one stone-- get rid of government...and all the skirt-chasing is over. ------------------------------------------------- You quote my statement: "If they were not treating their employees well, another business could rise up that was offering better things." [In the absence of government.] Your response: "Oh if this were true." You make some strange leaps. I didn't say it WAS true. I said it WOULD BE true (or truer) if coercive government were removed from the equation. You're right...in a sense-- If only these conditions DID exist. But they don't (to a great extent) because dishonest business can utilize corrupt government to eliminate much of the competition, providing far fewer choices for employees. ------------------------------------------ "I agree that some plug needs to be pulled. But can’t communities be reconstituted without free market capitalism?" I don't think you understand the implications of what you are saying. If the plug was pulled on this government, and we were all free to go about our business, and somebody built a better mouse trap, and the world beat a path to this guy's door, and he made fifty million dollars...so what? That's a good thing. It created jobs. It created prosperity for people. Even in a PTB-dominated world we still see these success stories. Fedex, as one of many examples...and with no unions. How do you stop the freedom of this guy who made the fifty million? I would argue that you are in denial if you don't think you're proposing a coercive government with a dangerous, world-threatening power monopoly...in order to coerce this guy back into line (whatever you anti-capitalists think that would entail). -------------------------------------- "By the way, they [Third Worlders] will not starve without Nike." Really? Then how do you describe what is going on in Africa right now...excessive dieting? You are dead flat wrong. If manufacturing could gain a foothold in Africa, they would (as even you have acknowledged)…“get to eat”. Right now, PC libs have them starving. ------------------------------------------------ "No power to force anything? They have money. Follow the money, Roth. By the way, private companies now do have their own armies..." I think you're ignoring my example of the U.S. Civil War. I will re-quote my statements-- "Another good example...is the U.S. Civil War. That entire war was instigated when Northern PTB elements sought to impose a huge 50% tariff on Southern merchants/PTB. Because of their parasitic attachment and control over the US government and the politicians they had bought off...the Northern PTB were successful in having this tariff imposed on the South. Think about it--- In the absence of centralized government authority, and without all of the government's 'military' resources, and without the ability to coerce young kids to fight a war to the death....this massive dispute could never have gotten anywhere. How much of their own money would the Northern PTB have spent to pay for mercenaries, before they cut their losses? You would have seen a conflict a thousand times smaller than the huge tragic massacre that ensued. The government's ability to coercively create a 'collective' of military slaves, finances and weaponry set the stage for this evil holocaust." ------------------------------------------ "...you cannot possibly believe that ADM will not use it’s money to buy off landowners or offer them other carrots." So what? If the landowner wants to sell his land or is otherwise satisfied with the "carrots"...that's his business and that's his choice. Where's the problem? -------------------------------------------- "Also naïve to think that ADM might not resort to goons with sticks, especially when there is no police, or courts in your world..." Who said Libertarianism doesn't take community security into consideration? Or doesn't cover the issue of judges or arbitrators? In fact, I addressed both issues directly. Maybe you overlooked that. You also seem to have a notion that ADM could perpetrate intimidation similarly to a Mafia-like organization. The Mafia only thrives in the shadows of (partially or fully corrupted) government. First, they gain partial (or extensive) control of government agents (police, judges). Then, they are able to count on the citizenry to be disarmed and defenseless, and reluctant to use deadly force because of the ridiculous and immorally prohibitive self-defense restrictions that exist currently. In the absence of government that scenario disappears very quickly. ------------------------------------------ "You think people will be all self-regulating and fair when stuff and profits and power and control are at stake?" It is interesting that you don't see how your own statement is a spectacularly powerful argument against the idea of bureaucrats (mere humans) who get to be in charge of a government power monopoly. Meanwhile, I am absolutely NOT relying on businesses to 'self-regulate' . I am relying on their forced accountability to strictly voluntary customers who can switch over to a competing business if they want. Then you start talking about how folks would opt to patronize a "nicer competitor", except that this nicer business is apt to be gobbled up by a "shark". This is pure gobbledygook. If the competitor can see that his business is more popular, then nine times out of ten, he'd be inclined to not sell off his business and instead make a killing in the market place. Meanwhile, business volume for the 'shark' continues to drop like a rock...and eventually the nicer business makes the shark an offer it can't refuse. ------------------------------------------- "Question though: who is allowed into this amazing private community? People do come in all shapes, sizes and dispositions" You are misunderstanding the concept. Any individual who lives in a particular community (or regional network of communities) and runs a business there, or has employment there...would have strong motivation to 'play by the rules' and remain in good standing with the rest of the community. Even though it's a voluntary association and he is free to leave...he doesn't want to. This may be where he has built his life. The same goes for ADM's community, however large that community may be. They would have strong motivation to maintain good credit and a solid reputation. Finally, you say that you agree with my statement about support of a 'government' being strictly voluntary...and with that you have undone all of your previous arguments. You can't have any of the things you are proposing, without a coercive government. Somehow you're not making the connection between your ideas...and the coercion they require. I will have to get to some of the statements of others, later.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I will have to get to some of the statements of others, later.<hr></blockquote> Do remember to tell us while you feel it is okay to support the repressive government of China with your Walmart purchases. Like many, MANY countries with sweatshop labor, it is the ACTIVE participation of the REPRESSIVE (by any definition) governments which allow the bosses to keep wages low and workers disempowered. Name a country that provides Walmart these cheap goods, and I'll show you goods made cheap in large part due to repressive government structures and even active government actions such as arrests and violence. You may argue that eliminating those governments would relieve the situation, but you must also tell us how your purchases which support, directly and indirectly, these repressive governments, are going to lead to that.

How To Fight Tyranny.

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Great thread

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

Re: Voluntary support of 'government'

chinese goods

Response

Re: Response

Who is online