Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

by **robertdreed** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:03 pm

DE, I'm in agreement with many of the points you made in the message above. However, I think it's unfortunate that you closed it out with the Marx quote, which I consider him at his most weak-minded/disingenuous: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." You know, who decides those two parameters? Most of the rest of your critique I find spot-on- particularly your points about the sloppy/dishonest identification of "socialism" as equivalent to "totalitarian." I find arguments based around straw-man semantics insulting to my intelligence. For instance, I've heard the "libertarian" arguments parsed around the theme "environmentalism = totalitarianism" to the point of nausea. I think it's time for the proponents of that line to do a lot more brain push-ups. The air and the water is something we all share. Attempts to devise a common framework for keeping the air and the water from being poisoned are to be subjected to rational critique, not ideological bluster. One might as well argue that criminal law codes are inherently totalitarian, simply because they attempt to make rules that apply to all members of a social collectivity, and hence are in some sense "socialistic"- which is, per the circular argument, "totalitarian." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/7/06 1:16 pm

by **rothbardian** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:07 am

I'm having trouble responding quickly. I have places to go and people to see. It may take 3 or 4 days for me to post something but I'm enjoying the conversations. Some of you guys can 'post' like there's no tomorrow. There must be a few retired millionaires among you. Anyway... To "Dreams End" I'll respond to some of your questions but let me try to boil this down to basics, if I can: Just so we're clear...I am not right-leaning (nor am I to the left). I count myself a classical liberal. I am all about...liberation, about freedom. People like me want freedom from all the dictators, oligarchies, power elites, 'centralized governments' and whatever other name or label all of these powerseekers come up with. The DIFFERENCE between you and me is that MY plans for the world include the idea of...ME leaving YOU...alone. Leaving you to live your life...in freedom. Your plans for the world are precisely the opposite. Your plan is to set yourself up in power over me...or to have some other power elitist or power group be put in power over me...and take away my freedom. Very simply, in order to implement the ideas you have, it requires a power elite that has a literal monopoly on power. (If you don't have a power monopoly, then you're not 'in power'.) Your OWN definition of choice for the term 'socialism' (from Dictionary.com) concedes the requirement of a "centralized" power group. That group needs to be able to FORCE people to do things. Then comes the hue and cry which I always find to be hugely ironic and contradictory: "But if we got rid of the 'government'...there would be chaos and mayhem. People would be running through the streets shooting their guns." Huh?? That DID happen! You've just described the 20th century's one hundred years of wall-to-wall authoritarian/totalitarian bureaucrat-run centralized governments conducting one bloody war after the other. And it continues on to this day with no end in sight. 250 million people died in wars during that time, and probably 5 times that many were maimed or injured. God only knows how much sorrow and heartbreak rippled through the world, as a result. And it would've have been literally impossible to 'ramp up' those wars or to mount those kinds of massive worldwide military actions without these...huge...centralized...governments. I see no way of denying that if we could go back in time and remove all of those centralized governments...the 20th century would improve a hundred times over. You remove these centralized governments...you remove the mass murder. No libertarian claims that ALL conflict can be eliminated...ONLY THE MEANS TO MASS PRODUCE IT. You expressed incredulity about 'rich people' supporting the idea of socialism...and you make my point precisely-- the PTB/Illuminati are not interested in socialism. Not one little bit. They are interested solely in the control mechanism (centralized government) that socialists are also seeking after. You are supporting the building and strengthening of THE VERY VEHICLE that evil people want to use and are using...to get from A to B. I say- "GET RID OF THE VEHICLE!" The whole world is poised on the brink of a PTB/Illuminati-induced dark age...like no dark age the world has ever seen. The other HUGE irony here is that despite all the best efforts of people like yourself (who want hugely powerful centralized governments that confiscate 60 or 80 or 100% of a nations wealth AND take their children away for use in all the various wars)...the whole world is fundamentally ANARCHICAL anyway, because those who are in power...have no one in power over them! The typical rebuttal is that those in 'leadership' in an organized government, can be held 'accountable'. But this has proven to be a huge crock. The very fact that the expression "the powers that be" (PTB) is used around RI is an acknowledgement of the true reality. I get the impression that it is very, very important to you to sort out numerous fine distinctions...to go over these various philosophies with a fine tooth comb and meticulously differentiate between the array of powermongers: Is there a variance between a 'leftist' and a liberal? A liberal and a socialist? A socialist and a communist? A Marxist and a Trotskyite? That being the case, let me then ask you this question: When warmongering, neoconservative /republican/former-communist-turned-Trotskyite-socialist/ fascist/nazi blood-sucking vampire government bureaucrats come to my front door sometime in the near future, in order to virtually kidnap my young son ( a few years from now he will reach the 'draft age') so that they can drag him off to some God-forsaken war to have his head blown off..... ...do you think I will have any concern or interest as to the exact political/economic/philosophical identity label that these particular power-elites may have so very carefully and lovingly bestowed upon themselves? I'll give you a hint-- the answer begins with the letter 'n'. What I AM concerned with is REMOVING their power...so that they can't take my son away (among other things). We need to get rid of power monopolies. Centralized government (a prerequisite of socialism- according to you) has had it's chance, and it has been a miserable failure. PS: I will get to your questions about Marx and the Illuminati, next post...and also some of your comments about 'corrupt corporations'.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Your plans for the world are precisely the opposite. Your plan is to set yourself up in power over me...or to have some other power elitist or power group be put in power over me...and take away my freedom.<hr></blockquote> What on earth are you talking about? I'm not planning to set myself up in power over anybody. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Very simply, in order to implement the ideas you have, it requires a power elite that has a literal monopoly on power.<hr></blockquote> We already have one. The problem with many "libertarians" if that's what you identify as, is that they fail to recognize that with or without the trappings of government, the elites still have power. It is in their wealth. Should there be no actual government (not likely), they'll hire their own mercenaries and it's back to the Middle Ages. The kingdoms will be small and there will be many warring factions for awhile, but eventually power will concentrate in very few hands. Always does. (Interestingly, the VERY centralized Church, despite its penchant for burning heretics, was really the only mitigating factor in inter-noble violence in the Middle Ages. Without true enforcement power, they were limited to using the perceived spiritual authority of the church as their only means of influence. They attempted to wrest agreement from competing nobles, through things such as the "Peace and Truce of God" movement. What's even more interesting is that the whole notion of "chivalry", honor among knights, protecting the weak, etc, was more or less developed by the Church. One of the means to pushing that onto the nobles was through the writing of chivalric tales. That's right, the whole "knights in shining armor" genre was really an early propaganda campaign against the problem of "noble violence". Whether this propaganda or other social forces was ultimately responsible for diminishing violence is not clear. ) Asides aside...ahem...the bottom line is that, with no central authority, competing kingdoms sent their knights marauding. Oh, and here's the fun part. Because of the development of castles, most of the marauding consisted of butchering each others' peasants. Nice. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Your OWN definition of choice for the term 'socialism' (from Dictionary.com) concedes the requirement of a "centralized" power group.<hr></blockquote> No, centralized power would be one such form. Locally controlled...why am I repeating myself? Oh well. So you don't hurt yourself scrolling back up. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.<hr></blockquote> Notice the "or"? This suggests that there are other models of collective ownership besides ownership by a central government, though I don't even concede that state ownership is a bad thing. However, state action of ANY kind doesn't work if the state itself is undemocratic and/or corrupt. Local community control is an excellent model for most actions but you still need some coordination on a larger scale. Not that I'm an expert, but I'd envision control of all enterprises at the most local level possible. For example, farming collectives (not unlike farmers' markets, really) and worker owned industries. I would envision local communities having the most power to decide what happens to them when it comes to development and use of resources. However, some tasks simply have to be coordinated on a national scale. (I think, here of the VERY JUSTIFIED concern on the RIGHT about "takings" and imminent domain given recent court rulings allowing homes to be claimed by the "government" to make way for the building of resorts. But it is not really the "government" that is taking the property, it is, in fact, the developers. It is not government that needs to be eliminated here, but corporate power and the system that allows that power to use the government in this kind of way.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I see no way of denying that if we could go back in time and remove all of those centralized governments...the 20th century would improve a hundred times over. You remove these centralized governments...you remove the mass murder.<hr></blockquote> Well, really, in some ways we are saying the same thing. Sort of. My contention is that, under capitalism, especially the take no prisoners, unregulated kind, combined with a political system that is absolutely geared to be captive to the moneyed classes, government has simply been the tool of the wealthy. You remember, of course, the words of Smedley Butler? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.<hr></blockquote> THIS is the true cause of much of the bloodshed my government has instigated. And Butler knows exactly who the bosses are. The list could be extended a great deal today. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> When warmongering, neoconservative /republican/former-communist-turned-Trotskyite-socialist/ fascist/nazi blood-sucking vampire government bureaucrats come to my front door sometime in the near future, in order to virtually kidnap my young son ( a few years from now he will reach the 'draft age') so that they can drag him off to some God-forsaken war to have his head blown off..... ...do you think I will have any concern or interest as to the exact political/economic/philosophical identity label that these particular power-elites may have so very carefully and lovingly bestowed upon themselves? I'll give you a hint-- the answer begins with the letter 'n'.<hr></blockquote> I have zero interest in parsing out what the elites call themselves. I was interested in what YOU were calling the elites. And you called them socialists. Since, by definition, they are not, then this is a misnomer. Why is it important? Because these same elites have been VERY busy insuring that we don't think outside the confines of unbridled capitalism (unless it be of fascism, which does have more state intervention in the economy, but not to the benefit of workers and the working class). And my point is that without at least a slight nod in the direction of capital as a medium of power, you do nothing by eliminating government. You honestly think that without a government, Joe Libertarian will truly be free while mega-wealthy, transnational corporations can do as they please? They can hire their own armies...in fact they often do anyway. Or were you also calling for a simultaneous overthrow of corporate power? If so, where do I sign up? The problem is that collective action will always be needed in the world. I think there are things even about THIS government that, though not done well, are necessary. I think it's good not to have slavery, for example. I'm happy to have someone enforce that. (Not doing too well in the US with that one, I'm afraid.) I think mass transit is nice, and would be much nicer if it were real and nationwide. I enjoy safety standards on food and consumer products and would enjoy the same on pharmaceutical drugs more if the process were less beholden to the industry. I'm always happy to have stoplights at intersections. I like air traffic controllers, too. I'm just funny that way. Even if the workers are privatized, I sure hope someone is coordinating the system so that they all follow the same procedures. I appreciate, as sadly inadequate as they are, at least SOME standards that keep my neighbor (or his factory) from dumping chemicals such as arsenic in the water I drink. In fact, I enjoy having water purification plants. I think educating even those without any money whatsoever is a good idea. I think sewage systems are not a bad thing to have around. I think it is okay to outlaw murder. I think minimum wages are good, since this myth that Joe Sixpack can simply go from place to place offering his services until he gets a fair price for his labor is...naive...at best. I think I'm pretty much against child labor. I think workplace safety standards aren't such a bad idea either. (Notice the last three examples are specifically about areas of corporate abuse of regular folks which were addressed by working class folks organizing and eventually using government as a means to correct. It was a battle, since government is so much more responsive to corporate interests, but it worked.) Now, can I say that, with restraints on accumulation of capital, corruption will disappear? Sadly, no. But human corruption does not disappear with government. However, without government, the rich don't even need to corrupt anything to get their way...they simply do what they want. I think that, in some way, there should be collective mechanism to keep that in check. Or should I simply offer my services to my local "warlord"? There are so many examples on the small scale that don't even require the sort of revolution that will ultimately be necessary. For example, public finance of election campaigns would go far to eliminate the DIRECT buying of politicians. It doesn't eliminate illegal bribes, or threats to remove vital industries from a congressional district, but it does SOMETHING. Overall, my "quibble" about the term socialism has to do with this failure to recognize how powerful centralized accumulation of capital really is. And it is the propaganda to equate "socialism" with "totalitarianism" that has been so succesful in having some in the U.S. get angry at government but NOT angry at corporate elites. Or, worse yet, they equate movements AGAINST corporate elites as being conspiratorially created BY corporate elites. That is why it is important not to call the Rockefellers socialists.

by **robertdreed** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:16 pm

"worker owned industries" That's a pipe dream, in the overwhelming majority of cases. For one thing, most workers have approximately zero interest in running their own factories- or other places of business, in fact. One of the best benefits of being a wage laborer or independent contractor is that when you punch out, you don't take your work home with you. It you're an owner, by contrast, all the responsibilities ultimately fall on you. One of the best things about capitalism is centralized executive control, in fact. You can't run most businesses by having everything put to a vote. Collective decision-making has it's limits, to understate the case. Nor do most businesses benefit from having management responsibilities rotate between members of the sales, secretarial, manufacture, and warehouse departments- or even within the management department, for that matter. Some people have executive temperaments. They know how to delegate, how to give orders, how to inspire loyalty, how to get things done. If capitalist executives abuse their power- that's what labor unions and appropriate government regulations are meant to curb. But you'll find that in many capitalist enterprises, the worker satisfaction ranges from between feeling fairly well treated to being extremely satisfied. And if employees and their management don't get along, under capitalism they part ways. Employees can fire their bosses, so to speak. Who fires the bosses under centralized socialism? Other than that, DE, I think that you have the weight of the argument over "rothbardian."

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But you'll find that in many capitalist enterprises, the worker satisfaction ranges from between feeling fairly well treated to being extremely satisfied<hr></blockquote>. I guess that's just not my experience. However, "worker owned" does not mean that every worker does the same thing. In that sense, management are workers to. You can certainly appoint someone to oversee various operations. And you'd be surprised what collective wisdom can produce. You know the number one complaint I hear among "regular" workers? The "bosses" don't know what they are doing! I think you may be projecting your own need for and enjoyment of autonomy from a workplace (judging from your choice of cabdriver as a profession) in an overly broad fashion. In my experience, the MORE people participate in decision making, the more they buy into the project they are working on. In fact, not to go too far off topic, but there's a whole industry of revamping the idea of the workplace to allow far more of that creative collaboration. And that's WITHIN capitalistic enterprises. It's actually very trendy these days. Worker ownership does not mean no division of labor. It means they share in the profits. Yes, it does mean they are responsible for results, but they are held responsible these days without being given any actual participation in decisionmaking. In other words, "Do it our way, and if it doesn't get the results we want...you're fired." There are a lot of creative ways to reimagine the workplace. Don't confine yourself to imagining the workplace as it is now as the only model.

by **scollon** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:50 pm

The problem for me is the dictatorship of the workplace. There are basically no rights of free speech or action. People spend most of their lives in that state of what is close to slavery. Also Americans seem to believe their version of capitalism is just the natural order of things and that's it. In the modern world, governments control or at least regulate every aspect of economic activity. Things are texactly he way the PTB wants them. For example the reason the French and Dutch recently rejected a recent EU treaty was the feeling that the Darwinian American system was being introduced through the partners in crime from the UK. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/8/06 1:55 pm

by **robertdreed** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:52 pm

"Don't confine yourself to imagining the workplace as it is now as the only model." I don't know what you're talking about. I don't subscribe to a single-model theory of the workplace. I'll bet that I'm also one of the only people around here who has ever been a member of a worker-owned co-op. The cab company in which I worked on and off for around 20 years began as one. It sort of shambled along, in between crises, disasters, and bankruptcies. At some point, someone got the bright idea to make it an "owner's co-op"- instead of having a fleet of cabs owned in common by the drivers, there were two types of people in the organization- those who owned cabs (almost all of whom also worked as drivers themselves), and lease drivers. The "co-op" part extended only to the owners of the cabs. The organization solved most its problems in one fell swoop with this reorganization. Most of my working career has been spent as an independent contractor. But I've also worked as an employee, for both small single-proprietorship businesses and large corporations. And as a cab driver, I've talked to a great many people about their work, their careers, and associated experiences. So my knowledge is more than merely theoretical.

by **robertdreed** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:54 pm

"People spend most of their lives in that state of what is close to slavery." Salient difference between being an employee and a slave- slaves aren't allowed to quit. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/8/06 5:31 pm

by **scollon** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Salinet difference between being an employee and a slave- slaves aren't allowed to quit.<hr></blockquote> That's right they can go and sell themselves to another master in almost exactly the same circumstances. In fact the system is designed with levels of unemployment that are such that isn't an easy thing to do. It is better than slavery obviously but the reality for most people is not much better. In America of course, there is the freedom to sleep under a bridge (until the police come along and kick your ass that is).

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:31 pm

I actually agree with scollon on this one, to an extent. It's not like someone flipping burgers at Wendy's can decide she's not happy and go off to become CEO of a multinational corporation instead. EXCEPT at times of nearly full employment, the differences in wages and benefits between comparable jobs are, well, comparable. This, by the way, is why "full employment" from the perspective of employers is NOT considered a good thing. And this is particularly true in bad economic times and also particularly true when one's educational background has been poor. Sometimes that is the fault of the educated...but sometimes that's the fault of the educators. Sometimes it's actually a product of circumstance. This idea that an employee, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, has the ability to put himself out in the employment "marketplace" and watch the "bids" on his labor go up is a myth, of the most pernicious, blame the victim type. And please don't give me Horatio Alger stories. Yes, there are always exceptions. But some people survive parachute jumps when the parachute doesn't deploy. That is not an argument against parachutes. One of the things I've always wanted to ask conservatives who believe that those who don't have jobs or have good jobs are simply lazy (and this is NOT what rdr was saying, but it reminds me of that argument) is why so many MORE workers were lazy during the Great Depression. Imagine, all of a sudden, 1/3 of the workforce got too lazy to go to work. Or might there actually be a relationship between employment and economic conditions? And I would add that in my OWN utopia, full employment would not be the only goal. I think individuals AND society benefit by supporting, in some form or fashion, people who don't simply want to make money. We need thinkers and artists and writers. And while some of these can craft their wares in order to be marketable, do we not lose something when marketability is the sole criterion of artistic or intellectual worth? But yeah, they can always flip burgers at Wendy's too. And these days, with so many companies outsourcing either out of the country, removing the jobs altogether, or within the country to temp agencies that provide no job security or benefits, even the category of "employed" is misleading. Americans are working longer hours with fewer benefits (have a google on the average amount of vacation time a western European employees is given) than most industrialized nations. But to keep everyone happy, we simply label this "freedom". Maybe slavery isn't EXACTLY the right word...but "free" certainly isn't it either.

by **robertdreed** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:30 pm

You may not want to admit it, but you've conceded my point. The central principle of being a slave is that you can't quit. Dream's End and scollon, you both want to lower the bar on what constitutes "slavery" to "being underpaid." The essence of fatuity: "It's not like someone flipping burgers at Wendy's can decide she's not happy and go off to become CEO of a multinational corporation instead." You're quite right, they can't do that. I've never seen any form of socialism accomplish that feat, either. For even one person. I can, however, reel off Horatio Alger story after Horatio Alger story for you about success stories within the American system. I could for instance, tell you about the guy I formerly leased my cab from, a Palestinian immigrant who started as a cab driver, became a cab owner, and who's since gotten into buying fix-up homes, learning carpentry on the fly. He drives a silver BMW coupe these days. Not bad for a guy who did time in Club Fed about 10 years ago for manufacturing fraudulent IDs...;^0 And then there's the bookkeeper for my cab company, who also started as a driver, bought a few extra cabs to lease, lived in a trailer for around 15 years, and who now owns her own home. And then there's the lease driver I know who lives in a studio apartment, typically works six days a week, and who has managed to quietly stash an unknown amount of money in the six-figure range simply by living frugally and saving 60 per cent of his income, over the past 20 or so years. And then there's another cab vet I know who had about $8,000 in an IRA and $40,000 in the bank from about 10 years of work, who blew it all in about a year on crack, got into a Salvation Army rehab program, moved to Reno, and got a new start driving cab there. I don't know how much he makes these days, but it's probably double what he made in Sacramento. I don't want to bore you, so I'll stop there. But I do have more stories. Not only that, but I can give you advice on how to boost yourself out of the minimum wage doldrums, right now. Go drive a cab- especially in a gambling town, like Reno. If you're over 25, able-bodied, and have a clean driving record, you can be hired instantly in cities all over the country. Including resort towns. Aspen. Vegas. Tahoe. Palm Beach. And yes, if people like you, as an individual, they will "bid for your labor." Same with bartenders or waiters, or card dealers in gambling casinos. You know, bite the bullet, go to card dealer school for a couple of weeks. Most of the people I know who quit those rackets didn't get out because the money was lousy, they got out because the nightlife was getting ahead of them. But if you don't drink or toot, and you don't gamble, you could make a sustainable career out of it. Go work for a hospital. Even janitors make about double the minimum wage. It will take some time to find an opening, perhaps a few months. But people come and go all the time in jobs like that. Once in the system, you can transfer to other jobs. A medical courier driving a route for Kaiser makes around $17 an hour, plus benefits. Nobody breathes down your neck, as long as you get the job done. Union job. Decide to find some work on a night shift job, which typically pays an added differential of perhaps 20-30 per cent extra per shift. Night shift jobs are typically crying out for people to work. And your supervision will be minimal. Increase your typing speed, and learn some basic computer program skills. Temp jobs are always hiring, and if you find one that you like and that likes you, you can work into full-time with benefits. Biggest hazard: it may get too comfy, and you might find yourself in the same office 30 years later. That's what I call a hazard, anyway. I just heard about a home program that costs $1400 for an intensive four-week, 8-hour M-F home health care aide certification program. With that certificate, you'll be able to get a starting wage of $15-20 per hour, with overtime. And if your certificate is transferable to other states, you'll find ready and steady work in almost any area of the country, even Beverly Hills. All of the jobs above, and more that I could name, pay much more than minimum wage. For that matter, you could shoot dice with death, start working in a coal mine at age 25, sleep in a camper, and get out of the game at age 28 with $100,000 in the bank. Safe and sound, probably. I support a living wage, and I think apartment rents are entirely too high in many regions of the country. But that's remediable without wholesale conversion to a socialist economy- much less a violent revolution. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/8/06 5:42 pm

by **scollon** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:48 pm

"Dream's End and scollon, you both want to lower the bar on what constitutes "slavery" to "being underpaid." " I never mentioned pay once. Success stories are 100% irrelevant. What matters is the reality of the numbers who are stuck in very unpleasant situations. Only a miniscule minority can be succcesses. That is the American fantasy, not dream. I was earning 60,000 dollars for working (always less than) 20 hours a week, 40 weeks a year. I was a lecturer. I still quit (took redundancy). I hate work and I hate it even more now Britain has become a (relatively) non unionised sweat shop like the colonies. Yes, I'm a cry baby. Now my disposable income is $20 a week (to buy food and everything else). I wouldn't go back to teaching for twice the money I had. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/8/06 6:19 pm

by **robertdreed** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:00 pm

scollon, not only are you totally unqualified to talk about the USA, you are, in fact, by your own admission, "a cry baby." You quit a high-income, part-time job. By your own admission, you "hate work." Do you expect people who actually do work for a living to take your ideas on economics and social policy seriously? What part of your laziness and self-indulgent pique am I not understanding here?

by **anotherdrew** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:08 pm

it's less expensive to have minimum wage employees than it would be to have slaves I bet. Anyway, of course robertdreed is right that it's not slavery and is better, but then Indentured Servitude is also better than plain old slavery too. The current employment system in the US has many problems, but saying, "at least we aren't slaves" doesn't solve them, even tho it's true (currently at least, as long as the governement with it's monopoly on violence keeps enforcing the ban). See my above post for my simple recomendations to fix the problems. Hats off to dreamsend and robertdreed for the high quality arguments seen above, you've sure said it better than I could. Lawless chaos isn't the bigest fear rothbardian, it's what new power structures would arise next. There could be no way to prevent new power structures forming. Unless you plan on giving all people "smart pills" that will make them all agree to be wise and rational at all times. With such pills people would refuse to kill for money perhaps, would refuse to oppress others in return for status, terratory and food perhaps. some tempting pills... but where are they?

by **scollon** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:11 pm

It wasn't a part time job but those were the actual teaching hours and there were no other duties. "What part of your laziness and self-indulgent pique am I not understanding here? " I can drive a car, how lazy is that, sitting on your ass all day talking crap ? I can understand the fact that American minimum wage is $5.25 an hour, and is approx $9 in the UK. I can lead you through the maths of that if you ask nicely. I do understand non union companies, low safety standards (think 13 dead in a mine), no free health care, poor public amenities, poor social housing, people living in the street, the highest incarceration rate on earth. It just doesn't compare too well with civilised countries. Just what percentage of Americans are cheeky offensive fucking bams by the way? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/8/06 6:15 pm

Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

Marx

regime removal vs. regime change

Re: regime removal vs. regime change

Dream's End...

Re: Dream's End...

Re: Dream's End...

Dream's End...

scollon...

Re: scollon...

Re: scollon...

"employee" vs. "slave"

Re: "employee" vs. "slave"

Re: "employee" vs. "slave"

Re: "employee" vs. "slave"

Re: "employee" vs. "slave"

Who is online