Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Infinityplus1

I feel like maybe I'm in a minority here...

**Rant Ahead**

I'm always running across blogs and rants about the evils of capitalism, which are incapable of distinguishing between free market economics and fascism.

Anyway, I feel like I'm in a minority in the art community, because it seems almost like it's a requirement for all the artists I know to hate on Capitalism for no reason other than that it seems like a convenient scapecoat for human greed and stupidity.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
The Wikipedia article has some in depth explanations, but they failed to understand that Monetarism is incompatible with Free Market Capitalism, because it establishes a monopoly on the ability to create currency.

While there are sections of the US economy that are mostly based on Free-market Capitalism, it is very much a mixture of Corporate Capitalism, Mercantilism, State Capitalism, Social Market Capitalism, and Crony Capitalism.  So, in a way, yeah, capitalism is kind of to blame, but mostly a highly  perverted version of it.  And it depends heavily on your definition of Capitalism, which has become very convoluted over the years.

http://youtu.be/DD8205tTzUo

I'll agree with him on some subjects.  For instance, that the Brony phenomenon is probably a positive sign.  I appreciate that there are so many people who are willing to take to heart the ideals of friendship, peace, and tolerance.  But I think he's misidentified the source of the "sickness" in society which is making FiM such an appealing form of escape.  Yes, cutthroat business practices are ultimately damaging to both people and the economy.  But what it all boils down to is that there are two kinds of "capitalism" and not everyone seems to realize how to distinguish the two.  I know this seems like gross simplification, but it's the best way I can find to describe it to people who aren't well versed in economics.

The 'good' form of capitalism is basically what stems from your freedom to sell the things you own at any price you want.  It does not extend the power to force someone to buy it from you.

The 'bad' form of capitalism relies on violence, deception, or threats to force someone to buy or sell an item at a specific price, or to bar them from mutually consensual transactions of most any kind.

The 'good' form of capitalism is pretty much a philosophy that says, "I must sometimes benefit more than just myself in order to prosper."  And allows prosperity to flow naturally from the things people need, or can provide for others.  The 'good' form of capitalism is essential because the freedom to participate with one another in mutually consensual transactions is a necessary component in a free society.  

People who practice business in a cutthroat manner, victimizing their customers, aren't capitalists, they're predators.  These predators can exist in any form of government.  But they're often experts at disguising their motives when they can exploit overly complex systems or rules.  What they profit from the most, however, is a concentration of power.  Gangsters and thugs aren't successful because they are given the freedom that everyone else has.  They're successful because, either through circumstance, or through government policy, they're given freedoms and opportunities that others are discouraged from.  And the easiest way to do this isn't by convincing the masses, it's by convincing a few key people at the top of a social hierarchy.  Predators profit off their cutthroat practices because they control the lawmakers.  Again, this is the 'bad' form of capitalism.

Greed and private wealth are allowed to exist in 'good' capitalism, not because greed is inherently good, but because any attempt to dismantle it through force or deception ultimately undermines any benefit one would hope to achieve.  It establishes a paradigm in which it is okay to steal, or to bully, as long as it's certain people doing it to certain other people.  Ultimately someone is going to have to decide when it's okay, and that someone will not always be on your side.

You can't legislate away stupidity, greed, hate, or prejudice.  Overcoming these flaws is a personal struggle.

Once more, I don't believe greed is why free markets succeed.  They succeed because voluntary human interaction is the only moral interaction, and the only sustainable interaction.  Where mutually consensual interaction is oppressed, or corrupted, is the ultimate source of 'bad' Capitalism.  

Also, I think this Maoist Rebel News dude is confusing the Mises Institute with Social Darwinism.  Austrian economics is less about, 'Prosperity stems from aggressive business practices' and more about, 'Prosperity stems from fulfilling needs effectively'  And that 'Any organization which isn't fulfilling your needs, is not entitled to your damn money'

http://youtu.be/sh9NrrS6MXg

Let me clarify something here.  Communism, so far as the concept that people should be allowed to pool their resources, voluntarily, for the benefit of the community, is not one that I disagree with.  Institutionalized Communism is what I disagree with, because it usually takes the power and decision making out of the hands of the participants, and places it into the hands of an elite few.  If you want to get together with a dozen, a hundred, or even a million people, and willingly pool your resources towards a common goal, I don't believe that is wrong, or even in violation of free market philosophy.  In fact, I think that would be commendable, even inspiring, depending on your objectives.  Any problems I have with it are the same as the problems I have with the 'bad' form of capitalism.  The only way Communism violates my principles, is when the participants are being robbed, deceived, threatened, or pressed into service against their will.  This can happen in any government.

In the Maoist Rebel News video, he makes three claims which I would like to contest.  First, is his assertion that criticism against communism is null and void, because there is popular support for communism in some formerly communist countries. I will not contest the source of the data, or that they genuinely believe this, but instead make two simple observations.  

1. A popular belief is not necessarily an accurate one.
2. Their current government might genuinely be worse for them than their old one, and that might have absolutely nothing to do with the presence of capitalism, or the absence of communism.

Another point I wish to contest.  He criticizes the people who oppose Child Labor laws.  While it's true that work conditions for children were often horrible, and that many of these laws were passed in their best interest, the act of barring a specific demographic of people from working is a violation not only of free market economics, but of civil liberties.  No, children should not be exploited.  No, they should not be pressed into the workforce against their will.  But bar any other demographic of people from working, and suddenly it's prejudiced.  Why not children?  I believe the decision of whether or not a person should work ultimately lies with the person.  I realize this might be an unpopular decision, but the reality is that because of child labor laws, often the only people who will employee children are people who don't give a crap about the child's best interest, because they're already breaking the law.  Working conditions are often horrible for adults, too.  It's a ridiculous measure to bar people from working because they might be exploited.  Anyone can be exploited.  Does that mean no one should work?

The final claim I wish to contest is his implication that Capitalism is responsible for the economic downturn in the US and many other countries.  Once more, there are two "Capitalisms"  and distinguishing between them is critical to understanding what went wrong.  There are many causes for the recession, and none of them are from the 'good' capitalism.  One of the driving factors stems from the schemes between a select companies and lawmakers.  Basically, they are distorting the definition of "money" to the point where it is almost meaningless.  I don't believe these actions are necessarily out of malice.  They may very well think that encouraging reckless and irresponsible spending will lead to prosperity.  But it won't.  All they are doing is subsidizing unsustainable business models.  This is one of the primary causes for the collapse.  It has left a nation in debt to a select few, who loaned them money, that they only believe was ever worth anything.  How much is a $25,000 college loan worth when you can't find a job?  How much is a $22,000 car loan worth when you can't afford gas?  How much is a $180,000 home loan worth when you can't afford food?

How much will your dollar be worth in five years?  No one knows for sure, but my best guess, if things continue on the same course, it's gonna be a heck of a lot less than it is today.

And guess what?  None of this is because of 'good' capitalism.  It's because of fraud, theft, and oppression.  It's because we trust people with the very authority which they refuse us.  It's because somewhere along the line, we became so afraid of out own ignorance, that we decided we needed someone else to make all our decisions.  And we became so afraid of our neighbors, that we demanded our lawmakers rob them of their rights.  

I am sick of the communism vs capitalism debate.  Because people who participate in it often miss the most critical point.  It's not about what it's called.  It's about empowering people to improve their lives.  it's about breaking down the illusion that we, as individuals, are not good enough, or not smart enough to decide what's in our own best interest.  It's about the inalienable liberty that is necessary for all humankind to prosper.  

One day, maybe, we will live in a world of abundance, where everyone's needs and desires are fulfilled with little or no effort.  But we cannot ever hope to achieve such a world by exploiting and oppressing our neighbors.
Viewed: 174 times
Added: 6 years, 3 months ago
 
axlegear
6 years, 3 months ago
Truth is, however, that regardless of our economic policy, we are rapidly using up mid-essential resources, wasting high-essential resources, and squabbling over availability of low-essential resources.

Example A:  We're bitching about features on high-end luxury phones when the vast majority of the world is being nickel and dimed to death by oil prices that continue, inevitably, to raise because of the simple fact we're almost out.  And yet that still gets the limelight a hundred times over to the millions who have no use for oil, because they can't eat it or drink it, or cure their debilitating but highly treatable diseases with it.

Greed is a massive wrench in the economic cogworks, and perhaps the fundamental flaw, but it is also not the only one.  Communism is one approach to tackle an unrelated problem.  Really, it all comes down to individualism and personal interest.  And there's nothing wrong with wanting to live well.  The problem is that it means someone else lives less well.  No system can change that-  it's mother nature's design.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
Crony Capitalism has a lot to do with our overdependence on specific resources.  The oil supply is not a problem because there is no other resource, it's a problem because due to certain policies, exploring those resources has been discouraged.  

Economic growth in third world countries are being intentionally suppressed, because they still have resources to exploit, and it works better for the empires when they aren't tapping those resources themselves.

While greed is a massive wrench in society, it's also pretty much one of the only things that makes people want to do anything.   Take away greed, and everyone will live in bliss, until they die of starvation.  I don't think greed is so much an inherent evil, as it is an exploitable motive.  People are too frequently unaware of their greed and how it hurts them.  

Basically, I think the problem stems mostly from the misaligned trust that people put into collectives, or authority figures.  Trust is important, it's what keeps you from constantly worrying that someone will murder you in your sleep.  It is essential to be able to believe that things will work out.  But I have serious reservations when someone says, "I don't trust individuals with this kind of authority, but I trust an elected official."  Guess what?  The government is comprised of individuals, any one of which might screw you over.  And their concentration of power makes it exceedingly easy.

I support a far less centralized distribution of power, because it means that a higher ratio of dicks are required to do any real damage.  If people are mostly jerks, any form of government will be inherently flawed. Society will be doomed regardless.  But, if people are mostly good, with a few jerks, why risk having government positions where one of the jerks might potentially lord over everyone else?   If you believe people are inherently good, we don't need government.  If you believe people are inherently bad, a government staffed by these people would do us no good.
RyuuKishi
6 years, 3 months ago
I wouldn't use the word greed but : self-interestedness / self interest
Norithics
6 years, 3 months ago
Fffff THANK YOU.

Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Organism, Compartmentalism...
They all suck as soon as somebody finds the loophole! You have to be vigilant if you want things to improve.
RyuuKishi
6 years, 3 months ago
Bleh just woke up and reading this is kinda headaching but yes i get your point. ;]

Still.
Problem with capitalism and the definition blahberlyblubb is, either good or bad, that the focus is on the object to trade itself. Money.
Also, dividing it into a "good" and "bad" capitalism won't help. This just makes it even worse.
GOOD and BAD murder, GOOD and BAD communism, GOOD and BAD countries, GOOD and BAD ponies.

It's the imagination there are absoultely good and bad things to achieve and it can be easily achieved by follwing what ..?
The Bible? Osama bin Laden? Stalin? Hitler? My Mom? Pinkie Pie?

This is too simplifying and on top egocentric thinking that one form will rule them all.

This all sumamrizes in the stupidity of Humans "homo demens".
We are all just too plain stupid for our own good. :D

As you rightfully summarized it at the end, we need a humanistic approach to our problems and get rid of the supidity of our lives.
Stop following people that aren't smarter than yourself, stop following ideas that makes no sense and does not comply in logic, stop following, start thinking! ;]

While we are (and can be very) smart on our own, as soon as we accumulate ourselves we are the stupid singularity.

I'd say hereby lies our main problem.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
So, you wouldn't use whether or not someone is being deceived, threatened, or attacked as litmus test for what is generally acceptable behavior? Or were you just disagreeing with the way the idea was presented?  I basically divided market practices into what would and wouldn't be considered in line with the Non-Aggression Principle, which is pretty much the benchmark of voluntary human interaction.

The basic unifying principle behind the 'good' capitalism I mentioned, is that people should not be interfered with for minding their own business.  Can you agree with that?

Clearly, 'good' and 'bad' are far more complicated and highly subjective terms, with a lot of nuance.  But it really doesn't need to be that difficult to understand.  I'm largely disambiguating terms so that people who aren't familiar with economics realize there are what can be considered ethical and unethical business practices, and that free market isn't about, "whatever the hell you can get away with and make money"  For many Free Market advocates, it's not about Cronyism, Empire, Law of the Jungle, or anything like that.  They just genuinely want to turn a profit satisfying customers instead of exploiting them.  In fact, this is the only sustainable business model.  Everything else is basically pillaging the economy for a temporary profit.

For a simple thought experiment, lets assume for a moment that coercive human interaction for economic gain is seen as perfectly appropriate, would you really want to live this way?  

If it is possible for economy to be conducted without coercive interaction, shouldn't we want to achieve that instead?

And what was that about money?  You didn't really go into detail.
RyuuKishi
6 years, 3 months ago
" ... someone is being deceived, threatened, or attacked as litmus test for what is generally acceptable behavior?

Of course these things are wrong and if you wanna say so bad, but that doesn't imply that the only thing economy has to do is to switch from bad mode into good mode and everything is fine.
That's just too narrow sighted in my opinion because this kind of economic model will always turn economy into this direction of being "bad" since the only thing to achieve is money and whealth.

"They say it's only the bad capitalism but if we do the good one everything will be fine, it's only done by bad people so we need to make the bad people into good people. And then comes religion again and all this stuff loops over and over again"
While failing to accept that the concept itself might be wrong.

" I basically divided market practices into what would and wouldn't be considered in line with the Non-Aggression Principle, which is pretty much the benchmark of voluntary human interaction.

Yes and that's good but give the child a different name if it has one. If not yet, make one.
Divide it not just by good and bad, change the focus on the concept itself.
Reasonable?

" The basic unifying principle behind the 'good' capitalism I mentioned, is that people should not be interfered with for minding their own business.  Can you agree with that?

Yes in the term of a freedom of choices. If this freedom if choices implys removing or lowering freedom of choices of others, no.
But that is actually a more ethical than economical view. You cannot live a "good capitalistic lifestyle" if you are poor, ill or the like.

" I'm largely disambiguating terms so that people who aren't familiar with economics realize there are what can be considered ethical and unethical business practices, and that free market isn't about, "whatever the hell you can get away with and make money"

Why don't call it ethical correct and unethical correct capitalism? Good and bad are actually way to ambiguous imho.
Than we can try to find out if capitalism can be ethical at all.

" They just genuinely want to turn a profit satisfying customers instead of exploiting them.  In fact, this is the only sustainable business model.  Everything else is basically pillaging the economy for a temporary profit.

The saying is: Things that are wrong and "bad" will be controlled through the market and most likely die due to inacceptance.
If i look at our world today, i don't see these control-instances, what went wrong?
I'd say, nothing. It's exactly working as it's intended. If the goal is Profit and the only self-indication is based upon the hight of the walls around your house this concept has failed for me.

" For a simple thought experiment, lets assume for a moment that coercive human interaction for economic gain is seen as perfectly appropriate, would you really want to live this way?

Yes, coerciveness is the only way to get to an appropriate goal. We already live in a world of rules, and we have to.
To believe that the market will come to senses implys that the market is an intelligent, future aware being.
No it's plain stupid since the ppl in it are plain stupid.
So of the society does not find a way to create outer coerciveness so "the market" is forced to be more ethical than unethical, who is going to?

" If it is possible for economy to be conducted without coercive interaction, shouldn't we want to achieve that instead?

Yes, is it? How to proceed?

" You didn't really go into detail.

Money was invented to make tradings easier, now we have the problem that most of the money is stuck on some ppl on the planet. Money has to cycle, hoarding it or accumulating more a man or a family or even generations of families are able to spend is not the purpose of money.
Money got objectorized like a real good, if you want to name it maybe "crafted good". There are bidding wiht money on how money will be. This is insane!
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
I never said that all you had to do was throw some switch.  I was simply pointing out that there was a difference.  The choice of whether or not to act on these principles is up to your individual discretion.  

The 'good' capitalism has lots of names, but nobody cares, because they just attribute the'bad' capitalism to the name, every time someone makes a new one to distinguish.  People used to call it "Free Trade" until somebody created a little bill called NAFTA and everyone started thinking that was "Free Trade"  Every time someone outlines a specific name for the good in Capitalism, the elites hijack the word for a nice little bait and switch.   Governments have been passing Cronyism and State Capitalism off as "Free Trade" for decades, and people wonder why it keeps failing.

I didn't call it ethical or unethical capitalism, because I wanted to encompass not simply ethics, but functionality.  Like I mentioned before, 'bad' capitalism is unsustainable.  It's not simply a matter of whether or not it's moral, by pillaging the economy they're basically killing all their golden egg layers.

As bad as things are, there's still a great deal that works out quite well.  As I believed you mentioned before, people in the US are privileged enough that we can often concern ourselves over high tech gadgets, rather than whether or not we will have food for our next meal.  Clearly, some of the natural market forces are still in effect, and that's essentially the heart of what's keeping things going, even while other things are crumbling away.

" Yes, coerciveness is the only way to get to an appropriate goal.
  

Which goal are we talking about?

" To believe that the market will come to senses implys that the market is an intelligent, future aware being.
No it's plain stupid since the ppl in it are plain stupid.
So of the society does not find a way to create outer coerciveness so "the market" is forced to be more ethical than unethical, who is going to?


I won't argue against there being a lot of ignorant people out there.  But did you just say we need coercive practices to prevent coercive practices?  

The truth is, there are market forces that people can wield to discourage exploitation, and if it ever comes to the point where a person or business is using coercive practices to get an edge, the Non-Aggression Principle allows for self defense.  

Some people make the mistake of assuming that the working class are helpless.  They're not.  Disorganized, oblivious, and often unmotivated, but when they move together, there really isn't a whole lot that can be done to stop them, and corporations and empires alike know this.  Why do you think they've tried so hard to convince people they have a voice in the government?  They know that their entire power paradigm is built on the population's willingness to accept their authority as legitimate.  

The criticisms you have about the money system is largely based on the fact that currency in the US is manufactured out of nothing, the value is entirely based on a few monopolies, and only one company is allowed to make it.  Currency is supposed to be a portable store of value, but as far as that goes, the US dollar is fast becoming a poor example.   In a true free market, when someone hoards all the dollars, you just do trades in something else.  Dollars are convenient for an economy, but not entirely necessary, because any portable store of value can be used as currency.  People have, unfortunately, permitted themselves to become thralls because of declining understanding and initiative.   People are resigned to live in their current conditions, because changing them would be too uncomfortable, and many of them aren't sure they even know how.   Even those taking action are unclear of what measures to take, they just know something is wrong and they want it fixed. We have been given so many fish, we never learned to sail.
RyuuKishi
6 years, 3 months ago
" never said that all you had to do was throw some switch.  I was simply pointing out that there was a difference.  The choice of whether or not to act on these principles is up to your individual discretion.

So you agree it's difficult and will most likely not happen? Great, then let's go for something else!

" The 'good' capitalism has lots of names, but nobody cares, because they just attribute the'bad' capitalism to the name, every time someone makes a new one to distinguish.

No no, it's empirical proven that this system is fucked up. Sure you can idealize it all you want but reality tells a different story.

" People used to call it "Free Trade"

Free trade is globalization but has nothing to do with capitalism. You mix something up here.
Or would you say north korea is capitalistic because they trade their goods to capitalistic countries?

" I didn't call it ethical or unethical capitalism, because I wanted to encompass not simply ethics, but functionality.

Sure we can go on a totally theoretical journey here without any beings involved but to what end?

" Like I mentioned before, 'bad' capitalism is unsustainable.

Capitalism itself is unsustainable. It will always end like this. Capitalism has itself proven to not be foolproof.

" As bad as things are, there's still a great deal that works out quite well.

So here we are again, ethical or unethical? As long as you are not 12 working in africa on cacao plantages for some mars bars its all okie dokie?

" As I believed you mentioned before, people in the US are privileged enough that we can often concern ourselves over high tech gadgets, rather than whether or not we will have food for our next meal.

Awesome! While the remaining part of earth starves to death while you throw away your burger from mcdonalds 'cause it got cold.
No, that's not the world "I" want to live in.

" Which goal are we talking about?

An ethical economy.

" I won't argue against there being a lot of ignorant people out there.  But did you just say we need coercive practices to prevent coercive practices?  

Exactly, stronger coercive practices that outweight the minor ones. Works pretty good when you want to stop smoking too btw ;]

" Some people make the mistake of assuming that the working class are helpless.

Yes they are, since at the lowest level they can barely sustain their own life. You are telling yourself lies.

" Disorganized, oblivious, and often unmotivated, but when they move together, there really isn't a whole lot that can be done to stop them, and corporations and empires alike know this.

That's why they are afraid and try to give them as less power (also money) as possible. That any solution?

" Why do you think they've tried so hard to convince people they have a voice in the government?

You really think politicians are unbribable? Oh my ... They also follow the course of self-interest like everyone else.

" The criticisms you have about the money system is largely based on the fact that currency in the US is manufactured out of nothing, the value is entirely based on a few monopolies, and only one company is allowed to make it.

Firstly i live in germany, secondly it's like this everywhere else. US has no patent on that.

" In a true free market, when someone hoards all the dollars, you just do trades in something else.

Which voids the dollar instantly. Not going to happen.

" Dollars are convenient for an economy, but not entirely necessary, because any portable store of value can be used as currency.

Correct, as long as we don't start again on trading the currency for currency again.

" We have been given so many fish, we never learned to sail.

There are a lot of different options. Unfortunately all of them would end in millionairs not being one anymore.
They will protect this till the bitter end and this one will come sooner than expected i bet.

Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've gathered so far. You want all the things that I want, but you don't think there's anyway to achieve them without sacrificing everything you want. You are left back at square one with absolutely nothing, congratulations.

'Can we have an ethical world?  Not without violating those ethics.'

'Can we have prosperity?  Not without making prosperity a crime.'

That's a pretty damn bleak outlook.  

Has it ever occurred to you that their was abundance and prosperity in the US before it's rapid expansionist era? And that some of the same factors which contributed to that, might be unrelated to the exploitation others, and traces of it might still be around in parts of our economy?

" Which voids the dollar instantly. Not going to happen.


That is the whole goddamned point.

What level of 'poor' are you talking about, you mean the people who are so emaciating an frail that they can no longer move their feet to block the machinery of imperialism?  Yeah, by that point it's probably too late, but I'm hoping people realize the power they have before they lose it.

" You really think politicians are unbribable? Oh my ... They also follow the course of self-interest like everyone else.


I'm really not sure where this came from.  Of course politicians are bribable.

" Firstly i live in germany, secondly it's like this everywhere else. US has no patent on that.


Currency in most countries works on the same principle. I wouldn't be surprised if Germany works the same way.

" Free trade is globalization but has nothing to do with capitalism. You mix something up here.
Or would you say north korea is capitalistic because they trade their goods to capitalistic countries?


Hopefully you see how badly the language of economics has been corrupted, then.

" Capitalism itself is unsustainable. It will always end like this. Capitalism has itself proven to not be foolproof.


Once more, you seem to be lumping the good and the bad together, unless what you're saying is, "You should never treat people with decency because they might murder you in your sleep."
RyuuKishi
6 years, 3 months ago
" You want all the things that I want, but you don't think there's anyway to achieve them without sacrificing everything you want.

Sorry, english is not my native tounge so some stuff can be misunderstandable.
Okay i try to be more precise.

" 'Can we have an ethical world?  Not without violating those ethics.'

No, you are painting black and white here. I am not talking about enslavery but a methodoligical approach while keeping ethics in focus. And yes it is ethical acceptable that i could be forced not to drive a 40 gallons per mile car while throwing handgranades out of the window and shooting animals while driving.
Yes, these kinds of freedom has to be circumcised. I am talking about "reasonable", "ethical" rules and boundaries. Not Stalin Hitler DDR type ones.

" 'Can we have prosperity?  Not without making prosperity a crime.'

You make propsperity sound like its only achievable if you have monies monies monies.
That's irrational. There are much higher values than this type of wealth.

I don't want to make propserity a crime but enrich those who helped gaining it. All of them. And not just company wide!
Anyone in the production chain even the god damn earth itself should profit from it.
Some Companies does this type alread its called C2C or cradle to cradle.

" Has it ever occurred to you that their was abundance and prosperity in the US before it's rapid expansionist era? And that some of the same factors which contributed to that, might be unrelated to the exploitation others, and traces of it might still be around in parts of our economy?

What are we now, nitpicking? Maybe, maybe not. Of course the capitalism of now is an emerged beast, but here we are again.
"Let's just remove the bad parts" Sorry, not going to happen...
The capitalism itself and the things that happend before "emerged" into what we have now. Sure there are things that worked and some which did not but what now? I'd say use rationalism and methodologies of science and get rid of the parts that won't work. Accept that the system has failed, move on! ;D

" Yeah, by that point it's probably too late, but I'm hoping people realize the power they have before they lose it.

Look what the World has become, we are a bunch of lazy blobs. Ontop, people are afraid, in the US more than here in germany.
Once you have kids and a wife you have responsibilities and you most like are not going to risk them for ideals.
This economy keeps the ppl at the edge of existance, as long as this is like that, nothing will change i bet.

" Once more, you seem to be lumping the good and the bad together, unless what you're saying is, "You should never treat people with decency because they might murder you in your sleep."

Yes i do, on purpose. No, noone will murder you in your sleep. This kind of "angst" is the fear of loosing property.
Another sideeffect of capitalism. People have a lot more to be afraid of loosing.
That's exactly why we treat ppl like crap now because we want to keep them as far away as possible from our property.
That's why there are so irrational laws in the US that allow guns to protect it because its so valuable.
Guns don't protect from tornados though, seems as some ppl keep forgetting this.

" Where?  Once more, are you referring to all the Capitalisms, or specifically the whole deal about letting people mind their own business?  I'm not sure you're getting the point.

Yes i am referring to "all" capitalisms, no exceptions.
You also make it sound like only with capitalism ppl can mind their own business.

Just because an economy looks out for the ethical aspect doesn't mean you are bound to 1 squarefeet radius areas.
Yes you friggin can't blow up everything you like and use your environment as you please just to have your "freedom".
RyuuKishi
6 years, 3 months ago
When i hear ppl "i can blow up my yard with dynamite because its the my property !!!111oneeleven" i rage out.
No you fucking dipshit, you are just a fart in the wind of earth's history and you should be glad that not the dinosaurs survived :D

We are more bound to this ball in the universe than it is to us.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
That's silly, you would run out of gas before you ran out of grenades if you drew a 40 gallon per mile car.  That's no fun.  You would only blow up a very small area.    I'm joking, of course.

I think once again, the whole point of the later part of my journal was about the names and all that.  It doesn't matter what it's called.  What I advocate is voluntary interaction.  I honestly would have to wonder about the people who want to drive around gas guzzlers chucking grenades,  I'm pretty sure most of them couldn't afford to do so for very long.  And if they happen to do it in an area where it might endanger other people or their property, well, they would still be held responsible.  No one asked to be grenaded.

And I'll agree, there should be laws, or at the very lease principles guiding interaction.  I just believe that the core of it should be the Non-Aggression Principle.  This doesn't mean your helpless, it simply discourages the initiation of violence, or coercion.  If someone attacks you, or threatens you, you can defend yourself.  

" You make propsperity sound like its only achievable if you have monies monies monies.


How to you expect to run any kind of economy without a medium of exchange?  I suppose barter would be possible, but it might get complicated and impractical.

" Guns don't protect from tornados though, seems as some ppl keep forgetting this.


I don't know anyone who believes that they do. It might help discourage the looters after a hurricane, though.

" Yes i am referring to "all" capitalisms, no exceptions.
You also make it sound like only with capitalism ppl can mind their own business.


This is not strictly an aspect of capitalism.  I would expect it in any functional society.  Even societies which are unfamiliar with capitalism.  Because what's good in capitalism is basically where capitalism coincides with NAP.  NAP is not exclusive to any political philosophy.  And I believe I already pointed out that I believe this is more important than what economic policy you attribute it to.  You can be living in a tribal community and still practice the NAP.

" I'd say use rationalism and methodologies of science and get rid of the parts that won't work.


From what I've seen, the parts that don't work are when you start throwing coercion into the mix.  But I'm open to some thorough testing if someone has the resources to run an experiment.

" Accept that the system has failed, move on!


Many systems failed.  But which ones?  At any point in US history, there have been probably dozens of systems in place.
RyuuKishi
6 years, 3 months ago
I was just poking it, of course its unreal. I just wanted to state that it's important to keep an eye on the environment. People tend to see freedom as in "i can do what i want even if others or anything will be harmed because i paid for it".

" If someone attacks you, or threatens you, you can defend yourself.

How often does this actually happen? And what happend too good ol' fists? ;]
But anways, it's mostly a matter of frustration and social problems that drives people into this.
This is the not-so-uncommon sideffect of all this captalism-ism ;D

" How to you expect to run any kind of economy without a medium of exchange?  I suppose barter would be possible, but it might get complicated and impractical.

What i wanted to state is that money does not have to be the only goal. By now people identify prosperity through the amount of money they can spend. It is a very good tool to enable transactions but its only a tool, it shouldn't be the main purpose of all this.

" Because what's good in capitalism is basically where capitalism coincides with NAP.  NAP is not exclusive to any political philosophy.  And I believe I already pointed out that I believe this is more important than what economic policy you attribute it to.  You can be living in a tribal community and still practice the NAP.

Question is how "far" you want to go with this NAP. As stated you NEED to have ethical boundaries.
Why? Because humans are stupid and masses are even more stupid.
And are we talking about anarcho-capitalism here? Gee, that's even worse D:

" From what I've seen, the parts that don't work are when you start throwing coercion into the mix.

Would you mind to give an example?

" But I'm open to some thorough testing if someone has the resources to run an experiment.

Well it's yet only theoretically discussed, but sounds plausible.
We are slooowly loosing ourselves from bounds like religion and standard economic models.
it's all pretty new like this one here :
http://www.globaleconomicethic.org/02-manifesto-02-eng...
There isn't even a word for it currently, maybe ethical-market.
Hans, Ruh (from sitzerland) released a book (in german) last year "Ordnung von unten. Die Demokratie neu erfinden".
It drives in the notch of social-market i'd say.

It's way to early to tell the outcomings but i'd say it's the only way. We will be a hell lot more people in 50 years.

" Many systems failed.  But which ones?  At any point in US history, there have been probably dozens of systems in place.

In first case the current one which is widly identified as Capitalism.
I just not only see the US one, i look at it more globally.
A system that might work from US views has effects on the other parts of the world.
The time when economy was that localized. most of it could have been worked but by globalizing everything, effects on other places get into focus.
In history all models failed that made the gaining of wealth the highest topic by any consequences.

Interesting topic nontheless ;D
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
" No no, it's empirical proven that this system is fucked up. Sure you can idealize it all you want but reality tells a different story.


Where?  Once more, are you referring to all the Capitalisms, or specifically the whole deal about letting people mind their own business?  I'm not sure you're getting the point.
DaddyDuckyBE
6 years, 3 months ago
" Than we can try to find out if capitalism can be ethical at all.


As in, a Capitalism With A Human Face? Still waiting to see that happen! :P
DrakeGrey
6 years, 3 months ago
Thank you for that food for thought,I feel much the same way.  I look at it kind of like building a house with regular tools- If you use a hammer or a saw wrong the problem isn't that they aren't usable tools, it's that they're being used wrong.  As I see it all forms of government share the same basic principle of organizing all the available labor and resources to build the best society they can, and we can't just decry another form of government as being fundamentally wrong.
DaddyDuckyBE
6 years, 3 months ago
The thought that the "bad side" of Capitalism would be due to a greedy, corrupt, malignant elite was supported by the Nazis as an alledged difference between "productive industrial capital" (schaffendes Kapital) and parasitic, usually Jewish, "financial capital" (raffendes Kapital), and has no grounding in Marx's wider, structural critique of Capitalism. In English, such a view as held by the Nazis is known as producerism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism (although the article is wrong in assuming that the labor theory of value was held by Marx, it was in fact held by Adam Smith and David Ricardo instead and critiqued by Marx).

And the Keynesianism ("reckless and irresponsible spending") you seem to be attacking is just another form of Capitalism that didn't cause the current crisis. In fact, it was so unpopular and rare up until the crisis that it's only seen a resurgence exactly due to the current crisis. Up until this current crisis, it was demonized by the neo-classicists and Austrians. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Keynesianism holds that inflation is not due to the amount of money, it's due to a disproportion between money and production, hence the state has to spend money on private production (buying goods and services, that is) in order to kick-start the economy.

And to your claim of selfish greed being necessary, I think you're confusing it for survival or coping that don't necessarily need to be selfish (pretty much what Kogentasama said above). Greed, for instance, is not a word that initially or often evokes the concept of co-operation.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
I'm going to try my best not to read too much into your whole 'Nazi' statement.  Because I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to imply that I'm antisemitic.  The whole 'producerism' thing really only sounds like half an argument, tailor made to stir up nationalism.  I don't care if there are immigrants in the US, legal, illegal, doesn't matter.  Hell, I don't even care if they apply for welfare.  I just want people to have the right to opt out of taxes if they disagree with how they are being spent.

Authority figures will often claim to support free markets, while secretly endorsing Cronyism, Mercantilism, Imperialism, and State Capitalism.  When those policies fail, people blame free market, because that's what it was called.

Keynesianism basically states, that if you have a chair, but you need two asses to appear to sit in the chair, that you can split the chair down the middle, and not only will both asses manifest, but the half chairs will be sturdy enough to sit on.

And you're wrong, Keynesianism has been used on a wide scale by US government agencies for, well, pretty much since he told the government that they needed to spend more money.   Who wouldn't want to spend more money? But it goes back even further than that.  Take a look at the budgets we have, and you'll soon realize that the US government has been taking those lessons to heart for quite some time.  Big government spending is the reason why the US can finance all the imperialism.  That's a lot of bombs they got to drop on brown people.  Bombs are expensive.

The Keynesian theory of monetary systems is very much broken, and very much in use by the US lawmakers. They have been blaming Free Markets for every consequence of Keynesianism for decades.  They're so good at this bait and switch that they've convinced everyone who doesn't actually look at how these policies are implemented.  Much of the "Free Trade" in the US is no more Free Trade than the "privatization" of the UK rails by granting and subsidizing a monopoly.  The US government tries to pass off anything utilizing a private sector entity as "Free Market" while granting exclusive contracts, and massive subsidies.  Almost every predatory market in the US has its nature traceable to some type of Cronyism or Mercantilism.

Have you ever considered that the practice of creating a larger supply of currency when there is already inflation might, I don't know, lead to more inflation?  And that paying a few specific companies to produce goods in an economic recession might  indirectly tax anyone who doesn't receive an equal amount of currency in relation to the ratio of old money to new money?  Or that the people who usually benefit the least from stimulus are those with the least political influence, which would happen to be poor people?  Or that those who are paid by the government to create a product that didn't have enough demand to be produced without government money have no incentive to to meet real demand or create jobs, because they are already becoming richer simply by the fact that more of the newly introduced money is going to them than to anyone else?  And, if printing more dollars is necessary to encourage economic growth, how the hell did anyone ever get anything done before fiat?

All desire is selfish.  That doesn't mean all desire is inherently damaging.  
DaddyDuckyBE
6 years, 3 months ago
I didn't mean to call you anti-Semitic. I just wanted to tell you where this dividing Capitalism into a "good" and "bad" side comes from, with the "bad" part blamed on a group or elite of greedy people, and that it has nothing to do with a substantial critique of Capitalism. The reason why Capitalism is bad is not because of the few greedy rich.

Keynesianism hasn't been employed ever since the Nixon Shock, and demonized ever since, particularly by Austrians and neo-classicists swearing by trickle-through, such as Reagan and Thatcher. The modern teabaggers are continuing this tradition.

Keynesianism ain't about magically appearing asses. It's about stimulating the market with demand and spending power, including by printing money. After all, inflation is nothing but a disproportion between money and production. If there's an inflation, it's because not enough goods are being produced.

And since Keynesianism is also about spending power in the hands of consumers, it's also known as demand-side economics. In other words, taxes are not only used to buy goods and services, but also for welfare purposes. The more you cut down welfare and the more you're dumping wages, the more you'll also cut down on an economy's spending power.

Gunboat diplomacy and the military-industrial complex ain't Keynesianism, they're the result of shameless lobbying by big corporations in favor of imperialism, often out of nationalistic economic interests on behalf of said big corporations, which makes gunboat diplomacy and the MIC similar to 19th century's prohibitive tariffs. We've seen gunboat diplomacy and military distractions long before Keynes was even born.

So don't blame the MIC on Keynes, especially since imperialism, today known under the handle of "globalization", is the result of unrestricted free enterprise blackmailing the state into securing its foreign resources and markets. Pretty much like the current bailouts are another such blackmail on behalf of the banks and other big corporations. It's what happens if states, administrations, and parliaments are reduced to little more than PR departments for big corporations. That's your "cronyism" and monopolies for you.

Furthermore, such military adventures are often convenient for governments because they will suitably distract voters from domestic problems. Such as the fact that unlike the Reaganites were claiming, an unrestricted free market didn't magically create an enhancement in overall prosperity and freedom throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The more the taxes were lowered, the rich only got richer, the poor got poorer, and less and less people owned more and more of the profits generated by everyone.

Taxes and welfare in most Western countries are not only at a historical low compared to earlier decades and, in the case of taxes, even centuries, we have also reached both a level of unemployment *AND* a percentage of poor people in the populace unprecedented since WWII (and its immediate aftermath in the countries that lost it). Even most people who still have jobs can't make a living out of them, so even though welfare is historically low, we also have an unprecedented percentage of employed people that are dependent upon welfare in order to make ends meet.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
I wasn't saying that Keyne's was responsible for the imperialism, though it may have been implied.  What I really meant was that big government spending, which is a policy endorsed by Keynes, is one of the factors which allows for the US to have such an expansive military.   And I made a point to mention that the Military Industrial complex had been around since before Keynes, but Keynes certainly didn't make it any harder.

Many of the regulations which were lifted over the years were regulations of accountability, not on trade.  Accountability was greatly reduced in some instances, which likely contributed to economic problems.

Keynesian models are only justifiable if you believe hungry people would never feed themselves.  The only people benefiting from Keynesian policies are those who can accumulate wealth at a rate which exceeds the rate of inflation.  That's why the poor are getting poorer.

Have you ever actually looked at history, back when the US had a commodity based currency?  Aside from during or in the aftermath of wars, inflation and deflation followed one another in a kind of approximate equilibrium.  Up until about the institution of the Federal Reserve.  Keynes claims that inflation is an imbalance which needs to be corrected, but we haven't seen a significant period of deflation since his ideas were implemented.  How much more damning proof do you need?  Oh, wait, you can't always tell how bad it is because they keep changing the formula they use to calculate it.

" Pretty much like the current bailouts are another such blackmail on behalf of the banks and other big corporations. It's what happens if states, administrations, and parliaments are reduced to little more than PR departments for big corporations. That's your "cronyism" and monopolies for you.


lolwhut?  Yes, there are corporations lobbyists behind a lot of it.  But the way I read it, it's almost like you're trying to imply the government officials aren't responsible for their own corruption, because the banks and corporations have enough money to bribe them.  Or are you trying to say that if these officials had more power that they would be incorruptible?  I'm pretty sure that's happened at some point in history.  When was that?  Oh, right, never.

You keep bringing up Reagan and Thatcher, how about explaining specifically the things they did which were supposedly for Free Markets?  The one example I was given of Thatcher was most decidedly not free market.

Also, you seem to have this weird assumption that if money isn't spent by certain people, it vanishes. I'm not entirely sure how you justify that.

I think we've strayed a good distance from one of the points I raised in my initial journal.  Free markets aren't damaging because consensual transactions are damaging, the damage results because there are assholes out there who will exploit the hell out of any system, and don't give a damn whether or not a transaction is consensual.  
DaddyDuckyBE
6 years, 3 months ago
Keynesianism worked pretty well between 1945 and the Nixon Shock. And you didn't explain how Capitalism prior to Keynes was that much oriented towards spending power in the hands of consumers.

And since the end of the Cold War, Western states have done nothing but leaving all their powers and authorities they had left to private corporations. Never before in history, the Western state, or any political entity for that matter, has ever been as weak as between the fall of the wall and this current crisis, and continued to exist for as long as one or two decades.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
The relaxing of tariffs kind of helped that time period.  

When you said, "Western States"  I started thinking of the States in the US, but I'm pretty sure you meant the whole of the US, and other Western powers.  lol

The powers they've given up in the US are not so much abandoned as they are 'on lease'  Technically, if they were so inclined, they could probably take them back.  But they're simply not so inclined.  They profit too much from all the bribes to really give a damn.  I think of the corruption in the government and the corruption in the market as more or less the same thing.  Often when politicians leave office, they'll get nice fat contracts with the corporations they gave subsidies, tax breaks, or who they restricted competition against.  They potentially have the power to stop it, but most of them just don't want to.  The corporations don't want the government to collapse, because they have it exactly where they need it.   This is probably the main reason why it's lasted this long. They're playing the long game, tapping out as much wealth and resources as possible, without toppling the infrastructure.  It's like a mad game of Jenga.  
DaddyDuckyBE
6 years, 3 months ago
I guess that corporations require the state and its politicians, at least for now, pretty much like the nobility needed serfs and servants.

And this constant loss of power on behalf of the state ever since the end of the Cold War is simply due to the fact that the Eastern competition was gone and thus the Western system had no use for the welfare benefits (aka "punishments for doing good") it had priorly installed only in order to keep people from turning towards the other side.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
There's still a lot of welfare, but it's pretty bogged down in administrative costs.  Though I suppose for socialists that's a good thing, more government jobs.  I would have to attest that they'd do more good streamlining the process so they can do something more productive with their time, though.   Even where I can agree with the desire to get more people employed, I can't help but be annoyed that they're employed so inefficiently.

That's another thing that bugs me, the massive bureaucracy requires that people be paid to go through overcomplicated procedures, when their time would probably be more valuable elsewhere.  I understand how the government thinks it needs to spend money, but do they really have to spend it so ineffectually?

It's like that agency that was developed to reduce the paper waste in other departments, but which ended up wasting more paper.  *foreheadslap*

Technically, right now you can get about the same amount on welfare as you can by resorting to overseas employment.  So, yeah, not sure if that means our welfare is really good, or just job prospects are really horrible.
Deadreaver
6 years, 3 months ago
If there should be any way of leading and -ism, it should be based on sense rather than pieces of plastic and paper.
World today has many small problems that we want to fuse to something.
Is it capitalism, "Big Evil Companies", or greedy people?
We just look at something we fear and claim all the evil of the world comes from it.
Nazis and hippies have born this way...

In today's world rather than Greed, good speech and manipulating skills are more necessary than just greed.
When you know weak people in high places, and know how to control them, only moon is the limit!
Skunket
6 years, 3 months ago
ask lots of credits and get a good life :3.... banks are the worst actually
Zippo
6 years, 3 months ago
You do realize its considered an actual crime to be poor/in poverty in this country, as eventually, without money, youll have to commit a crime to make any steps forward in your life. Greed pays, so dose manipulation and suffering of others. Ah the human circle of life, makes me ashamed to be part of this species. This planet needs a mass extinction event already.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
Well, considering events like that would be a lot rarer if there weren't so many barriers to getting a job...

And it's not necessarily a crime to be poor, it's simply penalized to try and do anything about it.
Zippo
6 years, 3 months ago
Too true.
Meanie108
6 years, 3 months ago
If it helps, you AREN'T the minority, because you haven't ranted. You're the minority for being intelligent enough to do the DAMN RESEARCH.
greenmont
6 years, 3 months ago
re: child labor

Parents have too much control over what their children do. Allowing child labor before an age where children are legally/societally "Able" to make their own decisions will inevitably lead to situations where a parent forces their children to work, which violates several of the basic principles you outlined. Being born was not a voluntary human transaction, and neither is "working" for a parent who believes you owe them a debt. These kinds of arguments (do children owe their parents from a young age for the care they received?) are likely to arise and they cannot be magicked away, the roots are too deeply embedded in our society.

In short, it's probably better to restrict where kids can work than to allow unscrupulous and evil individuals to exploit the natural dominance they have in an adult/child relationship. Same argument applies to age of consent laws, although I know that's mostly irrelevant. Agree that kids are individuals, and humans, and should be allowed to make their own decisions, but in basically every society they're born into a naturally submissive position where they are conditioned that they must obey practically any adult, as though age is a measure of authority. This isn't conducive to reasonable transactions.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
So, instead, parents abuse their children, the children run away, can't find a legal job, and are forced into prostitution.

I think children would ultimately benefit from having more options, not fewer.  The current system basically means they are the property of either their parents, the state, or a pimp.  Unless they can go through a lengthy court procedure, which I doubt most abused or neglected children would really be encouraged to learn about by the one who has abused or neglected them.  If someone is really concerned about children being abused by an employer, there are more effective methods of helping them than simply forbidding them from working.  That's like saying that because some children ride their bikes into a busy intersection and get hit by a car that children shouldn't be allowed to ride bikes.  Was it the bike that killed them? No, it was the crappy decision.  Help them make better decisions, provide them better alternatives.

I don't think children 'owe' their parents their labor, and while parents should be at liberty to lay down rules in their own home, children should be free to leave that home if they choose to do so.
greenmont
6 years, 3 months ago
I agree, but I'm talking about feasible small-scale changes, not magically changing the state of our society.

Obviously children would benefit as people from having more options. Unfortunately, the system we exist in is set up to abuse any changes made to further that idea. The current system has a lot of potential to be awful (as you said), and changing it in a small way would simply add more ways for the current system to be awful. The underlying social norms which indebt children to their parents and which serve as the foundation for much of the child labor laws have to change in order for those smaller changes to have positive effects. All laborers should enjoy protection from harmful working conditions. If children receive "special treatment" with regards to those protections, it should have to do with providing required education and actual physical limitations, not with arbitrary age limits or social norms.

This is the way arguments about these types of topics will always go, I think. One side arguing the big picture, and the other side arguing the small picture, while they actually agree.
DaddyDuckyBE
6 years, 3 months ago
As for aspects of power and dominance in relation to local AoC regulations (note that I'm not talking about incest, penetration, violence, force, coercion or the likes; also note that there's no proper definition of "child" as of yet):

Children are allowed to buy and sell, that is not only among children but also including from and to adults. It's known as limited contractual capability.

However, no limited capability is granted to them in sexual matters, especially towards adults. Which is done in a society where a child's words on violations of local AoC regulations are life-threatening, and much more powerful than any adult person can ever be. (And, as may be added, on the anthropological backdrop where psycho-sexual maturity and capability, like most other social skills and capabilities, is far from being endogenous and thus tied to numerical age, but a result of prior empirical observation, social learning, and training, and the amount and quality thereof; in other words, the less social learning you allow including from expert adults and not only from similarly unexperienced peers, thus enforcing infantilization, the more sexual dysfunctionality you produce in a society.)

This power on behalf of children is only limited as to the aspect that they are barred from expressing enjoyment over violation of local AoC regulations, or said enjoyment having any influence upon social and/or legal views and consequences. Which in turn enforces a taboo upon acts which thus dare not say their name, where children are kept from talking about what they like as well as what they don't like, which in turn emphasizes the already existing taboo.

Were they allowed to talk about both and would be taken serious also if their feelings would deviate from prescribed social norms (which are essentialized, i. e. projected upon nature and natural facts, in a way similar to pseudo-scientific claims of racial inferiority and superiority as another case of irrational, traditional, posivitivist, conservative values justified by pseudo-scientific ideology), to a degree that their feelings would also matter (rather than explained away and denied) in contexts of legal, medical, and social evaluation and persecution, an enhanced state of transparency could be achieved where it would be easier to detect actually improper, unwanted behavior than it is today where children are actively kept from talking of behavior enjoyed and wanted by them, simply because it is deemed both impossible and morally reprehensible (and, if acknowledged as possible at all, marginalized as rare and/or deviant) due to pseudo-scientific rationalizations based upon cultural values more ancient than the Old Testament.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
Translation (I think):  "Sex with a minor is taboo, because it is assumed to be physically impossible or even unethical for minors to want sex.  Positive sexual experiences of minors are treated as abnormal, or ignored, thus undermining the capacity for a balanced assessment.  People are acting like asshats, and refusing to look at all available data, and the attitude towards the subject discourages the curious from contesting the status quo for fear of persecution."

I would like to remark that in my scenario from before, I was more specifically addressing forced prostitution.  Forcing someone to perform a sex act is inherently unethical, in my opinion  .....unless they ask you to.  ;D
DaddyDuckyBE
6 years, 3 months ago
I wasn't adressing your points on child labor.

Your translation works more or less, except you're not addressing what I stressed about loss or lack of words being both a result of traditional values and a multiplier of those. Though I guess I wouldn't use the word "the curious", as it sounds a bit like it would be more okay if violation of local AoC regulations would be done by adults out of mere curiosity rather than actual preference.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
Hah, I meant intellectually curious.  As in, people who would be willing to even just gather and present data that might refute the societal norm. I didn't mean like, someone who just one day wakes up, and is like, "I wonder what it would be like to have sex with a minor."

I'm not really one of those people who thinks pedophiles are monsters or aberrations though, but I just doubt they would be taken as credibly as someone who has no overt ulterior motive for their interest.  It would be automatically assumed that any conclusion they come to was colored by their desire for it to be okay.  Unfortunately, I doubt there are many people who aren't sexually attracted to minors who would be willing to really explore the topic, most people just don't care enough about challenging conventions if they have no personal stake in the outcome.
ConicalCock
6 years, 3 months ago
I am a believer in capitalism, and I live in Canada...dunno why I moved here. And i'm also a Brony. Fancy that. It's good to know there are still some free-market believers left in this world.
Us3rN4m3
6 years, 3 months ago
Man that convoluted really fast.  Somethin' about Capitalism and then something about child labor.  Crazy.

Also;

>Talk about Capitalism ANYWHERE on the internet
>"Greed" shows up within the next 2-3 sentences.

Every time man.  'Surprised Socialism/Marxism et al isn't synonymous with "Oppression" and "Slavery" in a similar way.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
" 'Surprised Socialism/Marxism et al isn't synonymous with "Oppression" and "Slavery" in a similar way.


I think it's because socialists in the US had the foresight to associate themselves with Civil Rights activism.  The two party system exploits the hell out of the belief that all socialists are for civil liberties, and all capitalists are bible thumping assholes who support beating homosexuals, bombing third world countries, and forcing women to have children against their will.

Thankfully there seem to be a growing number of conservatives who realize the government has no right to mandate religious law.  There are also, thankfully, a growing number of liberals who have become just as disenfranchised with big government as they are with big business, and realize the two have quickly become indistinguishable.  Hopefully one day enough people will realize that corrupt business is no different from corrupt government, and that respect for the rights and liberties of others is the only way you can expect your own rights and liberties to be preserved.  
FriskyWoods
6 years, 3 months ago
Capitalism is fine.  What we have today is what I like to call crapitalism, where corporations refuse accountability and do everything they can to either obfuscate or remove regulations entirely.  Ever notice what a shithole America has become over the past thirty years?  It's because big business has dismantled all of the rules that kept them in check, and prevented them from overfeeding at the trough while letting the rest of us starve.  NAFTA gave corporate America (which spends ridiculous amounts of time reminding us how "patriotic" they are) a convenient excuse to send thousands of jobs overseas.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminated diversity in the media, turning a bright landscape of creative minds into six money-obsessed conglomerates, and costing even more jobs.  Services are privatized and still more downsizing occurs.

We have politicians (like Minnesota idiot Michele Bachman) claiming that we should go even further, eliminating the minimum wage and giving huge tax breaks to huge businesses to spur job growth.  After THIRTY YEARS of this nonsense it should be clear to anyone that these giveaways to the very rich don't benefit anyone but the very rich.  Trickle-down economics and the steady erosion of our government has been a failure... the solution is NOT more of the same.

What we need to do is the following:

1. Reinstate regulations that protected consumers from predatory companies
2. Purge corporate lobbying and severely limit corporate "donations"
3. Recognize greed for the vice it is instead of "free expression"
4. Make justice a level playing field and punish corporations for illegal activity, harshly
5. Make term limits mandatory for all politicians to discourage corruption

Chances are, we won't get any of these without another politician like FDR (who had to quell a rebellion from corporate America to make the New Deal a reality) or a bloody rebellion.  However, when Americans are pushed to the breaking point and finally recognize the source of their woes, things will change.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
This is a mixture of things I agree with and disagree with.  To be honest, minimum wage laws have kind of destroyed a lot of entry level positions, but other financial policies have made it very dangerous to ever abolish them.  The buying power of the dollar has been destroyed so much that there would be a long and unpleasant road to recovery, which no one wants to face.  It's easier for companies and politicians to keep pretending they can just make money out of nothing, and hope that no one catches on to how worthless the dollar has become.

The problem with taxes is mostly that the only ones with the ability to avoid them are people or corporations which can afford 10s of millions of dollars to buy politicians.  Basically, if a politician gets them a 100 million dollar tax break, the politician gets a 10 million contract when they step down from office.   Meanwhile the government continues to spend like they're still collecting that 100 million dollars, so it's got to come from somewhere, and usually that somewhere is from everybody else.

The companies don't so much lobby to reduce regulation, as they lobby to make regulation obscenely in the favor of their own company.  That's why you'll often see money gates into business, where, even though it's not necessary for operating on a small scale, emerging companies have to buy equipment and facilities that are only practical for much larger corporations.  It's what has largely killed entrepreneurs in the US.   They have certain standards for minimum broadcasting range for things like radio shows.   Basically, we live in a market where in order to do business, you have to buy a slid gold soap box to stand on.   Regulatory commissions which are created are usually hijacked by the very industries they're meant to protect us from, and those industries use the regulatory agency to prevent small business owners from competing with them.   It's also why portable and efficient alternate fuels are largely discouraged, in favor of coal, oil, or less effective alternatives that they know few people have the resources to explore.   They need there to be a limited power supply, or at least to pretend there's one, because it's the only way they can justify the empire they have made.

One of the reasons things like NAFTA were developed because of a little something called "Capital Flight"  When taxes or operating expenses in the US exceed those in other countries, people take their assets and operations overseas.  I would say it's altogether possible they engineered that measure specifically to drive down labor costs in the US, but I think that's more of a happy side effect for them.  I can't say I really blame a company for wanting to outsource to keep profits high and expenses down.  In a healthy economy new businesses would crop up to pick up the slack and tap the underutilized US work force.  Probably service jobs which can only be performed locally.  There is a genuine discrepancy in the cost of US labor vs it's usefulness right now.  US labor is expensive, because so many get these tremendous college loans that they can't afford to pay back, on degrees that are often useless for the career they get into.  Why hire someone who demands $20,000 a year just to afford their medical expenses, housing, food, and loans, when you can just pay $2,000 a year to someone who only needs 50 cents a day for food?  It's shitty for Americans, but it makes sense to the companies.  Our cost of living has just risen so high.  The very measures that are making the corporations so much money, are loading the American people with expenses that the corporations are unwilling to accommodate.  They could easily afford to, but while there are other options, they're just gonna explore those instead.  In the meantime, Americans still want the standard of living that we could only achieve if the corporations were fair and honest, so that's where all the loans and credit cards come in.
Infinityplus1
6 years, 3 months ago
Definitely they should reinstate regulations which directly address things like fraud, or abuse.  But if people ever expect to be able to deal with all the corruption in the corporations and the government, they're going to have to start exercising their rights.  

To be honest, there are actually some transparency measures I would like to see adopted for government.  

1. Every representative, before voting to approve a bill, must write an essay outlining, concisely and in plain English, what they think the bill does.  This essay will be part of the public record, along with the bill in its original language.
2. Representatives only wield the voting power of those who voted for them.
3. At any point you can change which representative wields your voting authority.
4. Failing the implementation of 2 and 3, at least give us freaking rollover ballots. Where you can prioritize which candidate gets your vote, so you don't have to vote for someone you dislike just because you hate the other guy more, and think the guy you dislike less is the only one who can beat him.  Seriously, our current system is like voting to eat cow shit because you don't want to eat pig shit.  The only reason they don't use this is because they realize it could contribute to a third party victories, and the more active political parties there are, the harder they are to lobby.
5. Representatives should receive no higher wage from the taxpayers than the median income of the area they govern. And all their expenses and contributions should be public record.  Failure to comply will result in impeachment.  If you're going to be a public servant, serve the damn public, not yourself.

And some other things

6. Stop trying to regulate the damn internet.  None of the politicians who want to regulate it understand how it works anyway, or else they would realize how stupid the idea is.
7. No more requiring Gold soap boxes for small businesses, this is killing the economy.  Companies should be held accountable when their cheapskate business practices actually endanger lives or damage property.  If they're cutting corners simply because it's unnecessary for their product or service, and are perfectly honest about doing so, that's not a good reason to penalize them.
Nightwind292
6 years, 3 months ago
I'll be as short with this as I can be.

You can talk with your hands as much as you want, but your rights to express yourself stop where my nose begins.  Honestly it stops before that when you intrude into my space, but as it's hard to define such security or an intrusion on it, lets just use a true invasion of my person or well being... your fist, my nose.

You can talk with money too.  But when that use of money puts my life, my health, or well being at risk, you have crossed the same line as if you'd struck me in the face.  It is only that money lets you be sneakier about it, and bring me this pain from further away.

This is the root cause of so many debates on the subject.
sonicrainboom
6 years, 3 months ago
I agree with you
Yaoifairy
6 years, 3 months ago
I don't watch the news 83!
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.