NATION

PASSWORD

Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:17 pm

AuSable River wrote:[You want to hear the really funny (but sad and unfortunate ) thing about the nonsense from the Left.

It is that they always lament that a single corporation could take over a free society in the absence of government by:

when in fact that is what corrupt and self-serving governments have DONE !!!!

the illogic is that these deluding leftists advocate creating the very thing they most fear to protect them from something that doesnt exist and couldnt exist in a free society!!!!

and you folks wonder why I use phrases like drone, brainwashed, deluded, illogical, et al ...

When was that ever implied? It is far more likely, that absent a state, corporations would parcel up the territories in quasi feudal manner, or form cartels to build a new state.

Even the corrupt and self-serving governments have to pay minimal attention to common good.

It's been explained to you many times in this thread that any leftist worth his salt is hostile to the state. How many more times will it have to be done before it sinks in. Because the "brainwashed, deluded, illogical" leftist "drones" you are arguing against don't exist.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:17 pm

Blakk Metal wrote:
AuSable River wrote:
Explain how they can gain control of scarce resources in a free society ??

By buying natural resources and monopolies. :palm:



absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

try again, and be more specific on how this process takes place.

you cant just say "poof, company A gains all of a particular resource" by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure that dog aint barking.

these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:

jeez, i guess thats what would happen because thats what everyone has told me


moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

User avatar
NMaa949
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 437
Founded: Jul 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby NMaa949 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:18 pm

AuSable River wrote:Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

pure concept
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Bezhnoznik_u_stanka_US_1930.jpeg
Distruzio wrote:The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

Distruzio suggesting that the Soviet Union was a democracy.
Bralia wrote:Exploring demands risk. Exploration may not reveal something useful. And yet we still do it. Because something could be found that could revolutionize the world. Yandere, if you don't want to stick even your nose out the front door, that's your own business, but don't try and drag the rest of the world along with you.

Bralia on Yandere Schoolgirls hating NASA.

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:19 pm

AuSable River wrote:
NMaa949 wrote:It's called a Military INDUSTRIAL complex for a reason.



the military industrial complex is a government enterprises dude.

in a free society, government spending would be significantly reduced due to a balanced budget amendment, limits on govt spending as % of GDP, the elimination of the FED and fiat currency, a declaration of war required to send US forces into harms way in the absence of an immediate threat, supermajority to raise taxes to fund anything including military, et al

Indeed, a free society with limited govt. LIMITS the power of the military/industrial complex.

INdeed, transferring societal wealth from government uses to the free market and consumer uses minimizes this problem

try again. your dog aint barking

Government spending has no correlation with how free or unfree a people are.

Furthermore, the society you are describing is in no way free. For one, it still has a state. Furthermore, the existence of unaccountable private tyrannies and other forms of coercive social power still exist outside of the official state apparatus.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:19 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Blakk Metal wrote:By buying natural resources and monopolies. :palm:



absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

try again, and be more specific on how this process takes place.

you cant just say "poof, company A gains all of a particular resource" by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure that dog aint barking.

these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:

jeez, i guess thats what would happen because thats what everyone has told me


moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.
Last edited by Geilinor on Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:24 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:
AuSable River wrote:[You want to hear the really funny (but sad and unfortunate ) thing about the nonsense from the Left.

It is that they always lament that a single corporation could take over a free society in the absence of government by:

when in fact that is what corrupt and self-serving governments have DONE !!!!

the illogic is that these deluding leftists advocate creating the very thing they most fear to protect them from something that doesnt exist and couldnt exist in a free society!!!!

and you folks wonder why I use phrases like drone, brainwashed, deluded, illogical, et al ...

When was that ever implied? It is far more likely, that absent a state, corporations would parcel up the territories in quasi feudal manner, or form cartels to build a new state.

Even the corrupt and self-serving governments have to pay minimal attention to common good.

It's been explained to you many times in this thread that any leftist worth his salt is hostile to the state. How many more times will it have to be done before it sinks in. Because the "brainwashed, deluded, illogical" leftist "drones" you are arguing against don't exist.




slow down tex.....

who said I was arguing an anarchist position.

I am not an anarchist and my arguments are not a defense of anarchism

so do not preface any rebut with the absence of government.

Second, your argument that a government that controls the gavel and gun is far less prone to corruption and less dangerous than a single corporation without a single tank, courtroom, or ballot box is absurd.

Moreover, corporations have to operate within a free, voluntary and competitive environment in which they must satisfy consumer preferences by peaceful exchange.

In contrast, government has no competition and it uses coercion to fund its operations.

In sum, your dog aint barking, in fact he is coughing up grass.

Try again, and please for the 5th time provide a relatively detailed and intelligent theoretical case study on how a boogeyman corporation seizes power in the absence of political, military, or judicial power .


i will be waiting......

User avatar
Kingdoms of Cal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1655
Founded: Dec 29, 2005
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Kingdoms of Cal » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:24 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Kingdoms of Cal wrote:An odd thing europe vs USA.

In europe the smallest form of government (none) is a leftwing thing. In the USA it's a right wing thing. Kinda odd.

Anarchy in Europe (and possibly other parts of the world is very lefty as it's about communes, etc), I suppose it is the difference between liberal (European) and libertarian(US), here's some news for some of you the pair meet at the opposite end of the spectrum. You can't put a cigarette paper between the two want when it comes to their view of what a government should do (not be there).

But then again most US types don't realise that the only functional anarchy was killed off by the right wing. The right is the enemy of anarchy, always has been always will be.

EDITED: Sorry my lysdexia strikes.


Interesting post, are you european ?


Aye
And indeed, both left and right anarchist are faith-based utopians who dont have a clue.



That I question


AMusingly, I have been banned by right anarchist websites for arguing that within an anarchist society (if one ever existed for more than a fortnight) that a territorial monopoly of armed force would emerge.

Look at the one functional one, lasted some time.
this is based on the specialization of labor, economies of scale, and collabration of defense industry firms to form a cartel to reduce the costs associated with armed competition.

Hence, anarchic society has no intentional mechanisms to prevent the centralization, balance, or limit military power -- moreover, within anarchic society, there is no transparency.

There is one, it's called the people that see it. The people simply withdraw labour.
also, ancaps admit that monopolies are possible in any industry within ancap society --- and yet they have the ignorance to state that these are not coercive or that the free market can remove them through voluntary and peaceful exchange.

Who says it an any cap rather than a mutualist system?

Muturalistic system can out preform any capitialistic system. Why do you think every capilist system does it's best to kill them off? The socilists do the same.
this nonsense is easily debunked by looking at the real world geopolitik which is really anarchic. Yet, every nation represents a territorial monopoly of armed force and every nation's military is unresponsive to free market pressures.

anacorp, not anamutual
hence, anarchist society is utterly unable to prevent monopolies of armed force (proof -- look at the world today) and when these monopoly materialize the free market is powerless against them (proof -- look at the world today).

end of story

Mutuals were onces as powerfull as corps...but right or left wing govs hate them. Look at what happened to standard life....the gov wanted it dead as mutuals by there nature are anachistic.

NOTE: Lysdexic and done with no spell checker.

I could go into more detail regarding the preponderence of violence in anarchic society, but since we all pretty much agree that anarchism is a joke -- i will spare you.

The functional anachy's crime rate dropped

sorry abuot your dylezia/


I'm not bothered about lysdexia.
pic (bsc (hons))

PS never feel sorry form me, I hate people that think I have something wrong with me..I figure perhaps I have something right.
Last edited by Kingdoms of Cal on Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Warning thar be furries!

Talk to us and normalises things by setting up an embassy

User avatar
The House of Petain
Minister
 
Posts: 2277
Founded: Jun 19, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The House of Petain » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:31 pm

Acroticus wrote:
AuSable River wrote:

Yeah it is black and white

both parties would be powerless to corrupt, waste, and destroy --- if government power at the federal level was significantly reduced.


Yes and millions more people would die each year in the US and abroad if the federal spending level was drastically reduced, don't forget that. Without the money they would be as unable to build as they are unable to destroy. Let's not forget; the government brought us the internet, digital technology, the cure for many diseases, and much more all as a result of government spending.


No shit, Sherlock. I don't recall every saying otherwise or that we shouldn't have a central government. But your argument that decentralization equals slavery was wrong.
Michael Augustine I of the House of Petain

Founder, Chief Executive & Emperor of Westphalia
1000 Schloss Nordkirchen Ave, Munster Capitol District, Westphalia 59394

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:35 pm

Geilinor wrote:
AuSable River wrote:

absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

try again, and be more specific on how this process takes place.

you cant just say "poof, company A gains all of a particular resource" by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure that dog aint barking.

these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:



moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.


slow down tex,

I am not a faith-based, wackadoodle ancap -- I believe that government has a role as a night watchman

hence, you take the most destructive elements of power --- military and political power --- and decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent within a constitutional federal republic.

then, in the extreme and unlikely chance that a single cartel gained too much power without lowering prices and/or increasing quality or service or product --- then a state government could intervene and break up the cartel

remember, governments have all the military, political and legislative power -- thats what counts.

but this last resort would rarely happen (if ever) since market forces can very easily undermine any kind of economic monopoly that didnt include military or political coercion.

c heck my previous posts.

indeed, provide a single episode of a coercive monopoly in american history that was not really facilitated by government.

for example, virtually every monopoly (and that means 50-90% market share) saw prices decline and/or quality improve to consumers. they were hardly oppressive -- in fact the opposite consumers and society loved them, thats how they gained monopoly status --- by satisfying consumer preferences so effectively.

Hence, they were broken up by government and corrupt inefficient firms in the same industry who couldnt compete, so these corrupt firms lobbied government to do by political coercion what they couldnt do by sound business practices.

Later folks, my shift is over -- i gotta go home.
Last edited by AuSable River on Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:36 pm

AuSable River wrote:slow down tex.....

who said I was arguing an anarchist position.

I am not an anarchist and my arguments are not a defense of anarchism

So you don't believe in a free society. You're just bargaining a different kind of despotism.
AuSable River wrote:so do not preface any rebut with the absence of government.

Then don't pretend you believe in a free society.
AuSable River wrote:Second, your argument that a government that controls the gavel and gun is far less prone to corruption and less dangerous than a single corporation without a single tank, courtroom, or ballot box is absurd.

No, I made it quite clear in my first post in this thread that calling it corruption was a misnomer, because it implied that the status quo was somehow a perversion of how things were or ought to have been. Rather, what you call corruption is an integral part of the system. Private capital and the state don't exist without each other, and the laws and rulings they pass serve the mutual interests of the bourgeoisie as a class.
AuSable River wrote:Moreover, corporations have to operate within a free, voluntary and competitive environment in which they must satisfy consumer preferences by peaceful exchange.

Except that's bullshit, because markets trend to oligopoly, and the real costs of market exchange are hidden. Furthermore, calling it voluntary is a real joke. It's like Henry Ford telling people they could have the Model T in any color as long as it was black.

Absent other considerations, in the unfettered market, those who do not own capital have one choice: accept whatever offer they get for their labor power, or they can starve. That's not a voluntary choice: it's just as coercive as putting a gun to someone's head. Given that all the choices will always be equally shitty because the master will not be giving any ground to his servents unless forced, I'd say that's just another form of violent class dictatorship.
AuSable River wrote:In contrast, government has no competition and it uses coercion to fund its operations.

Whatever made you think I thought anything differently about the government. The government's only present merit is a thin veneer of democratic accountability.
AuSable River wrote:In sum, your dog aint barking, in fact he is coughing up grass.

What the hell does this even mean?
AuSable River wrote:Try again, and please for the 5th time provide a relatively detailed and intelligent theoretical case study on how a boogeyman corporation seizes power in the absence of political, military, or judicial power .

The mistake you make is assuming that they would have to seize power. Absent state power, they become the biggest game in town, and will accrete the functions of the state to themselves to protect their property and their sectional interests.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:37 pm

Kingdoms of Cal wrote:
AuSable River wrote:
Interesting post, are you european ?


Aye
And indeed, both left and right anarchist are faith-based utopians who dont have a clue.



That I question


AMusingly, I have been banned by right anarchist websites for arguing that within an anarchist society (if one ever existed for more than a fortnight) that a territorial monopoly of armed force would emerge.

Look at the one functional one, lasted some time.
this is based on the specialization of labor, economies of scale, and collabration of defense industry firms to form a cartel to reduce the costs associated with armed competition.

Hence, anarchic society has no intentional mechanisms to prevent the centralization, balance, or limit military power -- moreover, within anarchic society, there is no transparency.

There is one, it's called the people that see it. The people simply withdraw labour.
also, ancaps admit that monopolies are possible in any industry within ancap society --- and yet they have the ignorance to state that these are not coercive or that the free market can remove them through voluntary and peaceful exchange.

Who says it an any cap rather than a mutualist system?

Muturalistic system can out preform any capitialistic system. Why do you think every capilist system does it's best to kill them off? The socilists do the same.
this nonsense is easily debunked by looking at the real world geopolitik which is really anarchic. Yet, every nation represents a territorial monopoly of armed force and every nation's military is unresponsive to free market pressures.

anacorp, not anamutual
hence, anarchist society is utterly unable to prevent monopolies of armed force (proof -- look at the world today) and when these monopoly materialize the free market is powerless against them (proof -- look at the world today).

end of story

Mutuals were onces as powerfull as corps...but right or left wing govs hate them. Look at what happened to standard life....the gov wanted it dead as mutuals by there nature are anachistic.

NOTE: Lysdexic and done with no spell checker.

I could go into more detail regarding the preponderence of violence in anarchic society, but since we all pretty much agree that anarchism is a joke -- i will spare you.

The functional anachy's crime rate dropped

sorry abuot your dylezia/


I'm not bothered about lysdexia.
pic (bsc (hons))

PS never feel sorry form me, I hate people that think I have something wrong with me..I figure perhaps I have something right.



give me a source to learn more about this mutualarilistic society

i will check it out later.

User avatar
Inky Noodles
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8567
Founded: Sep 05, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Inky Noodles » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:38 pm

I don't really think they want to directly have big government.
Transnapastain wrote:
Inky Noodles wrote:QUICK.

I WANNA ASK SOMEONE TO HOMECOMING.


whaddo I do?!


So I just met you
and this is crazy
but heres my number
homecoming maybe?

*not a valid offer.

~Trans, killing TET's since part 45.

San Leggera wrote:
Veceria wrote:People with big noses have big penises.
Even the females.

Especially the females. *nod*


Hurdegaryp wrote:
Belligerent Alcoholics wrote:Are you OK? :eyebrow:

It's a person called Inky Noodles in a thread that is not exactly known for its sanity in general. Do the math, beerguzzler.


18 year old Virginian

Ravens, O's, and Penguins fan

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:38 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Geilinor wrote:Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.


slow down tex,

I am not a faith-based, wackadoodle ancap -- I believe that government has a role as a night watchman

hence, you take the most destructive elements of power --- military and political power --- and decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent within a constitutional federal republic.

then, in the extreme and unlikely chance that a single cartel gained too much power without lowering prices and/or increasing quality or service or product --- then a state government could intervene and break up the cartel

remember, governments have all the military, political and legislative power -- thats what counts.

but this last resort would rarely happen (if ever) since market forces can very easily undermine any kind of economic monopoly that didnt include military or political coercion.

c heck my previous posts.

indeed, provide a single episode of a coercive monopoly in american history that was not really facilitated by government.

for example, virtually every monopoly (and that means 50-90% market share) saw prices decline and/or quality improve to consumers. they were hardly oppressive -- in fact the opposite consumers and society loved them, thats how they gained monopoly status --- by satisfying consumer preferences so effectively.

Hence, they were broken up by government and corrupt inefficient firms in the same industry who couldnt compete, so these corrupt firms lobbied government to do by political coercion what they couldnt do by sound business practices.

Later folks, my shift is over -- i gotta go home.

Constitutional federal republic? Like the United States and Canada already are? The federal governments of those two nations don't hold all the power. And how do you decentralize military power to the states? Defense can't be divided when the need comes, and it could lead to civil war.
Last edited by Geilinor on Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
NMaa949
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 437
Founded: Jul 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby NMaa949 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:39 pm

The capitalist as a class are as useful as any kleptocrat. They take trillions upon trillions of dollars into overshore bank accounts without any oversight whatsoever. They can take as much public money as they are able and never have to spend any of it. They are, in short, the government that need only take and never give back, and that is what they wish, and think they should be able to do. They have won the lottery thousands of times over and almost none of it sees the light of day. It's time to stop giving tons of money to people who have no accountability.
Last edited by NMaa949 on Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Bezhnoznik_u_stanka_US_1930.jpeg
Distruzio wrote:The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

Distruzio suggesting that the Soviet Union was a democracy.
Bralia wrote:Exploring demands risk. Exploration may not reveal something useful. And yet we still do it. Because something could be found that could revolutionize the world. Yandere, if you don't want to stick even your nose out the front door, that's your own business, but don't try and drag the rest of the world along with you.

Bralia on Yandere Schoolgirls hating NASA.

User avatar
North Franklin
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 113
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby North Franklin » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:41 pm

I just fail to see how people can call Governments corrupt and then turn to Corporations for a better alternative. Names like Enron, BP, and the LIBOR scandal come to mind.
WWFSMD?
The House of Petain wrote:
Souseiseki wrote:ban the firearms. all the firearms. - barack obama


Ah yes, I recall that speech. He then snorted some coke and said death to all the white people, while confessing how he was born in the sewers of Bangladesh and was a Buddhist hitman before becoming senator.

User avatar
Frisivisia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18164
Founded: Aug 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Frisivisia » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:42 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Geilinor wrote:Without a government, what would stop corporations from forming a corporation-ruled nation? Power is the largest source of corruption.


slow down tex,

I am not a faith-based, wackadoodle ancap -- I believe that government has a role as a night watchman

hence, you take the most destructive elements of power --- military and political power --- and decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent within a constitutional federal republic.

then, in the extreme and unlikely chance that a single cartel gained too much power without lowering prices and/or increasing quality or service or product --- then a state government could intervene and break up the cartel

remember, governments have all the military, political and legislative power -- thats what counts.

but this last resort would rarely happen (if ever) since market forces can very easily undermine any kind of economic monopoly that didnt include military or political coercion.

c heck my previous posts.

indeed, provide a single episode of a coercive monopoly in american history that was not really facilitated by government.

for example, virtually every monopoly (and that means 50-90% market share) saw prices decline and/or quality improve to consumers. they were hardly oppressive -- in fact the opposite consumers and society loved them, thats how they gained monopoly status --- by satisfying consumer preferences so effectively.

Hence, they were broken up by government and corrupt inefficient firms in the same industry who couldnt compete, so these corrupt firms lobbied government to do by political coercion what they couldnt do by sound business practices.

Later folks, my shift is over -- i gotta go home.

Monopolies hep markets. That's a person that understands economics.
Impeach The Queen, Legalize Anarchy, Stealing Things Is Not Theft. Sex Pistols 2017.
I'm the evil gubmint PC inspector, here to take your Guns, outlaw your God, and steal your freedom and give it to black people.
I'm Joe Biden. So far as you know.

For: Anarchy, Punk Rock Fury
Against: Thatcher, Fascists, That Fascist Thatcher, Reagan, Nazi Punks, Everyone
"Am I buggin' ya? I don't mean to bug ya." - Bono
Let's cram some more shit in my sig. Cool people cram shit in their sigs. In TECHNICOLOR!

User avatar
ALMF
Minister
 
Posts: 2937
Founded: Jun 04, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby ALMF » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:42 pm

AuSable River wrote:Who knows?

Probably they are just following the indoctrination that they have received from leftwing educators, pop culture, and the main stream media who are all proponents of big government.

If I could deprogram leftists, I would enlighten them to the fact that government is a market for corruption.

Essentially, it is a place where special interests go to get something by coercive means that they couldn't get in a free, voluntary, and competitive society.

For example, the reckless and irresponsible financial institutions that engaged in questionable business practices prior to the 2008 crisis successfully went to Washington to get bailed out by Bush, RINO republicans and virtually every democrat in Congress (including obama).

Not surprisingly, these same banks contributed generously to both obama and bush in their respective elections. Moreover, the these same failed bankers have figured prominently in both the bush and obama cabinets.

Using the 'logic' of the Left -- obama, bush, and democrats in congress were required to divert scarce resources from productive sectors of the economy to bailout the very negligent and reckless firms and individuals who helped cause the crisis or in the very least were clueless on how to mitigate its impact.

They don't really know why --just that the same fools and crooks who caused the crisis must be bailed out AND the politicians and elites in finance told them that a bail out was necessary ??!! How 'surprising' and convenient for these same elitist politicians and bankers.

In reality, the purpose of government isn't to promote sustainable and beneficial economic policy -- it is for self-serving politicians and their corrupt cronies in the public and private sector to 'game' the system to their benefit at the expense of productive individuals and firms in the private sector (who by definition don't need government help).

This is the preamble of ECO 101 for progressives.

In sum, if any liberal/progressive/leftist thinks that government is not corrupt and coercive -- then you cant proceed further and we need to resolve this impasse.

Please ask questions.

It's the only hedge we have agenst the two greatest eavles in the universe: faith/religion and coprations/maledistribution of resorses
a left social libertarian (all on a scale 0-10 with a direction: 0 centrist 10 extreme)
Left over right: 5.99
Libertarian over authoritarian: 4.2,
non-interventionist over neo-con: 5.14
Cultural liberal over cultural conservative: 7.6

You are a cosmopolitan Social Democrat. 16 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 5 percent are more extremist than you.

User avatar
The Steel Magnolia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8134
Founded: Dec 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Steel Magnolia » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:47 pm

I've seen a fair amount of stuff. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone arguing in favor of monopolies as a means of assisting the market.

User avatar
Kingdoms of Cal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1655
Founded: Dec 29, 2005
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Kingdoms of Cal » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:48 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Kingdoms of Cal wrote:
Aye


That I question


Look at the one functional one, lasted some time.

There is one, it's called the people that see it. The people simply withdraw labour.

Who says it an any cap rather than a mutualist system?

Muturalistic system can out preform any capitialistic system. Why do you think every capilist system does it's best to kill them off? The socilists do the same.

anacorp, not anamutual

Mutuals were onces as powerfull as corps...but right or left wing govs hate them. Look at what happened to standard life....the gov wanted it dead as mutuals by there nature are anachistic.

NOTE: Lysdexic and done with no spell checker.


The functional anachy's crime rate dropped



I'm not bothered about lysdexia.
pic (bsc (hons))

PS never feel sorry form me, I hate people that think I have something wrong with me..I figure perhaps I have something right.



give me a source to learn more about this mutualarilistic society

i will check it out later.


OK as no one has been able figure this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

it's getting late so that will have to do....but the concept of anarcho mutualism basically ran the US west for a bit,
Last edited by Kingdoms of Cal on Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Warning thar be furries!

Talk to us and normalises things by setting up an embassy

User avatar
Dainer
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1014
Founded: Aug 18, 2010
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Dainer » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:49 pm

Oh, and absent the legal fiction of the corporation, you know who's next in line?

Rackets.

The Mafia method is an efficient way to drive out competition when there's no market rules.
Football, dragons and eco-utopian technology!
Commonwealth of The Free People of Dainer
Capital: Acropolis | Demonym: Daineri | Trigramme: DAI | Technology level: PMT/FanT

User avatar
AuSable River
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1038
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby AuSable River » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:51 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:
AuSable River wrote:slow down tex.....

who said I was arguing an anarchist position.

I am not an anarchist and my arguments are not a defense of anarchism

So you don't believe in a free society. You're just bargaining a different kind of despotism.
AuSable River wrote:so do not preface any rebut with the absence of government.

Then don't pretend you believe in a free society.
AuSable River wrote:Second, your argument that a government that controls the gavel and gun is far less prone to corruption and less dangerous than a single corporation without a single tank, courtroom, or ballot box is absurd.

No, I made it quite clear in my first post in this thread that calling it corruption was a misnomer, because it implied that the status quo was somehow a perversion of how things were or ought to have been. Rather, what you call corruption is an integral part of the system. Private capital and the state don't exist without each other, and the laws and rulings they pass serve the mutual interests of the bourgeoisie as a class.
AuSable River wrote:Moreover, corporations have to operate within a free, voluntary and competitive environment in which they must satisfy consumer preferences by peaceful exchange.

Except that's bullshit, because markets trend to oligopoly, and the real costs of market exchange are hidden. Furthermore, calling it voluntary is a real joke. It's like Henry Ford telling people they could have the Model T in any color as long as it was black.

Absent other considerations, in the unfettered market, those who do not own capital have one choice: accept whatever offer they get for their labor power, or they can starve. That's not a voluntary choice: it's just as coercive as putting a gun to someone's head. Given that all the choices will always be equally shitty because the master will not be giving any ground to his servents unless forced, I'd say that's just another form of violent class dictatorship.
AuSable River wrote:In contrast, government has no competition and it uses coercion to fund its operations.

Whatever made you think I thought anything differently about the government. The government's only present merit is a thin veneer of democratic accountability.
AuSable River wrote:In sum, your dog aint barking, in fact he is coughing up grass.

What the hell does this even mean?
AuSable River wrote:Try again, and please for the 5th time provide a relatively detailed and intelligent theoretical case study on how a boogeyman corporation seizes power in the absence of political, military, or judicial power .

The mistake you make is assuming that they would have to seize power. Absent state power, they become the biggest game in town, and will accrete the functions of the state to themselves to protect their property and their sectional interests.


Your not focused.

If you have a system of governance that intentionally decentralizes, balances, limits, and makes transparent the elements of armed force --- then yes, you have a more free society that is less suspetible to absolutism.

IN contrast, a society without government (anarchism) invites the formation of military and political cartels because no intentional or effective means exist to deter them --- hence absolutism.

as for the rest of your nonsense, I didnt have capital 10 years ago, now I own more property than I have time to effectively manage.

Also, I have friends who didnt have a pot to piss in -- so they opened up a small business and 2 out of 3 are millionaires.

indeed, millions of small businesses open up each year.

moreover, i dont know what neighborhood you come from -- but in my hometown, if your reliable, cooperative, dependable, hard-working, persistent, et al -- an employer will tend to reward that by increasing pay and benefits to keep a valuable and trusted employee around.

and in a free and competitive society -- a firm that mistreats or underpays its employees will see them disappear. while a firm that treats them in accordance with their relative contibution to the bottom line (profit ) will see profits expand due to increased level of customer service and increased productivity.

indeed, human beings are the most valuable resource in any firm.

and lastly, how in the heck is a private firm going to 'accrete the functions of the state' when government has all the military, political and legal authority (save the ability to redistribute wealth) ?????

any corporation that breaks the law or takes the law into its own hands will see the offending management or workers jailed in short order.

in contrast, it is far easier for corrupt corporations to bribe myriad politicians via lobbying and campaign contributions largely out of sight and mind of the public --- then for a single manager in a transparent court room where all the proceedings are open to scurtiny and any evidence of potential bribery or influence peddling that results in a mis -carriage of judgment is immediately visible to all the citizenry, even the most unsophisiticated.

but dude, if you want to pray on the altar of big government to protect you from the big bad corporate boogeyman -- be my guest.

I got to go - i will debunk your fallacies at a later time.


later.

User avatar
Blakk Metal
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6737
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Blakk Metal » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:54 pm

Enadail wrote:
AuSable River wrote:the military industrial complex is a government enterprises dude.


You mean where the government pays private industry to develop all its weapons and vehicles? And how its actually these businesses that control the government by being those few groups that can produce these supplies, thus making the government simply an employer/consumer of a private industry?

The government doesn't make most of its own stuff or magically get it... private industry does all that. Private industry determines what military the government has...

Strawman.
AuSable River wrote:
Blakk Metal wrote:By buying natural resources and monopolies. :palm:



absurd, if a single corporation or cartel tried to gain control of scarce resources -- then that would naturally raise the value of the resources that the offending firm didnt have.

So? :eyebrow:
Moreover, if the same firm tried to raise prices for its resources -- it would immediate invite consumers to find substitution resources, it would invite competition from other firms to find untapped resources, and it would irrepairably destroy the personal and professional reputations of the offending management team.

It isn't assured that alternatives could be found.
lastly, but not least, state governments would still hold all of the poltical power to nix any oppressive monopoly in a hearbeat.

Not if the monopoly bribes the politicians.
these big government types just make stuff up as they go or believe something untrue without having analyzed it in any substantive detail besides:

jeez, i guess thats what would happen because thats what everyone has told me

Strawman. Government worshipers haven't existed since the Seventies.
moreover, the big kicker in all this is that there is an oppressive monopoly that controls all the resources and unlike a boogeyman corporate monopoly -- this one controls all of the guns and gavels too ??!!!


its called the federal government.

and you wonder why I am so short with these people.

And you wonder why anarchists and commies exist.

User avatar
NMaa949
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 437
Founded: Jul 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby NMaa949 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:02 pm

AuSable River wrote:moreover, i dont know what neighborhood you come from -- but in my hometown, if your reliable, cooperative, dependable, hard-working, persistent, et al -- an employer will tend to reward that by increasing pay and benefits to keep a valuable and trusted employee around.

There is very little that is valuable in an employee in a modern economy. The modern economy does not require a great deal of skill.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Bezhnoznik_u_stanka_US_1930.jpeg
Distruzio wrote:The Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Each authoritarian democracies and each thoroughly tyrannical.

Distruzio suggesting that the Soviet Union was a democracy.
Bralia wrote:Exploring demands risk. Exploration may not reveal something useful. And yet we still do it. Because something could be found that could revolutionize the world. Yandere, if you don't want to stick even your nose out the front door, that's your own business, but don't try and drag the rest of the world along with you.

Bralia on Yandere Schoolgirls hating NASA.

User avatar
The Black Forrest
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55601
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Black Forrest » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:10 pm

NMaa949 wrote:
AuSable River wrote:moreover, i dont know what neighborhood you come from -- but in my hometown, if your reliable, cooperative, dependable, hard-working, persistent, et al -- an employer will tend to reward that by increasing pay and benefits to keep a valuable and trusted employee around.

There is very little that is valuable in an employee in a modern economy. The modern economy does not require a great deal of skill.


Example?
*I am a master proofreader after I click Submit.
* There is actually a War on Christmas. But Christmas started it, with it's unparalleled aggression against the Thanksgiving Holiday, and now Christmas has seized much Lebensraum in November, and are pushing into October. The rest of us seek to repel these invaders, and push them back to the status quo ante bellum Black Friday border. -Trotskylvania
* Silence Is Golden But Duct Tape Is Silver.
* I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days. - Max Barry talking about Atlas Shrugged

User avatar
Alien Space Bats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10073
Founded: Sep 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!

Postby Alien Space Bats » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:20 pm

AuSable River wrote:
Alien Space Bats wrote:Here was his response; mine will (eventually) be forthcoming.


AuSable River wrote:
national defense is one of the only responsibilities of government.

Why?

because the elements of armed force in society must be intentionally decentralized, balanced, limited, and made transparent.

Ancaps are of the deluded opinion that the free market can manage security without emerging into a territorial monopoly of oppressive armed force.

In contrast any other monopoly in any other industry can be easily overcome by substitution goods, competition, boycott, or as a last result government intervention.

however, no such mechanisms exist to deter a monopoly of armed force.



we have a constitutional federal republic that intentionally limits, balances, decentralizes and makes transparent armed force. This makes it less effective, but less likely to become a tool of despots.

WIthin a liberal democracy with a strong free market --- we dont need a centralized military to deter and defeat statist militaries.

Essentially, the reason why our military is successful is because it is generally fighting other state managed militaries -- hence both are inefficient. Indeed, when the USA is faced with a non-state insurgency or terror group, we are vulnerable.

case in point, a inhumane private military agency -- al qaida --caused over 2800 deaths and tens of billions in damage at a cost of less than a million dollars.

lastly, smedley butler was a hero but he was also a clueless idealist .

thanks to the USA and the application of force against expansionist statist regimes and insurgencies -- europe, the western hemisphere, and the asian pacific rim are more peaceful, free, prosperous, and stable than at anytime in their tumultous histories.

without American power -- the world would be a much more dangerous and inhospitable place.




ANd I debunked and retired your argument in short order --

I will do so again for your benefit.

an essential role for government --or rather a system of government -- is to promote life, liberty, and private property. Since it is corrupt and coercive, it cannot be trusted to do this --- government must intentionally be decentralized, balanced, limited, and made transparent.

Hence our constitutional federal republic.

Indeed, this system of government has been effective at promoting civil and political liberties among the states and people who practice some form of liberal democracy.

Essentially our founding fathers very nearly got it right --- except for some shortcomings both foreseen and unforeseen.

Among these was the ability of despots or those seeking power for political gain to usurp the constitution system via economic means or economic coercion.

Hence the need for an Economic Bill of Rights (balanced budget amendment, limit spending to a pre-established % of GDP, strengthen federalism, et al) to protect the citizenry from corruption and despotism by economic coercion.

so there you have it.

maybe you didnt understand my response -- however it is simple ---- indeed government cannot be trusted so we intentionally weaken it by decentalizing it.

Yet within a liberal democracy, this shortcoming is not fatal in the area of national defense because the economic, technological, civil and cultural strength and loyalties are more than enough to overcome the centrally controlled miilitariese of autocratic nations.

Moreover, I dont have a problem using government within a liberal democracy to undermine far more clear and present dangers that exist from expansionist global autocratic regimes.

so there you have it.

I advocate and 'trust' government when it is used to undermine itself -- hence create a political and miilitary framework where politicians and autocrats fight among themselves for the few political spoils we free people allow them to have.

it diverts them from negatively influencing our civil and economic life --- and it is fun to watch them trash each other in an ultimately futile attempt at gaining power.


you stand corrected, again.

Do you have a problem reading?

Alien Space Bats wrote:Here was his response; mine will (eventually) be forthcoming.

Kind of hard for you to correct me "again" why you haven't corrected me for the FIRST time.
"These states are just saying 'Yes, I used to beat my girlfriend, but I haven't since the restraining order, so we don't need it anymore.'" — Stephen Colbert, Comedian, on Shelby County v. Holder

"Do you see how policing blacks by the presumption of guilt and policing whites by the presumption of innocence is a self-reinforcing mechanism?" — Touré Neblett, MSNBC Commentator and Social Critic

"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."Songwriter Oscar Brown in 1963, foretelling the election of Donald J. Trump

President Donald J. Trump: Working Tirelessly to Make Russia Great Again

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eternal Algerstonia, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Fractalnavel, Galactic Bakers, Goi Arauaren Erresuma, Hypron, IndSeek, Isbjorn Maerenne Bava Paerani, Milaca Storm Corps I, New Ciencia, Rostavykhan, Ryemarch, San Lumen, SanCristobal, Socialistic Britain, Spinopotamia, Spirit of Hope, The Black Forrest, The Jamesian Republic, Valentian Elysium, Valoptia, Washington Resistance Army, Yasuragi, Zoygaria

Advertisement

Remove ads