|
That AyeYo is letting Atlas get away with claiming sweatshops as a good thing is sad.
Sweatshops are NOT good things. They are not better than the traditional occupations of people in those countries, they are just better than the occupations people are forced into by corrupt government and corporate exploitation stealing their land and the means they use for traditional livelihoods.
Without the government preventing labor organization the labor would be much more expensive because they would demand a living wage, health and safety standards, and so forth.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, US cops are the dumbest people on the planet. They literally give them IQ tests and then take the dumbest ones.
Literally huh? |
|
|
|
They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.
Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins". In the event of a 'sale', there would be a distinct lack of paperwork to prove that, unlike in a real sale.
You could present a forged document, or you could bribe the arbritation court. So many possibilities for the really creative evil person. In the case of a murder, there is no such thing as 'without a trace'. Everyone makes mistakes, and a well-paid investigator isn't going to give up when told, 'One day, the original owner, he just 'poof' decide to move out.'
Then you kill any investigator who comes too close to the truth. Just like happens now. Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed? Because i don't think anyone denied that. What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws? |
|
|
|
|
I don't think this board was the right place for discussion of silk road. I do wish I knew where else it was being discussed aside from silk road itself though. Trying to hold a conversation over Tor is bad enough, when that conversation mostly involves people buying and selling drugs it is even worse.
|
|
|
|
Anarchists are mostly of average intelligence, have achieved nothing of significance, but have compulsions about every other living being in the world being 'cattle' or 'masses'.
If you liked anarchy or anarcho-capitalism so much as to make it a reality, then you would already be in Somalia or Afghanistan where no government has any real influence in anything, including taxation.
Then you'd have to realize that all power instantly falls in the hands of the clan or warlord with the most firearms and ammunition so it doesn't really fit your utopia & you get nervous when you realize you need protection in numbers or you will be exploited or killed.
There. You *need* other people and organization to survive, unless you're planning to be a self-sustaining hermit on the North Pole.
Even then, you're fucked if you need medical care/run out of food/get stuck in 20ft of snow.
If I had tribal connections I'd be in Afghanistan. This is a society that has sucessfully defeated every world power everywhere. Without any real central government. They are the evidence that anarchy can be militarially superior. |
|
|
|
A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.
Sounds like government. Property is impossible. How does that sound like government? I stated that THE MARKET would develop, organically (meaning via prior precedent, what we would today call 'case law') standards for how long a property could be left unattended without being considered abandoned. I further stated that disputes would be handled by arbitration. Where is the LAW, and the ENFORCEMENT that defines government? FYI: without property, society is impossible. [/quote] Standards would be developed, and enforced via arbitration. Or presumably there would be some sort of enforcement, since without an enforcement mechanism arbitration is kind of useless. |
|
|
|
It all depends what flavor of Libertarian you are. The arguments in here are based on typical Chicago School, "leave the market alone and it'll figure everything out," "all power to the company and no power to the worker" economics and that brand of "Libertarian" is generally anti-union.
You are confusing (or possibly conflating) Labor Unions and Trade Unions. Labor Unions allow workers to collectively bargain with the company. This is (usually) a good thing, because getting together gives them more equivalent resources to the company. Trade unions force workers to comply with a set of regulations, mandate education levels, and otherwise restrict entry to a field. Trade unions are what we're against. That's where the confusion comes from. I had some resounding debates about labor unions with the libertarian capitalists on this board when it was first starting. You and Atlas may not be opposed to labor unions, but a large portion of libertarian capitalists are. |
|
|
|
Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place.
No, Taxation has, as it's stated goal, the funding of government. WELFARE has as it's stated goal the helping of the poor. |
|
|
|
The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy. There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege. Microsoft. Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource. This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot. Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons: 1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it. 2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance. 3) As for the There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege. The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly. 4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw. You seem to be missing the fact ALL corporations are government subsidized. You reiterate it here, as if it somehow disproves itself. Saying Microsoft is not subsidized because their competitors are supported in the same way. That's right, all corporations are supported by government subsidies, and the fact that all the others are as well doesn't mean that Microsoft is not. As to why the pulled ahead, because they have a corporate model that does well in the environment that they exist in, plain and simple. Not because they received more subsidies than anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that they, like all other corporations, are able to exist only because Government makes it possible. |
|
|
|
I highly recommend a read through Kevin Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism
I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong. Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding. No need to buy it, It's free. (30 second google search, 3rd link.) Fine, I misworded that. Buy should've been buy/read. I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to: free markets want efficiency, corporations aren't efficient, corporations will cease to exist. Two good reasons why this is nonsense-- if government is totally inefficient, and only efficient systems will survive, why does government survive? I'll answer my own question-- it is because humans aren't rational actors, and there are other competing, and sometimes winning factors besides efficiency. Other reason: The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy. Microsoft. Anything else? Corporations are a legal construct. Without limited liability laws they couldn't exist. Giving them a framework to allow their existence certainly counts as a subsidy. |
|
|
|
We've already seen the results of unregulated capitalism in this country at the beginning of the 20th century - with workers earning just barely enough to survive, paid in company scrip that could only be redeemed on overpriced items at the company store. I don't see how anyone could argue in good conscience that we should go back to that unless the only things they've ever read on the subject were highly-biased works by stuffy economists with a vested interest in ignoring or discounting the suffering of regular people. You owe it to yourself to read books from more diverse points of view. I'd recommend you check out The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It's old enough to be in the public domain, so you can read it for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/140That period was corporatist. The workers did not have the support of the government, the corporate bosses did. Without the government interfereing the workers are stronger, in fact even with the government interfereing the unions and the labor movement were able to achieve huge concessions from the corporations. |
|
|
|
I'm a libertarian socialist,
That's still a contradiction in terms. Only to you because you do not understand the terms. Socialist does not mean "controlled by the government" it means "controlled by society" and that is, in particular, the relevent portions of society. So a flour mill should be controlled by the workers who work there and the people who avail themselves of the milling service. That's socialism. There is no reason that this is incompatible with libertarianism. In fact, as a Libertarian Socialist, I argue that there is far less liberty involved for the workers and consumers, if that mill is controlled by an owner or board of directors. |
|
|
|
I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.
To me liberty is freedom from coercion. When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent. It sounds like you should defend the free market then. I do. I'm a Market Anarchist, and that includes defense of the free market. I don't defend property rights in the way that they are perceived by Anarcho-Capitalists. I do not believe that actions against property constitute violence against the "owners" of that property. Property, in the way that it is perceived by Capitalists, is impossible in an Anarchist society. |
|
|
|
I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?
In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?
You need to quantify 'unused' If you mean completely unused, State of Nature, without even a fence around it, then it's up for grabs. nobody's claimed it. A parkland-type area, moderately improved, paths, fences, etc, has been 'homesteaded', and signs would likely inform you that the owner wants to keep this area as close to nature as possible. A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'. A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration. Sounds like government. Property is impossible. |
|
|
|
"Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included."
when I steal it's theft. When government steals, it's taxation
when I kidnap, it's a felony. When the State kidnaps, it's an arrest
when I force people to work for me, it's slavery. When the State does it, it's the Draft, selective service, conscription, whatever.
The state doesn't obey the same rules at all. it breaks the rules and gives it's violations different names.
hahhahaha Taxation isn't stealing, it's written into the law and thus part of the contract. Arrests are kidnapping, their parameters are written into the law and thus part of the contract. Selective service is written into the law and military members are paid, therefore it is part of the contract and not slavery. YOU defined those things on your own terms. The terms of the contract define them as such. It's really cute how you completely ignore the fact that the relationship between the State and it's citizen is totally unilateral. Troll elsewhere. What's cuter is that you ignore the fact that people have a hand in government (that's what a democracy is), so they if they care enough they can tailor the contract any way they see fit. If they're unable to do that, they can GTFO at any time. What's the cutest is that you sit here and bemoan the evil government all day, while enjoying all its benefits. 'Democracy', lol. Let me know when you finish your high school civics class. Keeping with the consistency of statism, you're right, I enjoy the 'benefits' of Government, like out of control cops, horribly maintained roads/infrastructure, and I'm given no other choices, because these services are forced on me, at gunpoint. Since you hate corporations so much, why are you so willing to type on a computer manufactured with parts made by evil corporations, using software developed by mega-corporations like Microsoft, and sending your posts out through internet owned and operated by a private corporation? Because you do these things, that means you can't hate corporations, because you use their products! Nice argument, bro. How's High School treating you? He's in favor of government, but against the corporations? Stalinist much? That way lies State Capitalism, which is even worse than the Corporatist system we currently have. States and corporations are basically the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.
To me liberty is freedom from coercion. When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent.
|
|
|
|
... So many of them now, are all hearing about bitcoin for the first time and they only need to be buying $100 or less worth of BTC to play with for micro transaction and the price will continue to rise.
Micro transactions to pay for what exactly? So far bitcoin has been used for: drugs, cheap way to make money (mining, which is dying soon), and speculation. Not even that restaurant in NYC that started accepting bitcoins has conducted a single transaction using bitcoins (as of 6/17/2011). The only reason it will stay alive is for Silk Road, and even that use is now dubious due to the fact that you have to be tech savvy and go way out of your way to use it and still be anonymous. I like bitcoin as a decentralized currency, but not as a tool for drug and smut peddlers. If anyone really wants to see bitcoin succeed they need to put efforts into enacting more trade using bitcoins. Mining doesn't help the bitcoin world because even if there were only 3 guys doing CPU mining, the difficulty would adjust so they could produce all the bitcoins at the same rate they are being produced today (with the most power aggregate super computer in the world). I've sold tarot card readings for bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Yes, but they are more difficult to mine and unfortunately I missed this easy mining bandwagon...I have 15 btc to my name
If price keeps dropping miners will drop out and the difficulty will drop. |
|
|
|
Volatility like this is bad if you want bitcoin to be an actual currency (like I do). No big company is going to risk using bitcoins if they lose half their money overnight because of market variations.
It'll smooth out after Bitcoin is more broadly adopted. Adoption jumped, leading to a huge rally, so a correction was to be expected. It had been pretty stable for a long time before that jump, and it will be again after a while. However the market is not saturated yet, so I expect several more sharp rises and falls before it really settles. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
