Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:34:15 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Liberals please read  (Read 5025 times)
Sjalq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2011, 10:42:11 PM
 #1

It always pains me to see the logic that somehow connects Bill Gates' wealth with a squatter camp's squalor.

"Bill is richer than them all, they are all poor, the connection is obvious!"

There is undoubtedly an exploiter class but I think liberals have taken an unduly simplistic view of this.

Corporations are not a feature of a truly free society. Corporations provide limited liabilities to the individuals who run them. Limited liabilities are rights granted by government, it is not inherent in free-market capitalism. It is in fact opposed to it. So please stop referring to the evils corporations commit due to limited liability and calling it the results of the free market. Libertarians HATE the idea that a corporation can be let off the hook by a government judge or legislation for damage to the property, lives and health of others.

Agorism has a useful model on this. They divide capitalists into three catagories.
Good => Venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, risk takes (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg)
Neutral => Holders of capital, no real ideology
Bad => Those who use government power, fraud or violence to raid the public

Both liberals and libertarians agree that the rich who are obviously rich because of government help need to have their privileges removed. Unfortunately liberals attempt to do this by introducing taxes and regulations on all the capitalist classes indiscriminately. Libertarians also do not make enough of a point that there is a dangerous kind of capitalist, the ones who are willing to manipulate legislation to their benefit.

Cheesy mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Cheesy
*Image Removed*
18WMxaHsxx6FuvbQbeA33UZud1bnmD7xY3
1480757655
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480757655

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480757655
Reply with quote  #2

1480757655
Report to moderator
1480757655
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480757655

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480757655
Reply with quote  #2

1480757655
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480757655
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480757655

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480757655
Reply with quote  #2

1480757655
Report to moderator
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316

Armory Developer


View Profile
June 01, 2011, 11:58:04 PM
 #2

Libertarians also do not make enough of a point that there is a dangerous kind of capitalist, the ones who are willing to manipulate legislation to their benefit.

It's because these people aren't, per say, capitalists. Capitalism is based on the right to private property. The people you describe are corporatist. They don't care 2 seconds for private property simply because they can bypass it thanks to the privileges they receive from the government. You might consider that this argument in semantics doesn't hold enough weight in the face of the global issues at hand to be made, but some think on the other hand that rigorous semantics are a necessary part of understanding and fixing issues such as this one.

btcarmory.com
abyssobenthonic
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
June 02, 2011, 12:13:30 AM
 #3

You seem to have the persistent misunderstanding common among many of a generally leftist persuasion as to what exactly "limited liability" means.  All it means is that the simple act of being a shareholder in a corporation does not by itself open you to liability for what the corporation did (the operative theory being that you as a shareholder don't have sufficient control over the micro-level doings of the corporation).  It does not mean that the corporation, its officers, and employees have any limits on their liability for the actions of the corporation or its agents.

14wSP6EF4RQ1wW2wcgGi9tDh6MB6tQm3sg
Fleembit
Newbie
*
Online Online

Activity: 11


View Profile
June 02, 2011, 01:10:31 AM
 #4

Are you talking about Classical Liberalism or Social liberalism or the Liberal Party?
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
June 02, 2011, 03:50:30 AM
 #5

Libertarians also do not make enough of a point that there is a dangerous kind of capitalist, the ones who are willing to manipulate legislation to their benefit.

This whole issue is very easy to understand with the simple distinction of capitalism (properly understood free markets) and corporatism (which is what we have now). So long as those terms are respected and understood, it's easy to distinguish the good people and organizations from the bad ones.

And in a free society, "corporations" broadly speaking would still exist. Their liabilities would be limited via insurance as opposed to government. So, entrepreneurs could take risks without worrying about financial ruin, and anyone hurt by the entrepreneur could be compensated by the insurance fund.

And it'll all be done with Bitcoins =)
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
June 02, 2011, 04:31:06 AM
 #6

Fascism would be a better word for the system than corporatism.  Except that people get all worked up over the petty tyrannies of the Fascist Party in Italy and think of them, rather than the major tyrannies that it really represents.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
fellowtraveler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
June 04, 2011, 07:46:50 AM
 #7

Corporations are not a feature of a truly free society. Corporations provide limited liabilities to the individuals who run them. Limited liabilities are rights granted by government, it is not inherent in free-market capitalism. It is in fact opposed to it. So please stop referring to the evils corporations commit due to limited liability and calling it the results of the free market. Libertarians HATE the idea that a corporation can be let off the hook by a government judge or legislation for damage to the property, lives and health of others.

Please compare these scenarios:

(A) Alice and Bob are partners in a cattle business. They round up the cattle themselves, and slaughter the cattle themselves, and they split the profits.  One day, their cattle get into the road and there is a car accident. Who is negligent?  The answer:  Alice and Bob.

(B) Alice and Bob decide to invest some money in a cattle business, which they do, and they hire a cattle-man up in Montana to take care of their ranch, and to handle all the work and responsibilities related to their cattle. One day, their cattle get into the road and there is a car accident. Who is negligent?

THE ANSWER IS: The cattle-man is primarily responsible, NOT Alice and Bob. (And the MORE involved they get in their own business, versus hiring someone to do it on their behalf, the more directly responsible they would become for its actions, and thus the more liable they could be found in court.)

If Pepsi Corporation is found committing some crime, it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold the stockholders liable instead of the management. The liability properly falls to management; in fact, that is what they're being paid for! (To take on the responsibility and liability for the organization.)

If shareholders were not able to safely invest their money without being exposed to great liabilities, then certainly the level of investment overall in our economy would drop! No one wants to expose himself to liabilities for acts he hasn't even committed. Instead he'll choose not to invest in that business.

I think you'll find that the general differences between the various corporate structures, in terms of how they place liability, etc is a result of these very real pressures in our society, that are a natural result of the right to free association.

--------

Where Corporations become abusive, is not because courts allow investors to have separation from personal liability. Rather, the abuse comes into play as the entire tax-and-incentive system becomes skewed, pebble-by-pebble, in favor of those who lobby Congress to structure a system that infringes upon our liberties. (Including our right to free association.) Over time that system is what results in a fascist marriage between the government and the corporations that grow up around it. It is not property rights that does this, but the lack of them.

— The real cost we pay is in terms of our rights and freedoms, as the income tax is then used to shape our behavior by way of the penalties, incentives, and deductions that are built into the system. Designed, of course, by lawyers and lobbyists for powerful corporations, passed by Congress, and imposed upon you, and your parents, and your children — all in order to shape your behavior, and to structure the system so that working for one of those corporations is the only way you can afford to pay your bills.

— The hidden tax of inflation, especially on our poor and elderly.

— The high personal cost of the federal income tax, which just barely covers the amount of our interest payments on the national debt. (No, it doesn’t pay for any of our government services...)

— The national debt itself, which presumably must be defaulted on at some point, or inflated away, in either case devastating the savings of our elderly and forcing them to rely more on taxpayers for their medical and other care. This will unfortunately drive a cultural attitude of resentment towards the elderly, when previously they were the ones with the most resources (and wisdom) in any family.

— While women are a great benefit and value to the workforce, the fact remains that many of them only work because they have to, not because they desire to. This is because the cost of living is so high, due to the income tax and its secondary effects on the rest of the economy. Many do not realize that the high personal cost they pay every day, as their children are raised in government farms, is directly and solely in order to service the national debt.

— The cost we pay in terms of the wars that are financed by our national debt — wars that otherwise the powers that be would be unable to afford through direct taxation, yet now have foisted upon us to pay through the blood of our children, and the mortgaging of their future to the banks.

— The cost we pay in terms of having a monopoly banking system, which has control over our money supply, the life’s blood of our economy! We all know that banks are bureaucratic and slow, and frustrating — it’s because they have a monopoly! And our economy pays the price of having a monopoly banking system, just as the Soviet Union paid the price for central planning, and just as ordinary, hard-working German citizens paid the price during the Weimar Inflation, when all of their savings was stolen from them by an elite — eventually leading to the rise of the Nazi party.

— The cost we pay in terms of the Great Depressions that are cyclically brought upon our nation through the misallocations that are consequential to the mistake of allowing a central committee of corrupt bankers to have direct spending access to everyone’s savings and retirement.

— The cost we pay in our general standard-of-living, while our children are raised in government schools and by MTV: because we are all too busy working (with no vacation), as the infrastructure of our once-great nation crumbles all around us, along with her culture. Anyone can see the roads have potholes after a rain. Will today’s Western Man, having grown dull and fat amidst all his luxury, awake to find the Empire of the West has crumbled around him along with its morals? Do not the other nations have the same access to western economic knowledge and theories of government to become as powerful as we? Do we think that we are so much better than other people, such that living in less luxurious circumstances than we are currently accustomed is somehow outside of the bounds of our potential future?

— The cost we pay in terms of our personal security, and that of our women and children, as our economy declines and our military might necessarily declines with it. (And as the decline in culture and economy leads to higher costs of blood and treasure due to increases in crime, as happened to Argentina in 2001 when she ceased to be the tenth richest nation in the world, and instead became a place where families had to eat out of garbage cans.)

— The cost we pay as we age, and are forced into government-hospital-projects, and government-elderly-care-and-quality-of-life-facilities, and as our children are funneled into government “employment opportunities” building dams, nation-building, UN patrolling, ditch digging, driving trucks and burying bodies for Uncle Sam, because the economy sucks so bad that no one can get a normal job or start a company anymore–because the institutions that once acted as our agents protecting our freedoms, with one-representative-per-every-30,000 people–with every neighborhood having a voice–have instead become tentacled abusive nightmares, answering only to bankers, large corporations, government employees unions, and sporadic voter anger.

— The cost we paid in terms of our skill-sets, competitiveness, education, and off-shored industry, as a result of being allowed to grow dull and fat through several decades of economic misallocation by way of the world’s use of dollars as a reserve currency. They sent us their microwaves, their automobiles, their minerals, and their agriculture, while they starved and worked in slave mills, in return for worthless paper dollars, while we sat around playing video games and flipping real-estate, jumping from bubble to bubble like drunken fools, laughing at the worry of our grandparents towards our generation.

Well, they say that in a downturn, money returns to its rightful owner — a lesson we are likely to learn at the hands of China.

The-powers-that-be want half of us to blame the "welfare recipients" while the other half blame the "corporations" meanwhile we are voting for the same two parties, and carrying the same tainted money around in our pockets.

Is it already too late for the West?

co-founder, Monetas
creator, Open-Transactions
FoolOnTheHill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6


View Profile
June 05, 2011, 02:28:28 PM
 #8

Fascism would be a better word for the system than corporatism.  Except that people get all worked up over the petty tyrannies of the Fascist Party in Italy and think of them, rather than the major tyrannies that it really represents.
Corporatism was Mussolini's term, and it does seem accurate from a descriptive point of view. But I see the current system in the US Police State more of a type of neo-fascism, as the people behind the scenes could not care less about the sovereignty of the US or any other nation, just their ability to totally control and profit from their slaves, the rest of us.  In historic fascism nationalism was a key feature, but there was a more subtle feature of empire-building.  With the proclaimed NWO, that latter feature is becoming more prominent, thus the term neo-fascism.

The false left-right political dichotomy is just a distraction, just a means of divide-and-conquer.  I don't think that real capitalism exists anymore (except on a small scale among the endangered entrepreneurs, small business folk), just some form of perverted monopoly- or duopoly capitalism.  And socialism was always a joke, a means of suckering certain people in society into thinking they would get something for nothing. So I think that the Bitcoin movement could contribute to a new and more honest means of exchanging our energies and building a more honest and effective society.
nostrum
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65


View Profile
June 07, 2011, 12:55:48 AM
 #9

I am liberal, but I am confused regarding the intent and meaning of your post.

Im trying to understand, and I will try do make a guess:
Are you suggesting that, because my views are liberal, I believe that Bill Gates (and people like him) is directly influencing global or local poverty? Maybe my answer is yes, but not necessarily the way you think.

If you always think in categories you will miss the bigger picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public GPG: 04351826
Sjalq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile WWW
June 07, 2011, 02:36:12 AM
 #10

I am liberal, but I am confused regarding the intent and meaning of your post.

Im trying to understand, and I will try do make a guess:
Are you suggesting that, because my views are liberal, I believe that Bill Gates (and people like him) is directly influencing global or local poverty? Maybe my answer is yes, but not necessarily the way you think.

do you?

Cheesy mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Cheesy
*Image Removed*
18WMxaHsxx6FuvbQbeA33UZud1bnmD7xY3
nostrum
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65


View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:45:53 AM
 #11

do you?

Yes, but I dont see what that has to do with my liberal views.
Bill Gates influences poverty when he:
-donates to charity.
-create jobs.
-create technology.
-creates monopolies.
-is involved in corruption.
-ect ect.

So I have to ask again. What are you trying to tell me?

If you always think in categories you will miss the bigger picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public GPG: 04351826
shrikeX
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 08:52:38 AM
 #12

Thanks. Usually when I head something marked for "Liberals" I regret it.
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


Agorist


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 05:38:57 AM
 #13

Bill Gates is a patent monopolist; a beneficiary of the ruling elite, and hence a member of the political class. Bad example.  Tongue

In general, I am a big fan of Agorist Class Theory and recommend it often.

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
Sjalq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 06:39:55 AM
 #14

Bill Gates is a patent monopolist; a beneficiary of the ruling elite, and hence a member of the political class. Bad example.  Tongue

In general, I am a big fan of Agorist Class Theory and recommend it often.

LOL true, but even he doesn't qualify for what liberals accuse most of the rich of Wink

Cheesy mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Cheesy
*Image Removed*
18WMxaHsxx6FuvbQbeA33UZud1bnmD7xY3
nostrum
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 07:45:25 AM
 #15

LOL true, but even he doesn't qualify for what liberals accuse most of the rich of Wink

What is your definition of liberals?

If you always think in categories you will miss the bigger picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public GPG: 04351826
Sjalq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 07:47:52 AM
 #16

liberals: more than one liberal Wink

Cheesy mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Cheesy
*Image Removed*
18WMxaHsxx6FuvbQbeA33UZud1bnmD7xY3
nostrum
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 09:02:09 AM
 #17

What is you definition of liberal then?  Roll Eyes

If you always think in categories you will miss the bigger picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public GPG: 04351826
Sjalq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 10:56:00 PM
 #18

Robin Hood was a liberal, he was well off himself but took from the rich (indiscriminately but on the basis of valid abuses by some) and gave to the poor while wanting special privileges for maids and merry men.

lol, no offence meant by that one, just had to make that joke Cheesy

But seriously in this context I mean those who believe that being rich in and of itself is grounds to justify taking that wealth and redistributing it.

Cheesy mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Cheesy
*Image Removed*
18WMxaHsxx6FuvbQbeA33UZud1bnmD7xY3
nostrum
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 11:02:20 PM
 #19

In that case, is it not better to make up a new word for that political standpoint instead of making up a new definition for a word that already has one?

If you always think in categories you will miss the bigger picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public GPG: 04351826
Sjalq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 11:10:21 PM
 #20

Charity used to mean love, left used to refer to those seated on the left of the French house, liberal used to mean quite libertarian, unfortunately it happens. Semantics aside, where do you stand on the issue of the basis of having wealth as a reason to be taxed more?

Cheesy mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Cheesy
*Image Removed*
18WMxaHsxx6FuvbQbeA33UZud1bnmD7xY3
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!