First Ayn Rand, now Hayek and Koch

[Doktor Howl]

To be honest, I think most of the current crop have forgotten about the "rational" part.

I don't see what they're bitching about, anyway.  We've been handing the fucking country over to rich people for 30 years now, and lemme tell ya, those corporations are doing a GREAT job of running the place.  We've fucked public schools, and then said they never worked, and that we should replace them with "school vouchers" so we can send our kids to something like Wal-Mart for their fucking education.

We've run our post office into the ground, cancelled manned space flight, taken up torture as a hobby, and made it possible to let rich people make out like bandits by shipping all the jobs to Maylaysia...and, of course, the fact that nobody here can BUY anything, anymore, is simply a sign that they just haven't done it enough.

Fucking capitalists are utterly indistinguishable from communists, to anyone standing on the ground.  I fucking hate them with the fire of a thousand suns.

We don't practice anything even vaguely resembling capitalism, here. We've decided to change the definition of capitalism so that it matches corporatism, and so that rather then having the opportunity to profit from utilizing your resources at hand... your hands, your brain, your feet, and what you can make or grow... it means the opportunity to invest in stocks. That's it.

I wonder how many people know that "capitalism" didn't originally mean investing money in other people's work in order to profit? The fascinating thing is that the definition we use now came from Karl Marx, who reviled it.

Oh, the irony.

I sometimes wonder if the capitalists in Russia worry about Communist Unistat.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To be honest, I think most of the current crop have forgotten about the "rational" part.

I don't see what they're bitching about, anyway.  We've been handing the fucking country over to rich people for 30 years now, and lemme tell ya, those corporations are doing a GREAT job of running the place.  We've fucked public schools, and then said they never worked, and that we should replace them with "school vouchers" so we can send our kids to something like Wal-Mart for their fucking education.

We've run our post office into the ground, cancelled manned space flight, taken up torture as a hobby, and made it possible to let rich people make out like bandits by shipping all the jobs to Maylaysia...and, of course, the fact that nobody here can BUY anything, anymore, is simply a sign that they just haven't done it enough.

Fucking capitalists are utterly indistinguishable from communists, to anyone standing on the ground.  I fucking hate them with the fire of a thousand suns.

We don't practice anything even vaguely resembling capitalism, here. We've decided to change the definition of capitalism so that it matches corporatism, and so that rather then having the opportunity to profit from utilizing your resources at hand... your hands, your brain, your feet, and what you can make or grow... it means the opportunity to invest in stocks. That's it.

I wonder how many people know that "capitalism" didn't originally mean investing money in other people's work in order to profit? The fascinating thing is that the definition we use now came from Karl Marx, who reviled it.

Oh, the irony.

I sometimes wonder if the capitalists in Russia worry about Communist Unistat.

Just think of how lucky we are, to see this happening.

[Doktor Howl]

Just think of how lucky we are, to see this happening.

"Life imitates "

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.

[Doktor Howl]

I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.

We're bad people, Nigel.  We may as well get used to it.

[kingyak]

Dok, all i'm saying is that i'm not seeing, in plain terms, what the huge fucking flaw is.  
'ahhh hahaha!  you didn't want in on what you believe is a huge pyramid scheme, but now that you are forced to, you are getting back what you can from it!'

by saying that the places that don't have SSI have shitty infrastructure, kingyak is tying the two together.  although it doesn't explicitly say that not having SSI will lead to shitty infrastructure, it implies that the thinking required for the one leads to the other (which is why it appeared to me that he was packaging them), and i don't agree.
further, i'm not advocating any stance on infrastructure here.  we were only discussing SSI.

and, although i've mostly put my 'libertarian hat' in the closet these days, i would say that the response to your somalian free market comment is that a free market requires legal regulation by an impartial state to enforce contract, right?  conflating anarchy and the free market is disingenuous.  actually, you're right. there's no need for the same old song and dance on libertarianism, especially since i'm not advocating it.

Not trying to equate the two, just pointing out that they're typically closely related. You can probably find a place with good infrastructure and no safety net (Saipan, maybe?), but there are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population). If I could live in the magical fantasy land where the free market creates rainbows and unicorns or the Marxist utopia where redistribution allows everyone to have their own pony, I--well, actually, I'd probably skip both of those and live in Lankhmar are something, since it's equally attainable. Unfortunately, physical reality and societal expectations require me to spend the majority of my time in consensus reality.

And I realize that the Somalia comparison is a little disingenuous, but I don't think it's that much more disingenuous than the proposition that it's possible to have a stable and impartial government if the government only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property.

[Doktor Howl]

Not trying to equate the two, just pointing out that they're typically closely related. You can probably find a place with good infrastructure and no safety net (Saipan, maybe?), but there are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population). If I could live in the magical fantasy land where the free market creates rainbows and unicorns or the Marxist utopia where redistribution allows everyone to have their own pony, I--well, actually, I'd probably skip both of those and live in Lankhmar are something, since it's equally attainable. Unfortunately, physical reality and societal expectations require me to spend the majority of my time in consensus reality.

And I realize that the Somalia comparison is a little disingenuous, but I don't think it's that much more disingenuous than the proposition that it's possible to have a stable and impartial government if the government only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property.

Post of the fucking year.

[Elder Iptuous]

I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.

is this in reference to me? i'm the only one who (unsuccessfully  ) bowed out of this thread, and the only dissenting opinion afaict.
if so, i just wanted to say that i take no offense at debate like this. i just didn't want to further ruffle any feathers over this.
(and you can't get rid of me anyways.  i'm like hpv or something.  normally innocuous, but sometimes irritating, and perhaps somewhat embarrassing.  )

[Elder Iptuous]

kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.

could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?

[Doktor Howl]

kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.

could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?

Um, because the same people who don't care about old people starving to death don't care about peoples' rights?

[kingyak]

kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.

could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?

Not having SSI directly leads to a situation where the elderly can't afford to live, often through no fault of their own (imagine if social security would have been transferred to private savings accounts prior to 2008). In my opinion, that's a problem and a violation of basic human rights. It might be possible to construct a society that would take care of such people out of a sense of basic human decency, but observation of human nature and a quick look at, oh, roughly the entirety of human history suggests that it's just about as likely as vacationing in Gondor.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think we're almost at the part where someone tells us we're driving off new blood by not being nice.

is this in reference to me? i'm the only one who (unsuccessfully  ) bowed out of this thread, and the only dissenting opinion afaict.
if so, i just wanted to say that i take no offense at debate like this. i just didn't want to further ruffle any feathers over this.
(and you can't get rid of me anyways.  i'm like hpv or something.  normally innocuous, but sometimes irritating, and perhaps somewhat embarrassing.  )

Not referring to you at all, just a board trend that repeats itself once or twice a year. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

kingyak,
i fully concede the point that they are closely related.
i also fully concede that a govt. that only exists to enforce contracts and protect private property will not be stable.
no argument at all.

could you expand on why not having SSI would lead to a situation where there 'are going to be other problems (like an almost complete lack of human rights for the majority of the population)'?

Not having SSI directly leads to a situation where the elderly can't afford to live, often through no fault of their own (imagine if social security would have been transferred to private savings accounts prior to 2008). In my opinion, that's a problem and a violation of basic human rights. It might be possible to construct a society that would take care of such people out of a sense of basic human decency, but observation of human nature and a quick look at, oh, roughly the entirety of human history suggests that it's just about as likely as vacationing in Gondor.

I was about to say something like that, but you already did so I'll just agree.

[Triple Zero]

So the facts aren't good enough for you, eh? You believe the world operates on magical wishful utopian thinking, and not reality? 

Show me your free-market paradise, and then I'll concede that you might have a point beyond magickal Jesus and candle-lighting prophecy. Otherwise, it's as big a load of bunkum as vaccines causing autism.

Nigel, we are in agreement here.  there is no free-market paradise.  i don't think that it's possible, and i'm not advocating it.
My only stance in this thread is that laughing at these guys for benefiting from a system that they argued against doesn't make sense to me.

I get your point and was just about to argue it, but then as I was trying to, well there's principles involved. And the fact is, these people are wrong. They're wrong about not wanting to pay health insurance (Nigel's sociopath argument) and the rest doesn't really matter all that much. A good principled man might refuse it, but then these are not good principled men.

Like if you think the bio industry is wrong how they treat animals, you shouldn't eat meat produced by this bio industry.

Like if you think child labour is wrong, you shouldn't buy brands that employ child labour.

Like if you think the rare "blood metals" mined in slavery in the Congo and other parts of Africa are wrong, you shouldn't use a mobile phone or electronic gadget.



I get your point though. Being a good person is hard.

[Elder Iptuous]

kingyak,  I can see your point.  it is undeniable that having SSI allows for elderly to live or live better than they would without it, and although it doesn't necessarily follow that not having SSI leads to the opposite situation if you allow for a different system of protection, i would agree that simply relying on the generosity of neighbors doesn't cut the mustard.  you're right, it never has, and likely never would, and just wishing it would be that way, and basing policy on the fact that it should be that way would certainly lead to unfortunate circumstances for innocent people.