Yahoo pushes idea of white, male, heterosexual, and non-disabled privilege..

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Klaw
Source.

Old Man Whirly!
Originally posted by Klaw
Source. And thus triggers you why Eon?

Klaw
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
And thus triggers you why Eon?

There's no such thing as privilege.

cdtm
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
And thus triggers you why Eon?

On the surface, nothing.

Finding out a lot underhanded politics are done, under the cover of social responsibilities. Non profits, comptrollers, essentially exploitation and profiting abusing laws designed to protect people.

I mean, I realize graft and corruption are a way of life, I just get irritated when well meaning laws get abused.

Klaw
cdtm goes off on tangents.

cdtm
Originally posted by Klaw
cdtm goes off on tangents.

Takes one to know one. thumb up

Klaw
Originally posted by cdtm
Takes one to know one. thumb up

I'm cosine myself.

ilikecomics
The idenitarian bs is a grift put forward by the media-military industrial complex to distract the fiery and fervent energy of the youth.

Occupy wallstreet was originally targeting the billionaires getting welfare, then less than a year later the vocal left is worried about who wins the oppression olympics.

Coincidence ?

cdtm
Not at all.

Occupy is the only movement that would have hurt the one percent. Black lives matter, feminism, lgbtq, how does any of that really affect the people sitting on the top of the mountain?

They could care less who makes up their employee roster.

It's all demographics to sell shit to.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by cdtm
Not at all.

Occupy is the only movement that would have hurt the one percent. Black lives matter, feminism, lgbtq, how does any of that really affect the people sitting on the top of the mountain?

They could care less who makes up their employee roster.

It's all demographics to sell shit to.

cool cool

Hell yeah.

Scribble

ilikecomics
@scribble

Great post.

Q: what do you think capitalism is ?

Scribble
Originally posted by ilikecomics
@scribble

Great post.

Q: what do you think capitalism is ? There's too much to fully go into just on this topic, but I'll give it a shot!

To me, Capitalism is the current ruling social and economic system / ideology. Almost all prominent modern Western(-American) perspectives are founded in capitalism, from the idea of 'rugged individualism', to how we view life through the lens of selling our labour (and having it exploited), the narrative that 'anybody can succeed if they work hard', to how we view ownership and property, etc.

It's a system that tells us that anyone can become rich and successful whilst operating in a manner that relies on and ensures most people remain underprivileged, ruled over by a class of powerful (wealthy) elites.

"From where you're kneeling it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck.
Truth is... the game was rigged from the start." (Fallout New Vegas, lol)

It's essentially manifested most prominently today as a network of intersecting power groups (corporations, governments, militaries, think-tanks, etc.), centred around gaining Capital in all its forms (economic, social, political, etc.) on a global scale. The military-industrial complex as you mentioned is also of course a major aspect of it and is a topic of its own.


I think capitalism was perhaps at first a step up from previous feudal and aristocratic systems, but in the end it's basically the same thing and relies on a Master-Slave dynamic, and is fast becoming unsustainable as power and resources continue to fall into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people.


Obviously I haven't really done the question its full justice there, but I think it gets across the rough idea of what I'm talking about. I've also probably forgotten something important, but it is only 9am here, lol

Adam_PoE

Scribble
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nonsense. Capitalism creates income inequality, not social injustice. In a capitalist system, a black man and a white with the same wealth should be equal. But wealthy black men are regularly harassed by police while driving their own cars and entering their own homes. Capitalism is not responsible for that, bigotry is, and class does not insulate one from that.

And corporations only hold social influence, because consumers have more of a direct influence on corporations than voters do on elected officials. In fact, when the government prohibited same-sex marriage, it was corporations that extended them spousal benefits, and used their influence to change the laws. So it was corporations and capitalism actually solving a social injusice, not creating one to divide the underclasses and consolidate their own power. It is such a one-dimensional leftist perspective to reduce everything to class struggle. Sorry, I have no reason or desire to speak to you, Adam. You argue in bad faith, have consistently treated me like shit and harassed me, and once purposefully tried to induce me into a mental breakdown simply because you don't like me. Go spin on a dick, chuck.


And tbh, your post is so idiotic that it doesn't deserve a response anyway. Go read some theory, lmao.

Artol
Originally posted by Klaw
There's no such thing as privilege.

What do you think the definition of "privilege" is from the point of view of people who use the concept?

Klaw
Originally posted by Artol
What do you think the definition of "privilege" is from the point of view of people who use the concept?

Privilege is a a term used by the Left.

I think they mean that your immutable characteristics (sex, skin color etc) give people advantages those with differing characteristics don't have.

I disagree with that.

Klaw
Capitalism does not create income inequality, people do.

Artol
Originally posted by Klaw
Privilege is a a term used by the Left.

I think they mean that your immutable characteristics (sex, skin color etc) give people advantages those with differing characteristics don't have.

I disagree with that.

You even agree that in the case of disabled people? It feels almost self evident that people who are not disabled have clear advantages. Things like the Americans with Disabilities Act are designed to make some of these disadvantages less harsh to bear.


You really don't think that in some cultures some social groups have advantages that others do not, or just that in Canada there's none of these?

Klaw
Originally posted by Artol
You even agree that in the case of disabled people? It feels almost self evident that people who are not disabled have clear advantages. Things like the Americans with Disabilities Act are designed to make some of these disadvantages less harsh to bear.


You really don't think that in some cultures some social groups have advantages that others do not, or just that in Canada there's none of these?

Describe these advantages that non disabled have over disabled.

I don't think your race, or sex gives you advantages, no.

Newjak
Originally posted by Klaw
Describe these advantages that non disabled have over disabled.

I don't think your race, or sex gives you advantages, no. The problem is that just because you don't think race or gender give disadvantages or advantages doesn't mean it's not the case.

In short minority candidates find more success in getting interviews for jobs when they don't show their race anywhere on there resume.

This is in line with other studies that showed even having a ethnic name on resume would make it less likely for that person to get a call back.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/why-minority-job-applicants-mask-their-race-identities-when-applying-for-jobs-according-to-this-harvard-study.html

Artol
Originally posted by Klaw
Describe these advantages that non disabled have over disabled.

I don't think your race, or sex gives you advantages, no.

Well, like a seeing person can see for example. Or like a different example, a blind person might not be able to read a letter that the local government sends them. Something like that.

Do you think your race gave you advantages in the United States before the repeal of "separate but equal"?

Klaw
Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that just because you don't think race or gender give disadvantages or advantages doesn't mean it's not the case.

In short minority candidates find more success in getting interviews for jobs when they don't show their race anywhere on there resume.

This is in line with other studies that showed even having a ethnic name on resume would make it less likely for that person to get a call back.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/why-minority-job-applicants-mask-their-race-identities-when-applying-for-jobs-according-to-this-harvard-study.html

I've seen this before and it definitely reeks of racism.

And I'm sure white people with foreign sounding names get the same treatment?

Originally posted by Artol
Well, like a seeing person can see for example. Or like a different example, a blind person might not be able to read a letter that the local government sends them. Something like that.

Do you think your race gave you advantages in the United States before the repeal of "separate but equal"?

Your example is not about privilege so much as it is a limitation of a person.

I live in Canada, and I don't feel wither privileged or oppressed.

Scribble
Originally posted by Klaw
Your example is not about privilege so much as it is a limitation of a person.

I live in Canada, and I don't feel wither privileged or oppressed. Privilege:

- A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.


...How is sight not a privilege to a seeing person?


You probably don't recognise your privileges because you haven't experienced disadvantages from being in a minority group (I'm assuming here, let me know if I'm wrong). Thus it's harder to understand how someone in a minority group might be affected by their status in society.

(Note: I'm not altogether happy with how the notion of 'privilege' is handled in left-wing circles, but there are other stances to take than just not believing in it at all.)

cdtm
Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that just because you don't think race or gender give disadvantages or advantages doesn't mean it's not the case.

In short minority candidates find more success in getting interviews for jobs when they don't show their race anywhere on there resume.

This is in line with other studies that showed even having a ethnic name on resume would make it less likely for that person to get a call back.

https://www.inc.com/marcel-schwantes/why-minority-job-applicants-mask-their-race-identities-when-applying-for-jobs-according-to-this-harvard-study.html

Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.


The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.


Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice.

Newjak
Originally posted by cdtm
Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.


The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.


Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice. So you shouldn't address the problem that minorities have disadvantages placed on them from a systemic racism problem?

Klaw
Originally posted by cdtm
Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.


The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.


Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice.

thumb up

Klaw
Originally posted by Scribble
Privilege:

- A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.


...How is sight not a privilege to a seeing person?


You probably don't recognise your privileges because you haven't experienced disadvantages from being in a minority group (I'm assuming here, let me know if I'm wrong). Thus it's harder to understand how someone in a minority group might be affected by their status in society.

(Note: I'm not altogether happy with how the notion of 'privilege' is handled in left-wing circles, but there are other stances to take than just not believing in it at all.)

When the Left talks about privilege, they're talking white, male hetero etc.

That's what I'm disputing.

Scribble
Originally posted by Klaw
When the Left talks about privilege, they're talking white, male hetero etc.

That's what I'm disputing. I'd say there's still a degree of 'privilege' to being white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, but I really dislike the slow process of demonisation that is going on with it. I'm much more focused on class than further intersectional stuff.

But as I said before, I think that much of it stems from a system that is designed to thrive on lower classes fighting amongst themselves whilst giving evermore power to corporations.

Newjak
Originally posted by Scribble
I'd say there's still a degree of 'privilege' to being white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, but I really dislike the slow process of demonisation that is going on with it. I'm much more focused on class than further intersectional stuff.

But as I said before, I think that much of it stems from a system that is designed to thrive on lower classes fighting amongst themselves whilst giving evermore power to corporations. I can agree with most of this. I do think the causes of modern day issues would solved with more across the board updates to our system and how the lower class is treated and limiting the upper the class as well. What would help a lower class black family would likely help all lower class people. For standards of equality in our minimum wage, universal healthcare, greatly reduced college debt, and more oversight into fair bank loan rates for everyone.

For me it is hard to ignore that these lower class burdens, through systemic racisms, still plague minorities in our country more.

Where I think systemic racism will get taken care of more is an overhaul to the justice system in our country.

Scribble
Originally posted by Newjak
I can agree with most of this. I do think the causes of modern day issues would solved with more across the board updates to our system and how the lower class is treated and limiting the upper the class as well. What would help a lower class black family would likely help all lower class people. For standards of equality in our minimum wage, universal healthcare, greatly reduced college debt, and more oversight into fair bank loan rates for everyone.

For me it is hard to ignore that these lower class burdens, through systemic racisms, still plague minorities in our country more.

Where I think systemic racism will get taken care of more is an overhaul to the justice system in our country. Yeah, America needs a couple of really important overhauls for its system to become functional for all non-economic classes. I'd say they'd be: Marijuana (and preferably all drugs) legalisation; state prisons only (no free prison labour for private enterprises); some form of workable national healthcare.

The thing about 'systemic racism' that its naysayers don't understand is that even if everybody in the US magically stopped being racist at once, many structural problems would still effect minority groups more on average than they would majority groups. I've always assumed that is what is meant by systemic racism: the system itself is 'racist', so to speak.

Even though I am a pessimist who does not believe that any real good can come of the current system — at the moment fighting for "equal rights" feels like fighting for an equal share of table scraps and breadcrumbs — there are still plenty of specific legislative battles that can be fought to make life better for the disadvantaged.


Honestly, America seems more like a form of Capitalist Feudalism to me than anything else. The 'bright side' is that capitalism is by its very nature (proudly) unsustainable, and so is destined to eventually collapse. That said, I still don't think there's much long-term hope for humanity, and the planet, unless the capitalist model collapses sooner rather than later. There is great damage being done economically, socially, not to mention ecologically, and not all of it will be able to be repaired.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Scribble
There's too much to fully go into just on this topic, but I'll give it a shot!

To me, Capitalism is the current ruling social and economic system / ideology. Almost all prominent modern Western(-American) perspectives are founded in capitalism, from the idea of 'rugged individualism', to how we view life through the lens of selling our labour (and having it exploited), the narrative that 'anybody can succeed if they work hard', to how we view ownership and property, etc.

It's a system that tells us that anyone can become rich and successful whilst operating in a manner that relies on and ensures most people remain underprivileged, ruled over by a class of powerful (wealthy) elites.

"From where you're kneeling it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck.
Truth is... the game was rigged from the start." (Fallout New Vegas, lol)

It's essentially manifested most prominently today as a network of intersecting power groups (corporations, governments, militaries, think-tanks, etc.), centred around gaining Capital in all its forms (economic, social, political, etc.) on a global scale. The military-industrial complex as you mentioned is also of course a major aspect of it and is a topic of its own.


I think capitalism was perhaps at first a step up from previous feudal and aristocratic systems, but in the end it's basically the same thing and relies on a Master-Slave dynamic, and is fast becoming unsustainable as power and resources continue to fall into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people.


Obviously I haven't really done the question its full justice there, but I think it gets across the rough idea of what I'm talking about. I've also probably forgotten something important, but it is only 9am here, lol

I'm glad I asked you ! You're right on most of it except conflating corporatism/crony capitalism/state capitalism/fascism.

Here is the definition I find is best and excludes everything except an entity providing value to another entity.

The conflation between a free market and crony cap is why all the anti capitalistic zeal exists. To me it was a clever bait and switch via the corporations that only exist as a result of the unlimited power of the state.

Newjak
Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, America needs a couple of really important overhauls for its system to become functional for all non-economic classes. I'd say they'd be: Marijuana (and preferably all drugs) legalisation; state prisons only (no free prison labour for private enterprises); some form of workable national healthcare.

The thing about 'systemic racism' that its naysayers don't understand is that even if everybody in the US magically stopped being racist at once, many structural problems would still effect minority groups more on average than they would majority groups. I've always assumed that is what is meant by systemic racism: the system itself is 'racist', so to speak.

Even though I am a pessimist who does not believe that any real good can come of the current system — at the moment fighting for "equal rights" feels like fighting for an equal share of table scraps and breadcrumbs — there are still plenty of specific legislative battles that can be fought to make life better for the disadvantaged.


Honestly, America seems more like a form of Capitalist Feudalism to me than anything else. The 'bright side' is that capitalism is by its very nature (proudly) unsustainable, and so is destined to eventually collapse. That said, I still don't think there's much long-term hope for humanity, and the planet, unless the capitalist model collapses sooner rather than later. There is great damage being done economically, socially, not to mention ecologically, and not all of it will be able to be repaired. I agree on your point about capitalism collapsing to save the planet. At least definitely the version that exists in modern day America.

It is unsustainable by the very nature that we currently bound to a finite world that we can't live without yet are constantly taking more from.

The only way I see some semblance of modern society and standards surviving is through a lot of the legislative points you and I are making and people taking on a responsible standard of living willingly.

That way the average person is less in raw self survival mode and more into save the species mode. Enforcing concepts like it's okay to not have children or only one or two children through more funding into things like Planned Parenthood. Basically going into a status of of advancement within our current confines. Reducing the number of products made every year. Making sure whatever we do take we rebuild before taking it again. Allowing nature to exist without us constantly asking if we can convert it for our own pleasure.

I think if these don't happen people will start to see their 'freedoms' erode more and more over time when it becomes clear it's that or the planet dies.

ilikecomics
Here's a definition of privilege.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-privilege/

Robtard
Originally posted by Klaw
There's no such thing as privilege.

This is very wrong. Privilege does exist in just about every society, if not all, Could be because of your skin tone, please of birth, religion, wealth, class, sex, physical ability etc.

ilikecomics

Trocity
Non-disabled privilege lmao.

Do black people have a certain level of privilege over whites because we are largely better athletes? Makes it easier for us to go pro in sports and makes millions of dollars.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Trocity
Non-disabled privilege lmao.

Do black people have a certain level of privilege over whites because we are largely better athletes? Makes it easier for us to go pro in sports and makes millions of dollars.

I'm going to post as a lefty

No because blacks were bred during slavery to be more athletic, therefore their supremacy in sports was a specialized pre determined niche, developed with supremacist eugenics.
This means blacks will focus on professional sports, a vocation that is the one of the most competitive in the world, which ensures only a tiny fraction of the black population will be successful. Many professional athletes also don't do very well after they retire.
The professional athletes are then tokenized as a beacon of potential they can aspire to, which takes the focus off of the white man's further clandestine machinations. A sort of mythology that is aspirational, this room for ostensible upward mobility keeps them for revolution.

Thus, examples of black people doing well isn't proof that blacks have real upward mobility; it is in fact proof that white supremacy runs deeper than we ever could imagine.

Klaw
Originally posted by Robtard
This is very wrong. Privilege does exist in just about every society, if not all, Could be because of your skin tone, please of birth, religion, wealth, class, sex, physical ability etc.

I disagree.

Everyone has their own story and we have no idea what their struggles have been.

So in that case, I choose to believe in their choices and hard work unless evidence shows the opposite.

Robtard
Originally posted by Klaw
I disagree.

Everyone has their own story and we have no idea what their struggles have been.

So in that case, I choose to believe in their choices and hard work unless evidence shows the opposite.

Your platitudes don't alter reality. You can be wrong though.

cdtm
Originally posted by Newjak
So you shouldn't address the problem that minorities have disadvantages placed on them from a systemic racism problem?

Not by quota, no. There's simply no way to balance the scales in a fair and impartial way.

Yale's controversy over asian applicants came about because of quota's.

ilikecomics
Is the divide between the believers of privilege and people who don't think privilege is a legitimate construct is because the lens each side is looking through ?

The people who endorse the idea of privilege seem to think more on an aggregate/collectivistic level, whereas the people who don't endorse it as a construct are looking at things on an individual level ?

It's easy for an anti privilege person to say they know a poor white guy, therefore privilege is a bad metric, when someone endorsing the idea of privilege say whites have privilege.

Personally, everything i believe is underpinned by individualism - from my views on economics, to interpersonal relationships, therefore I think the idea of privilege is a very unsophisticated heuristic for judging anything.

Thoughts ?

ilikecomics
Originally posted by cdtm
Not by quota, no. There's simply no way to balance the scales in a fair and impartial way.

Yale's controversy over asian applicants came about because of quota's.

I mentioned this and the poverty of low expectations, but it was not addressed

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Is the divide between the believers of privilege and people who don't think privilege is a legitimate construct is because the lens each side is looking through ?

The people who endorse the idea of privilege seem to think more on an aggregate/collectivistic level, whereas the people who don't endorse it as a construct are looking at things on an individual level ?

It's easy for an anti privilege person to say they know a poor white guy, therefore privilege is a bad metric, when someone endorsing the idea of privilege say whites have privilege.

Personally, everything i believe is underpinned by individualism - from my views on economics, to interpersonal relationships, therefore I think the idea of privilege is a very unsophisticated heuristic for judging anything.

Thoughts ?

I think that is how it often plays out nowadays. If you are more inclined to look at processes on the level of systems you start to see differences in statistical treatment. People who think more collectivist may be more likely to look at certain aspects of human life in that way.

But I don't think it would be necessary, I think even someone with very deeply held individualistic believes can look at systemic treatment and then judge it more from the individual level.

To be honest if you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged they are really pretty similar narrative to those of real world oppression, in that Howard Roark and John Galt basically complain about the privileges that the stupid, incompetent and collectivist receive over them, and are willing to fight for their presumed rights that they derived from hyper-individualist thinking (through terrorism on the one hand and a labour strike on the other).

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I think that is how it often plays out nowadays. If you are more inclined to look at processes on the level of systems you start to see differences in statistical treatment. People who think more collectivist may be more likely to look at certain aspects of human life in that way.

But I don't think it would be necessary, I think even someone with very deeply held individualistic believes can look at systemic treatment and then judge it more from the individual level.

To be honest if you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged they are really pretty similar narrative to those of real world oppression, in that Howard Roark and John Galt basically complain about the privileges that the stupid, incompetent and collectivist receive over them, and are willing to fight for their presumed rights that they derived from hyper-individualist thinking (through terrorism on the one hand and a labour strike on the other).

Libertarians do think on a systemic level, which is why praxeology is a deductive science, like math or logic, and find that state interference is, on a system wide level, very detrimental to everyone but the political class, and their underlings aka the voters or companies who receive hand outs for keeping the political class in power.

The masses only have mob like power in a democratic system. Think two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

In a free market, every INDIVIDUAL is a sovereign consumer, thus their decisions are based on what provides the most value.

The entire point of both those books is to elevate the individual to the divine. If you do this everything works better on a systemic vlevel.

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Libertarians do think on a systemic level, which is why praxeology is a deductive science, like math or logic, and find that state interference is, on a system wide level, very detrimental to everyone but the political class, and their underlings aka the voters or companies who receive hand outs for keeping the political class in power.

The masses only have mob like power in a democratic system. Think two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

In a free market, every INDIVIDUAL is a sovereign consumer, thus their decisions are based on what provides the most value.

The entire point of both those books is to elevate the individual to the divine. If you do this everything works better on a systemic vlevel.

You hit on a lot of different points again. Imo, the state is often a vehicle of corruption, but it is also sometimes at tool that correct excessive market imbalances. I'm not an adherent of praxeology myself, I don't believe that it derives much of value for real world economics or sociology. At best a free market system can show what provides the most value in the current setting of imbalances, but like I discussed before, soon there would be group building that would curtail individual freedoms.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
You hit on a lot of different points again. Imo, the state is often a vehicle of corruption, but it is also sometimes at tool that correct excessive market imbalances. I'm not an adherent of praxeology myself, I don't believe that it derives much of value for real world economics or sociology. At best a free market system can show what provides the most value in the current setting of imbalances, but like I discussed before, soon there would be group building that would curtail individual freedoms.

... So you don't think humans create goals then seek to fulfill them ?

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
... So you don't think humans create goals then seek to fulfill them ?

That's not a controversial statement, basically all of social sciences is based in part on this. The question is what do you derive from that as a basis.

cdtm
Originally posted by Artol
I think that is how it often plays out nowadays. If you are more inclined to look at processes on the level of systems you start to see differences in statistical treatment. People who think more collectivist may be more likely to look at certain aspects of human life in that way.

But I don't think it would be necessary, I think even someone with very deeply held individualistic believes can look at systemic treatment and then judge it more from the individual level.

To be honest if you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged they are really pretty similar narrative to those of real world oppression, in that Howard Roark and John Galt basically complain about the privileges that the stupid, incompetent and collectivist receive over them, and are willing to fight for their presumed rights that they derived from hyper-individualist thinking (through terrorism on the one hand and a labour strike on the other).

Everyone thinks in terms of collectivism, until the find something hurts them personally. Then suddenly they become an individualist.

Artol
Originally posted by cdtm
Everyone thinks in terms of collectivism, until the find something hurts them personally. Then suddenly they become an individualist.

Sure, people are motivated by their own interests and desires. The interesting thing about communities and societies is that by working together and giving up some parts of your individual freedom the return can be much larger than if you solely act to your short term advantage in all situations.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Sure, people are motivated by their own interests and desires. The interesting thing about communities and societies is that by working together and giving up some parts of your individual freedom the return can be much larger than if you solely act to your short term advantage in all situations.

Yes, that's called the division of labor, but nothing about it involves giving up freedom. It has to do with factoring in the disutility of labor and deciding that's an okay variable, as it's much easier than taking on the risk of an entrepreneur. What you described is exactly what's called for under a free market.

Notice how you didn't say that people come together, then get bossed around by a government, then do really good.


P.s. https://mises.org/wire/division-labor-very-core-economic-growth

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Yes, that's called the division of labor, but nothing about it involves giving up freedom. It has to do with factoring in the disutility of labor and deciding that's an okay variable, as it's much easier than taking on the risk of an entrepreneur. What you described is exactly what's called for under a free market.

Notice how you didn't say that people come together, then get bossed around by a government, then do really good.


P.s. https://mises.org/wire/division-labor-very-core-economic-growth

I do agree that there should be more democratic control of how people are being ruled, and of course there should be strong structures to protect many individual rights, but I do think it makes sense for a community to require anyone within the community (or if you want in the community's area) to adhere to certain rules under the threat of some form of social of even physical repercussions.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I do agree that there should be more democratic control of how people are being ruled, and of course there should be strong structures to protect many individual rights, but I do think it makes sense for a community to require anyone within the community (or if you want in the community's area) to adhere to certain rules under the threat of some form of social of even physical repercussions.

Property rights is the inherent foundational structure that props up every other right and humans have them regardless of any document.

The constitution was written, not as the creation of property rights, but the codification of them. This made property rights into policy, transcending principle.

Communities always have and always will and should self govern. Sweden is a prime example of this.
I'm not opposed to rules or incentive structures.
I am opposed to incentive structures based on force, which is the case with the state.

In a sexual context this should make sense.
Mutual consent = free market
Rape = coercion of the state

In mutually consenting sexual encounters you don't get to do whatever you want, to draw this example to your community standards point, you have to follow rules or etiquette mutually agreed upon.
Therefore mutual consent sex encounters are an example of the market at work, there is no need for governmental interference in the bedroom, why do you think it should be any different in the economy ?

Artol
I see mere property rights as unjust, as they vastly privilege those who were born earlier and those who have through whatever means accumulated a lot of property. That's why I believe we have to have mechanisms to make the distribution of property (or wealth or capital, however you want to call it) more equal. I also think we need to work to create equal opportunities that the market mechanism are unable to provide.

I agree on the constitution, it was written to preserve the property rights of some of the American elites against their competition of some other American elites and English Colonial Interests. That is the case both for Southern Slave holders and Northern Merchants and Industrialists. It is a document designed to protect these elites from losing their status and from ensuring that those who do not have property, and the children of those that do not have property, do not threaten the interests of the ruling elite and their property.

All human interaction is in some way force. Force is a reality of human life, and we should decide which types of force we accept and which ones we do not accept, and what mechanisms we have to ensure that our values are preserved. I assume you are a proponent of the non-aggression principle? That is one way to decide which force you see as justified and which not, and that can certainly be part of a more complex set of rules that govern the forces guiding human life.

I don't see a "free market" as free of coercion. If all public land has been privatized, if your only option for survival is to sell your labor, that is not a free choice, that is a form of force, a form of coercion. If you want to get closer to a free market you should develop something that gives people similar amounts of bargaining power, that puts them in positions where they can really assert their own free will, rather than having a fake choice between doing what the more powerful actor demands or suffering immense consequences like starvation and death.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I see mere property rights as unjust, as they vastly privilege those who were born earlier and those who have through whatever means accumulated a lot of property. That's why I believe we have to have mechanisms to make the distribution of property (or wealth or capital, however you want to call it) more equal. I also think we need to work to create equal opportunities that the market mechanism are unable to provide.

I agree on the constitution, it was written to preserve the property rights of some of the American elites against their competition of some other American elites and English Colonial Interests. That is the case both for Southern Slave holders and Northern Merchants and Industrialists. It is a document designed to protect these elites from losing their status and from ensuring that those who do not have property, and the children of those that do not have property, do not threaten the interests of the ruling elite and their property.

All human interaction is in some way force. Force is a reality of human life, and we should decide which types of force we accept and which ones we do not accept, and what mechanisms we have to ensure that our values are preserved. I assume you are a proponent of the non-aggression principle? That is one way to decide which force you see as justified and which not, and that can certainly be part of a more complex set of rules that govern the forces guiding human life.

I don't see a "free market" as free of coercion. If all public land has been privatized, if your only option for survival is to sell your labor, that is not a free choice, that is a form of force, a form of coercion. If you want to get closer to a free market you should develop something that gives people similar amounts of bargaining power, that puts them in positions where they can really assert their own free will, rather than having a fake choice between doing what the more powerful actor demands or suffering immense consequences like starvation and death.

I really want to pull this apart slowly, define our terms/premises then go from there.

I think what I mean by property is different than what you mean. What is private property according to you ? I want to save the other stuff for later because it really matters if we can agree on what property is.

Great post btw.

Artol
In essence what I mean when saying property is the right of ownership and authority over an object, idea, entity or land.

So in terms of private property it may be the right to use, trade, and possibly destroy an object at ones own discretion.

It gets more complex of course, there are different extents of the rights associated with property, different mechanisms in which these rights are ensured, there are different ways ownership can work, on a individual level for example or a communal one. I am also an adherent of the distinction between private and personal property. But I hope as a basic working definition the one I gave gives some sense of what I mean.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
In essence what I mean when saying property is the right of ownership and authority over an object, idea, entity or land.

It gets more complex of course, there are different extends of the rights associated with property, different mechanisms in which these rights are ensured, there are different ways ownership can work, on a individual level for example or a communal one. I am also an adherent of the distinction between private and personal property. But I hope as a basic working definition the one I gave gives some sense of what I mean.

Does your definition of property rights extend to your body ? Because mine does.

P.s. rothbard said it better, as always

https://mises.org/wire/property-rights-and-human-rights

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Does your definition of property rights extend to your body ? Because mine does.

P.s. rothbard said it better, as always

https://mises.org/wire/property-rights-and-human-rights

I would say in some sense it does, but that the human body and mind goes beyond property rights in the value that it should receive, at least within my moral system.

Perhaps as an example, if you own a hammer you can trade this hammer to someone else and then they become the owner of this hammer, I don't think that it should be permitted to trade your body to someone else and become the property to another person. So I see the human body as a form of property imbued with some rights that go beyond the rights of other forms of property.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I would say in some sense it does, but that the human body and mind goes beyond property rights in the value that it should receive, at least within my moral system.

Perhaps as an example, if you own a hammer you can trade this hammer to someone else and then they become the owner of this hammer, I don't think that it should be permitted to trade your body to someone else and become the property to another person. So I see the human body as a form of property imbued with some rights that go beyond the rights of other forms of property.

So do you think bdsm is immoral ? Or indentured servitude ? Prostitution ?

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
So do you think bdsm is immoral ? Or indentured servitude ? Prostitution ?

I don't think BDSM is immoral. I do think indentured servitude is immoral. I think prostitution isn't inherently immoral but in practice often is.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I don't think BDSM is immoral. I do think indentured servitude is immoral. I think prostitution isn't inherently immoral but in practice often is.

Why isn't bdsm immoral to you ?

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why isn't bdsm immoral to you ?

Because it is a consensual practice that generally doesn't do long term harm to the participants. We can of course go into where it goes from BDSM to something that should not be permitted, or we can talk about how certain power imbalances can make it into a non-consensual activity and therefore immoral, but at the base of it I don't see why it should be immoral really.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Because it is a consensual practice that generally doesn't do long term harm to the participants. We can of course go into where it goes from BDSM to something that should not be permitted, or we can talk about how certain power imbalances can make it into a non-consensual activity and therefore immoral, but at the base of it I don't see why it should be immoral really.

Nonconsensual sexual interaction would immediately leave the definition and move to rape, no ?

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Nonconsensual sexual interaction would immediately leave the definition and move to rape, no ?

Yeah, but obviously there's some grey zones in the legal processes of that. Like it may be hard to establish what is coercive and what isn't. But that seems like a bit of a sideshow.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, but obviously there's some grey zones in the legal processes of that. Like it may be hard to establish what is coercive and what isn't. But that seems like a bit of a sideshow.

Hmm, maybe using combat sports would be better.

If two men agree to mutual combat, think mma, and one guy punches the other guy hard enough to kill him and he died, should he, assuming he followed all the rules, be charged for anything ?

The answer to me is a simple and obvious no, because mutual consent is given. This idea can only be propped up via taking for granted that property rights are absolute.

I thought as much was clear with bdsm, but maybe not.

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Hmm, maybe using combat sports would be better.

If two men agree to mutual combat, think mma, and one guy punches the other guy hard enough to kill him and he died, should he, assuming he followed all the rules, be charged for anything ?

The answer to me is a simple and obvious no, because mutual consent is given. This idea can only be propped up via taking for granted that property rights are absolute.

I thought as much was clear with bdsm, but maybe not.

If a combatant dies in a legal combat sport, and the opponent did not go too far as it had become apparent that the opponent was on the brink of death I do not think they should be charged. Similarly if the organizers took reasonable precautions to ensure such an outcome was very unlikely, I don't think they should be liable either, but cutting corners in some way or being dishonest in the communication might end to legal liability.

What I don't think should ever be legal is combat to the death. Or even certain combat sports with a very high likelihood of such an outcome.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
If a combatant dies in a legal combat sport, and the opponent did not go too far as it had become apparent that the opponent was on the brink of death I do not think they should be charged. Similarly if the organizers took reasonable precautions to ensure such an outcome was very unlikely, I don't think they should be liable either, but cutting corners in some way or being dishonest in the communication might end to legal liability.

What I don't think should ever be legal is combat to the death. Or even certain combat sports with a very high likelihood of such an outcome.

This is reasonable and I agree. Now where we may deviate is here: the legal liability would be dispensed by private arbitration as opposed to a state.

Your views on bodily autonomy and accountability seem reasonable and I think I have a firm grasp where you stand. I'm going to respond to the longer post tomorrow, after I gather some thoughts.

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
This is reasonable and I agree. Now where we may deviate is here: the legal liability would be dispensed by private arbitration as opposed to a state.

Your views on bodily autonomy and accountability seem reasonable and I think I have a firm grasp where you stand. I'm going to respond to the longer post tomorrow, after I gather some thoughts.

I don't mind private arbitration, but I think at some point if there are disagreements there must be a decision and an executing instance. Like if the wife of the fighter requests arbitration and the organizers deny it or do not comply with an arbitration agreement I think there should be an instance that can be appealed to that forces the compliance, and of course that mechanism should have some form of evaluating which claim to support, and then we are at least more or less at a state-like structure.

Scribble
Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'm glad I asked you ! You're right on most of it except conflating corporatism/crony capitalism/state capitalism/fascism.

Here is the definition I find is best and excludes everything except an entity providing value to another entity.

The conflation between a free market and crony cap is why all the anti capitalistic zeal exists. To me it was a clever bait and switch via the corporations that only exist as a result of the unlimited power of the state. Yeah, I use 'capitalism' as a catch-all because it accurately describes where corporatism etc. comes from. Capitalism as a system is designed to have smaller and smaller interest groups amass capital and become more powerful over time, so any capitalist system ends in corporatism, without exception, so they are indistinguishable to me.

A 'pure' capitalist system (a Randian anarcho-capitalism) is the worst option, as that directly results in a neo-feudal scenario where corporations can do as much horrific stuff as they like, and are unable to be protested as there is nobody to appeal to. So capitalism in its purest form is indistinguishable from feudalism or fascism, really.

A socialist market system is not capitalism as I do not think markets are inherently capitalist, as they existed before capitalism in many other forms of state. Capitalism is not just 'individualism', after all, it's a fairly modern conception and I don't think many people have much of an idea how it is designed to function. That's not to say I'm a socialist, though.

The one plus, as I said before, is that it is a system designed to collapse after it reaches terminal capacity.


As a bit of background to where I came to these conclusions: Up until basically this year / late last year I considered myself a 'capitalist' economically, I was more-or-less a 'capitalist realist' in that I couldn't see any other model working, despite still being a critic of the system. Through these Covid lockdowns I had time to see what was happening in the world, and examine my knowledge of capitalism through various Marxist and Post-Marxist lenses, and these are my conclusions. Economically I am not a naturally-inclined leftist, but more of an extremely jaded capitalist.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, I use 'capitalism' as a catch-all because it accurately describes where corporatism etc. comes from. Capitalism as a system is designed to have smaller and smaller interest groups amass capital and become more powerful over time, so any capitalist system ends in corporatism, without exception, so they are indistinguishable to me.

A 'pure' capitalist system (a Randian anarcho-capitalism) is the worst option, as that directly results in a neo-feudal scenario where corporations can do as much horrific stuff as they like, and are unable to be protested as there is nobody to appeal to. So capitalism in its purest form is indistinguishable from feudalism or fascism, really.

A socialist market system is not capitalism as I do not think markets are inherently capitalist, as they existed before capitalism in many other forms of state. Capitalism is not just 'individualism', after all, it's a fairly modern conception and I don't think many people have much of an idea how it is designed to function. That's not to say I'm a socialist, though.

The one plus, as I said before, is that it is a system designed to collapse after it reaches terminal capacity.


As a bit of background to where I came to these conclusions: Up until basically this year / late last year I considered myself a 'capitalist' economically, I was more-or-less a 'capitalist realist' in that I couldn't see any other model working, despite still being a critic of the system. Through these Covid lockdowns I had time to see what was happening in the world, and examine my knowledge of capitalism through various Marxist and Post-Marxist lenses, and these are my conclusions. Economically I am not a naturally-inclined leftist, but more of an extremely jaded capitalist.

So you're pro lockdown ?

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I don't mind private arbitration, but I think at some point if there are disagreements there must be a decision and an executing instance. Like if the wife of the fighter requests arbitration and the organizers deny it or do not comply with an arbitration agreement I think there should be an instance that can be appealed to that forces the compliance, and of course that mechanism should have some form of evaluating which claim to support, and then we are at least more or less at a state-like structure.

In a free market, there would be many many arbitration businesses and businesses that review things, think yelp, google reviews etc.

So if you had an org like ufc, they had a fighter die under negligence, then didn't take accountability, then people would watch someone else like dream or bellator.

Scribble
Originally posted by ilikecomics
So you're pro lockdown ? No. All lockdowns have achieved is to make the rich richer and poor poorer. Small businesses have tanked whilst the largest companies have consolidated their power and place in the market. Amazon is the most horrifying example. Plus also I just don't think social authoritarianism is moral (for the most part).

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Scribble
No. All lockdowns have achieved is to make the rich richer and poor poorer. Small businesses have tanked whilst the largest companies have consolidated their power and place in the market. Amazon is the most horrifying example. Plus also I just don't think social authoritarianism is moral (for the most part).

The lockdowns are an example of totalitarian control. The rich getting richer, as a result of welfare/subsidy, taking advantage of state policy etc, is part of my argument for a free market.

This would not have happened under a free market, as people in a free market can only become rich by providing value to customers.

P.s. your evaluation of what happened is spot on

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
In a free market, there would be many many arbitration businesses and businesses that review things, think yelp, google reviews etc.

So if you had an org like ufc, they had a fighter die under negligence, then didn't take accountability, then people would watch someone else like dream or bellator.

Yeah, I get that, I just don't think it is really realistic at the complexity of society we are talking about. People just don't have the time, access or ability to perfectly research, so people have to outsource some of that and have trust. It would be a similar problem we see now with investigative journalism and with whistleblowers, they often aren't heard at all or even actively attacked.

In the UFC example, I think it would be much more likely that most outlets (newspapers, rating agencies, etc,) would just not cover it, and then those outlets associated with UFC would drive a propaganda campaign (perhaps the fighter can be claimed to have been on drugs, or it was just an unrelated heart attack) that will convince many people, who don't have much skin in the game. And the momentum of having a giant powerful corporation will just carry it forth. I think it is pretty unlikely that anyone will switch from UFC because of that, I mean we all sort of know in what monstrous, sweat shops our clothes are made, but most of us still buy them anyways.

I do like the idea of the utopia that ancaps describe, I just don't think it would ever work out that way, and on the road to it we would be dismantling the few safeguards we have against the domination of a small minority of super wealthy.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Scribble
Sorry, I have no reason or desire to speak to you, Adam. You argue in bad faith, have consistently treated me like shit and harassed me, and once purposefully tried to induce me into a mental breakdown simply because you don't like me. Go spin on a dick, chuck.


And tbh, your post is so idiotic that it doesn't deserve a response anyway. Go read some theory, lmao.

That is a lot of words to say you cannot address the content of the post. Spare us the pity party.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by cdtm
Sure. Like a homely fat man will have less success then a guy built like a movie star.


The problem with trying to "fix" something like that, is you can't really do it without taking an opportunity away from someone else.


Maybe that black guy would have gotten more call backs if not for racism. That doesn't justify quota's, or points systems, for blacks. All that does is substitute a natural injustice for a man made injustice.

Wrong. Equality is not a zero sum game. Elevating people who are disadvantaged does not require lowering people who are not.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Is the divide between the believers of privilege and people who don't think privilege is a legitimate construct is because the lens each side is looking through ?

The people who endorse the idea of privilege seem to think more on an aggregate/collectivistic level, whereas the people who don't endorse it as a construct are looking at things on an individual level ?

It's easy for an anti privilege person to say they know a poor white guy, therefore privilege is a bad metric, when someone endorsing the idea of privilege say whites have privilege.

Personally, everything i believe is underpinned by individualism - from my views on economics, to interpersonal relationships, therefore I think the idea of privilege is a very unsophisticated heuristic for judging anything.

Thoughts ?

People who do not believe that priviledge exists are the same people who think the existence of an exception disproves the rule.

Scribble
Originally posted by ilikecomics
The lockdowns are an example of totalitarian control. The rich getting richer, as a result of welfare/subsidy, taking advantage of state policy etc, is part of my argument for a free market.

This would not have happened under a free market, as people in a free market can only become rich by providing value to customers.

P.s. your evaluation of what happened is spot on The thing is, I'm starting to feel like a truly "free market" is becoming the same kind of thing as "real communism has never been tried." Humans just aren't very good at transposing complicated ideas into actual positive change, there are too many variables.

That said, I am not particularly economically learned and so getting into the nitty-gritty of how markets work isn't my forte.

Originally posted by Artol
I do like the idea of the utopia that ancaps describe, I just don't think it would ever work out that way, and on the road to it we would be dismantling the few safeguards we have against the domination of a small minority of super wealthy. thumb up

cdtm
Originally posted by Artol
Because it is a consensual practice that generally doesn't do long term harm to the participants. We can of course go into where it goes from BDSM to something that should not be permitted, or we can talk about how certain power imbalances can make it into a non-consensual activity and therefore immoral, but at the base of it I don't see why it should be immoral really.

Consensual non-consent is a fetish.

Read some blogs from 24/7 slaves. Seemed pretty domestic and ordinary, between the bits where the wife said she REALLY hated something or other. Had a fit running outside in the snow in her bathrobe in one incident.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, I get that, I just don't think it is really realistic at the complexity of society we are talking about. People just don't have the time, access or ability to perfectly research, so people have to outsource some of that and have trust. It would be a similar problem we see now with investigative journalism and with whistleblowers, they often aren't heard at all or even actively attacked.

In the UFC example, I think it would be much more likely that most outlets (newspapers, rating agencies, etc,) would just not cover it, and then those outlets associated with UFC would drive a propaganda campaign (perhaps the fighter can be claimed to have been on drugs, or it was just an unrelated heart attack) that will convince many people, who don't have much skin in the game. And the momentum of having a giant powerful corporation will just carry it forth. I think it is pretty unlikely that anyone will switch from UFC because of that, I mean we all sort of know in what monstrous, sweat shops our clothes are made, but most of us still buy them anyways.

I do like the idea of the utopia that ancaps describe, I just don't think it would ever work out that way, and on the road to it we would be dismantling the few safeguards we have against the domination of a small minority of super wealthy.

The alternative are the public courts where litigation can last year's, enriching the legal class, which also puts the smaller guy at a disadvantage in a legal war of attrition. The public courts aren't beholden to other correction mechanisms, the opposite is true for private courts, because there's competition between courts as well. Cases handled by mediators are much cheaper and are more satisfactory to the people using it, because they're consumers. If you give consumers a shitty product you won't be open long.


Yes, the people who don't have time would outsource to aforementioned arbitration agencies/conflict dispute agencies. If these companies are for profit then it would follow they would provide arbitration to the best of their ability or be out competed by cheaper or more efficient ones.

The reason whistle blowers are attacked is because legacy media plays defense for the big institutions that fund them. The cia has been involved with the news and the papers forever.
So this problem is the States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

In the case of the ufc, both the fighter and the ufc would sign a contract that would recognize a conflict resolution agency.
The resolution agency would be selected because of it's good reviews. If either party backed out or broke contract, they would be categorized as oath breakers, then no one would want to do business with them.

How many fighters would want to fight for a company that signed a contract to, say, reimburse his family if he gets hurt/dies, then doesn't honor that ?

The obvious answer is that they'd fight for competing mma companies, like pride or dream.


Anarcho capitalism isn't utopian whatsoever and has been castigated as such by statist propaganda.

Anarcho = no state.
Capitalism = free market aka people only making mutually consented trades/contract.

https://mises.org/wire/libertarianism-utopian

Read this article, it dispels alot of the arguments one could make that it's utopian

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Scribble
The thing is, I'm starting to feel like a truly "free market" is becoming the same kind of thing as "real communism has never been tried." Humans just aren't very good at transposing complicated ideas into actual positive change, there are too many variables.

That said, I am not particularly economically learned and so getting into the nitty-gritty of how markets work isn't my forte.

thumb up

https://mises.org/wire/libertarianism-utopian

I posted this in my response to artol, but was afraid you'd miss it there.

Libertarianism isnt complex tho. It's three axioms, then the implications that follow.

Non aggression principle, which means force is illegitimate and deontologically immoral.

Action/corroboration via contract.

And freedom of association.

The state is the biggest violator of all three

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I see mere property rights as unjust, as they vastly privilege those who were born earlier and those who have through whatever means accumulated a lot of property. That's why I believe we have to have mechanisms to make the distribution of property (or wealth or capital, however you want to call it) more equal. I also think we need to work to create equal opportunities that the market mechanism are unable to provide.

I agree on the constitution, it was written to preserve the property rights of some of the American elites against their competition of some other American elites and English Colonial Interests. That is the case both for Southern Slave holders and Northern Merchants and Industrialists. It is a document designed to protect these elites from losing their status and from ensuring that those who do not have property, and the children of those that do not have property, do not threaten the interests of the ruling elite and their property.

All human interaction is in some way force. Force is a reality of human life, and we should decide which types of force we accept and which ones we do not accept, and what mechanisms we have to ensure that our values are preserved. I assume you are a proponent of the non-aggression principle? That is one way to decide which force you see as justified and which not, and that can certainly be part of a more complex set of rules that govern the forces guiding human life.

I don't see a "free market" as free of coercion. If all public land has been privatized, if your only option for survival is to sell your labor, that is not a free choice, that is a form of force, a form of coercion. If you want to get closer to a free market you should develop something that gives people similar amounts of bargaining power, that puts them in positions where they can really assert their own free will, rather than having a fake choice between doing what the more powerful actor demands or suffering immense consequences like starvation and death.

I feel like I better understand your view of property from our tangent. It seems mostly right, but you don't view them as absolute, which I adamantly disagree with. But that's okay enough to learn from each other.

You're right about the constitution, your opinion is almost the exact same as the great libertarian albert jay nock. He was part of the old right with h.l. Mencken, among others. He pointed the finger mostly at the existence of the state, because the mercantilists couldn't have tapped that power without the legislative infrastructure of the state.

How could non coercion work in any other way than the NAP ? Interested to hear that, as I've yet to come across a good answer. Calling things complex is not an argument.

Existence can't be called coercive without drastic personification. Life is cold and neutral, which is why humans devised of civilization, which arose waaaaaaaay before nation states ever did.

If an entrepreneur takes the enormous risk of starting a business that is profitable to pay others under contract, and people sign this contract without coercion or duress then this is legitimate.

The worker signing up to work has other options, like violence, but thee worker realizes being a criminal is costly. So if anything working under contract abstains from violence on both ends of the contract. The entrepreneur can abstain from being a slaver and the worker from being a violent scoundrel.

Everyone implicitly recognizes that the division of labor is more collectively beneficial than being violent. The only reason violent criminality exists now is because the state criminalizes certain things like drugs, which causes a black market. If you don't understand the connection between black markets and violent crime see the prohibition and how organized crime i.e. the mafia, organized around it. (We'll leave the kennedys out of it lol !)

The only bargaining power a man has, without using force against others, is by his ability to provide value to others.

Some can widdle a trinket, some can organize multi million dollar businesses. Society needs them all. The state parasitizes society. Less us excise the parasite, instead of treating it.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Scribble
The thing is, I'm starting to feel like a truly "free market" is becoming the same kind of thing as "real communism has never been tried." Humans just aren't very good at transposing complicated ideas into actual positive change, there are too many variables.

That said, I am not particularly economically learned and so getting into the nitty-gritty of how markets work isn't my forte.

thumb up

Let's go by definitions.

Socialism = control of the means of production via democracy of workers voting on how to allocate resources.

Communism = a state or state apparatus controlling the means of production.

Both are impossible to achieve because they fail at cost calculation, which can only be achieved in a social order determined by the division of labor with freedom of association. That means each individual is able to make any consumer choice they want. Each h individual choice updates and changes the entire pricing matrix. This is good because constantly updated data is accurate.
The pricing matrix determined by consumer choices is how people with capital allocate resources for production.

For example, it would be dumb to make 100,000 tons of staples if there wasn't a demand for it. The resources used to make the staples would be a loss for everyone.
This type of blind production is the only possible way for a centralized economy to behave.

Therefore, almost every economy on the planet is socialist/communist/fascist/ state capitalist economy.
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the consumer is sovereign, or not.
This means a commie who says that real communism has never happened is using a no true scotsman fallacy.

I already posted an example of an anarchistic country ala Somalia.

If we look at the mass ideological movements of the 20th century, the common thread is a hyper powerful centralized governments. Every case ended in disaster.

No private company has ever come close to the savagery committed by States. The common argument against getting rid of the state is a company, like amazon, using unmonopolized force.
Well if unmonopolized force is undesirable, why is it not obvious monopolized force is even less desirable ?

ilikecomics
This is a rap battle between mises and marx and I thought it could bring a little levity. It makes me laugh anyways.

https://youtu.be/QwqnRYPcrl0

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
This is a rap battle between mises and marx and I thought it could bring a little levity. It makes me laugh anyways.

https://youtu.be/QwqnRYPcrl0

That's funny, and very well produced. I think it's also really indicative of the way that people talk past each other and simplify the arguments of who they think are their opponents. There's really so much agreement between both sides on a lot of things, but fervent proponents can often not see it.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
That's funny, and very well produced. I think it's also really indicative of the way that people talk past each other and simplify the arguments of who they think are their opponents. There's really so much agreement between both sides on a lot of things, but fervent proponents can often not see it.

I agree. That's what I was trying to combat with the steelman thread. People want security and a chance for upward mobility, mostly.

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
I agree. That's what I was trying to combat with the steelman thread. People want security and a chance for upward mobility, mostly.
Yeah, like a lot of people just look at their situation in relatively simple ways, and just want things for them and their family to get better. They don't really care for the systemic reasons for why they are in a comparatively bad (or good) situation,

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, like a lot of people just look at their situation in relatively simple ways, and just want things for them and their family to get better. They don't really care for the systemic reasons for why they are in a comparatively bad (or good) situation,

That's where I am. It's also why I like libertarianism, it's simple.

Artol
Yeah, I guess that was similar for me. I feel like having learned a bit more about history of politics has made it hard to ignore the power imbalances though, which is why I have moved much more left. I still value freedom extremely highly, I just think my previous idea of how to achieve it was not realistic, and you need a complex set of checks and balances to ensure that the most amount of freedom is available to the largest number of people.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Yeah, I guess that was similar for me. I feel like having learned a bit more about history of politics has made it hard to ignore the power imbalances though, which is why I have moved much more left. I still value freedom extremely highly, I just think my previous idea of how to achieve it was not realistic, and you need a complex set of checks and balances to ensure that the most amount of freedom is available to the largest number of people.

Have you read human action or liberalism by von mises ?

P.s.

What historical facts were most informative for you ???

Artol
I've not read first hand sources by von Mises, I have read a lot of the writing of the Mises Institute when I was a Libertarian.

There's a lot of things that are very informative, if you are interested in US History, I would suggest Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, it goes over a fair amount of it. But generally also the excesses of private enterprises and how they have used their power (both directly as well as through instituting or co-opting the governemnt). The historic rise of the large capitalist nations we know and how it is deeply linked with colonialism. Also the fact that, contrary to what is claimed now, free trade has never made any country wealthy, rather the opposite, all the countries that we now know as wealthy, were deeply protectionist as they invested in their own economy (the British Empire and the United States foremost), while forcing smaller and weaker countries to adopt "free trade policies" that are hurtful to their economies. It's sort of a weaponization of Ricardo's comparative advantage. If you are interested in that kinda stuff, the (capitalist) economist Ha-Joon Chang wrote a very good book Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
I've not read first hand sources by von Mises, I have read a lot of the writing of the Mises Institute when I was a Libertarian.

There's a lot of things that are very informative, if you are interested in US History, I would suggest Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, it goes over a fair amount of it. But generally also the excesses of private enterprises and how they have used their power (both directly as well as through instituting or co-opting the governemnt). The historic rise of the large capitalist nations we know and how it is deeply linked with colonialism. Also the fact that, contrary to what is claimed now, free trade has never made any country wealthy, rather the opposite, all the countries that we now know as wealthy, were deeply protectionist as they invested in their own economy (the British Empire and the United States foremost), while forcing smaller and weaker countries to adopt "free trade policies" that are hurtful to their economies. It's sort of a weaponization of Ricardo's comparative advantage. If you are interested in that kinda stuff, the (capitalist) economist Ha-Joon Chang wrote a very good book Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade.

What are some examples of a private Enterprise using it's power, without the state ?

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
What are some examples of a private Enterprise using it's power, without the state ?

Pinkerton strike breakers in the 19th Century.
Chiquita funding and using paramilitary death squads in Colombia
The occupation of India by the East India Company

But it is of course hard to separate things that companies did alone, without using state structures, because our world is made up of states or state like apparatuses, and that's something we do have to acknowledge, that doesn't absolve companies for their actions though.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Pinkerton strike breakers in the 19th Century.
Chiquita funding and using paramilitary death squads in Colombia
The occupation of India by the East India Company

But it is of course hard to separate things that companies did alone, without using state structures, because our world is made up of states or state like apparatuses, and that's something we do have to acknowledge, that doesn't absolve companies for their actions though.

Do you acknowledge that those companies wouldn't act the same way, due to different incentive structures, if the state were completely disolved ?

Artol

ilikecomics
@artol (quote function broke)

what do you think the difference between a monopolization of force is vs. an entity/organization/individual with force ?

Artol

ilikecomics
The best case scenario always shifts to the worst case scenario, empirically.
Do you disagree ?

Artol
Yes, I disagree, things can and do shift in both directions (taking my personal understanding of good and bad, of course)

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Artol
Yes, I disagree, things can and do shift in both directions (taking my personal understanding of good and bad, of course)

Give an example of:

1.) Small gov. That stayed small.

P.s. I meant to ask, not tell.

2.) Big gov. That became small.


P.s.s. a little drunk and struggling

Artol
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Give an example of:

1.) Small gov. That stayed small.

P.s. I meant to ask, not tell.

2.) Big gov. That became small.


P.s.s. a little drunk and struggling

The last 40 years of neoliberal politics has been an example of governments giving up more and more of their power and outsourcing it to private corporations. I suppose it depends on what you consider a small government, but governments are definitely willing to give up powers that should be in the hands of their democratic sovereigns.

Scribble

Newjak
Originally posted by Scribble
I'll dip back into this discussion properly at a later date but for the moment I just wanted to say that I'm entirely on the same page as Artol here. Companies and corporations left to "do what thou wilt" would not only be worse than their current barely-shackled forms, but would actually become neo-feudal states in their own right. There are already strong examples of how this would look. Just look up the coal mining towns of the Appalachian mountains from the last century.

ilikecomics
All three of you see it exactly backwards.

The state has monopolized power, therefore they're the sole power broker on the block. It doesnt run the other way.

Neoliberalism, which is socialism to me, is not and never will be a free market. Conflating the two is a mistake

ilikecomics
I'll be clear. Libertarians/an caps are not defending america as it is. America is socialist/fascist. Not a free market

jaden_2.0
Originally posted by ilikecomics
The state has monopolized power, therefore they're the sole power broker on the block. It doesnt run the other way.

1 word.

Lobbyists.

Scribble
Originally posted by ilikecomics
All three of you see it exactly backwards.

The state has monopolized power, therefore they're the sole power broker on the block. It doesnt run the other way.

Neoliberalism, which is socialism to me, is not and never will be a free market. Conflating the two is a mistake The Nation State is dead in the water. Global corporations, banks, etc. have considerably more power and sway over the world than any government today. The reason this has come about is because they have been given unfettered freedom to do, more or less, whatever they like.


Neoliberalism is very different to socialism, bordering on opposite. In one sense, anyway; I suppose neoliberalism could be seen as 'socialism for the rich'.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
I'll be clear. Libertarians/an caps are not defending america as it is. America is socialist/fascist. Not a free market What do you define as a "free market"? Or what constitutes one?

cdtm
Actually, I agree to an extent about privilege based on skin tone.


Those "Like the... sign says?" commercials from Progressive are all white people.

Its a privilege for whites to get to see whites twirling that sign, we need to diversify that up.

Robtard
Jake from State Farm is Black now, so it evens out.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Scribble
The Nation State is dead in the water. Global corporations, banks, etc. have considerably more power and sway over the world than any government today. The reason this has come about is because they have been given unfettered freedom to do, more or less, whatever they like.


Neoliberalism is very different to socialism, bordering on opposite. In one sense, anyway; I suppose neoliberalism could be seen as 'socialism for the rich'.
What do you define as a "free market"? Or what constitutes one?

As long as the state prints money, they will control the military, which is the club of it's monopolized force.

I don't see how this works the other way. Facebook arguably has more power than the state in certain aspects. Facebook can't foist a 27 trillion dollar debt on us, nor can they force us to stay in our homes. What power do you think these companies have, exactly, that makes them more powerful than the state.
It isn't force.
It isn't control of the money.
It isn't law making ability.


The entities you listed are extensions of the state, if a bank is bailed out it's automatically part of what I mean by the state, same with lobbyism etc. The problem with you understanding my point is that you're taking the state as an axiom.

List a single world bank or corporation, that does bad stuff that isn't linked to the state. A single example.

Neoliberalism = a group of people making decisions about the economy. This is definitionally socialism.

A free market is where anybody can associate or trade with anyone. That's it. If a guy becomes the best seller of golf balls, because he's better at it than everyone else, and people choose to give him their money autonomously,band he becomes a millionaire this is legitimate.

If a golf ball seller petitions the state to make it illegal for other people to sell golf balls, this is illegitimate and not free market.

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Robtard
Jake from State Farm is Black now, so it evens out.

I'm happy that commercial came out, otherwise I'd have to assume all black guys can't make good insurance agents.
Inclusivity saves another mind from the fetid prison that is white supremacist thought !

Robtard
I think you might be reading too much into that casting choice.

cdtm
Originally posted by Robtard
Jake from State Farm is Black now, so it evens out.

thumb up laughing out loud

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Robtard
I think you might be reading too much into that casting choice.

I was being sarcastic about the idea of representation.

Robtard
I only believe you 93.8%

ilikecomics
Originally posted by Robtard
I only believe you 93.8%

That's a fair percentage.

Bastards can't be choosers

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.