# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Why government should always have more power than private business.

## The_Honorable_Doug

Hi,

So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.) 

As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a _little_ say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live. 

As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on _their terms only_.

Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)

Now let's say that this business says to my co-workers and me, "We want to increase profits _even more_. This is a business, right? All workers must take a 50% pay cut. Oh, and we are cutting health benefits too. The workload will be the same, but we, the owners and investors, want an even bigger share of the profit pie. Actually, we'd like you to work 10 hours a day instead of 8. If you don't like it, go starve in the streets."

You see now that we have a situation in which power is (vastly) asymmetrically distributed between the workers and the owners. Andthe investors, clearly, in this case, are abusing the workers.

(From this situation, things get even worse for the overall economy: The workers are underpaid and, as a class, are unable to match their production value with their purchasing power (if every business owner pays theirs workers 1  "unit of value" (UOV) to produce 2 UOV's, we approach a situation of over-production and then all kinds of messes ensue (the owners can only spend so much of their money on luxury goods and re-investment. Sometimes, they even promote foreign wars to open new markets for all the over-produced goods. This is a component of imperialism. But for the most part, the investor class has been hoarding money in off-shore accounts, somewhere between $21 and $32 trillion, actually, on a global scale.)

Anyway, back to the workers.

So what are we supposed to do? We could:

1) Start a union, in which case we all get fired immediately
2) Go on strike, in which case we all get fired immediately. The owners will turn armed guards on us if they need to (this has happened thousands of times in history.)
3) We could encourage a consumer boycott, which is not going to work.
4) We could smash and sabotage the workplace, in which case we all go to jail. 

OR

5) We could appeal to a higher authority, that is, the government, the ultimate voice of the community.

___

Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)

This is why we need a stronger government: it is the sphere of democracy, in which (theoretically) all citizens can participate as equals, unlike in a private business, where workers are subordinated to the interests of the investors/owners/bosses. In this case, the government can step in to prevent the workers from abuse, if they are unable to do so themselves.

Thoughts?

[Also, by the way, this dispute is happening right now with Caterpillar. In fact, it happens with mosts businesses. The best way to raise profits for yourself is to pay your workers less and work them longer, harder hours, and the business owners have been doing that to working people for decades now.)

----------


## TheTexan

You forgot option 5) go work for someone else, or yourself.

----------


## tod evans

More government is NEVER the answer.

Right now in this economy it is an employers wet-dream.....way more folks looking for work than there are available jobs..

You and I are not entitled to receive money for breathing, neither are we entitled to receive more than the market will bear by force of government.

If you don't like your job then learn another, if you're replaceable by any body off the street learn skills everybody doesn't have.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"

----------


## TheTexan

> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"


a) Unemployment is high because of all the government intervention in the first place, more intervention will just make this worse
b) Companies are hiring, maybe you just don't have any skills.  The company I work for is definitely hiring
c) If you don't want to get skills that make you valuable, then work for yourself.  You'll be a lot happier that way.

If I lost my job tomorrow I could get another one the next day.  I have also successfully worked for myself, and could do that as I like.  I am a slave to nobody except death and taxes

----------


## tod evans

> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"


Poor world view......

You put yourself in the "employee" category...

Put yourself in the "employer" category...

If you absolutely believe you MUST be an employee learn skills that make you invaluable to "The-Company".

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"

Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!

----------


## TheTexan

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"


In a free market, the community can sue the company.  With all these regulations, suing a company is virtually impossible, if not entirely impossible due to government protections.

But not giving you the wage you'd like to have is not "abuse"

----------


## Origanalist

> This is why we need a stronger government: it is the sphere of democracy, in which (theoretically) all citizens can participate as equals, unlike in a private business, where workers are subordinated to the interests of the investors/owners/bosses. In this case, the government can step in to prevent the workers from abuse, if they are unable to do so themselves.
> 
> Thoughts?


First off, democracy has multiple drawbacks. Mob rule usually ends up just like it sounds.

Second, whatever powers you give to the government to "help" you are going to be used to control you. Bank on it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"
> 
> *Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!*


If you mean government (community), then that is exactly what they have been doing.  They move their business outside of the country to avoid government regulations.

----------


## MJU1983

> Hi,
> 
> So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.) 
> 
> As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a _little_ say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live. 
> 
> As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on _their terms only_.
> 
> Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)
> ...


The agreement between yourself and the business owner is voluntary, no one is forcing you to be there.  If conditions are so terrible no one, yourself included, will work there until conditions improve.

Once you add "government" to the mix really all you are doing is promoting violent interactions instead of voluntary ones.  All government has is threats, theft, coercion, and guns in order to get their way.

----------


## tod evans

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"
> 
> Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!


Nooo,

It was you who brought up the idea of the government intervening on your behalf in the beef you have with a (potential?) employer.

My statements are both logical and truthful. 

I do not believe _"businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want"_ , neither do I believe that running to "The-Government" is an effective way to negotiate employment.

----------


## MelissaWV

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"
> 
> Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!


You are definitely new here.

If there is actual abuse, by a company or a person or an inanimate carbon rod, then by all means pursue a charge against the person doing the abusing.  I have a hunch that your definition of "abuse" also includes paying you less than you want, or calling you a mean name.

If someone is paying you less than you think you are worth, then there are some possibilities:

1. You are overvaluing yourself.  You have skills that are not as in demand, or perhaps just no realistic comparison methodology by which you can figure out what kind of pay scale you should expect.  Maybe you are also in a field where there are other desperate individuals driving down the worth of your position.

2. Your company is screwing you over.  If you try to force them NOT to screw you over, you will be wasting time and energy for which you will still not be compensated, and likely contribute to the company doing poorly in the longrun.  This is bad for both you and the company.  Why would someone stay in that situation rather than move on to a self-employment opportunity?  Oh wait... you had excuses...




> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"


Unemployment is high.  Perhaps it's high mostly because human beings have begun to see leeching as preferable to adaptation.  Oddly enough, I work two jobs, one of which involves a field for which there are too few qualified workers.  No one recruited me for this, no one pointed out some article on a website regarding this "hot" field, and I did not go seeking out certifications or degrees to make me suited to the task; I merely did my research, made some contacts, and dove in.  

People are, in fact, hiring.  If you go to any city on Indeed.com, you will never come up empty.  If you call your local temp agency, they will almost certainly have jobs available.  If you drive past restaurants or fast food places, you will often see "NOW HIRING" displayed in their window.  These are only the published jobs, and for each of those there are several which never get published anymore.  Companies are annoyed at the fact that desperate out of work people are flinging their resume at any job these days, regardless of whether or not they qualify.  It is seriously a waste of everyone's time for an out of work computer programmer to apply to be a home health RN.

If you are going to argue that every business treats their employees poorly, then you either need to work for yourself, or you need to reassess what your definition of "poorly" is, right along with the "abuse" we talked about earlier.  You do not have a God-given right to be treated with kid gloves, then paid for it, regardless of the outcome or product you put forth.

The slave is property, and owned by the master.  The slave cannot "go be a slave for someone else."  That isn't even what we are telling you.  We are telling you to own yourself.  You are the one saying that a corporate master is so awful that you long for new chains from the Government instead.

----------


## idiom

I don't want to work. I don't want to learn. I don't want to start a business and be productive. I don't want to move somewhere with work. I don't want to suffer at all.

Please tell me about how the evil people who start businesses and work day and night and risk everything owe me a cut.




> But for the most part, the investor class has been hoarding money in off-shore accounts, somewhere between $21 and $32 trillion, actually, on a global scale.


This is 100% the because of the government protecting fraudulent companies. It is not safe to invest in the USA because the government *will* steal your investment. Nobody will invest while the government props up zombie corporations.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:

The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 

Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)

----------


## TheTexan

> I don't want to work. I don't want to learn. I don't want to start a business and be productive. I don't want to move somewhere with work. I don't want to suffer at all.
> 
> Please tell me about how the evil people who start businesses and work day and night and risk everything owe me a cut.


This

----------


## idiom

> There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:
> 
> The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 
> 
> Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)


The Waltons derive a huge amount of their power from the government in one way or another. Otherwise they would be pulled to pieces in an open market.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

Also! I don't think you all understand the key point here: what I am describing is the fundamental antagonism of all capitalist societies, that between the worker and the owner and who holds power, how to split the profit, etc. This scenario I described is really happening right now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1179098.html

And this has happened continuously without pause at businesses throughout history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_h..._United_States

----------


## MelissaWV

> There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:
> 
> The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 
> 
> Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)


You're right.  She probably doesn't want to be at work for min wage at 3am.  Hopefully that's a temporary thing that inspires her to find something better to do.  There are a $#@!load of really great stories of people who lift themselves out of poverty with a bit of luck, a great idea, a lot of hard work, etc..  There are also a lot of people who never get out of that rut.  The idea that I should have my money stolen from me to go support WalMart and a bunch of bailouts and a lot of bloated Government programs, rather than contribute directly to this poor soul, is your idea.  Not mine.

----------


## tod evans

> There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:
> 
> The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 
> 
> Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)


Geeze dude,

You're right ol' Sam Walton owes you and your heirs a substantial portion of his fortune just because you're able to suck air and type on the internet...

Good ol' BO is still offering free money too......

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

But only because they have corrupted government. Workers could just as easily seize the government for themselves (through elections or revolution or buying influence). Government is fundamentally an empty field. It's where we come together to make public decisions. Today, however, powerful businesses, giant corporations, banks, etc, run the government.

----------


## idiom

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"
> 
> Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!


Pretty much guarantee at this point that Doug's solution to this imbalance is implementation of Lebensraum Value Tax-Shift.

Despite the fact that America is nearly entirely a service economy and no longer uses local resources to sustain it.

----------


## idiom

Stephenie Meyer
J. K. Rowling
Oprah Winfrey

Women who had nothing and worked their way to billionaire status because they found avenues where the government did not restrict their advancement.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> You're right.  She probably doesn't want to be at work for min wage at 3am.  Hopefully that's a temporary thing that inspires her to find something better to do.  There are a $#@!load of really great stories of people who lift themselves out of poverty with a bit of luck, a great idea, a lot of hard work, etc..  There are also a lot of people who never get out of that rut.  The idea that I should have my money stolen from me to go support WalMart and a bunch of bailouts and a lot of bloated Government programs, rather than contribute directly to this poor soul, is your idea.  Not mine.


Where did I suggest that I steal your money? I said that government should have more power than a private business. This is true for many reasons (especially environmental. Who owns the sky?) But in this case I wanted to discuss the relationship between the (subordinate) worker and the (dominant) owner.

----------


## TheTexan

I have marketable skills and get treated like a king where I work.  My boss is one of the hardest working people I know, and I have a great deal of respect for him.

I am not "lucky" or in a "lucky field." I have worked hard and made good decisions in my life.  It's not too late for you to do the same.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

You seem to forget govt has already taken 50% of your money and there is no escape... (you said you wanted to sell YOUR labor.. the govt says you dont even own your labor)

----------


## MelissaWV

> Where did I suggest that I steal your money? I said that government should have more power than a private business. This is true for many reasons (especially environmental. Who owns the sky?) But in this case I wanted to discuss the relationship between the (subordinate) worker and the (dominant) owner.


Oh so you'd stop taxes, but still have a Government?  Who's paying for that Government...

----------


## MJU1983

> There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:
> 
> The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 
> 
> Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)


I face-palmed in real life so here are some pics in lieu of words:

----------


## idiom

> Where did I suggest that I steal your money? I said that government should have more power than a private business. This is true for many reasons (especially environmental. Who owns the sky?) But in this case I wanted to discuss the relationship between the (subordinate) worker and the (dominant) owner.


Nearly all employers were employees at some point. Even the Employers are employees of their customers. Go run a business and then discuss how dominant employers are.

You are only paying attention to successful employers. Their are many times more unsuccessful employers who risk and lose *everything* trying to create jobs.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> Stephenie Meyer
> J. K. Rowling
> Oprah Winfrey
> 
> Women who had nothing and worked their way to billionaire status because they found avenues where the government did not restrict their advancement.


You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.

----------


## Origanalist

Can't wait for the LVT crowd to hit this one.

----------


## angelatc

> [Also, by the way, this dispute is happening right now with Caterpillar. In fact, it happens with mosts businesses. The best way to raise profits for yourself is to pay your workers less and work them longer, harder hours, and the business owners have been doing that to working people for decades now.)


Absolutely.  Your labor isn't worth very much unless you can supply a skillset that's somewhat limited, or if there's a big demand for your labor.   That's the only legitimate way to make wages rise.  

Using government to force wages up above their natural level creates unemployment.  If you doubt that, Google "unemployment in states with higher minimum wage."  Study after study show the higher the minimum wage, the higher the unemployment.

Nobody owes you anything.  They don't owe you a job at all, much less one that pays 6 digits.

----------


## angelatc

> There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:
> 
> The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 
> 
> Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)


It's obviously Bush's fault that the single mother working in WalMart started breeding without a proper baby daddy.  Happy now?

----------


## idiom

> You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.


You would bring them all down if you bothered to work and compete. Those who are at the top are simply not being properly competed with. Often due to government protection, or simply working a lot harder than their competitors.

Read this

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=209444

and come back.




> Finally there are situations like Blitz.  You probably have one of their gas cans in your garage.  The tort bar claims they sold "defective" gasoline cans.  You'd think that the "defect" would involve a can that, for example, split open and spilled gasoline where it could catch fire. 
> 
> You'd be wrong.
> 
> “The lawsuits have involved adult individuals who have used gasoline to start a fire or accelerate a fire,” she said.
> 
> Got it?
> 
> Let's put in plain language -- the lawsuits involved people who poured gasoline out of a Blitz can either onto something they then lit on fire (and got burned when it flashed) or poured gasoline on an existing fire.
> ...

----------


## JamesButabi

> Hi,
> 
> So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.) 
> 
> As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a _little_ say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live. 
> 
> As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on _their terms only_.
> 
> Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)
> ...



I admittedly only skimmed your post, but of your list of options the first thing that came to my mind was offer my services to a competitor or different organization.   I don't know about you, but as an employer I find it pretty difficult to find people that are very good for my company and I do my best to retain them rather than screw them over.

----------


## angelatc

> Also! I don't think you all understand the key point here: what I am describing is the fundamental antagonism of all capitalist societies, that between the worker and the owner and who holds power, how to split the profit, etc. This scenario I described is really happening right now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1179098.html
> 
> And this has happened continuously without pause at businesses throughout history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_h..._United_States


What you don't understand is that the worker isn't entitled to any of the profit unless he's a stockholder.  He's selling a product (his labor), not buying shares.  He's not a partner unless he puts some cash on the table.

----------


## angelatc

> You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.


That's not true at all.  Traditionally in America, almost all people who live below the poverty level only do so for a short period.  In this country, people are indeed upwardly mobile.

Well, we were, until government started helping.

And it's ridiculous to say there's limited room at the top in a capitalist society.  Just the opposite is true.

----------


## TheTexan

> You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.


1) Government hands out privileges to the highest bidder
2) Government creates expensive regulations that makes it very difficult to start a small business
3) Government is responsible for the massive inflation & boom/bust cycle that makes it very difficult for middle class to save money

If you want a better chance to prosper and get "on top"... get rid of government.

----------


## erowe1

> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"


The government is the reason unemployment is high.

There are a lot of unemployed people out there who would like to be able to offer their labor at a wage lower than the government allows them to, or in conditions below what the government allows. But the government took those options away from them. So now they're unemployed.

----------


## angelatc

> But only because they have corrupted government. Workers could just as easily seize the government for themselves (through elections or revolution or buying influence). Government is fundamentally an empty field. It's where we come together to make public decisions. Today, however, powerful businesses, giant corporations, banks, etc, run the government.


Are you under some illusion that if the workers rose up and seized control of government that they would not be influenced and changed by the power they would now wield?

Socialism has a Himalayan stack of bodies to prove that theory dead wrong.

----------


## Len Larson

> The slave is property, and owned by the master.  The slave cannot "go be a slave for someone else."  That isn't even what we are telling you.  *We are telling you to own yourself.*  You are the one saying that a corporate master is so awful that you long for new chains from the Government instead.


This bears repeating. So long as the OP is convinced he is the property of someone else and is dependent on them for his welfare, he can never be free.

----------


## angelatc

> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"


Some people are too stupid to live.  

75% of the people that want to work are currently working.  That's a pretty big majority.  

There are indeed companies hiring.  Lots of them.

If every business in the whole world decided to treat their workers poorly you could start a business and treat them better.  You'd get the best of the best from the labor pool.

----------


## angelatc

> This bears repeating. So long as the OP is convinced he is the property of someone else and is dependent on them for his welfare, he can never be free.


Yep. That's our public schools at work.  We're all victims now.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..." Also, I'm talking about analyzing society _as it is_, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)

Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!

----------


## BattleFlag1776

> But only because they have corrupted government. Workers could just as easily seize the government for themselves (through elections or revolution or buying influence). Government is fundamentally an empty field. It's where we come together to make public decisions. Today, however, powerful businesses, giant corporations, banks, etc, run the government.


You left out the Unions.  Since you are using Caterpillar as your example you need to also discuss the concessions made by the AFL-CIO and the IAM and why.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

http://www.epi.org/publication/job-s...-highest-rate/

There are way more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available:

"The total number of unemployed workers in December was 13.1 million (unemployment is from the Current Population Survey). Therefore the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 3.9-to-1 in December, an improvement from the November ratio of 4.3-to-1." 

"To put this figure in context, it’s useful to note that the highest this ratio ever got in the early 2000s downturn was 2.8-to-1, and in December 2000, the month the JOLTS survey began eleven years ago, the ratio was 1.1-to-1. While the job seekers ratio has been slowly improving since its peak of 6.9-to-1 in the summer of 2009, today’s data release marks three years and three months that the ratio has been above 3-to-1. A job seekers ratio of more than 3-to-1 means that for more than two out of every three unemployed workers, there simply are no jobs. In December, there were 9.7 million more unemployed workers than job openings. Furthermore, the lack of job openings is in no way limited to particular industries such as construction—unemployed workers dramatically outnumber job openings across every major industry."

----------


## angelatc

> Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..." Also, I'm talking about analyzing society _as it is_, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)
> 
> Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!


You don't know anything about us.  I haven't worked in 10 years, and am filling out applications like crazy.  My husband lost his job several months ago, and is definitely still looking too.  

Job hopping at will is definitely easier at the lower income levels.  The higher the income, the less chairs are available to fill, idiot. 

I posted links to studies put out by universities and the government, but that evidence is severely flawed?  Where's your evidence, big boy?

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

http://www.epi.org/publication/job-s...-highest-rate/

There are way more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available:

"The total number of unemployed workers in December was 13.1 million (unemployment is from the Current Population Survey). Therefore the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 3.9-to-1 in December, an improvement from the November ratio of 4.3-to-1." 

"To put this figure in context, its useful to note that the highest this ratio ever got in the early 2000s downturn was 2.8-to-1, and in December 2000, the month the JOLTS survey began eleven years ago, the ratio was 1.1-to-1. While the job seekers ratio has been slowly improving since its peak of 6.9-to-1 in the summer of 2009, todays data release marks three years and three months that the ratio has been above 3-to-1. A job seekers ratio of more than 3-to-1 means that for more than two out of every three unemployed workers, there simply are no jobs. In December, there were 9.7 million more unemployed workers than job openings. Furthermore, the lack of job openings is in no way limited to particular industries such as constructionunemployed workers dramatically outnumber job openings across every major industry."

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

Oh? But I thought that if you were unskilled then nobody would want your labor? There is some inconsistency now.

----------


## Len Larson

> You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? *There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.*


This is simply not true in a capitalist society. Wealth is created for both parties to every voluntary exchange. Only govt. coercion leads to a zero-sum business environment.

----------


## Origanalist

> Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..." Also, I'm talking about analyzing society _as it is_, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)
> 
> Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, *where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit*, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!


I believe the reason the boss hired you was to "take orders" and perform the tasks he or she hired you to do, no? And just how is half of your paycheck "stolen"?

----------


## Tod

> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"



I started my own business, and now I am a slave for my customers......lol

----------


## Mundane

No one owes anyone a job. Don't like it? Work for someone else or start your own business.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> Some people are too stupid to live.  
> 
> 75% of the people that want to work are currently working.  That's a pretty big majority.  
> 
> There are indeed companies hiring.  Lots of them.
> 
> If every business in the whole world decided to treat their workers poorly you could start a business and treat them better.  You'd get the best of the best from the labor pool.


Whoa. So you're saying that it's totally ok that *1 out of 4 people* in this country looking for work cannot find it? What a waste of human potential!

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> I believe the reason the boss hired you was to "take orders" and perform the tasks he or she hired you to do, no? And just how is half of your paycheck "stolen"?


Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, _whether I am doing any work or not._  Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)

----------


## BattleFlag1776

> Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..." Also, I'm talking about analyzing society _as it is_, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)
> 
> Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!


Operations vs. Support.  Though the latter does not have "half their paycheck stolen to the investor's profit" as you suggest.

----------


## TheTexan

Just get government to pay half the unemployed people to dig holes, and pay the other half of the unemployed people to fill holes.  Problem solved!

----------


## Adrock

> Also, I'm talking about analyzing society _as it is_, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)


We are telling you that in the past when the United States had more of a capitalist economy, working people were in more of a position to pick and choose employers. Today we have more of a crony capitalist economy and people have less of a choice of employers. This is effect of more government power and intervention into the economy in recent history. The solution you are advocating only leads to more pain for the working class.




> Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!


The wage or salary you work for is a private agreement between you and your employer. You are not entitled to anything more than that. The government is the only one taking money from your paycheck. If the evil investor didn't put capital into the company in the first place, you never would of even had a job.

----------


## Swarmed

> Just get government to pay half the unemployed people to dig holes, and pay the other half of the unemployed people to fill holes.  Problem solved!


Yes, and the government should also set a minimum wage of $20 an hour while they're at it.  If every countries' government used this brilliant solution, poverty would be eradicated!

----------


## Adrock

> Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, _whether I am doing any work or not._  Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)


So the solution should be to use the government to take most of the inheritance? That way no investment is made, no restaurant is started, and no jobs are created?

----------


## Danke

You are in a paradigm of the current situation of heavy government involvement in businesses.  Most here are responding how it could be different (and better).

It is like arguing for gay marriage, instead of eliminating any government advantage to being married in the first place and thus true fairness for all.

----------


## TheTexan

> Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, _whether I am doing any work or not._  Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)


That actually goes both ways.  Many/most small businesses aren't individually funded, and are actually funded by a group of investors.

It's become harder to invest now, for a few reasons:
1) Fewer small business startups, thanks to regulations
2) Investing in larger business usually means the stock market, and that:
a) Is severely unstable thanks to the business cycle created by the Federal Reserve (and by extension, the government)
b) Many industries tend to fluctuate greatly based on what handouts and privileges a company is expected or not expected to receive from the government

Not to mention it becomes very difficult to save money to invest with to begin with, thanks to inflation and the above factors.  T-bonds, previously used as a reliable investment, now have zero purpose for investing as they sell at or near 0%, and are used nearly exclusively for the movement of money between governments and the Federal Reserve

----------


## MJU1983

> Just get government to pay half the unemployed people to dig holes, and pay the other half of the unemployed people to fill holes.  Problem solved!


GENIUS!  I bet we can get the Unions behind this idea.

----------


## Origanalist

> Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, _whether I am doing any work or not._  Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)


My first job was at a cheese making plant run by a couple of old geezers that were pretty hardass but if you got the work done would generally leave you alone. Well, they retired and sold the plant to someone just as you describe. he promtly shut it down and opened a new plant that bought cheese in bulk and packaged it with a hugely expensive peice of equipment and it turned the job into a boring , boring crap job. plus the guy was a complete $#@!.

You know what? I never thought once about getting government to make him change his evil ways, it was his company. I quit, and so did most of his other employees.

You sound a lot like a spoiled child who wants mommy (nanny state) to make the world understand how special you are.

----------


## TheTexan

If it makes you feel better Doug, this isn't just a recession we're in.  These economic conditions are a precursor to a *massive* economic collapse on the horizon that will reset these market conditions back to a more natural state.

Then you should probably be able to find a job.

----------


## Professor8000

> Nearly all employers were employees at some point. Even the Employers are employees of their customers. Go run a business and then discuss how dominant employers are.


I know what you mean, I work for a company that provides a service for a company who provides a service for a company who provides a service for many different companies.
Many of those companies provide services for yet more companies.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> If it makes you feel better Doug, this isn't just a recession we're in.  These economic conditions are a precursor to a *massive* economic collapse on the horizon that will reset these market conditions back to a more natural state.
> 
> Then you should probably be able to find a job.


Actually, my financial situation is ok at the moment, hence my post's language "Let's say I'm a worker..."

However, I do want to address this idea of "market conditions" producing a "natural state" that government "intervenes" in.

There is no such thing as a "natural state" (especially not through the market!) that is somehow "intervened in" by government. I could just as easily argue that government IS the natural state and it is the MARKET that intervenes! (Who was left untouched by the collapse of the financial system in 2008? That was a huge market intervention into everyone's lives...!)

You can actually look up the history of market society, as it began to take off in the 15th century as a result of colonialism and mercantilism. For the most part, few people wanted a market society and it had to be literally forced onto people. Peasants had to be forced off their (communal) lands and into the cities to work in the factories and textiles... This is also the history of the welfare state: with market society came mass unemployment, a precarious existence, etc, but you couldn't just let all the (unemployed) workers die because you might need them if the economy booms, so you get the State to provide minimum coverage for them in the meantime...

If you want to learn more, I'd recommend this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...rmation_(book)

----------


## seraphson

> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? *What if every business treats their workers poorly?* That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"


Then you my friend have a gold mine and an opportunity of a life time. If you think in a capitalistic state of mind.

(Just in case you don't get it. Open up your own business and treat your workers well and watch as the others either get up to snuff or go out of business).

----------


## idiom

> Actually, my financial situation is ok at the moment, hence my post's language "Let's say I'm a worker..."
> 
> However, I do want to address this idea of "market conditions" producing a "natural state" that government "intervenes" in.
> 
> There is no such thing as a "natural state" (especially not through the market!) that is somehow "intervened in" by government. I could just as easily argue that government IS the natural state and it is the MARKET that intervenes! (Who was left untouched by the collapse of the financial system in 2008? That was a huge market intervention into everyone's lives...!)
> 
> You can actually look up the history of market society, as it began to take off in the 15th century as a result of colonialism and mercantilism. For the most part, few people wanted a market society and it had to be literally forced onto people. Peasants had to be forced off their (communal) lands and into the cities to work in the factories and textiles... This is also the history of the welfare state: with market society came mass unemployment, a precarious existence, etc, but you couldn't just let all the (unemployed) workers die because you might need them if the economy booms, so you get the State to provide minimum coverage for them in the meantime...
> 
> If you want to learn more, I'd recommend this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...rmation_(book)


The financial collapse of 2008 wasn't. The Government stepped in and stopped it. That is why the recession is ongoing. It won't stop until the government lets the collapse happen and lets all the owners who made bad decisions go bankrupt. What you are experiencing now is welfare for the rich. Its not even coming from your taxes, it is coming from your savings and your future via government devaluation of the currency.

The market intervenes when you are doing something wrong. Live pretending everybody can indefinitely borrow and use the borrowed money to exponentially increase their quality of life. That is just reality kicking in. We are doing everything we can to keep pretending and it is making us poorer and poorer.

----------


## Danke

> (Just in case you don't get it. Open up your own business and treat your workers well and watch as the others either get up to snuff or go out of business).


Case in point.  SW Airlines.  They treat their worker well. The original long time CEO even said, I care about my employees, not the customers, because he knew if he did that, the employees would take care of the costumers.

They are the most unionized and well paid employees of the industry now.  They have never had a unprofitable year.  As is normal in the rest of the industry.

----------


## WilliamShrugged

> Actually, my financial situation is ok at the moment, hence my post's language "Let's say I'm a worker..."
> 
> However, I do want to address this idea of "market conditions" producing a "natural state" that government "intervenes" in.
> 
> There is no such thing as a "natural state" (especially not through the market!) that is somehow "intervened in" by government. I could just as easily argue that government IS the natural state and it is the MARKET that intervenes! (Who was left untouched by the collapse of the financial system in 2008? That was a huge market intervention into everyone's lives...!)
> 
> You can actually look up the history of market society, as it began to take off in the 15th century as a result of colonialism and mercantilism. For the most part, *few people wanted a market society and it had to be literally forced onto people.* Peasants had to be forced off their (communal) lands and into the cities to work in the factories and textiles... This is also the history of the welfare state: with market society came mass unemployment, a precarious existence, etc, but you couldn't just let all the (unemployed) workers die because you might need them if the economy booms, so you get the State to provide minimum coverage for them in the meantime...
> 
> If you want to learn more, I'd recommend this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...rmation_(book)


Do you even understand what a market is?

----------


## Len Larson

Polanyi? Really? LOL! 

Murray Rothbard: Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi

Some quotes that might help you:
 [Sorry about the long cut and paste, but this is important and this is not the first time these anti-market ideas have been brought here see LVT for example]




> Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation is a farrago of confusions, absurdities, fallacies, and distorted attacks on the free market. The temptation is to engage in almost a line-by-line critique. I will abjure this to first set out some of the basic philosophic and economic flaws, before going into some of the detailed criticisms.
> 
> ...
> 
> Why, then, do we consider the free market as "natural," as Polanyi sneeringly asks? The reason is that the free market is (1) what men have turned to when they have been allowed freedom of choice, and (2) what men should turn to if they are to enjoy the full stature of men, if they are to satisfy their wants, and mould nature to their purposes. For it is the market that brings us the standard of living of civilization.
> 
> ...
> 
> I mentioned that the free society would permit Polanyi or any who agree with him to abandon the market and find whatever other forms suit them. But one thing and one thing alone the free society would not permit Polanyi to do: to use coercion over the rest of us. It will let him join a commune, but it will not let him force you or me into his commune. This is the sole difference, and I therefore must conclude that this is Polanyi’s sole basic complaint against the free society and the free market: they do not permit him, or any of his friends, or anyone else, to use force to coerce someone else into doing what Polanyi or anyone else wants. It does not permit force and violence, it does not permit dictation, it does not permit theft, it does not permit exploitation. I must conclude that the type of world, which Polanyi would force us back into, is precisely the world of coercion, dictation, and exploitation. And all this in the name of "humanity"? Truly, Polanyi, like his fellow-thinkers, is the "humanitarian with the guillotine." (See Isabel Paterson’s profound work of political theory, The God of the Machine, Putnam’s, 1943).
> ...

----------


## Professor8000

> Polyani? Really? LOL! 
> 
> Murray Rothbard: Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi
> 
> Some quotes that might help you:
>  [Sorry about the long cut and paste, but this is important and this is not the first time these anti-market ideas have been brought here see LVT for example]


My money says OP ignores this and responds to something else he thinks he can argue against.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Hi,
> 
> So let's say I'm a worker for a business.


Let's rephrase that so that it shows where the cowardly little bear actually $#@!s.  What you really are is a a one-man business- a one-man firm with transportation costs to and from work as your overhead, operating within another business -- your exclusive customer (assuming you don't work more than one job).  

In light of that, what were you whinging about?  Whatever you had to say after that, put that shoe on the other foot. Whatever rules you are proposing for yourself, ask yourself if they should also apply to your firm with its relationship with its customers.

----------


## tttppp

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"
> 
> Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!


You can get businesses to operate in the best interest of society without increasing regulations or government. In fact, you can do that while decreasing regulations and government.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> Polyani? Really? LOL! 
> 
> Murray Rothbard: Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi
> 
> Some quotes that might help you:
>  [Sorry about the long cut and paste, but this is important and this is not the first time these anti-market ideas have been brought here see LVT for example]


Ok, no offense, but this just _awful_. Seriously, it makes me even wonder if the guy read Polanyi's book. 

He says:

*"The reason is that the free market is (1) what men have turned to when they have been allowed freedom of choice, and (2) what men should turn to if they are to enjoy the full stature of men, if they are to satisfy their wants, and mould nature to their purposes. For it is the market that brings us the standard of living of civilization."*

This is simply, utterly, and completely false. There is nothing more natural about a market economy than a gift economy, for example. In fact, there are literally _limitless_ ways we could organize an economy, and this is easily found in the countless tribes and cultures studied by anthropologists. Again, historically, markets had to be pushed onto people, and this is a historical fact, whether it fits into your narrative or not. I would like to see the evidence supporting his first claim. The second claim doesn't even make sense here, as it is only the author's opinion.

*"I therefore must conclude that this is Polanyi’s sole basic complaint against the free society and the free market: they do not permit him, or any of his friends, or anyone else, to use force to coerce someone else into doing what Polanyi or anyone else wants. "*

Here, the author reveals to us that he sees in Polanyi some kind of hidden motive? Or something? That Polanyi wants to destroy the "free market" so that he can control people? That's not a legitimate critique of Polanyi's ideas. I wonder if he even read the book. 

And we could easily turn this around: private businesses use the ideology of the "free market" to coerce and control the community: "The government can't tell us not to dump toxic chemicals in the water, that's against the free market!The government can't tell us not to abuse our workers, that's against the free market! The government can't make me test my products for safety before we sell them, that's against the free market!" And so on and so on...

In the third paragraph, the author is arguing that "society" does not exist, that we are only individuals, which shows the author is misusing the concepts of Universal and Particular. Sure, we could say that "fruit" does not exist, that there are only apples and oranges, but these two situations are not the same. "Society" is just a term used to refer to the totality of social relations amongst any group of people who share a culture. Society _does_ exist, societies _do_ exist. Can you honestly say that you are part of no society?

The author then says, *"For, in the jungle, in the tribal and caste societies, there is not mutual benefit but warfare for scarce resources!"* which is just blatantly and laughably false.

Finally, in the last paragraph, he says that we have political freedoms because of the market. *"Polanyi thinks he can preserve the effect (freedom of speech, or industrial civilization), while destroying the cause (the free market, private property rights, etc.)"* This, honestly, is just a really stupid assertion and I wonder how he justifies such a claim. 

Look, that was just awful. You can do better! Come on...

----------


## Professor8000

Once upon a time I prided myself in destroying idiots on the internet.
(cracks knuckles and pops neck)
I think I can take this one.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery?


If that were true, everyone should be making minimum wage because that would be the least amount that employers could legally get away with paying people.  How do you explain the majority of workers who get paid several times more than minimum wage?

----------


## TheTexan

> Again, historically, markets had to be pushed onto people, and this is a historical fact


You're hilarious 

Welcome to the forums!

----------


## SewrRatt

Oh, poor, poor government! Always being taken over by the eeeeevil corporations! Poor government! If only it was the government that had all the soldiers with guns, all the power, it could defend itself from the coercion of private enterprise! ...waitaminute

----------


## Professor8000

> Ok, no offense, but this just awful. Seriously, it makes me even wonder if the guy read Polanyi's book. 
> 
>  He says:
> 
>  "The reason is that the free market is (1) what men have turned to when they have been allowed freedom of choice, and (2) what men should turn to if they are to enjoy the full stature of men, if they are to satisfy their wants, and mould nature to their purposes. For it is the market that brings us the standard of living of civilization."
> 
>  This is simply, utterly, and completely false. There is nothing more natural about a market economy than a gift economy, for example. In fact, there are literally limitless ways we could organize an economy, and this is easily found in the countless tribes and cultures studied by anthropologists. Again, historically, markets had to be pushed onto people, and this is a historical fact, whether it fits into your narrative or not. I would like to see the evidence supporting his first claim. The second claim doesn't even make sense here, as it is only the author's opinion.


Someone here doesn't have the remotest understanding of economics or the motivations of human interactions. I may provide some bit of enlightenment should that person become open to the idea that they are wrong in their ideas.

A truly free market economy is based on the basic human rights of property and to freely associate and to contract with each other. It is governed by the Non-Aggression Principle. What this means is that a person owns something and that no one else under any circumstances has any right to what that person owns. What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern. If that person wishes to trade his property for the property of another person, no one other than those two have any right to any part of that association and contract.
The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government.




> "I therefore must conclude that this is Polanyi’s sole basic complaint against the free society and the free market: they do not permit him, or any of his friends, or anyone else, to use force to coerce someone else into doing what Polanyi or anyone else wants. "
> 
>  Here, the author reveals to us that he sees in Polanyi some kind of hidden motive? Or something? That Polanyi wants to destroy the "free market" so that he can control people? That's not a legitimate critique of Polanyi's ideas. I wonder if he even read the book. And we could easily turn this around: private business use the ideology of the "free market" to coerce and control the community: "The government can't tell us not to dump toxic chemicals in the water, that's against the free market! The government can't tell us not to abuse our workers, that's against the free market!" And so on and so on...


First, lets start with that quote in full context: 


> I mentioned that the free society would permit Polanyi or any who agree with him to abandon the market and find whatever other forms suit them. But one thing and one thing alone the free society would not permit Polanyi to do: to use coercion over the rest of us. It will let him join a commune, but it will not let him force you or me into his commune. This is the sole difference, and I therefore must conclude that this is Polanyi’s sole basic complaint against the free society and the free market: they do not permit him, or any of his friends, or anyone else, to use force to coerce someone else into doing what Polanyi or anyone else wants. It does not permit force and violence, it does not permit dictation, it does not permit theft, it does not permit exploitation. I must conclude that the type of world, which Polanyi would force us back into, is precisely the world of coercion, dictation, and exploitation. And all this in the name of "humanity"? Truly, Polanyi, like his fellow-thinkers, is the "humanitarian with the guillotine." (See Isabel Paterson’s profound work of political theory, The God of the Machine, Putnam’s, 1943).


Now that we have the full context of the quote, lets see about your response. Private Business requires the *VOLUNTARY* interaction with the people who desire the things the business is willing to trade them to function. Socialism requires the *MANDITORY* compliance with arbitrary rules and the forfeiture of the most basic of human rights, the right to property, for it to function. Socialism/Communism is based entirely on the use of force to violate the property rights of everyone by stealing their property, coercing everyone into compliance, and exploiting them by claiming ownership over the fruits of everyone's labors.




> In the third paragraph, the author is arguing that "society" does not exist, that we are only individuals, which shows the author is misusing the concepts of Universal and Particular. Sure, we could say that "fruit" does not exist, that there are only apples and oranges, but these two situations are not the same. "Society" is just a term used to refer to the totality of social relations amongst any group of people who share a culture. Society does exist, societies do exist. Can you honestly say that you are part of no society?


(In Yoda's voice)Make an idiot of yourself, you did.



> The only intelligible way of defining society is as: the array of voluntary interpersonal relations. And preeminent amongst such voluntary interrelations is the free market! In short, the market, and the interrelations arising from the market, is society, or at least the bulk and the heart of it. In fact, contrary to Polanyi and other’s statements that sociability and fellowship comes before the market; the truth is virtually the reverse; for it is only because the market and its division of labor permits mutual gain among men, that they can afford to be sociable and friendly, and that amicable relations can ensue. For, in the jungle, in the tribal and caste societies, there is not mutual benefit but warfare for scarce resources!





> The author then says, "For, in the jungle, in the tribal and caste societies, there is not mutual benefit but warfare for scarce resources!" which is just blatantly and laughably false.


Ah, yes. I do remember learning about all of the tribal wars fought over highly obscene Your Mama Jokes.




> Finally, in the last paragraph, he says that we have political freedoms because of the market. "Polanyi thinks he can preserve the effect (freedom of speech, or industrial civilization), while destroying the cause (the free market, private property rights, etc.)" This, honestly, is just a really stupid assertion and I wonder how he justifies such a claim.


In a socialistic society, people can't freely do things or it doesn't work. People who work hard realize that they get just as much as people who don't so the motivation to achieve greatness is gone. Eventually you end up with an economy like the Soviets which imploded in on it's own vast stupidity. If people are free to do as they wish, it's not exactly socialism is it.




> Look, that was just awful. You can do better! Come on...


I have already lost faith in your ability to do better.

----------


## EcoWarrier

Currently the tail wags the dog.  Corporations pull the strings of governments. We have corporate fascism.  One of the reasons why we have the odd financial crash.

----------


## idiom

> Currently the tail wags the dog.  Corporations pull the strings of governments. We have corporate fascism.  One of the reasons why we have the odd financial crash.


Yeah, what we need to do is hand over all the resources we need to survive to the government like they did in Taiwan...

----------


## SewrRatt

> Currently the tail wags the dog.  Corporations pull the strings of governments. We have corporate fascism.  One of the reasons why we have the odd financial crash.


Yeah, I know! The poor, powerless government just can't defend itself! Poor government! The most powerful organization the world has even seen and it's still a helpless victim!

(The expression the tail wags the dog should help you get a clue. TAILS CAN'T AND DON'T WAG DOGS. IT'S THE MOTHERFUCKING DOG. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.)

----------


## EcoWarrier

Governments have to get themselves out of the clutches of Corporations and get control again.

We have corporate fascism.

Some banks know they are too big to go under in that they know governments will bail them out when it hits the fan. Governments need more control of the financial sector.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> A truly free market economy is based on the basic human rights of property and to freely associate and to contract with each other.


The free-market is based on the three factors of production:

*LAND -* all land and its resources
*CAPITAL -* all man made things, inc money
*LABOR -* human mental and physical effort

When the above runs free and unrigged, the free-market works brilliantly.  

Corporations were developed to counter the free-market and corner it.

Reagan & Thatcher rigged the LABOR aspect of the market in driving its costs down. They off-shored manufacturing to the Far East. People were earning so little because of their obsessions, there was not enough money in people's wages to keep the economy moving enough, so they relaxed credit so they could buy the goods....then the consequences were dire .....and and later came the Credit Crunch.

Obama is rigging LABOR in the market right now, backed by the Republicans. Look at this:




Geonomics encourages the free-market.

----------


## idiom

> Governments have to get themselves out of the clutches of Corporations and get control again.
> 
> We have corporate fascism.
> 
> Some banks know they are too big to go under in that they know governments will bail them out when it hits the fan. Governments need more control of the financial sector.


Or remove control and watch the fraudulent banks implode with out the nanny state propping them up and creating enormous moral hazard.

----------


## idiom

> Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, _whether I am doing any work or not._  Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)


If you are not putting tremendous amounts of work into choosing your investments and partners then you will go broke in no time at all.

Investing in firms and hiring good staff is actually extremely time consuming and requires dedication. Giving your money to Goldman Sachs and expecting 8% is how you end up beyond bankrupt. That is what happened to everyone in 2008. They didn't do the work, they just expected free money and they were robbed blind.

Being wealthy doesn't just happen in a free market. Look at the Dow Jones Industrial Index, there are maybe four companies on it that have been there for more than fifty years. Big companies go bang and die really fast and quite often when the people at the top slack off for even a moment. Unless the government is paying to hide their mistakes.

----------


## idiom

> Geonomics encourages the free-market.


"Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft. " - Jeffery J. Smith
President, Geonomy Society

----------


## SewrRatt

This is a troll thread, move along people, nothing to see here.

----------


## idiom

> This is a troll thread, move along people, nothing to see here.


Until Tampa there isn't much else to do but feed the trolls.

----------


## Professor8000

> The free-market is based on the three factors of production:
> 
> *LAND -* all land and its resources
> *CAPITAL -* all man made things, inc money
> *LABOR -* human mental and physical effort
> 
> When the above runs free and unrigged, the free-market works brilliantly.


See, this is where you are wrong. Land, capital and labor does not an economy make. The economy is quite simply basic human interaction.




> Corporations were developed to counter the free-market and corner it.


Wrong again. Corporations were developed to hedge risk.




> Reagan & Thatcher rigged the LABOR aspect of the market in driving its costs down. They off-shored manufacturing to the Far East. People were earning so little because of their obsessions, there was not enough money in people's wages to keep the economy moving enough, so they relaxed credit so they could buy the goods....then the consequences were dire .....and and later came the Credit Crunch.


Still wrong. I won't speak for Thatcher, but I will say this about Reagan. He had little to do with manufacturing moving to Asia. The congress had a minimum wage that kept employers from and employees from trading below an arbitrary amount(minimum wage) which made it more profitable for those companies to ship their manufacturing to Asia where the very low worker pay made up for the shipping cost. Naturally with fewer employed there is less consumption. So the FED(government) lowered interest rates(inflation) which lead to increased temporary consumption, with so much liquidity in the financial markets there was volatility, which in turn lead to the FED increasing credit rates which in turn causes a panic.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> See, this is where you are wrong. Land, capital and labor does not an economy make. The economy is quite simply basic human interaction.


Pay attention please. The factors of production are the core of a free-market - when unrigged.  Governments must ensure these three points are not meddled with and they do not themselves meddle with them. 

Corporations were developed to hedge risk - in short bucking the free-market.




> I will say this about Reagan. He had little to do with manufacturing moving to Asia.


Totally wrong. Marx mainly wrote on the Failures of Capitalism. Overall he was pretty well right in his observations and analysis. He was short on solutions.  David Harvey will give you an outline of how we are in the situation we are in.  He say he doesn't have an answer.  I do - Geonomics. Look on:

----------


## newbitech

Hey OP,

When you find yourself turning to the government for solutions, that should be a red flag that you haven't explored all of your options.  There is nothing, NOTHING the government can do for you that won't put someone else in your shoes with the same lack of a solution. 

What I would suggest, put yourself in a situation where the only person you can depend on is YOU.  There is massive oppression in the world today, and it's building.  You are wasting your time if you think other people are going to act the way you want them to so that your life will be better.  In fact, this type of thinking is what I would call SELF-oppression.  

Your concerns are valid OP, your solutions, IMO are steeped in self-pity, self-oppression, and yes even self-hate.  The government you seek, in fact the ONLY government that will answer your call and provide you with exactly what you need, is SELF-GOVERNMENT.  OP, LEARN to govern yourself and YOU WILL have all the power YOU ever need to overcome ALL the oppression, and ALL the injustices and lack of privilege that you may be suffering.  

SELF-GOVERNMENT is the ONLY government with power and righteousness to provide you EVERYTHING you want and need!

----------


## EcoWarrier

> SELF-GOVERNMENT is the ONLY government with power and righteousness to provide you EVERYTHING you want and need!


That is very admirable. But whatever your views we have government whether you like it or not or think so or not. They do influence our lives. It is up to us to get them to do the best for us. It is no good pretending they do not exist.

----------


## Jovan Galtic

> Marx mainly wrote on the Failures of Capitalism. Overall he was pretty well right in his observations and analysis. He was short on solutions.  David Harvey will give you an outline of how we are in the situation we are in.  He say he doesn't have an answer.  I do - Geonomics. Look on:


What a load of crap... Marx was a complete idiot. I wish you had a chance to spend half of your life in a "Marxist country" like me to see how beautiful his ideas are.

----------


## tod evans

> That is very admirable. But whatever your views we have government whether you like it or not or think so or not. They do influence our lives. It is up to us to get them to do the best for us. It is no good pretending they do not exist.


Might I ask exactly how many years have you sent money into "The-Government" in the form of income and property tax?

Reason I ask is the views you express sound more like a young idealist than those of an over-taxed property owner..

----------


## EcoWarrier

> What a load of crap... Marx was a complete idiot. I wish you had a chance to spend half of your life in a "Marxist country" like me to see how beautiful his ideas are.


Not another brainwashed one. Marx was not an idiot at all.  As I wrote, most of his writing were of the _Failures of Capitalism_. He got most of that pretty well right.  His solutions were interpreted wrongly in many Commie countries.  He got a hell of a lot wrong in his solutions.  But his analysis of the Failures of Capitalism were pretty sound.  That is why Marx never goes away.  Some of his works are required reading in some economic courses. 

The Video is not about Marxism at all - if you noticed.  It was how we got into the situation we are in now.  Prof Harvey is at NY uni.  He did a briliant job in this video.

----------


## Len Larson

Given the subjective nature of value, the gift economy is shown to be a free market economy. Unfortunately, anthropologists generally don't know economics and so don't recognize that what is being traded in gift economies is reputation and social obligations not worthless gifts.

There are not "limitless" ways to organize an economy, in fact there are only two: Voluntary exchange (free market) or forceful coercion (political). See Oppenheimer for more.

Polanyi's motives are not hidden in the least. He clearly wants to use force to control others. The situation is not symmetrical, since people are not free to choose once the political method is entered.




> "Society" is just a term used to refer to the totality of social relations amongst any group of people who share a culture.


Yes, and assuming we are talking voluntary relations, how is this distinct from the Free Market?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Might I ask exactly how many years have you sent money into "The-Government" in the form of income and property tax?
> 
> Reason I ask is the views you express sound more like a young idealist than those an over-taxed property owner..


You sound like you are in La-La land not the real world.  Government is there. Get used to it. Use the democratic system to manipulate it.

Anarchy is not going to happen.

----------


## tod evans

> You sound like you are in La-La land not the real world.  Government is there. Get used to it. Use the democratic system to manipulate it.
> 
> Anarchy is not going to happen.


Refusing to answer a simple question..........

Have fun in class this year.

----------


## Jovan Galtic

> Not another brainwashed one. Marx was not an idiot at all.  As I wrote, most of his writing were of the _Failures of Capitalism_. He most of that pretty well right.  His solutions were interpreted wrongly in many Commie countries. He got a hell of a lot wrong in his solutions.  But his analysis of the Failures of Capitalism were pretty sound.  That is why Marx never goes away.  Some of his works are required reading in some economic courses. 
> 
> The Video is not about Marxism at all - if you noticed.  It was how we got into the situation we are in now.  Prof Harvey is at NY uni.  He did a briliant job in this video.


Most of his writings were failures of his brain. He got his basic premises wrong and because of that everything else was wrong.

Google "Yuri Maltsev".

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Might I ask exactly how many years have you sent money into "The-Government" in the form of income and property tax?


Look up Geonomics.  No Income or Property Taxes.  A big movement. Just for you.

----------


## newbitech

> That is very admirable. But whatever your views we have government whether you like it or not or think so or not. They do influence our lives. It is up to us to get them to do the best for us. It is no good pretending they do not exist.


Actually, if you looked in to SELF-government, you'd get the idea that rather than pretending "they" don't exist, actually ACT like "they" don't (read, don't depend on gov't for things that you can provide for YOURSELF) would be the only path to NON-violent revolution.  See Gandhi, MLK, etc.. 

You are right in one sense, I don't like government getting in my way.  So I will carry out my life as if "they" don't exist (because AFAIC, "they" are just like anybody else getting in my way) , and when "they" get in my way, I will exercise my natural born rights, and if "they" don't like it, then "they" can act or pretend or whatever, like I don't exist.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You are right in one sense, I don't like government getting in my way.  So I will carry out my life as if "they" don't exist


Burying your head in the sand will not help.

----------


## newbitech

> Burying your head in the sand will not help.


Neither will burying it in the posterior of YOUR government.

----------


## angelatc

> http://www.epi.org/publication/job-s...-highest-rate/
> 
> There are way more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available:
> 
> "The total number of unemployed workers in December was 13.1 million (unemployment is from the Current Population Survey). Therefore the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 3.9-to-1 in December, an improvement from the November ratio of 4.3-to-1."


Of course there is.  If the inverse was true, wages would skyrocket.  In a free market, that would bring a wave of immigrants and the least efficient businesses going under.  But as long as we have a minimum wage (known as a price floor in Econ 101) we will have a level of unemployment higher than the natural level.

But that doesn't mean that no jobs are available, nor does it mean nobody wants your labor.  It only means you're competing with a lot of other people for that job.  If you're unskilled, then you're competing with an incredibly high number of people for that position.

If you have advanced skills, then the good news is that there's not so much competition.  The bad news is that there's no nearly as many positions open.  Think about a factory - are there more line workers or managers?

----------


## angelatc

> That is very admirable. But whatever your views we have government whether you like it or not or think so or not. They do influence our lives. It is up to us to get them to do the best for us. It is no good pretending they do not exist.


In some respects, I'm probably 30-40 years past that way of thinking.  I used to believe that government existed to do good, but looking at the devastation thet leave in their wake makes it seem foolish to maintain that facade.  It is no good pretending that they're doing good.   They're like Asian Carp - once they're in the system they destroy it.

I do agree that it will never go away, but it is up to us to be an opposing force.

----------


## angelatc

> Look up Geonomics.  No Income or Property Taxes.  A big movement. Just for you.


No property rights?  Government owns all the resources? No thanks.

----------


## angelatc

> Being wealthy doesn't just happen in a free market. Look at the Dow Jones Industrial Index, there are maybe four companies on it that have been there for more than fifty years. Big companies go bang and die really fast and quite often when the people at the top slack off for even a moment. Unless the government is paying to hide their mistakes.


Eastman Kodak, GM, AT&T, Citigroup, Woolworths, ... in the '80's IBM almost tanked.  They ditched their PC business and saved themselves.  

GE is the only company that's made the whole ride.

----------


## sublimed

This is one topic that angers me a bit. I'm not what is considered an educated person. I did not graduate from High School or College but I finally received my GED at 25. I chose to drop out of School and take an internship working in a data center. I was smart and worked hard and became a trades person. I'm a jack of all computer trades and at 30 I could go be a Linux, Windows, or Cisco admin tomorrow at a new company paying me more. This is when the voluntary part of this relationship comes in I love my employer. They pay me fair and treat me like a king because I'm not a dime a dozen. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. What I do is a trade or career the positions that you are speaking of are jobs and the labor are a dime a dozen. Get some skillz and your bitterness will fly away!

----------


## angelatc

> Pay attention please. The factors of production are the core of a free-market - when unrigged.  Governments must ensure these three points are not meddled with and they do not themselves meddle with them. 
> 
> Corporations were developed to hedge risk - in short bucking the free-market.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong. Marx mainly wrote on the Failures of Capitalism. Overall he was pretty well right in his observations and analysis. He was short on solutions.  David Harvey will give you an outline of how we are in the situation we are in.  He say he doesn't have an answer.  I do - Geonomics. Look on:




  A rebuttal.

"People that argue Marxist theory are therefore usually excluded from being taken seriously."

----------


## angelatc

> This is one topic that angers me a bit. I'm not what is considered an educated person. I did not graduate from High School or College but I finally received my GED at 25. I chose to drop out of School and take an internship working in a data center. I was smart and worked hard and became a trades person. I'm a jack of all computer trades and at 30 I could go be a Linux, Windows, or Cisco admin tomorrow at a new company paying me more. This is when the voluntary part of this relationship comes in I love my employer. They pay me fair and treat me like a king because I'm not a dime a dozen. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. What I do is a trade or career the positions that you are speaking of are jobs and the labor are a dime a dozen. Get some skillz and your bitterness will fly away!


bly

You and me both.  I didn't have the chance to go to college right out of school, and I probably wasn't ready anyway.  I went to work, and decided (really!) that I wanted a job in the air conditioned part of the company where I could wear pretty clothes.    Once I got there, in Accounting, I found that I understood a lot of the processes better than my coworkers.  I also saw that people who had cubbies, doors, and *gasp* windows tended to have college degrees on their walls.  So I started going to junior college in the evenings.  I couldn't get a loan so I could only swing 1 or 2 classes at a time.  

THen I met someone who worked at a company that paid for her school. So I piggy-backed on that relationship to land a job at that company.  And my salary went up and up and up.

----------


## mczerone

> You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.


Bullcrap. I wasn't going to get involved in your little distraction here, but this one is the crux of the free market vs. corporatism. There is NO cap to total wealth available in the world. People who are free to innovate, compete, and deliver products and services to consumers are creating wealth. The more competition, the more innovation. The more innovation, the more efficient capital structure. The more efficient capital structure, the less work is required to produce something for which the consumer is willing to pay.

In a free market, there is no top. There is no limit on social mobility apart from each person's ideas, willingness to work, and willingness to learn. You can create your own "empire" in manufacturing without negatively impacting any other leader in the free market. You can take your resources and spend them how you see fit. You do a good job, you have made your own life better AND the lives of your consumers and employees better.

There is no antagonism in a free market: the capitalist can only succeed by giving the BEST offer to potential employees, and employees can only succeed by giving the BEST offer to potential employers. There is a natural harmony.

Every single "problem" you've brought up is a problem of govt structure, regulation, and restriction.

Even granting your assertion that "there is limited room at the top," who would you rather decide who gets there: the consumers exercising free choice, or the government selecting favored producers who necessarily come from the old-money class?

Freedom works, and your sob-stories are no more valid than the "success" stories that you dismiss as "exceptional."

----------


## angelatc

> Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, _whether I am doing any work or not._  Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)


Money is nothing more than a measure of value.   Who is providing more value to society - you, a guy who is providing jobs to 100 people, thereby enabling them to go out and buy things which in turn provides more jobs....or the guy who showed up late, hungover and dirty, washing dishes? 

You're wrong about the workers providing value.  The workers are simply selling a product - their labor.  The owner buys that product and creates something that society values - a meal.

----------


## angelatc

> Every single "problem" you've brought up is a problem of govt structure, regulation, and restriction.
> 
> Even granting your assertion that "there is limited room at the top," who would you rather decide who gets there: the consumers exercising free choice, or the government selecting favored producers who necessarily come from the old-money class?
> 
> Freedom works, and your sob-stories are no more valid than the "success" stories that you dismiss as "exceptional."


Yep.  This country is built on the backs of immigrants who came here with nothing except what they could carry in a chest. A lot of them didn't even speak the language.  And life was much better here than it was in the big-government countries that they left because they at least had a chance of making an honest living for themselves.  That was the American dream.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Look up Geonomics.  No Income or Property Taxes.  A big movement. Just for you.


 Can't answer a simple, direct question, eh?  Hmmm...you aren't exactly the best spokesman for your movement.

----------


## Jovan Galtic

Wow... I am stunned there are so many Marxists ideas...

You people don't know how dangerous that is. A simple thing like his "theory of value" can cost you your freedom and millions of lives. 




> Yep.  This country is built on the backs of immigrants who came here with nothing except what they could carry in a chest. A lot of them didn't even speak the language.  And life was much better here than it was in the big-government countries that they left because they at least had a chance of making an honest living for themselves.  That was the American dream.


I am one of them and everything you said is true. Marxism needs to be debunked and destroyed. It is evil.

----------


## roho76

> There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:
> 
> The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 
> 
> Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)


Well then why don't you go get a job in China, where everything is controlled by community (I mean government, comrade), and if you bitch about your job they will murder you or if your lucky they will throw you out on the curb where you will be ostracized by the community (I mean government, comrade).

There is no benefit to a company killing you or losing all their employee's due to lack of decent working conditions. As soon as the employees leave over working conditions and the company starts losing money they will change their ways. Also, in America, I know of no time in our history where a company has turned armed guards on people striking against their employer. This is downright false.

Oh, don't forget, a government that can give you everything can also take everything away from you.

I'm convinced that people who carry your mentality and completely disassociate yourself with voluntary association, have a decease of the mind. Lay off the fast food. Little tiny microbes are eating away at your brain and effectively ruining your ability to think rationally.

----------


## Todd

where are all these guys coming from lately ..............lol?

----------


## Todd

> Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a fantasy where the private is somehow incorruptible.  I think what you miss is that that the private is less likely to have the monopoly of force on others when they do become corrupt. 

I will choose the problem of finding a solution for the private tyranny over the public tyranny anyday

----------


## Len Larson

RE: Marx debunked, one can hardly do better than Mises.
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
by Ludwig von Mises




> This masterwork is much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the entire intellectual apparatus that accompanies the socialist idea, including the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an refutation of syndicalism and corporatism, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology.
> 
> In short, Mises set out to refute socialism, and instead pulled up the socialist mentality from its very roots. For that reason, _Socialism_ led dozens of famous intellectuals, including a young F.A. Hayek, into a crisis of faith and a realist/libertarian political orientation. All the collectivist literature combined cannot equal the intellectual achievement of this one volume.

----------


## DanConway

> Hi,
> 
> So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.) 
> 
> As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a _little_ say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live. 
> 
> As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on _their terms only_.
> 
> Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)
> ...


Take this Communist 101 garbage somewhere else.  No one's buying it here.

Besides, you think a single worker's power in a business (which they have the right to leave at any time) is negligible, but a single voter's power in a dumbocracy is worth mentioning?  (Though you did tag it with the communist-promoting cliche "in theory", which really just means "if you don't think about it too carefully".)  That shows you have nothing important to say.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> RE: Marx debunked, one can hardly do better than Mises.
> Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
> by Ludwig von Mises


On this subject, Requiem For Marx is pretty good too.

----------


## idiom

> Look up Geonomics.  No Income or Property Taxes.  A big movement. Just for you.


Just 6 Trillion per year in taxes on anything productive (anything productive uses land and resources). As long as you don't actually produce anything no tax for you! A disincentive that big on production will work out really well...

If you are a giant financial bank and only use a small amount of office space in the middle of nowhere then almost no tax for you either. Oh yes, most of Wall street has left wall street to avoid the land taxes. Mega banks can operate wherever it is cheapest for them, like in Hong Kong.

----------


## idiom

Its a bit ad hominem, but Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He came from a wealthy family but still managed to reduce himself to poverty. He lived with his family in poverty leeching off his friends and writing about how the world owed him something.

He had seven children but only three survived to adulthood because he couldn't get off his arse long enough to work a job despite being very well educated.

This is not a person to be looked up to.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. *You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..."* Also, I'm talking about analyzing society _as it is_, not as we would want it to be. *And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)*
> 
> Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!


Two things here...

1. Actually we CAN say that we have a good job, and there were people who were poor and are now rich.  That's the point.  Those people who are becoming legacy poor are building their own economy based purely on the most efficient ways to milk the Government for dollars and freebies.  It has become possible because of the inefficient, bloated Government versions of what used to be private charities.  This goes back to my earlier post about how I'd rather keep more of my paycheck so I can help your hypothetical single mommy working at 3am at WalMart, rather than have the Government swipe my money via taxes and then get far less actual assistance to her than I could personally render.

2. Some of us are, in fact, comfortable.  Did it occur to you that it was not always so?  I had quite a string of temp jobs.  I was homeless for a bit.  I was never really well-off from 2000-2008, and there were a series of completely awful things I won't get into that made those years hell.  Some of them were utterly unavoidable and random.  Even when dirt poor, I did leave a few jobs.  One of them fired me.  I went out and found another one.  When that one ended for whatever reason, I found another one.  And another.  And another.  Sometimes I was in a new place and I had to find a new job there.  Sometimes I just wanted to be more ambitious and happy.  I worked for myself on the side, and still do.  I found another steady job to occupy my days.  I learned.  I grew.  I adapted.  I was on EBT for about a month and hated every second of it.  It felt so viciously, fundamentally wrong that I quit the program.  I ate a lot of pasta and potatoes and chicken after that.




> Oh? But I thought that if you were unskilled then nobody would want your labor? There is some inconsistency now.


It is not inconsistent to say she's out of work.  She said she is filling out applications.  She is seeking someone who wants her labor, and is also likely differentiating her "product" in a number of ways.  Volunteer work, side projects, and polishing your resume are all worthwhile ways to pass the time when you are unable to find employment.  




> Whoa. So you're saying that it's totally ok that *1 out of 4 people* in this country looking for work cannot find it? What a waste of human potential!


I pasted this instead of the big long diatribe about more people applying than there are jobs.  Are you aware there are a variety of jobs for which almost no one is applying, even though there are openings?  Not all of these are jobs that require certifications or diplomas.  I am considering going into court transcription as a hobby at some point (okay that one does require a certification/training), simply because it's fairly good money and you can use the same degree to get into closed-captioning.  Never heard of it?  That may be because people seem to fall into the zombie mentality that they have to be a doctor, nurse, lawyer, or one of ten other basic "respectable" jobs.  Your hypothetical 3am single mom at WalMart?  Perhaps if she works hard and shows a bit of moxie, she might qualify to move up in the ranks.  She might be at a much nicer store next, then finally work as a purchaser or a manager.  People will still look down at her, though, because she works "for WalMart" or whatever other store.  There are plenty of machinist jobs that go empty.  This town is always looking for handymen because, well, no one knows how to do that anymore!




> Let's say that I inherit a ton of money. I decide to invest it in a restaurant somewhere, and maybe I've never been there, doesn't even matter. So I give the money to someone who wants to start a restaurant. Well, a restaurant doesn't run itself, right? We need workers. So we hire some desperate people to do boring, monotonous, stressful work (cooking, cleaning, serving, dealing with annoying customers all day, etc.) And so long as they keep working, and so long as customers keep coming, I, the investor, keep making money, _whether I am doing any work or not._  Part of the value produced by the worker's labor is siphoned off so that I keep making money. I can then invest money all over the place, reaping profits from my investments, and if I don't want to, I never have to work again! Isn't capitalism wonderful? (And I want more money! Cut the workers' wages! And if I hear one peep about a union you're ALL FIRED!)


You don't get to "cut the workers' wages" if you want more money as an investor.  Someone who provides initial capital is providing a loan, though, and you don't seem to get that.  In fact, it is worse than a loan in most cases, which much less guaranteed return (interest).  You are leaving out the MANY instances where you inherit that money, invest it in a restaurant, and the Health Inspector decides that there was a fly in someone's soup that was eating out on the patio, and so the restaurant must be closed.  Bam.  You lose your money.  The restaurant cannot sell beer because its liquor license was refused on a technicality.  Uh oh!  You lose your money.  See where that is going?




> Burying your head in the sand will not help.


This is incredibly good advice.  Please take it.

----------


## tod evans

Aw come on man.......Free money sounds so much better than hard work and low pay





> Its a bit ad hominem, but Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He came from a wealthy family but still managed to reduce himself to poverty. He lived with his family in poverty leeching off his friends and writing about how the world owed him something.
> 
> He had seven children but only three survived to adulthood because he couldn't get off his arse long enough to work a job despite being very well educated.
> 
> This is not a person to be looked up to.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)


You have to pay for the basics because you do not go get them yourself.  You are free to build your own shelter, kill and prepare and cook your own food, look after your health naturally, and dig and maintain a well for water.  Oops.  Wait.  You aren't.  The Government says you can't do most of those things anymore 

You also might consider that none of us is saying the private sector is incorruptible.  It would, however, be more accountable.  If you don't like the Government right now, you can plan a violent revolution (good luck), or elect someone else who will usually have been best friends with the person you are ousting.

----------


## Professor8000

I always enjoy it when Melissa hops on a thread.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I always enjoy it when Melissa hops on a thread.


Yes but then I get bored and wander away 

OH!  A butterfly!...

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> Someone here doesn't have the remotest understanding of economics or the motivations of human interactions. I may provide some bit of enlightenment should that person become open to the idea that they are wrong in their ideas.
> 
> A truly free market economy is based on the basic human rights of property and to freely associate and to contract with each other. It is governed by the Non-Aggression Principle. What this means is that a person owns something and that no one else under any circumstances has any right to what that person owns. What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern. If that person wishes to trade his property for the property of another person, no one other than those two have any right to any part of that association and contract.
> The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government.
> 
> 
> First, lets start with that quote in full context: 
> Now that we have the full context of the quote, lets see about your response. Private Business requires the *VOLUNTARY* interaction with the people who desire the things the business is willing to trade them to function. Socialism requires the *MANDITORY* compliance with arbitrary rules and the forfeiture of the most basic of human rights, the right to property, for it to function. Socialism/Communism is based entirely on the use of force to violate the property rights of everyone by stealing their property, coercing everyone into compliance, and exploiting them by claiming ownership over the fruits of everyone's labors.
> 
> ...


Well, it looks as if you did not seriously address anything I said. I'm starting to think Libertarianism is far less intellectually rigorous than I originally thought (which is why nobody in the "real world" takes it seriously -only here, on the Internet, where nobody has to bother you...)

*"A truly free market economy is based on the basic human rights of property and to freely associate and to contract with each other. It is governed by the Non-Aggression Principle. What this means is that a person owns something and that no one else under any circumstances has any right to what that person owns. What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern. If that person wishes to trade his property for the property of another person, no one other than those two have any right to any part of that association and contract.
The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government."*

Look, this sure sounds wonderful in theory, but again, if we are talking about society we need to talk about it as it is, not as you would like it to be in some fairy land that doesn't exist.

For one, there's not reason why "property" is a basic human right. For many people, it's believed that the "basic human right" is the right to _share the commons_, meaning there are some things that _nobody_ should own (like the means of production, the rivers and skies and minerals from the Earth, or even intellectual property...) So to say that something is "basic human right" just because you say so is invalid.

*"What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern."*

Now this is just ridiculous. If BP bought the Gulf of Mexico and started dumping oil and toxic chemicals into it, I think it's fair to say that other people have a right to tell them not to. Likewise, it's not fair that three or four people can "own" an entire industry and coerce everyone else into working for low wages in unsafe conditions, just because you inherited the business from family and millions of poor workers did not. There is something wrong about a society in which a few corporate heads can affect the lives of billions of people. Especially, of course, when the workers in the business have no say in how things are run. Or the community has no say.This is fascism. Today's business model is basically Fascist, instead of democratic. You have a few guys on top who own and control everything, and the workers below have no say in how things are run. As a worker, you just take orders all day from above. And it's not your fault that you were born into a poor family, and the other guy was born into a wealthy, powerful family. There is no way to justify our hierarchical, unequal, authoritarian capitalist business structure (unless if you are on top and benefiting from it!)

We are slaves to corporate overlords in this country and you Libertarians just say, "Well, it's ok, my paycheck is enough!" You don't care about how much of your money is siphoned off by investors who don't work but cry foul when the government taxes a little bit to pay for roads, schools, clean water, etc.

*"The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government."*

This is simply not true, and the first claim isn't even supported, and runs counter to the truth that we didn't even have a market society until around the 15th century, which had to be forced onto people. Peasants were literally kicked off their communal lands, the "commons" was closed off and sold to merchants, etc. The introduction of the Market Society was very traumatic, actually. I recommend you look into the history before you make wild, inaccurate claims again. Here is some to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

*"Socialism/Communism is based entirely on the use of force to violate the property rights of everyone by stealing their property, coercing everyone into compliance, and exploiting them by claiming ownership over the fruits of everyone's labors."*

This is just not true. The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves. In this sense, "property is theft." 


 ---

Look, nobody here has done even remotely a good job at refuting anything I've said. And saying something like, "BUT LOOK HOW AWFUL CHINA IS! COMMUNISM IS TEH EVIL!" is not a valid response, as I never said I supported China, or the USSR, etc (which are all what scholars call "State Capitalist," by the way.)

Next?

----------


## tod evans

> Well, it looks as if you did not seriously address anything I said. I'm starting to think Libertarianism is far less intellectually rigorous than I originally thought 
> 
>  The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves.


Come on dude just go ahead and sue the pants off one of those evil corporate business owners, you know the ones our prez says didn't build their own businesses..

You're entitled by golly!

The rich man in a suit owes you......Go get-em'!


P.S.

(I'm not a libertarian/republican or democrat, neither am I socialist or fascist.)

----------


## TheTexan

Let this serve as a reminder that we do not just have the neocons to deal with if we are to achieve liberty, but people like Doug as well.  Doug is immune to all logic and all reason, and unfortunately, people like him make up a good chunk of the country.

My point is... even in the unlikely but hypothetical scenario that we get most of the Republican party on the side of liberty, we'll still get nothing done through politics because there will still be a $#@!load of idiots like Doug opposing us at every step. 

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction, and if we were to "radicalize" [using that word loosely] the Republican party, the Liberals would similarly rally around their own equal but opposite radical ideals.

Politics isn't the answer.  Politics can often be used as a tool for education and organization, but we won't ever get our freedom through a vote of congress.  That's just reality, take it for what it's worth.  There are (peaceful) alternatives to politics, that actually could work, and historically have worked throughout history.

----------


## Flugel89

> Ok, so, it seems to me that most of the evidence supplied in these posts is severely flawed. You cannot say "well I have a good job so..." or "these few people were poor but now they are rich so..." Also, I'm talking about analyzing society _as it is_, not as we would want it to be. And the truth is that working people are NOT in positions to leisurely pick and choose employers as many of you seem to suggest (this is a luxury enjoyed by the upper classes, which, perhaps, maybe most of the members here belong to.)
> 
> Overall, though, I find it interesting that in whereas in government, you get one equal vote and community discussion/input, and in a business, where you take orders from a boss all day and have half your paycheck stolen to the investor's profit, somehow it's the government that "enslaves" you. Only in America...!


First off. I live paycheck to paycheck working 3 jobs. Am I stuck at any of them? No, I can leave anytime I want and find another job in 2-3 days. I have plenty of options and I've found 3 that work fairly well for me.

Second. None of the companies I work for have stolen a cent from my paycheck. I get the wage I agreed upon before accepting employment. Only the government steals from my paycheck.

You talk about government needing more power than businesses, and then talk about how the large corporations/banks own the government. Well, you demanded the government had the power, and now they sold said power to the corporations. Do you see the problem here?

If the government doesn't have power, they can't sell it.

----------


## WilliamShrugged

> This is just not true. The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves. In this sense, "property is theft."


Such a misguided mindset. So agreeing to work for taco bell under their wages and hrs is slave ownership??? Plus, does that wage not benefit the worker as well? Me making the agreement to work full time for a bank at $10 an hr was not forced upon. Neither was the following of dress code or work they asked for. If i thought that was too asymmetric i could quit whenever i wanted. I decided to work there as long as i did (this week is my last) because i benefited from the benefits and wage. I made all these decision on my own because i own myself.

----------


## WilliamShrugged

Thought that this needs to be mentioned

----------


## Revolution9

> While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"


I studied on my own dime and time for years and have two separate contracts and am turning others down left and right having this skillset. I have no sympathy for anybody that is not always upgrading their skillset. CRoak and  die if you do not adapt and seek the richest bioniche to occupy.

Governments destroy these ecosystems by heavy handed interference. That is why you have unemployment and people like you wanting to shove authority down the business owners throat. You work for me you do what i say or go elsewhere. Tough $#@! if that don't cut it. Never worked for  me and I never changed any company by staying and whining. I think the better lesson was to leave immediately and let the waste pile up in their intestine.

Rev9.

----------


## idiom

> This is just not true. The fundamental idea behind Socialism is workers' control over the means of production: it means that if you work for a business, you ought to have a say in how things are run, like a co-op, for example. Instead, under Capitalism, the workers slave away to benefit a boss and investors, instead of themselves. In this sense, "property is theft."


Why don't the workers invest in the business? Or alternatively pool their savings and buy or start a business together. There is no law preventing workers from owning a Taco-Bell Franchise.

The alternative to deciding where you want to work and if you want to save and own your own business or blow your money on booze and flat screen TV and flashy cars is to have the government decide for you. If you don't want market planning then you end up with central planning, where you get assigned a family, a school, where to live, what to learn, where to work. Everybody gets to suffer equally from bad decisions.

Capitalism and free-market allow for communal ownership and employee owned companies. It is the only system that does. What you want is control over someone else's company and capital.

----------


## Revolution9

> Whoa. So you're saying that it's totally ok that *1 out of 4 people* in this country looking for work cannot find it? What a waste of human potential!


Offer them a job and they won't show up. They wanna be a movie star with no talents to actually do the job or motivation to get the chops that God didn't bestow them with naturally. That 25% is lazy because they have your attitude. In the past two days i have had 34 separate contract jobs come through my email i could have applied for. These jobs don't get counted in your tally because they are not employee jobs..they are contract work.

Rev9

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Hi,
> 
> So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.) 
> 
> As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a _little_ say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live. 
> 
> As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on _their terms only_.
> 
> Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)
> ...


Your first assumption is not true; "I am unable to participate in decisions regarding the operations of the business." Many times, in fact, innovation in business is created by the worker, the person who does the process over and over. In Wealth of Nations, Smith uses the example of a factory worker who works in a pin factory, doing this process repeatedly he eventually finds ways to make pins faster by creating short cuts in the current system. 

Let me also ask: do workers deserve equal power to control a company they have invested _zero_ capital to finance? Would this business practice be effective? 

In your second paragraph you compare yourself to a slave, but that's not true either. You could start your own business, you could become a homeless person, you could save capital, you could learn a new skill making yourself more competitive as a laborer. In short, life is full of options, you could do a million different things with your time - that's the beauty of life - the beauty of the free market.

In your fifth paragraph you show a misunderstanding of how "wages" work. To start, forget the word "wage", a wage is merely a price for labor. The price of labor is determined by the productivity of the job's impact on the market. So let's say the factory workers make an average of $20 an hour (this is the fair market value of factory labor) and this employer cuts that in half to $10. He would be underpaying his labor - the best workers would leave and find new employment for a fair price - others may form a union - others may stay but their work performance will be poor.

As you can see, this is not in the employers best interests.  

Let me ask some questions about your purchasing power argument; How are we to know when labor does have enough to buy back the product? Or when they have too much? 

You can't mean: a factory worker who makes cheap dresses should get enough to buy  back cheap dresses; the maker of Ford cars should get enough to buy back Ford cars, similarly should the worker at a Cadillac plant get enough to buy a Cadillac?

You can never understand the Economy - because you have only one focus - workers. If we try to run an economy for the benefit of one group, we will injure the whole economy. This is what governments often do, make regulations that benefit one class or one industry at the detriment of all others within the economy.


I suggest you read "Economics in One Lesson" (Free PDF online) ... or just read the chapter "The Function of Profits". You have a serious misunderstanding of what the economic purpose of profits are.


*DEBUNKED*

----------


## Revolution9

> Once upon a time I prided myself in destroying idiots on the internet.
> (cracks knuckles and pops neck)
> I think I can take this one.


OK. Yer in the running for the Annual Rev9 Immolation By Lexicon Award. Awarded for the most outstanding wielding of the English language and it's variants on trolls, reprobates, shills, drooldonkeys and borg consensus mongers. Go to it pal.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Its a bit ad hominem, but Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He came from a wealthy family but still managed to reduce himself to poverty. He lived with his family in poverty leeching off his friends and writing about how the world owed him something.
> 
> He had seven children but only three survived to adulthood because he couldn't get off his arse long enough to work a job despite being very well educated.
> 
> This is not a person to be looked up to.


Thanks for that bit of scathe I can bandy about at some of these teachers teaching our kids I have caught reading that $#@! and made them defend it. 

Rev9

----------


## BuddyRey

Doug, there was a time (just five years ago), when I was on these same forums voicing the same objections and distrust with a voluntary society as you are now.  I know folks on here can be a bit brusque with those who have opinions that run counter to the libertarian ideal, but I do hope you'll stick around for a while.  Given plenty of time, and the right people with the patience to address your concerns, you might begin to see our position.  Or maybe not.  But either way, the friendly disagreements will drive both sides to strengthen their arguments and, if possible, find common ground.

----------


## angelatc

> Whoa. So you're saying that it's totally ok that *1 out of 4 people* in this country looking for work cannot find it? What a waste of human potential!


Well, you took that totally of context, but I'll go along. I'm not saying it's totally ok for unemployment to be so high.  I'm saying it's totally predictable, because it is government policies that keep people from working.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Just 6 Trillion per year in taxes on anything productive (anything productive uses land and resources).


LAND & resouces are given by nature.  The personal productive side is LABOR. Geonomics does not tax that point, nor CAPITAL. Hence no Income, Sales Taxes or Property Taxes.




> Mega banks can operate wherever it is cheapest for them, like in Hong Kong.


Yes, Hong Kong, where Corporation and Income Taxes are low (less taxing on production) because they tax LAND (goven by nature).

----------


## EcoWarrier

> This is incredibly good advice.  Please take it.


You are obviously well practiced in head in the sand burying. How does it feel?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> A rebuttal.
> 
> "People that argue Marxist theory are therefore usually excluded from being taken seriously."


Pay attention at the back!!!! 

Did you read the comments on YouTube on the so called rebuttal. Whoever put it together was an idiot.  David Harvey objectively gave how we are in the situation we are in now. It has nothing to do with Marxism. It is how it came about.  He said he doesn't have an answer.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Can't answer a simple, direct question, eh?  Hmmm...you aren't exactly the best spokesman for your movement.


The answer is in another direction, which was given. Geonomics.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I do agree that it will never go away, but it is up to us to be an opposing force.


That is exactly what I was saying.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Most of his writings were failures of his brain. He got his basic premises wrong and because of that everything else was wrong.
> 
> Google "Yuri Maltsev".


Once again!  Most of Karl Marx writing were of the Failures of Capitalism. Which he got largly right. His solution left a lot to be desired and many eastern European $#@!ries did not implement properly what he wrote either - probably the one you came from.

Marx did mosty of his writings in London at the Library in the British Museum. He is buried in London.  The free thinking British said you can stay here and write what you like. But they never took up his solutions.

----------


## The_Honorable_Doug

> Your first assumption is not true; "I am unable to participate in decisions regarding the operations of the business." Many times, in fact, innovation in business is created by the worker, the person who does the process over and over. In Wealth of Nations, Smith uses the example of a factory worker who works in a pin factory, doing this process repeatedly he eventually finds ways to make pins faster by creating short cuts in the current system. 
> 
> Let me also ask: do workers deserve equal power to control a company they have invested _zero_ capital to finance? Would this business practice be effective? 
> 
> In your second paragraph you compare yourself to a slave, but that's not true either. You could start your own business, you could become a homeless person, you could save capital, you could learn a new skill making yourself more competitive as a laborer. In short, life is full of options, you could do a million different things with your time - that's the beauty of life - the beauty of the free market.
> 
> In your fifth paragraph you show a misunderstanding of how "wages" work. To start, forget the word "wage", a wage is merely a price for labor. The price of labor is determined by the productivity of the job's impact on the market. So let's say the factory workers make an average of $20 an hour and this employer cuts that in half to $10. He would be underpaying his labor - the best workers would leave and find new employment for a fair price - others may form a union - others may stay but their work performance will be poor.
> 
> As you can see, this is not in the employers best interests.  
> ...


First off, thanks for a legitimate response. I suppose that we'll now continue the conversation from here, as I cannot respond to every individual post since my last (but of course, people are free to go back and read my other responses.)

*"Let me also ask: do workers deserve equal power to control a company they have invested zero capital to finance? Would this business practice be effective?"*

If we lived in a free, voluntary society, sure, someone should not have the right to take what belongs to others (you're asking a question that is dependent on society as it is today, whereas I am proposing a different kind of society, so this question is slightly missing the point). However, this simply is not the case. What is the case in today's world, and has been the case historically, is that a super-wealthy financial and political elite emerges by sheer virtue of claiming the means of production for themselves (the factories, fields, farms, offices, etc) and forcing everyone else (who do not own capital) to sell their labor in exchange for wages. Essentially (and what _many_ people here seem to miss), these people have no choice but to sell their labor and time and body and mind to somebody else. And of course, you don't get the full value of your labor back, or else there would be no profit for the owner. So while your question proposes an interesting thought regarding a matter of principle, it is still trapped within the confines of society as it is today. So, for example, if we lived in a society in which the community decided how to invest extra capital, of course the workers would deserve equal power to control the company: they are the ones _actually_ doing the work, after all! 

*"In your second paragraph you compare yourself to a slave, but that's not true either. You could start your own business, you could become a homeless person, you could save capital, you could learn a new skill making yourself more competitive as a laborer. In short, life is full of options, you could do a million different things with your time - that's the beauty of life - the beauty of the free market."* 

Again, this sounds great but is just not true in reality. These options are not really available to most people. For one, something like 9 out of 10 new businesses fail because nobody can compete with giant corporations. And few people have time or money to learn new skills (if you're working 50 hours a week to barely scrape by and raising three kids, how the hell are you supposed to find time or money to just learn new skills?). Also, for the most part, almost nobody in America "moves up" as a result of their own "hard work." In fact, most people are "moving down" right now into lower classes. We cannot seriously say that this because everyone is becoming lazier. The only "beauty" of the "free market" is that it's incredibly rigged against the "little guy" in favor of a wealthy and powerful elite. It has always been that way. 

*"The price of labor is determined by the productivity of the job's impact on the market."*

Here, again, your response is trapped in the framework of the market, which is the very thing I'm critiquing (at least, at the moment) so this isn't really saying much. I could just as easily say the price of labor is determined by whatever the king says it is, or whatever the community decides is fair, or whatever the workers themselves vote on, etc etc. See where I'm getting at?

*You can't mean: a factory worker who makes cheap dresses should get enough to buy  back cheap dresses; the maker of Ford cars should get enough to buy back Ford cars, similarly should the worker at a Cadillac plant get enough to buy a Cadillac?*

That's _sorta_ what I'm saying. If it were not for the split of profits between the owners and the workers, the workers would get paid for what they produce. If you build a car and sell it for $5000, you get $5000. If you build a car for a capitalist and he sells it for $5000, you do not get $5000, but whatever the capitalist says is fair, or whatever the "market" says your labor is worth (which, again, is completely arbitrary). But ultimately, whose labor built the car? 

*"You can never understand the Economy - because you have only one focus - workers. If we try to run an economy for the benefit of one group, we will injure the whole economy. This is what governments often do, make regulations that benefit one class or one industry at the detriment of all others within the economy."*

Again, if we lived in a society in which nobody could claim the means of production all for themselves and force everyone else to sell their labor or starve, this would not be an issue, i.e., there would not be a split between super-wealthy financial elites (today's owner/investor class) and the mostly poor and powerless workers (today's working/middle class.) There would just be people, voluntarily producing and sharing as equals. 

___

So back to my original point. I think I've made it perfectly clear now that there is no such thing as a "free market," that there never has been one, and that there never can be. The "free market" is an ideology used to justify illegitimate power structures centered around the private ownership of the means of production: the "free market" is always rigged in favor of the powerful. The same people who claim to support free-market principles almost never live by those principles themselves (just look at the number of Fortune 500 companies that are completely dependent on the government for subsidies, or tax advantages, or public schools to train their workers, or a powerful military to defend their interests abroad, or to protect their products through tariffs, the list goes on and on and on...)

Every time the community seeks to exercise its power over a private business, to protect workers from abuse, to protect the environment, to make sure the owners aren't cheating, to make sure they don't export all the jobs the community needs to survive, they cry "But the free market! You can't tell us what to do!" This is why we need a strong government: it helps to balance out an incredibly unequal society (in terms of money and power). In government, we get to vote as equals, whereas in the economy, there is no democracy at all, only authority flowing from the top down.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:
> 
> The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, _not voluntary_. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am _wants_ to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even _remotely_, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise. 
> 
> Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)


You have a point. Completely wrong solution though.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Its a bit ad hominem, but Karl Marx never worked a day in his life. He came from a wealthy family but still managed to reduce himself to poverty.


Marx was supported by rich people who admired his writings. Engles was one. A German textile company owner who also had a factory in Manchester in England.  Engles wrote as well and his observations on the dire poverty on the workers in Manchester at the time is eye opening.  He lived with an Irish lady, Mary Byrne who took him around the city.

These poor working people, in all countries, were far better off in the period before the Industrial Revolution living in agriculture. The likes of Engles sought an answer to the new industrial order and massive poverty they saw as the fallout - in a society that created masses of wealth and technical advancement like nothing before it. They supported Marx and his research.  

Others were shocked at the poverty they saw in a era of massive wealth creation and wondered why this could happen.  Henry George was one. George would have spats with Marx.  George came up with a different solution to Marx, which took the positives of Capitalism and led to Geonomics.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Aw come on man.......Free money sounds so much better than hard work and low pay


Yes, unearned income from land rents and increased values of land. They get rich in their sleep for doing nothing.

----------


## idiom

> Marx was supported by rich people who admired his writings. Engles was one. A German textile company owner who also had a factory in Manchester in England.  Engles wrote as well and his observations on the dire poverty on the workers in Manchester at the time is eye opening.  He lived with an Irish lady, Mary Byrne who took him around the city.
> 
> These poor working people, in all countries, were far better off in the period before the Industrial Revolution living in agriculture. The likes of Engles sought an answer to the new industrial order and massive poverty they saw as the fallout - in a society that created masses of wealth and technical advancement like nothing before it. They supported Marx and his research.  
> 
> Others were shocked at the poverty they saw in a era of massive wealth creation and wondered why this could happen.  Henry George was one. George would have spats with Marx.  George came up with a different solution to Marx, which took the positives of Capitalism and led to Geonomics.


The were all better off than the Taiwanese who had their villages seized under the LVT Reforms of the KMT invaders.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.


Where is this hypothetical capitalist society?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The free-market is based on the three factors of production:
> 
> *LAND -* all land and its resources
> *CAPITAL -* all man made things, inc money
> *LABOR -* human mental and physical effort
> 
> When the above runs free and unrigged, the free-market works brilliantly.  
> 
> Corporations were developed to counter the free-market and corner it.
> ...


Tell me how FDR made everything great.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> This is a troll thread, move along people, nothing to see here.


At least it's a change from the norm. These trolls aren't pretending to be Paul supporters.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You sound like you are in La-La land not the real world.  Government is there. Get used to it. Use the democratic system to manipulate it.
> 
> Anarchy is not going to happen.


The democratic system is why we're in this mess. The U.S. was founded as a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

----------


## nayjevin

What about folks who are extremely skilled and talented but have near zero ability to sell themselves or type up resumes or conduct powerful interviews?

Perhaps the system is biased?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The were all better off than the Taiwanese who had their villages seized under the LVT Reforms of the KMT invaders.


You must stop making things up. Please focus.  Read Engles on the poverty of the people of Manchester. Which was similar to all industrialized countries at the time.

----------


## tod evans

> Yes, unearned income from land rents and increased values of land. They get rich in their sleep for doing nothing.


No.......Pay attention;

"They" earn dividends from land ownership, land "They" invested in with money "They" earned...

"They" must practice good stewardship in order to see returns on "Their" investment..

You too could own land.........Or not, it's up to you.

----------


## idiom

> You must stop making things up. Please focus.  Read Engles on the poverty of the people of Manchester. Which was similar to all industrialized countries at the time.


Read your own Geonomists on the consequences of LVT reforms. Proponents of Geonomics list these things but consider them good because Tribal people are not fully utilising their land, so it is good when they lose out to people who can use the land better.

Besides its not like the Tribal people owned the land they were living for centuries or millennia. You can't 'own' land right. That's why you say it can't be seized.

It just gets re-allocated to more efficient users or people with more efficient ties to the government.

----------


## idiom

> Yes, unearned income from land rents and increased values of land. They get rich in their sleep for doing nothing.


The rich get poor in their sleep if they do nothing.

Just like Marx. He never bothered to earn one single penny. Just watched his children die.

That's what happens when you do nothing.

You know what happens the moment of a BIG stock market crash? The rich start killing themselves. The lose everything. They jump from buildings.

The poor barely feel the crash unless the government intervenes and makes it last for years instead of weeks. Speculation should only hurt the rich, but bad economic intervention makes it hurt the poor.

----------


## jmdrake

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"
> 
> Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!


I'm sure in this extremely long thread somebody has already said this, but the businesses *do* go somewhere else under your scenario which drives unemployment up even hire giving you less options.  Oh yeah, and as that happens the businesses that are left inevitably have more power.  That can extract more and more concessions from the community that *thought* it was in "control".  It happens all the time.  Unions push one manufacturer out, unemployment skyrockets, then city/state leaders bend over backwards to offer "incentives" for some new manufacturer to come it.  The workers end up being "slaves" (since you put it that way) to the unions, the city and the employers.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The rich get poor in their sleep if they do nothing.
> 
> Just like Marx.


Stop banging on about Marx you half-wit!  An obsessive. David Harvey gave a lecture on how we ended up in the financial situation we are in. Nothing to do with Marx.  It was factual observation by Harvey.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You can't 'own' land right. That's why you say it can't be seized.


Land is seized. It was seized by many means - for private gain.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> No.......Pay attention;
> 
> "They" earn dividends from land ownership, land "They" invested in with money "They" earned...


You invest in productive activities that hopefully give returns. I see no production in appropriating into private pockets commonly created wealth that soaked into the land crystallizing as values. That is "unearned income".  If you didn't know now you do.  I never made it up.

Find out the difference between speculation and investment.

----------


## Revolution9

> What about folks who are extremely skilled and talented but have near zero ability to sell themselves or type up resumes or conduct powerful interviews?
> 
> Perhaps the system is biased?


I had to learn how to sell my skill and talent. This gave me further skills.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Stop banging on about Marx you half-wit!  An obsessive. David Harvey gave a lecture on how we ended up in the financial situation we are in. Nothing to do with Marx.  It was factual observation by Harvey.


Stop defending his sorry, lay about, couch potato, armchair philosopher's ass you quarter wit and folks won't bring up his utter failings as a human being, father and theorist.. Probably made a $#@!ty spouse too.

Rev9

----------


## tod evans

Let's see if I can follow your theory here;

You consider land to be *"commonly created wealth"*.....right?

Before I even ask about "soaking or crystallization" how about explaining your view of land?





> You invest in productive activities that hopefully give returns. I see no production in appropriating into private pockets commonly created wealth that soaked into the land crystallizing as values. That is "unearned income".  If you didn't know now you do.  I never made it up.
> 
> Find out the difference between speculation and investment.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Let's see if I can follow your theory here;
> 
> You consider land to be *"commonly created wealth"*.....right?
> 
> Before I even ask about "soaking or crystallization" how about explaining your view of land?


Don't bother. He thinks that we need taxes and tries to rationalize justification for them. I think in the other thread he claimed we should spend on welfare just as much as we do today. He thinks civilization can not exist unless government pays for infrastructure.

As far as his view on land he thinks that just because you live near a community you owe it for them not looting and pillaging you. He does not understand that every member of the community while benefiting from other working and living nearby brings the same benefit by doing the same thing.

----------


## tod evans

I'm hoping he'll see the foolishness of his positions.........then again.......




> Don't bother. He thinks that we need taxes and tries to rationalize justification for them. I think in the other thread he claimed we should spend on welfare just as much as we do today. He thinks civilization can not exist unless government pays for infrastructure.
> 
> As far as his view on land he thinks that just because you live near a community you owe it for them not looting and pillaging you. He does not understand that every member of the community while benefiting from other working and living nearby brings the same benefit by doing the same thing.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Let's see if I can follow your theory here; You consider land to be *"commonly created wealth"*.....right?


 Land is given by nature NOT by man. Land is NOT commonly created. Land and its resources are Commonwealth. Simple. Make a washing machine (CAPITAL made by man) and man owns it. Land ownership is "title", a set of rights. You do not actually "own" the land. You need title of keep others off the land while you use it. The values in the land are created by community economic actity, not the landower. That is economic fact. That is how the land values came about, they never came from the sky. Your house does not improve in value. The house (CAPITAL) is the wood and bricks and depreciates over time. The land appreciates. 

You need to learn more about basic economics.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Don't bother. He thinks that we need taxes


He does? He wants Income, Sales and property taxes removed. All taxes on production and trade. 

In your Utopia of zero taxes, how are common services going to be funded?

----------


## silverhandorder

> He does? He wants Income, Sales and property taxes removed. All taxes on production and trade. 
> 
> In your Utopia of zero taxes, how are common services going to be funded?


Use fees like any other common service.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Use fees like any other common service.


So every street has a coin machine and turnstyle as you can walk down it?  The army?  Door to door collections?  You pay the police for each call out? 

Get out of La-La land!!!!!

----------


## Len Larson

I would appreciate it if Doug or someone else would define what "Market Society" is and enumerate the points of contact it has with "Free Market".

In the meantime here is an article that seems appropriate:

Mistaken Identity
By Art Carden




> It is always the fashion among many intellectuals to blame society’s ills on the free market. One college newspaper recently argued that the market is "The God That Sucked." The course summaries in my university’s catalog, the themes of the lecture series, and the editorial content of the student newspapers suggest that many students and faculty would agree.
> 
> Popular contempt for the market is distressing. Few institutions are so universally reviled, and perhaps fewer institutions are so universally misunderstood. This misunderstanding can be dangerous: the radicals who protest so vehemently against the workings of the free market rarely understand that they advocate strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs.
> 
> To borrow from Robert Frost, we should consider how the heavens go before we try to change the world. In other words, we must consider what is before we talk about what ought to be.
> 
> Many disagreements have their genesis in misunderstanding and equivocation. So let’s define the term "free market." Dictionary.com defines a "market" as "an opportunity to buy or sell" and a "free market" as "an economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions." "Free markets" and "capitalism" are practically synonymous, and George Reisman defines capitalism eloquently:
> 
> "Capitalism is a social system based on private ownership of the means of production. It is characterized by the pursuit of material self-interest under freedom and it rests on a foundation of the cultural influence of reason. Based on its foundations and essential nature, capitalism is further characterized by saving and capital accumulation, exchange and money, financial self-interest and the profit motive, the freedoms of economic competition and economic inequality, the price system, economic progress, and a harmony of the material self-interests of all the individuals who participate in it."
> ...

----------


## Elwar

> I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise


This is where you chose to be a slave.

----------


## tod evans

> Land is given by nature NOT by man. Land is NOT commonly created. 
> 
> You need to learn more about basic economics.


I'm not studying economics, I'm desperately trying to understand your positions..

I directly quote you then you tell me I'm wrong...

Now instead of land being purchased (like so many have done) it is given...

----------


## Elwar

> Land is given by nature NOT by man.


And who owns nature?

----------


## angelatc

> That is exactly what I was saying.


But you want to hand all the power (in the form of resources) to government.  History indicates that handing any power to government ends up being a terrible idea, so I'm not on board with that at all.

----------


## angelatc

> Read your own Geonomists on the consequences of LVT reforms. Proponents of Geonomics list these things but consider them good because Tribal people are not fully utilising their land, so it is good when they lose out to people who can use the land better.
> 
> Besides its not like the Tribal people owned the land they were living for centuries or millennia. You can't 'own' land right. That's why you say it can't be seized.
> 
> It just gets re-allocated to more efficient users or people with more efficient ties to the government.


Sort of like we do here, with eminent domain?  Take the land away from the homeowner and give it to the corporation that can use it to generate more revenue.

----------


## angelatc

> What about folks who are extremely skilled and talented but have near zero ability to sell themselves or type up resumes or conduct powerful interviews?
> 
> Perhaps the system is biased?


There are a myriad of places that will help you gloss up resumes and the internet is full of interviews and articles about how to interview well.  Dear God, I'm about as socially awkward as they come and I usually manage not to drool through an interview.

People have posted resumes here and received great advice. 

There are jobs at the upper end of the scale that I will never get, because my personality isn't suited to do them.  (I hate managing people.  Stick me in an office with a bunch of papers and close the door already!) And there are others that I will never get because I didn't get a CPA or an advanced degree.   

But if I don't get a job that I am suited for because I had typos on my resume or didn't bother to do any homework on the company, then I really can only blame myself.

----------


## angelatc

> Stop banging on about Marx you half-wit!  An obsessive. David Harvey gave a lecture on how we ended up in the financial situation we are in. Nothing to do with Marx.  It was factual observation by Harvey.


Harvey is a Marxist.   That automatically discredits him.  As for your aassertion thata I reaad the YouTube comments on the rebuttal video...they're idiots.  I don't have any interest in debating the internet, but if you'd like to post one you find especially succinct, we can happily address that on it's own merits.

But as the author of the rebuttal video clearly points out: 




> His entire argument can be debunked simply by looking at the Census data regarding income.
> 
> The original video can be found here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0
> 
> Citations:
> President's Economic Data:
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2010/2010_erp.pdf
> 
> ...

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Harvey is a Marxist.   That automatically discredits him.


Oh no!  Not another brainwashed one. He accurately gave how the situation evolved to the fiancial crash.  Prof Harvey never gave any solutions.

Study some economics.  It will help you.

The author of the rebuttal video is a clear idiot.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> But you want to hand all the power (in the form of resources) to government.


Do I? New to me.  I want exactly the opposite.  Geonomics uses LVT as its core, which is merely a tax shift.  No transfer of power.  Those who extract natural resouces (common wealth) pay for it.  Simple.  Do do not need to think much about it either.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> And who owns nature?


No single man.  Nature is common wealth within a sovereign state.  Man never made it.

----------


## Elwar

> Those who extract natural resouces (common wealth) pay for it.


How is something that is owned, "common wealth"?

Whom do they pay?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I directly quote you then you tell me I'm wrong...


You misquote.




> Now instead of land being purchased (like so many have done) it is given...


With Geonomics land ownerships stays the same. You can buy and sell as before. No change.

----------


## Elwar

> No single man.  Nature is common wealth within a sovereign state.  Man never made it.


But man may claim it.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> How is something that is owned, "common wealth"?
> 
> Whom do they pay?


You do not own the resources. You extract ores you pay the community. You extract oil you pay.  This revenue from commonly owned natural resouces goes to paying common services leaving private wealth in private hands - no income tax, etc.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> So every street has a coin machine and turnstyle as you can walk down it?  The army?  Door to door collections?  You pay the police for each call out? 
> 
> Get out of La-La land!!!!!


La la land? Which one of us is voting for Obama in November? That's la la land.

----------


## tod evans

> You misquote.


Come on kid, copy-n-paste really can't be screwed up even by an old fart...





> With Geonomics land ownerships stays the same. You can buy and sell as before. No change.


Now just a minute ago you claimed that under this theory;




> You do not own the resources.


Do you have an actual agenda or are you just stirring the pot?

----------


## Elwar

> You do not own the resources. You extract ores you pay the community. You extract oil you pay.  This revenue from commonly owned natural resouces goes to paying common services leaving private wealth in private hands - no income tax, etc.


You own it if you are the first to claim it.

Just like with homesteading. If you can demonstrate that you can stake claim to the resource, then it is yours. Now it is yours to either protect or develop.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

*If we lived in a free, voluntary society, sure, someone should not have the right to take what belongs to others (you're asking a question that is dependent on society as it is today, whereas I am proposing a different kind of society, so this question is slightly missing the point). However, this simply is not the case. What is the case in today's world, and has been the case historically, is that a super-wealthy financial and political elite emerges by sheer virtue of claiming the means of production for themselves (the factories, fields, farms, offices, etc) and forcing everyone else (who do not own capital) to sell their labor in exchange for wages. Essentially (and what many people here seem to miss), these people have no choice but to sell their labor and time and body and mind to somebody else. And of course, you don't get the full value of your labor back, or else there would be no profit for the owner. So while your question proposes an interesting thought regarding a matter of principle, it is still trapped within the confines of society as it is today. So, for example, if we lived in a society in which the community decided how to invest extra capital, of course the workers would deserve equal power to control the company: they are the ones actually doing the work, after all!* 

You're welcome for the legitimate response, now if you could be so kind as to answer my previous question. I will rephrase it for you: Would this Socialist average Joe be an effective co-owner of industry? Or is there a reason that his boss rose thru the division of labor and became an owner of the company; in short, is he capable? Would this Socialist worker care enough about a company he has invested nothing in; in short, is he willing? 

You say elite's "claim the means of production". This is not theft - it is a voluntary process - as anyone who can save capital and innovate can become an owner of production - also they have earned the right to keep their business by virtue of voluntary exchange, by providing others in the economy with a product/service at a cost effective price - not by force. However, the government you advocate calls for theft and non-voluntary barriers on the free market.

*Again, this sounds great but is just not true in reality. These options are not really available to most people. For one, something like 9 out of 10 new businesses fail because nobody can compete with giant corporations. And few people have time or money to learn new skills (if you're working 50 hours a week to barely scrape by and raising three kids, how the hell are you supposed to find time or money to just learn new skills?). Also, for the most part, almost nobody in America "moves up" as a result of their own "hard work." In fact, most people are "moving down" right now into lower classes. We cannot seriously say that this because everyone is becoming lazier. The only "beauty" of the "free market" is that it's incredibly rigged against the "little guy" in favor of a wealthy and powerful elite. It has always been that way.* 

You blame the Free Market and not the Government for the American living standard?

What service has the government provided us recently? 

Foreign wars. Drug wars - mass incarceration. Inefficient government spending. High inflation. Trillions in debt.

The Division of labor is competitive: for good reason. if you had three children before learning a skill, this is how you choose to live your life: You choose children over a skill. Is this right or is this wrong? It's subjective, it depends on that individuals values. As far as being busy goes, I work full time and I am a student, but I read books on Economics on my break at work: this is how I have gained the knowledge to refute your Socialist claims. Skill aquired, despite a busy life, it is indeed possible.

Now if a person wishes to live life with the ammenities the free market has to offer they must be productive. If one wishes to live off of unemployment and other welfare programs, they have the choice to be unproductive and live in uncomfort. Still, this is a choice - you are not a slave. I think I have clearly proven that fact. 

*Here, again, your response is trapped in the framework of the market, which is the very thing I'm critiquing (at least, at the moment) so this isn't really saying much. I could just as easily say the price of labor is determined by whatever the king says it is, or whatever the community decides is fair, or whatever the workers themselves vote on, etc etc. See where I'm getting at?*

The workers do vote on their wages:

The price of labor is determined by the productivity the job has on the market: this is done thru subjective (guesses) of both the workers and the employers, respectively. My response is "trapped" in the framework of reality, my friend. You are the one trying to prove to me that your Socialist dream land will succeed.

*That's sorta what I'm saying. If it were not for the split of profits between the owners and the workers, the workers would get paid for what they produce. If you build a car and sell it for $5000, you get $5000. If you build a car for a capitalist and he sells it for $5000, you do not get $5000, but whatever the capitalist says is fair, or whatever the "market" says your labor is worth (which, again, is completely arbitrary). But ultimately, whose labor built the car?* 

Labor and Capital built the car: not labor alone. (Again, you are only focusing on labor - not the entire economy)

If a worker gets 100% of the profits, there is no incentive for a capitalist to build a car: no reward for his risk of capital. If you want a shortages of cars, your policies are a brilliant fit.

*Again, if we lived in a society in which nobody could claim the means of production all for themselves and force everyone else to sell their labor or starve, this would not be an issue, i.e., there would not be a split between super-wealthy financial elites (today's owner/investor class) and the mostly poor and powerless workers (today's working/middle class.) There would just be people, voluntarily producing and sharing as equals.* 

Let me guess: We should create a massive government built on Theft and stop the Natural, Voluntary Exchange of the Free Market by banning private ownership of production!

You have done it my friend! You have created a Free, and Voluntary society. You have won the arguement! Truth is on your side!


*DEBUNKED*

----------


## angelatc

> In fact, there are literally _limitless_ ways we could organize an economy, and this is easily found in the countless tribes and cultures studied by anthropologists.


I think the biggest problem with that statement is the premise that "we" can organize an economy.   Economies only fail when central planners intervene.

----------


## angelatc

> Do I? New to me.  I want exactly the opposite.  Geonomics uses LVT as its core, which is merely a tax shift.  No transfer of power.  Those who extract natural resouces (common wealth) pay for it.  Simple.  Do do not need to think much about it either.


I do not believe in a common wealth.  I also don't believe in natural rights or social contracts.   

What about resources like sunlight and water?

----------


## angelatc

> Oh no!  Not another brainwashed one. He accurately gave how the situation evolved to the fiancial crash.  Prof Harvey never gave any solutions.
> 
> Study some economics.  It will help you.
> 
> The author of the rebuttal video is a clear idiot.


This man teaches Marx at a college level, but I'm the brainwashed one?  

You're a funny little man.  I can pretty much guarantee you that I've studied more economics than you, and I have a piece of paper to prove it.  I sat through plenty of Marx-based economic theory before I knew what it was, but was able to "sense" something was wrong with the premise even though I had to study a little more to determine exactly what those things were.  

The author gave you pages of government numbers to refute the assertions in the video, and all you can do is call him names.  It appears that your position isn't supported by much, is it?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> What about folks who are extremely skilled and talented but have near zero ability to sell themselves or type up resumes or conduct powerful interviews?
> 
> Perhaps the system is biased?


The Free Market is not a "System", it is the natural state of man.

Hire someone to write your resume.

Hire someone to train you in interviewing skills: read a book on interviewing process, communication skills.

----------


## TheTexan

Government is just a corporation that has a monopoly on force.  So if you think corporations are bad, think about giving a corporation the monopoly on force, and then you have government

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Government is just a corporation that has a monopoly on force.  So if you think corporations are bad, think about giving a corporation the monopoly on force, and then you have government


This^^  The Constitution is a corporate charter.

----------


## phill4paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ghlight=Gibson

  'nuff said.

----------


## idiom

> Land is given by nature NOT by man. Land is NOT commonly created. Land and its resources are Commonwealth. Simple. Make a washing machine (CAPITAL made by man) and man owns it. Land ownership is "title", a set of rights. You do not actually "own" the land. You need title of keep others off the land while you use it. The values in the land are created by community economic actity, not the landower. That is economic fact. That is how the land values came about, they never came from the sky. Your house does not improve in value. The house (CAPITAL) is the wood and bricks and depreciates over time. The land appreciates. 
> 
> You need to learn more about basic economics.


You never did explain why towns that have plenty of infrastructure and people, but no businesses left have low land values.

Shouldn't Ghost Towns generate tonnes of Land Tax Revenue if infrastructure and community creates wealth?

----------


## MelissaWV

> You are obviously well practiced in head in the sand burying. How does it feel?


That's so strange the way two different posters answer me interchangably with almost the same style and such.

It couldn't be multiple accounts.  That would be against forum guidelines.

----------


## MelissaWV

> The Free Market is not a "System", it is the natural state of man.
> 
> Hire someone to write your resume.
> 
> Hire someone to train you in interviewing skills: read a book on interviewing process, communication skills.


Or get/create a job that requires neither a resume nor an interview.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> *Land is given by nature NOT by man.*


That sounds real nice in happy hippie eco land but in the real world land can be bought and sold just like any other form of property.

----------


## AFPVet

The problem here is when big business buys out the government. Sound familiar? Regulations can be created to favor the big capital in order to suppress the little guy.

----------


## soulcyon

The whole premise of the OP is based on a so-called fact that "unemployment is high" and its "tough to find a job" thus you're indirectly FORCED to work under said Boss.

----------


## SpicyTurkey

OP is on da good $#@!.

----------


## tttppp

> The Free Market is not a "System", it is the natural state of man.
> 
> Hire someone to write your resume.
> 
> Hire someone to train you in interviewing skills: read a book on interviewing process, communication skills.


Unfortunately, most jobs go to the people who can bs people the best, not necessarily the best people (Obama). Most employers want to be told what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. It takes lots of practice to learn how to kiss ass if you want to. Even then you are not going to be as good at it as the people who are natural at it.

----------


## Revolution9

> This^^  The Constitution is a corporate charter.


\

The one of 1883 is. The prior one not so.

Rev9

----------


## EcoWarrier

> You never did explain why towns that have plenty of infrastructure and people, but no businesses left have low land values.
> 
> Shouldn't Ghost Towns generate tonnes of Land Tax Revenue if infrastructure and community creates wealth?


Infrastructure does not create wealth. It is a mechanism to aid wealth creation. An underground metro in a city is essential for wealth creation to get people around and to work fast and easy. They do not make profits on tickets sales but are profitable to the community as they assist in wealth generation. Close down the NY Subway and the city would economically decline.

Towns which have no businesses tend not to have people. Mining towns are the obvious. When the ore runs out, there is nothing left and the people move - unless the town has developed other forms of industry. But mining towns tend to be in the wrong place for commercial general trade.  Large coal mining towns tended to survive as industry was attracted to the tows because of the available energy. When the coal is exhausted they just convert to oil and stay put. 

The e.g., of Johannesburg is good as here is an ex mining town that has no right to be what it is as it is not a port, on a river, in fertile land, etc. LVT made the city strong and survive the diamond mines closing, making the city a Southern African financial centre.

Low land values come about because the land is not in demand by the community because the land gives little economic advantage - there may be no jobs around.  Get it?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> That sounds real nice in happy hippie eco land but in the real world land can be bought and sold just like any other form of property.


Again.  Land is given by nature NOT by man. Always remember that. Land is bought and sold and should be.  You do not need to be a hippy to know that.  There is nothing you can buy that acts and reacts in a market like land.  It is inelastic. Of finite supply. We need LAND and its RESOUCES to survive

We have world wide crashes because LAND is treated like a washing machine. If we are short of washing machines we can make more. If we are short of land that gives economic gain we cannot make more. 

You can take cheap LABOR from Alabama to NY
You can take cheap CAPITAL (washing machines) from Alabama to NY
You *cannot* take cheap LAND from Alabama to NY

Neo-classical economics moved LAND into CAPITAL and since then the economic system has gone wild.  We need to revert to classical economics.

*Land is unique and special being completly different from movable objects like machinery, equipment and raw materials*. If the price of cement rises in one location than another the cheaper cement will move to the location where the prices are higher equalising the price of cement (making cement cheaper) - moveable goods and service equalize the price (value).

----------


## idiom

> An underground metro in a city is essential for wealth creation to get people around and to work fast and easy.


Every public transportation system I have every used has been self-supporting. Why wouldn't it be? It would have to be extremely poorly managed...

Low land values come about when there is low business demand for the land. Johannesburg was suitable for business without specific geographic requirements. Despite you insistence, not every business needs a geographical resource to survive.

*Two towns, 100km apart. One has LVT at 80% the other has LVT at 5%. Neither town has any other taxes. Which town do you set up a business in?*

----------


## idiom

> *Land is unique and special being completly different from movable objects like machinery, equipment and raw materials*. If the price of cement rises in one location than another the cheaper cement will move to the location where the prices are higher equalising the price of cement (making cement cheaper) - moveable goods and service equalize the price (value).


Land is just a huge hunk of raw materials. Your view is about three thousand years out of date. Any amount of land can be moved anywhere. You clearly don't believe in other planets, in land reclamation, in open pit mining, or that Holland exists...

We actually have the ability to create matter now. We can't generate the energy yet to do that yet. Earth is not even the largest planet in this system. There are countless other planets we are aware of. There are billions of tonnes of asteroids in reach.

'Unique' and 'finite' and 'productive' have definitions quite different from the way you use them.



Land being _made_. Homes and businesses will be on this brand new land.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Land is just a huge hunk of raw materials. Your view is about three thousand years out of date. Any amount of land can be moved anywhere. You clearly don't believe in other planets, in land reclamation, in open pit mining, or that Holland exists...
> 
> We actually have the ability to create matter now. We can't generate the energy yet to do that yet. Earth is not even the largest planet in this system. There are countless other planets we are aware of. There are billions of tonnes of asteroids in reach.
> 
> 'Unique' and 'finite' and 'productive' have definitions quite different from the way you use them.
> 
> 
> 
> Land being _made_. Homes and businesses will be on this brand new land.


It seems Eco is pretending your post doesn't exist.

----------


## idiom

> It seems Eco is pretending your post doesn't exist.


Its not for him.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> \
> 
> The one of 1883 is. The prior one not so.
> 
> Rev9


Incorrect.  The original was also.  Version 1883 is more obviously tyrannical, though.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> We actually have the ability to create matter now.


Are we about to create another planet earth?  Duh!

Land is: dry and, the sea, seabed (wet land), the air, electromagnetic spec rum.  Dredging sand from the sea bed to make dry land is shuffling the furniture around.  Get it?

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Every public transportation system I have every used has been self-supporting.


No underground urban metro in the world survives on ticket prices.




> *Two towns, 100km apart. One has LVT at 80% the other has LVT at 5%. Neither town has any other taxes. Which town do you set up a business in?*


The one with LVT as there is no Corporation tax, income tax, sales tax, or any taxes on production which makes business thrive.  Which occured in Denmark.

----------


## idiom

> The one with LVT as there is no Corporation tax, income tax, sales tax, or any taxes on production which makes business thrive.


Which part of "Neither town has any other taxes." was too hard?




> Dredging sand from the sea bed to make dry land is shuffling the furniture around. Get it?


So you are saying land _can_ be moved around then? But you just said it can't be moved around...




> *Land is unique and special being completly different from movable objects like machinery, equipment and raw materials*.

----------


## Theodore

[QUOTE=From The_Honorable_Doug;4566878]Hi,

Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that 
businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away 
with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics:
food, shelter, health, etc.)

This is why we need a stronger government: it is the sphere of democracy, in which (theoretically) all citizens can participate as equals, 
unlike in a private business, where workers are subordinated to the interests of the investors/owners/bosses. In this case, the government 
can step in to prevent the workers from abuse, if they are unable to do so themselves.

Hello Doug: 

The National Labor Relations Board used to be quite competent in settling labor disputes but it has (30 years ago) been politicised.  The NLRB should be reconstituted as a lifetime nine member elected board with an oversite appeal system (the US Supreme Court for instance can handle appeals).  The NLRB decisions should be binding and enforced by the Justice Department, unless an appeal is submitted to the Supreme Court.

Theodore

----------


## idiom

> The National Labor Relations Board used to be quite competent in settling labor disputes but it has (30 years ago) been politicised.  The NLRB should be reconstituted as a lifetime nine member elected board with an oversite appeal system (the US Supreme Court for instance can handle appeals).  The NLRB decisions should be binding and enforced by the Justice Department, unless an appeal is submitted to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Theodore


A government is just a group of people, usually, notably, ungoverned.

----------


## Theodore

Hello VoluntaryAmerican: the folowing is my reply to The Honorable Doug

Hi Doug: 

The National Labor Relations Board used to be quite competent in settling labor disputes but it has (30 years ago) been politicised by both parties. The NLRB should be reconstituted very simply as a lifetime nine member elected board with an oversite appeal system (the US Supreme Court for instance can handle appeals). The NLRB decisions should be binding and enforced by the Justice Department, unless an appeal is submitted to the Supreme Court. 

Theodore

----------


## idiom

> Hello VoluntaryAmerican: the folowing is my reply to The Honorable Doug
> 
> Hi Doug: 
> 
> The National Labor Relations Board used to be quite competent in settling labor disputes but it has (30 years ago) been politicised by both parties. The NLRB should be reconstituted very simply as a lifetime nine member elected board with an oversite appeal system (the US Supreme Court for instance can handle appeals). The NLRB decisions should be binding and enforced by the Justice Department, unless an appeal is submitted to the Supreme Court. 
> 
> Theodore


The Justice Department won't even enforce current laws against monstrous corruption and fraud. Gun-running, money laundering, the entire housing fraud of 2001-2008, none of it has been prosecuted. Why would your 'reforms' change any of that?

----------


## Theodore

The Justice Department can effectively be cited for malfeasance or ignoring a direct order from the NLRB and, as such, will become a co-accessory for non implementation of a binding NLRB decision. 

Thus an appeal to the US Supreme Court would result in a decision to make both: labor unions as well as corporations, be responsible for their non implementation of NLRB binding decisions.  Appropriate penalties and jail sentences should then be handed out to the law breaking civil litigants as well as law breaking governmental litigants.   

The buck would stop directly on the steps of the Supreme Court.

----------


## idiom

> The Justice Department can effectively be cited for malfeasance or ignoring a direct order from the NLRB and, as such, will become a co-accessory for non implementation of a binding NLRB decision. 
> 
> Thus an appeal to the US Supreme Court would result in a decision to make both: labor unions as well as corporations, be responsible for their non implementation of NLRB binding decisions.  Appropriate penalties and jail sentences should then be handed out to the law breaking civil litigants as well as law breaking governmental litigants.   
> 
> The buck would stop directly on the steps of the Supreme Court.


Assuming you have standing and the Supreme Court deigns to hear you and the entire government doesn't just decide to ignore you because you are not putting enough money in the right pockets.

Every problem you are identifying is a problem that is thwarting your solutions. If government corruption is the problem then more government power is not going to resolve it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Assuming you have standing and the Supreme Court deigns to hear you and the entire government doesn't just decide to ignore you because you are not putting enough money in the right pockets.
> 
> Every problem you are identifying is a problem that is thwarting your solutions. If government corruption is the problem then more government power is not going to resolve it.


+rep

----------


## Theodore

Both the National Labor Relations Board as well as the US Supreme Court are ongoing branches of the Federal government - there are no new additions of the US government to implement this method of civil arbitration.  All we need are fair and unbiased practitioners who see to it that the facts are presented at arbitration time.

----------


## TheTexan

All we need is Obama to follow the constitution and we're $#@!ing set, that's not happening

----------


## Professor8000

What we need is for the individuals of this country to realize that it is their support of the mafia via the protection money they pay to them every year is prolonging the problems we see in society. Typical of the mafia is that if you do not pay them to protect you they become the very problem they wish to be paid to protect against. I do not favor ceding such an organization even more of my power. I don't particularly favor ceding them any power.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> So you are saying land can be moved around then? But you just said it can't be moved around...


I know you are no brain box but look at the definition of land I gave. It wasn't difficult.
You cannot take cheap desert land to Manhattan.  Get it?

----------


## Bman

> When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"
> 
> Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!


Maybe you should grow a set and start that bottom up company you dream of.  You want to cry about what you don't have.  Change perspective and figure out what you do have.  Rome wasn't built in a day and crying about your job without the guts to go for it will earn you little sympathy from me.

----------


## idiom

> I know you are no brain box but look at the definition of land I gave. It wasn't difficult.
> You cannot take cheap desert land to Manhattan.  Get it?


Well you could, but its not worth the effort. Instead you take the businesses to the desert to avoid the rent.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48472204

----------


## -C-

We quit bullshitting as a species and terraform/develop the desert into something worth living in.

and to the OP, we need Glass-Steagall to be re-inacted to force separation of commercial and investment/merchant banks. The government must have sovereign control over money, as proscribed by Article 1 Section 8. This is really the only way to ensure the "private" money doesn't ingulf the government. I mean how many Goldmann Sachs employees have worked for the Bush/Obama administration? Both in the Treasury and as direct economic advisors. The Political Economy is how the world is ran, for better or worse....for development of sovereign people or for war.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We quit bullshitting as a species and terraform/develop the desert into something worth living in.
> 
> and to the OP, we need Glass-Steagall to be re-inacted to force separation of commercial and investment/merchant banks. The government must have sovereign control over money, as proscribed by Article 1 Section 8. This is really the only way to ensure the "private" money doesn't ingulf the government. I mean how many Goldmann Sachs employees have worked for the Bush/Obama administration? Both in the Treasury and as direct economic advisors. The Political Economy is how the world is ran, for better or worse....for development of sovereign people or for war.


What do you have against private, competing currencies?  Why is it bad that private, sound money "engulf" the government?  I personally don't trust the government with the money supply at all.

----------


## Theodore

Idiom:

I visited your website and surfed to this very interesting segment:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23937480

Both informative and entertaining, thanks … Theodore

----------


## LibertyRevolution

I'm going to give you a piece of advice that my first boss gave me. 
From the bread delivery route owner I was a ride along for:
"As long as you work for someone else, your just an option. You will be replaced as soon as they can find someone who will do it cheaper."
Keep this in mind when being an employee.
There is no point in giving 100%, or being the best employee, if they can find someone to do it cheaper, your gone.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I'm going to give you a piece of advice that my first boss gave me. 
> From the bread delivery route owner I was a ride along for:
> "As long as you work for someone else, your just an option. You will be replaced as soon as they can find someone who will do it cheaper."
> Keep this in mind when being an employee.
> There is no point in giving 100%, or being the best employee, if they can find someone to do it cheaper, your gone.


Horrible advice.

----------


## Natural Citizen

I haven't read a single post in this thread. All I caught was the title which aroused my interest. So...Let me just say this. And anyone can tell me I'm wrong and to pack sand. I don't really care.

What we have is a merge of corporation and state. That means that corporations _are_ governing. Of, by and for themselves...as people...with the same rights and gift of constitution that used to be for the benefit of natural human citizens.

The Growth Model has trumped the Human Survival model. Both different and opposing elements. Is why at birth even the corporation technically owns a large fraction of the human body. That's what you get for becoming trustees in modern pharmaceuticals and processed food and letting them rescribble the rules. Could go on and on but that's the clearest example that I can think of off the top of my head.

You'll have no say so about how you are represented of, by and for yourselves unless you move to restore citizenship as your founding fathers left it for you...the natural citizen.

When politicians say that they are acting on behalf of the American People do you really think they mean you? They don't. Is why we get to hear Mitt Romney sit up their in front of the camera and say that corporations are people too. You don't think that was just a chance slip of the tongue do you? Come on. Wake up. amend your 14th amendment and this madness will stop across the board.

The country_ will_ be repatriotized. But by "whom"? The choice is yours. For now.

----------

