Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

[aravoth]

The problem is many people who want to justify their actions are trying to do so by saying that just because an otherwise private business has some connection to the government, they are not private at all and are the same as the govt. They're the ones taking the binary category approach. Just because I have principles that doesn't mean I'm dumb or simple.

I don't think it is unreasonable to call paypal or amazon a private business, but some people, in their blind hatred, only need to see a tiny tendril of connection to the government before they throw morality out the window. They're not being thoughtful or taking a moment to put things in perspective, they're just trying to rationalize in any way possible so they can fuck shit up.

I have registered my business as a corporation with the state in order to pay less taxes. You might say I'm "taking advantage of what govt has offered me". You might even say that I "colluded" with them by taking certain tax deductions. I don't want to be a corp, I don't want to pay taxes or deal with the govt at all, but they threatened me and I complied. I hope you will see the situation for what it is and still think of me as a private individual/company and respect what is left of my freedom. I'd hate to think I need to start carrying a gun to protect myself against other members of the freedom movement because they think it is their job to destroy me.

Yeah, I almost feel bad for IG Farben and IBM now. They didn't really want to have a hand in killing millions of people in Nazi Germany, they were oppressed...

Speaking of rationalizing...... Holy fucking shit.....

 

[Todd]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

or "No, but I wouldn't want to be the deciding vote on a jury".

Mines a very weak no. But I understand how the weak sometimes have little option.

 

[RedStripe]

People keep pushing this idea that these companies are connected to the govt and therefor worthy of attack. I've tried to battle this notion but in vain - people stick to their biases.

Let's try it this way: Wikileaks was a big user of Amazon, Mastercard, Paypal, etc... , all the same companies that are hopelessly "intertwined" with the govt. The same companies, that because of their connection with the govt, are unjustly using force against the people. Wikileaks, inworking with these companies, benefited from this unjust use of force and is therefor also using the same force. Wikileaks, like the other customers of these companies, deserves to be attacked for their use of force against the people.

Like you said, it is very complex, and using your own logic, it turns out Wikileaks is one of the perpetrators that needs to be attacked.

The Midas touch argument sucks.

No, you just don't understand the argument.

The argument is NOT that "being connected to the government is justification alone for being 'attacked,'" RATHER, it is that being connected to the government, in the ways that these major corporations have benefited from the government, means that you are less entitled to a presumption that it would be somehow "immoral" to commit small acts of vandalism or sabotage against your property in retaliation for participating in overtly anti-liberty, pro-tyranny government collusion.

Of course we all have "benefited" in some way, from the government. This entire economic system is built on centuries of evolution of mutually-reinforcing state and economic trends.

The main point is that large corporations who are the government's partners in crime shouldn't have the privilege of hiding behind the bullshit claim that they are "private" and somehow deserve altogether different treatment than their state benefactor, and that those on the libertarian right who continue to espouse such a ridiculous argument are really just the useful idiots of corporate America and their state allies.

 

[ivflight]

No, you just don't understand the argument.

The argument is NOT that "being connected to the government is justification alone for being 'attacked,'" RATHER, it is that being connected to the government, in the ways that these major corporations have benefited from the government, means that you are less entitled to a presumption that it would be somehow "immoral" to commit small acts of vandalism or sabotage against your property in retaliation for participating in overtly anti-liberty, pro-tyranny government collusion.

Of course we all have "benefited" in some way, from the government. This entire economic system is built on centuries of evolution of mutually-reinforcing state and economic trends.

The main point is that large corporations who are the government's partners in crime shouldn't have the privilege of hiding behind the bullshit claim that they are "private" and somehow deserve altogether different treatment than their state benefactor, and that those on the libertarian right who continue to espouse such a ridiculous argument are really just the useful idiots of corporate America and their state allies.

Why do you feel the need to make up a group called "large corporations" and assume they are all the same? I still haven't heard any good explanation as to how Paypal et al are intertwined with the govt. Paypal puts its money in FDIC insured banks just like you and I.

 

[ivflight]

As I posted in another thread:

If we attack the person/business then that suggests that the government protection is ok and that they are just using their power unjustly. It further suggests that we need more government to control them. If we attack the government then that suggests that the protection never should have been there and government just needs to have less power to dole out.

 

[idirtify]

Well, I didn't mean libertarian 'leanings' so much as meaning *libertarian*.

Admittedly, my own fault for not being clear as to what I meant

It’s not your fault.

It’s interesting how lots of members will express disagreements when the term “libertarian” is posted, but not when the term “individual liberty” is used. Apparently they think “libertarian” has some negative connotations. Whatever the reason, it’s ALWAYS risky (risks off-topic/side-arguments) to use it around here.

Thankfully, one does not HAVE to use to use it. For example:
1) Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just* in libertarian philosophy?
2) Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just* in terms of the philosophy of individual liberty?
Even though the two versions mean exactly the same thing, I will confidently guarantee you that the second one would have garnered NO disagreements.

 

[RedStripe]

Why do you feel the need to make up a group called "large corporations" and assume they are all the same? I still haven't heard any good explanation as to how Paypal et al are intertwined with the govt. Paypal puts its money in FDIC insured banks just like you and I.

An economy dominated by large corporations did not just spring up out of no-where. Our analysis of the situation shouldn't start with the assumption that things are the way they are because of "the free market." You have to examine the evolution of state-capitalism to understand just how rigged this system is. It's not just the obvious stuff like bailouts, it's like the monopolized monetary system, regressive effects of inflation, cartelizing regulatory structures, a manipulated tax code, intellectual property, massive land grants to railroads and politically-connected speculators, billions in research and development funding straight from the taxpayers, the creation of national and international communication systems (telephone, internet, satellite, telegram, postal service) and transportation systems (civil aviation system arising from WWII, subsidized manufacturers, national highway system, publicly-funded railroad system, oil subsidies, airports, sea ports, bridges, tunnels), the resulting national/international markets more conducive to large-scale production processes and larger organizational size, state-funded education/training of future employees (removed business' burden of providing training), restrictions on self-employment via licensing, land laws, zoning (more people forced to enter labor market), secondary government remedial interventions, such as welfare, unemployment insurance, to ameliorate the side-effects of state-capitalism, thus stabilizing the system and letting large employers off the hook for providing for their impoverished employees, massive imperialist adventures designed to secure foreign markets for the big boys, strike busters, coordinated efforts to destroy populist movements that threatened the economic status quo.... the list is endless. It's history.

 

[ivflight]

An economy dominated by large corporations did not just spring up out of no-where. Our analysis of the situation shouldn't start with the assumption that things are the way they are because of "the free market." You have to examine the evolution of state-capitalism to understand just how rigged this system is. It's not just the obvious stuff like bailouts, it's like the monopolized monetary system, regressive effects of inflation, cartelizing regulatory structures, a manipulated tax code, intellectual property, massive land grants to railroads and politically-connected speculators, billions in research and development funding straight from the taxpayers, the creation of national and international communication systems (telephone, internet, satellite, telegram, postal service) and transportation systems (civil aviation system arising from WWII, subsidized manufacturers, national highway system, publicly-funded railroad system, oil subsidies, airports, sea ports, bridges, tunnels), the resulting national/international markets more conducive to large-scale production processes and larger organizational size, state-funded education/training of future employees (removed business' burden of providing training), restrictions on self-employment via licensing, land laws, zoning (more people forced to enter labor market), secondary government remedial interventions, such as welfare, unemployment insurance, to ameliorate the side-effects of state-capitalism, thus stabilizing the system and letting large employers off the hook for providing for their impoverished employees, massive imperialist adventures designed to secure foreign markets for the big boys, strike busters, coordinated efforts to destroy populist movements that threatened the economic status quo.... the list is endless. It's history.

Again with the "it is too hopelessly complicated to debate" argument. You understand that this isn't an argument for any particular thing other then saying "let's not talk about this anymore", right?

 

[ivflight]

An economy dominated by large corporations did not just spring up out of no-where. Our analysis of the situation shouldn't start with the assumption that things are the way they are because of "the free market." You have to examine the evolution of state-capitalism to understand just how rigged this system is. It's not just the obvious stuff like bailouts, it's like the monopolized monetary system, regressive effects of inflation, cartelizing regulatory structures, a manipulated tax code, intellectual property, massive land grants to railroads and politically-connected speculators, billions in research and development funding straight from the taxpayers, the creation of national and international communication systems (telephone, internet, satellite, telegram, postal service) and transportation systems (civil aviation system arising from WWII, subsidized manufacturers, national highway system, publicly-funded railroad system, oil subsidies, airports, sea ports, bridges, tunnels), the resulting national/international markets more conducive to large-scale production processes and larger organizational size, state-funded education/training of future employees (removed business' burden of providing training), restrictions on self-employment via licensing, land laws, zoning (more people forced to enter labor market), secondary government remedial interventions, such as welfare, unemployment insurance, to ameliorate the side-effects of state-capitalism, thus stabilizing the system and letting large employers off the hook for providing for their impoverished employees, massive imperialist adventures designed to secure foreign markets for the big boys, strike busters, coordinated efforts to destroy populist movements that threatened the economic status quo.... the list is endless. It's history.

This is also the same kind of think liberals pitch. Everything is just such a random crapshoot, so lets redistribute all the wealth, and have affirmative action, and try and correct in a way that makes everyone perfectly equal.

 

[tremendoustie]

Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

Why?

I don't believe they are just. I believe Anonymous and other 'hacktivists' are misguided in such attacks.

Perhaps when PayPal was under the DDOS attacks for freezing Assange's access to his own funds, then those were justified - but such funds have been released to him.

We *all* know that Amazon, PayPal, Visa & Mastercard have been threatened by the US Govt in some way, directly or indirectly, leading to dissolution of service with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is *not entitled* to services by these companies, regardless. Saying they are entitled to such services is vehemently *anti*-libertarian.

If there should be any DDOS attacks, the only *just* attacks could possibly be on Govt websites, *not* companies being bullied around by the Government. Anonymous et al are simply engaging in the same bullying that the government does - and that makes them no better.

DISCUSS!!!

I think it's wrong to lump Paypal and Amazon in with Visa and Mastercard. Visa and Mastercard are the major banks, which are so far in bed with government they're indistinguishable.

I agree that attacks on Paypal and Amazon are unjustified.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Ah, except the burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence that these entities (AMZN, VSA, MCD, PP) have become these corporatist monopolies that you guys claim they are with significant government assistance.


The burden of proof is always on the one claiming the positive, not the negative.

This wouldn't be all that difficult.

Is there any area in the market that you think DON'T have certain restrictions that WERE NOT present many years ago when some of the biggest corporations started out?

Google "how to start a bank" and sift through the indescribably complex regulations and stipulations on establishing a bank in the year 2010. Then determine whether those restictions are more numerous (likely) or less numerous (unlikely) when Visa, Mastercard, et. al. entered the markets.

If you haven't died of old age before you have a chance to present your findings in full, we'll take what you find as proof to the courts and make a case that will, of course, get thrown out.

For the moment, the rest of us reserve the right to pessimism through deduction and inference.

 

[Fredom101]

Again with the Mida's Touch argument. Apparently if a person/business has any contact with the government whatsoever, they completely flip from being private, to being an arm of the govt open to attack.

Not at all. These are government-created monopolies- the opposite of businesses operating in the free market. If they restrict free speech at the government's beck and call, then they are bowing down to tyranny and are not standing up for freedom. This is called fascism.

 

[ivflight]

This wouldn't be all that difficult.

Is there any area in the market that you think DON'T have certain restrictions that WERE NOT present many years ago when some of the biggest corporations started out?

Google "how to start a bank" and sift through the indescribably complex regulations and stipulations on establishing a bank in the year 2010. Then determine whether those restictions are more numerous (likely) or less numerous (unlikely) when Visa, Mastercard, et. al. entered the markets.

If you haven't died of old age before you have a chance to present your findings in full, we'll take what you find as proof to the courts and make a case that will, of course, get thrown out.

For the moment, the rest of us reserve the right to pessimism through deduction and inference.

You're saying that just because someone jumps through the govt hoops to stay legal (taxpayers, businesses, hospitals), they must be colluding with the govt? That group would include almost every citizen.

 

[ivflight]

Not at all. These are government-created monopolies- the opposite of businesses operating in the free market. If they restrict free speech at the government's beck and call, then they are bowing down to tyranny and are not standing up for freedom. This is called fascism.

Please explain with evidence how Paypal and Amazon are govt created monopolies...in a way that doesn't end up including every other business and person in the country.

 

[ivflight]

Let's try it this way: Wikileaks was a big user of Amazon, Mastercard, Paypal, etc... , all the same companies that are hopelessly "intertwined" with the govt. The same companies, that because of their connection with the govt, are unjustly using force against the people. Wikileaks, inworking with these companies, benefited from this unjust use of force and is therefor also using the same force. Wikileaks, like the other customers of these companies, deserves to be attacked for their use of force against the people.

None of the people arguing that those "intertwined" with the govt are open for attack have addressed this. The fact is, Wikileaks was intertwined with the same companies you accuse of being intertwined, so that would make them fair game for attack, right?

 

[nobody's_hero]

You're saying that just because someone jumps through the govt hoops to stay legal (taxpayers, businesses, hospitals), they must be colluding with the govt? That group would include almost every citizen.

Yep. Pretty much . . . exactly.

The system's totally F'd up.

That's one reason why I didn't vote in this poll. It assumes that we are operating in a system that knows (and adheres to) moral v. immoral arguments. What it has devolved into is a winner-take-all system. If the system collapses, it should be viewed as an opportunity to start fresh, rather than something to be postponed. But, as I said, I'm a pessimist when it comes to most things financial.

I'm not saying you have be a part of it (I am not hacking any banks when I've already done my part by withdrawing my money from them), but I don't cry tears when someone who collaborated with the guy who just robbed me by proxy gets smashed by a bus while he's making his getaway.

EDIT: Before commenting further, I should ask the original poster what the definition is of "Just". If it weren't subject to interpretation, I suppose there'd be no need for quotes. I think that interpretation could potentially influence votes.

 

[tremendoustie]

Please explain with evidence how Paypal and Amazon are govt created monopolies...in a way that doesn't end up including every other business and person in the country.

I agree -- but visa and mastercard should be taken out of this poll, or entered as a separate option.

 

[ivflight]

Yep. Pretty much . . . exactly.

The system's totally F'd up.

That's one reason why I didn't vote in this poll. It assumes that we are operating in a system that knows (and adheres to) moral v. immoral arguments. What it has devolved into is a winner-take-all system. If the system collapses, it should be viewed as an opportunity to start fresh, rather than something to be postponed. But, as I said, I'm a pessimist when it comes to most things financial.

I'm not saying you have be a part of it (I am not hacking any banks when I've already done my part by withdrawing my money from them), but I don't cry tears when someone who collaborated with the guy who just robbed me by proxy gets smashed by a bus while he's making his getaway.

Do you blame the initiators of force first, or do you put the people under duress who don't fight back enough on equal grounds? I have a hard time telling the victim of a mugging who gave up his wallet at gunpoint that he is just as much at fault as the robber.

 

[ivflight]

I agree -- but visa and mastercard should be taken out of this poll, or entered as a separate option.

I've been leaving them out of my comments because I really don't know much about them, but I started using Paypal and Amazon when they were still small.

Even if we pick out the really bad corporations that really are colluding with the govt, we should still attack the govt side of things first.

 

[tremendoustie]

I've been leaving them out of my comments because I really don't know much about them, but I started using Paypal and Amazon when they were still small.

Even if we pick out the really bad corporations that really are colluding with the govt, we should still attack the govt side of things first.

They're all owned by major banks, except Visa, which was founded by BoA, then later spun off. The money they loan comes directly from the major banks.

But I agree with your sentiment. I would not have done what Anonymous has done, especially in the way they've done it.

I am glad, however, to see people pissed about violations of freedom of speech.