lokithelion Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 How exactly does anything you believe have anything to do with anarchy? God dammit you are retarded. You are a neo-con jack off, stop trying to co-opt equally stupid beliefs to make yourself seem more edgy. You've got blind faith in the free market, you've got utter contempt for the poor (if they aint dead they're obviously fine is a childish view), and you believe greed is a good thing. I'm sure the people who worked at corporations like Enron are really stoked on how well Greed worked out for them. I'm all for the free market but regulation is necessary until we live in a perfect world. The market before regulation was a battlefield, and the civilians were more often than not the casualties. Read the Jungle and see what the meat packing industry was like before regulation. The free market can't be trusted and only children and sociopaths think it should be let unregulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I didn't want to come back in here, really, but... Your faith in free market capitalism protects property rights. Anarchy protects (in theory) human rights. These are not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 How exactly does anything you believe have anything to do with anarchy? God dammit you are retarded. You are a neo-con jack off, stop trying to co-opt equally stupid beliefs to make yourself seem more edgy. You've got blind faith in the free market,Compared to a planned out economy where the state tells people what and how much to produce, yes i have faith in the free market. The "market" is too complicated for people to try to plan for. you've got utter contempt for the poor (if they aint dead they're obviously fine is a childish view), never took that view. just saying that the poor are better off and wealthier because the nation and society are wealthy. You don't have to be rich to benefit from capitalism. and you believe greed is a good thing. I'm sure the people who worked at corporations like Enron are really stoked on how well Greed worked out for them. Greed is natural and greed in the sense of people trying to grow their company is a good thing. It gives other people jobs and produces better things for a lower cost. Enron were full of criminals. Greed in the scope of the law produces very positive things for others. There is a difference between greed and criminal behavior. I'm all for the free market but regulation is necessary until we live in a perfect world. The market before regulation was a battlefield, and the civilians were more often than not the casualties. Read the Jungle and see what the meat packing industry was like before regulation. okay yes but it's not like things are going to go back to how they were during that time. And some regulation is good...but i think it should be produced by private players and not the government. Like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval on items, or a private company stamping something as a "green product" or what have you. The free market can't be trusted and only children and sociopaths think it should be let unregulated. of course it can. The market is just supplying people with items who want that. people can buy what they want from whomever they want. In the case of a free market it is up to you to support companies you agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 I didn't want to come back in here, really, but...Your faith in free market capitalism protects property rights. Anarchy protects (in theory) human rights. These are not the same. what i am asking is, isn't a protection of property rights an extension to the protection of human rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Your beliefs only work if you ignore reality. Do you remember the out break of salmonella last year from a particular peanut butter factory? That disaster was possible because the Bush administration took your idea that companies could be trusted to regulate themselves. This is the same theory we're using in the beef industry and its caused the world to stop buying American beef because we've cut testing and have some of the dirtiest meat in the world. You can't just support companies who do the shit you agree with because we don't have media regulation (as too how many newspapers/channels etc a company can own) and getting the truth about a business is a myth. Like I said, your ideas are like communism. Great ideas that are at best retarded and at worst criminal to use in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 i've said it before...we do not have a free market so any issue that comes up can't be associated to a failure of the free market. if there was a need for a private company to regulate other companies it would happen in a free market and there are places where you can find out about what companies do. www.knowmore.org is the only one i know off the top of my head though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 No private company is going to pay another private company to regulate it unless they know the regulators aren't going to seriously effect their bottom line. Once money changes hands between two companies you can't trust either to work in the consumers best interest, they both have too much too lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 We HAD a free market - read ANY textbook on the US - the government did as little as any government can and still call itself one, and look at all the problems that occurred. You can't tell me that if we had a purely free market things wouldn't get that bad or worse. People then weren't criminals, but they were greedy, and it caused a shit-ton of poverty and worse. Enironmental problems, health issues, extreme poverty and starvation, overworked workers, child labor, unsanitary everything. Sure, the average wealth went up, but that's because 12 people at the top made millions and billions, bringing the average up as each day passed while the rest of the world sat and whithered away. That's what you get without regulation. Seriously. Get out of your Economic Theory classes and get into a business law class, or hell, a history class, so you can see how things tend to be in the real world. Or just go spend 20 minutes in a board meeting somewhere. My roommate in college took an environmental law course through SUNY ESF that was half hippy enviromentalists and half business majors - the business majors highlighted to perfection that capitalism breeds greed and the search for loopholes. No one has anything but their own interests at heart as they look for any and every way to undercut anyone who doesn't do anything for them. With no one to watch these types of people, any positivity is eroded away by people chipping away to get any advantage they can. That's capitalism in its purest form - dirty competition. Yes it can breed advancement, but only if one competitor hasn't ousted the rest and can put their business in cruise control while he rapes the country raw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I have two copies of this book for some reason - Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It. If you want me to mail you a copy, I will. You can learn a whole lot from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 No private company is going to pay another private company to regulate it unless they know the regulators aren't going to seriously effect their bottom line. Once money changes hands between two companies you can't trust either to work in the consumers best interest, they both have too much too lose. i'm not suggesting a private company is going to pay another private company. I'm saying a private company for the consumers will form. Think of bond ratings, they started out great and were originally for consumers. They switched over to serving companies and pretty much lied about the mortgage backed securities and i'm pretty sure the government had them change how they originally operated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 So you're citing a "for the people" firm that failed in its original purpose as what you expect will keep the free market honest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 at mcm- i'm not just talking about the average wealth. how many poor families do you know that have cell phones and tv's and washers and dryers and cars and all of that stuff? in the united states quite a bit. we haven't had a free market since the 1930's. yes, people will search for loopholes to save money and as long as they are legal that is expected and fine. I'm not saying people aren't self interested. What i am arguing is that being self interested can bring good things (intended or not) to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 So you're citing a "for the people" firm that failed in its original purpose as what you expect will keep the free market honest? no, i'm citing something that was set up for the consumers that was doing well but got fucked with by the government and ended up spiraling into a mess. I'm just trying to think of private regulation. like a private company doing a quality control service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minty Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Only anarchists are pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I know we haven't had a free market since the 1930s - actually, well before that. And that's exactly my point - no one except you and George Bush has wanted a free market since then because of all the fucked up problems we ran into because of it. The reason some of the poor in this country would be millionaires in most "real" poor countries is because of the non-free-market devices this government has in place. Without minimum wage, those same cell-phone having poor are in the bread lines again. And, just to point out to you so you know, what you are imagining as poor is not a reflection of poverty in this country anyway. That's not real poverty. Spend a few hours in a food pantry like I do quite regularly and you'll see the "I haven't showered in months" poor sitting next to the "have you seen my teeth?" poor who argue with the "I stole this dolly so I can walk 5 miles back to my friend's uncle's apartment where I stay this week" poor for the food that you're giving out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This thread is fucking full of muddied terminology. Too much of a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 George Bush...free market? quotes from cato.org "When, exactly, was President Bush ever an advocate for an "unfettered free market"? Cato scholars have been skeptical of Bush's free market principles from the beginning. Ed Crane warned of the president's big government tendencies even before he was sworn into office." that's after bush claimed he had to abandon the free market to save the free market. "Bush and the GOP Congress have presided over an explosion of federal spending during his term. Bush championed the 2002 farm subsidy bill, the Medicare drug benefit and huge increases in education spending. He signed the anti-free-speech campaign finance "reform" bill and imposed temporary tariffs on steel imports. And most libertarians (although not all) believe the war in Iraq is a dangerous distraction from the war on terrorism." and finally this is a great article: https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9853 i suggest at least skimming it. --- i'm not claiming the poor are fine, just the majority of the poor are better off. also, there is a great deal of movement allowed in this country. you don't have to stay poor your whole life. yes it happens and it is tragic and thankfully there are places to volunteer and there are charities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Semantics. He sure wasn't the pillar of regulation, but then again, we're talking about you being an anarchist and the defender of all thinks capitalist at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 it's not semantics. he wasn't a "free market" guy. I am just saying, i consider a free market as an extension to free people, and was wondering why anarchists are so against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 i mean hell...calling bush a free market guy is like calling hoover a free market guy. just doesn't compute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minty Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This thread is fucking full of muddied terminology. Too much of a mess. No way! World/Inferno Friendship Society are sweet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burdenx Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 +1 to loki for his performance in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlejonnyhormone Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This thread is fucking full of muddied terminology. Too much of a mess. No way! World/Inferno Friendship Society are sweet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlrose Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Someone said this thread might need me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jochert Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Capitalism isn't working. What if we we're living in a anarcho capitalist society, who would have bailed out all the failing banks? I remember that after one of the first banks in the US went bankrupt (was it the Leman?) I saw one of the big bosses in court, and the dude had like 400 million $$$.... Michael Jordan (back in the day) made more money from Nike in one year than all the factory workers who actually made the shoes... How much is one year of tuition to a year of college in the US? Over here the government practically pays us to go to school/college. Capitalism needs regulation, because people are shit. That's probably why anarchism can't work as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.