The American Form of Government

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
OK for the Anarchist in the group, How do you take care of streets, thrash, water electricity disputes that our courts normally handle, environmental issues, I am sure there are more issues , but lets start there . Thanks

The market. You pay for what you use, etc.

Everything that can be provided by government is already being provided by the market anyway, if you think about it logically.

The government just acts as an inefficient middle man, stealing money out of our pockets to pay the leeches at the trough – bureaucrats – which bog down the system and keep it from working.

There is nothing that cannot be provided by the market.

How likly would roads be that ran across the country, Ok maybe 1 turnpike, What about the steel mill down the street that is dumping polution in the river?
[/quote]

You need to read “For a New Liberty”. Rothbard explains it quite well.

42

really cool, explains alot

43

[quote]orion wrote:A monopoly of the means of production?

They do not sell any tools in America?

You cannot buy a computer, a printer or market your ideas in America?
[/quote]

Are you serious? If you can start a profitable business with a computer, a printer, and a few tools, I’d like to know what type of business it is. And I’m not talking about a business that you work for and run out of your house.

The point here is class immobility. Starting a plumbing business does not mean that you’ve changed classes. You might be better off than the average worker, but you are still compelled to do the same work. I don’t see any way for you to argue that the average citizen can eventually work themselves up to owning, for instance, an automobile factory, which would truly be class mobility.

44

[quote]orion wrote:Of course there is.

The free market.

Hence anarcho-capitalism- it does not need a government to function.

And yes, that actually has worked in reality, see the trade networks of the Hanse or Maghrebinian Jews.[/quote]

The completely “free-market” is almost the definition of a “coercive central authority.” Besides, any form of capitalism requires the state, at least to enforce property rights and contracts.

45

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

You don’t know what a monopoly is. You don’t know what capitalism is. You don’t know the difference between the “economy” and government. As far as I am concerned I cannot even have a conversation with you.

Firstly, the “economy” is nothing more than people making choices about what suits their own interests. Government is the opposite of that. They are for the most part diametrically opposed to each other because government by nature restricts choices – thus impairing the economy. There is no “capitalist government” and it is even laughable that you would suggest such a thing.

Secondly, you mistake the doctrine of capitalism with people who act unethically. Capitalism is just the private ownership of the means of production. They can never be monopolized. However, the government can do all it can to ensure that only certain classes of individuals get to compete via regulation – thus they institute monopolies. These are the truly hurtful monopolies.

By definition if entry into the market is not barred by coercion there is no monopoly – only forceful coercion will bring them about. Heck, even still you will see a black-market pop up in most instances where competition is not allowed. That is a truly free market.
[/quote]

LM - great post - fun to try to discuss topic of depth while sitting in the wading pool with intellectual lite-weights eh?

Well, I’ll try to bring some on my unique perspectives to this thread as well - I love messing with anti-capitalists . . .

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m talking about the monopolization of the “means of production” by the capitalist class.

The means of production cannot be monopolized unless they were ENTIRELY owned by government – communism/fascism. Anarchy would be the exact opposite of that.

The productive means under a capitalist society are always changing hands – there is no true monopoly in this regard.[/quote]

The means of production are monopolized by a class. If you want to be productive and receive pay for it, you can only do so by going to a member of this class. Your post is entirely dishonest and fails to consider the ever-diminishing number of hands among which the means of production are changing.

47

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:A monopoly of the means of production?

They do not sell any tools in America?

You cannot buy a computer, a printer or market your ideas in America?

Are you serious? If you can start a profitable business with a computer, a printer, and a few tools, I’d like to know what type of business it is. And I’m not talking about a business that you work for and run out of your house.

The point here is class immobility. Starting a plumbing business does not mean that you’ve changed classes. You might be better off than the average worker, but you are still compelled to do the same work. I don’t see any way for you to argue that the average citizen can eventually work themselves up to owning, for instance, an automobile factory, which would truly be class mobility.

[/quote]
Are you serious? The only “class warfare” is the politically connected class against everyone who is not. That is how government works.

All regulation is instituted by people who want protection for themselves. This is what creates class struggle.

And by the way…people change classes all the time where there is no protectionism.

48

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:A monopoly of the means of production?

They do not sell any tools in America?

You cannot buy a computer, a printer or market your ideas in America?

Are you serious? If you can start a profitable business with a computer, a printer, and a few tools, I’d like to know what type of business it is. And I’m not talking about a business that you work for and run out of your house.

The point here is class immobility. Starting a plumbing business does not mean that you’ve changed classes. You might be better off than the average worker, but you are still compelled to do the same work. I don’t see any way for you to argue that the average citizen can eventually work themselves up to owning, for instance, an automobile factory, which would truly be class mobility.

[/quote]

Komrade! You do the motherland proud!

Let’s introduce class warfare into a classless society! Perfect - let us foment some worker envy and mobilize the masses with our opiate of choice - fairness!!

In a capitalistic society-we must incite the people by insisting that they are the working class slaves of the wealthy elite (who we wish to become - but we won’t mention that) - ah yes, that is the way. Let’s ignore the inconvenient facts such as the one that people can choose for themselves their destiny and their vocation, their home and their entertainments, their travel and their expenditures - lets avoid any discussion of personal work ethic or ingenuity.

Let’s use the lazy poor as examples of the oppressed and downtrodden masses - let’s organize and propagandize the working poor into demanding untenable wages for their labor and then skim money off of them to fund our other initiatives (and our own extravagant - i mean - necessary lifestyles) - yes and constantly attack those that achieve authentic success and guilt them into giving more and more of their own wealth to support those dependent on our benevolence for their livelihood! Thus we can force the wealthy into continued dependence on our good graces and the force the poor to continually turn to us for more and more of thier need.

Next, let’s nationalize health care so that we can control who does or does not have access to medical care - one more level of control . . .I mean . . .responsible oversight.

Yes, Komrade - you are a credit to all of the mindless fools and useful idiots we have depended upon for decades to thoughtlessly propagate our drivel - uh propaga . . uh values and concerns for the poor poor working class . . .

Oh - and remember to always call people workers - not citizens - they are to think of themselves as cogs in the communal system of interdependent slavery . .uh cooperation . . . never allow them to consider themselves a free and independent people responsible for themselves and their own well-being.

Ahh, I can see it now, soon the people will depend on the government for everything and we will be the government - wisely and benevolently controlling all aspects of their lives so that we can live as GODS among men - which after all, since we are so wise and thoughtful - not to mention greedy and manipulative - oops - that slipped out. Ignore the man behind the curtain!!

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:You don’t know what a monopoly is. You don’t know what capitalism is. You don’t know the difference between the “economy” and government. As far as I am concerned I cannot even have a conversation with you.

Firstly, the “economy” is nothing more than people making choices about what suits their own interests. Government is the opposite of that. They are for the most part diametrically opposed to each other because government by nature restricts choices – thus impairing the economy. There is no “capitalist government” and it is even laughable that you would suggest such a thing.

Secondly, you mistake the doctrine of capitalism with people who act unethically. Capitalism is just the private ownership of the means of production. They can never be monopolized. However, the government can do all it can to ensure that only certain classes of individuals get to compete via regulation – thus they institute monopolies. These are the truly hurtful monopolies.

By definition if entry into the market is not barred by coercion there is no monopoly – only forceful coercion will bring them about. Heck, even still you will see a black-market pop up in most instances where competition is not allowed. That is a truly free market.
[/quote]

Are you seriously saying that there is no connection between economy and government? Then you accuse me of not knowing what capitalism is? You have displayed absolutely no capacity to think rationally or make connections between things. Everything with you is neat and has its own seperate box. Must be a nice place to live, where everything is easy.

Economy and government are opposite? Really? Have you ever actually thought about what they are? Just write down the purposes of both and put them next to each other. The economy is supposed to decide what gets made, and who gets it. The government is there to keep order, and to decide who gets what. You deny that there is a type of government associated with capitalism, despite the fact that only a certain kind will support capitalism and that they all pretty much resemble each other. Again, I’m asking you to actually think about things before you say them. Whoever has all the “stuff” controls the government, and the capitalists have all the “stuff.” I can’t believe I’m even having to tell you this.

Secondly, if you can’t see the connection between capitalism (whose very function depends on people acting in their own selfish interests) and unethical decisions, then there’s probably no hope for you. And it’s laughable that you still can’t wrap your head around the fact that one company doesn’t have to own everything for it to be a monopoly. Specifically a class monopoly. And as for these government-instituted monopolies, do you think they just do this for kicks? Or could it be that private groups lobby them to do it? No that couldn’t be it, that would deny the infallibility of the market and expose a necessary connection between the economic arrangements and the state! Whatever, you’ll believe what you want to believe.

50

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Are you serious? The only “class warfare” is the politically connected class against everyone who is not. That is how government works.

All regulation is instituted by people who want protection for themselves. This is what creates class struggle.[/quote]

Sounds like a free market!

51

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m talking about the monopolization of the “means of production” by the capitalist class.

The means of production cannot be monopolized unless they were ENTIRELY owned by government – communism/fascism. Anarchy would be the exact opposite of that.

The productive means under a capitalist society are always changing hands – there is no true monopoly in this regard.

The means of production are monopolized by a class. If you want to be productive and receive pay for it, you can only do so by going to a member of this class. Your post is entirely dishonest and fails to consider the ever-diminishing number of hands among which the means of production are changing.

[/quote]
Class, as you are trying to explain it, is an irrelevant concept. This is a concept made up by Marx to reconcile his vision of history with a possible solution – the solution he offers is actually what creates “class warefare”.

There is no “capitalist class”. What you are talking about is the politically connected class. What you fail to see is that the “ever-diminishing number of hands among which the means of production are changing” – as you call it – is only brought about by the exact thing you think helps the situation.

A capitalist on the other hand is anyone who risks his own property in the hopes of satisfying the desires of consumers at large. He is only successful when he helps satisfy those desires. When he is successful new products and technologies are possibly created. When he is not successful he loses whatever he risked but no one else suffers for it. In this respect the capitalists are the true heroes in this world and the anti-capitalists – like your self – are little bugs who wish to stop the human wheel of progress.

There is no room for you on my planet.

52

Do you have any actual points, or are you just having fun?

53

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Are you serious? The only “class warfare” is the politically connected class against everyone who is not. That is how government works.

All regulation is instituted by people who want protection for themselves. This is what creates class struggle.

Sounds like a free market!

[/quote]

NO! This is how democracy works in a republic.

“Free” means exactly that. Markets are not free when politicians get involved.

54

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:A monopoly of the means of production?

They do not sell any tools in America?

You cannot buy a computer, a printer or market your ideas in America?

Are you serious? If you can start a profitable business with a computer, a printer, and a few tools, I’d like to know what type of business it is. And I’m not talking about a business that you work for and run out of your house.

The point here is class immobility. Starting a plumbing business does not mean that you’ve changed classes. You might be better off than the average worker, but you are still compelled to do the same work. I don’t see any way for you to argue that the average citizen can eventually work themselves up to owning, for instance, an automobile factory, which would truly be class mobility.

Komrade! You do the motherland proud!

Let’s introduce class warfare into a classless society! Perfect - let us foment some worker envy and mobilize the masses with our opiate of choice - fairness!!

In a capitalistic society-we must incite the people by insisting that they are the working class slaves of the wealthy elite (who we wish to become - but we won’t mention that) - ah yes, that is the way. Let’s ignore the inconvenient facts such as the one that people can choose for themselves their destiny and their vocation, their home and their entertainments, their travel and their expenditures - lets avoid any discussion of personal work ethic or ingenuity.

Let’s use the lazy poor as examples of the oppressed and downtrodden masses - let’s organize and propagandize the working poor into demanding untenable wages for their labor and then skim money off of them to fund our other initiatives (and our own extravagant - i mean - necessary lifestyles) - yes and constantly attack those that achieve authentic success and guilt them into giving more and more of their own wealth to support those dependent on our benevolence for their livelihood! Thus we can force the wealthy into continued dependence on our good graces and the force the poor to continually turn to us for more and more of thier need.

Next, let’s nationalize health care so that we can control who does or does not have access to medical care - one more level of control . . .I mean . . .responsible oversight.

Yes, Komrade - you are a credit to all of the mindless fools and useful idiots we have depended upon for decades to thoughtlessly propagate our drivel - uh propaga . . uh values and concerns for the poor poor working class . . .

Oh - and remember to always call people workers - not citizens - they are to think of themselves as cogs in the communal system of interdependent slavery . .uh cooperation . . . never allow them to consider themselves a free and independent people responsible for themselves and their own well-being.

Ahh, I can see it now, soon the people will depend on the government for everything and we will be the government - wisely and benevolently controlling all aspects of their lives so that we can live as GODS among men - which after all, since we are so wise and thoughtful - not to mention greedy and manipulative - oops - that slipped out. Ignore the man behind the curtain!![/quote]

Brilliant! Truly.

55

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Are you seriously saying that there is no connection between economy and government? Then you accuse me of not knowing what capitalism is? You have displayed absolutely no capacity to think rationally or make connections between things. Everything with you is neat and has its own seperate box. Must be a nice place to live, where everything is easy.

Economy and government are opposite? Really? Have you ever actually thought about what they are? Just write down the purposes of both and put them next to each other. The economy is supposed to decide what gets made, and who gets it. The government is there to keep order, and to decide who gets what. You deny that there is a type of government associated with capitalism, despite the fact that only a certain kind will support capitalism and that they all pretty much resemble each other. Again, I’m asking you to actually think about things before you say them. Whoever has all the “stuff” controls the government, and the capitalists have all the “stuff.” I can’t believe I’m even having to tell you this.

Secondly, if you can’t see the connection between capitalism (whose very function depends on people acting in their own selfish interests) and unethical decisions, then there’s probably no hope for you. And it’s laughable that you still can’t wrap your head around the fact that one company doesn’t have to own everything for it to be a monopoly. Specifically a class monopoly. And as for these government-instituted monopolies, do you think they just do this for kicks? Or could it be that private groups lobby them to do it? No that couldn’t be it, that would deny the infallibility of the market and expose a necessary connection between the economic arrangements and the state! Whatever, you’ll believe what you want to believe.

[/quote]

Ahh Good Komrade - perfect - start with an ad homen attack - distract with a great example of misdirection and launch a new assault by redefining the terms! You’re awesome!!

aahhh crap- my happy pills wore off . . . .

Economy and government -

economy - the mutually accepted system of exchange of goods and services between two parties typically effected by the use of a monetary system of replacement value.

Government in a Republic (I assume you mean to be specific in discussing the US only) - the societal contract binding a group of like-minded individuals together under an agreed upon framework of laws protecting the pre-existing rights of said participants.

An economy cannot decide anything - it is an exchange system, not a living breathing thinking entity.

The government gets to decide who gets what? NOT IN A REPUBLIC - maybe in a tyrannical oligarchy or dictatorship - oh right - you’re redefining terms - sorry to get my logic twisted up in your misery . . .

Capitalism can be instituted under any democratic or republican form of government - it only requires the unrestrained operation of the economy (system of exchange) - ONCE the economy is controlled by the government, it is no longer capitalism or free markets.

You live in a zero sum world - where all the stuff is pre-existing and no more stuff can be made - no such place here in reality . . . .i should take more prozak . . . people like you make reality a pain . .

oohh look . . . .squirrel . . .

56

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
IrishSteel wrote: ironically, a bunch of apologetic capitalist propaganda

Do you have any actual points, or are you just having fun?
[/quote]

OOhhh you’re a quick one - picked up that sarcasm right away didn’t you? Your auntie was right - you are a bright little pickle . . .

DO I have any actual points - uhh, yeah, that would have been to reaffirm the rightness of my position by pointing out the absurdity of yours . . .

I’m always having fun . . .except when I’m not . . .but there was this one time in Havana when I was standing naked in the pouring rain with a pink flamingo under one arm and a polo mallet in the other singing “I wish I was an Oscar Meyer Weiner” in a wonderful spanish accented falsetto when I realized that perhaps Fidel was actually a sadistic bastard and Why oh Why didn’t I pack the penguin in with the riding crop . . . .oh wait - you were trying to be facetious weren’t you?

back to the discussion and may the guy with all of the stuff be me . . . .

57

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The economy is supposed to decide what gets made, and who gets it.
[/quote]
Dude, you don’t get it.

The “economy” doesn’t do anything. People do. The economy is just the culmination of people deciding to what’s best for them.

By definition, all people only act in their “own best interest”. The economy is a reflection of that. It becomes obscured when there is interference in the choices people get to make.

Let me break it down real simple for you: The people who get stuff in this life are the people who do things to get them. This goes for politicians to plumbers – to capitalists and even communists.

Redefining words and concepts to fit your incorrect understanding of reality will not change this truth.

58

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Class, as you are trying to explain it, is an irrelevant concept. This is a concept made up by Marx to reconcile his vision of history with a possible solution – the solution he offers is actually what creates “class warefare”.

There is no “capitalist class”. What you are talking about is the politically connected class. What you fail to see is that the “ever-diminishing number of hands among which the means of production are changing” – as you call it – is only brought about by the exact thing you think helps the situation.

A capitalist on the other hand is anyone who risks his own property in the hopes of satisfying the desires of consumers at large. He is only successful when he helps satisfy those desires. When he is successful new products and technologies are possibly created. When he is not successful he loses whatever he risked but no one else suffers for it. In this respect the capitalists are the true heroes in this world and the anti-capitalists – like your self – are little bugs who wish to stop the human wheel of progress.

There is no room for you on my planet.[/quote]

Oh sweet, I didn’t know we had already established a classless society! Party!

I can’t decide whether you’re just an utter moron, and you don’t know how stupid you sound, or if you know better and you’re a fucking liar. So the concept of class was made up by Marx, eh? Those people weren’t really working in factories 16+ hours a day for very little pay! By the way, wages haven’t really been stangnant for 30 years! The gap between the rich and poor isn’t really getting wider! It’s all just a great big communist lie to satisfy we know not what caprice of Marx’s.

Yeah, please let me know where this wonderful planet is that you live on. It sounds a lot like earth, except without any of the problems we have. I’d like to live there too. In the meantime, I’ll just post some numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/03/29/business/20070329_TAX_GRAPHIC.html

" Productivity growth is strong and corporate profits are soaring…But labor’s share of the Gross Domestic Product is at its lowest level on record, and the gap between productivity and compensation hasn’t been wider since 1947."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060901/ai_n16712574/

“Despite today?s cheerier inflation number, real wages are still falling. The BLS reports that real hourly earnings are down by about a half percentage point since February.”

Anyway, you stil fail to see (or acknowledge, I can’t be sure which) the connection between business and government. And I’d be very interested to know what you mean by this: “‘the ever-diminishing number of hands among which the means of production are changing’ --as you call it-- is only brought about by the exact thing you think helps the situation.”

Your last paragraph was so full of capitalist propaganda totally divorced from reality that I almost can’t bear to look at it, but for what it’s worth, you fail to mention the fact that capitalists don’t innovate. Their investments are largely to meet an already existing demand for a product. There’s virtually no risk of failure when a company decides to invest in a new widget factory because they can’t keep them on the shelf right now. And when innovation occurs, it’s not the owners of the company, it’s people who work there, who could’ve done the same thing without the company if not for their monopoly over the means of production.

No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove that black is white or, what is the same thing, that a company must be owned by a small group of people to make it productive for people to work there. Sorry, the world doesn’t need capitalists.

59

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The economy is supposed to decide what gets made, and who gets it.

Dude, you don’t get it.

The “economy” doesn’t do anything. People do. The economy is just the culmination of people deciding to what’s best for them.

By definition, all people only act in their “own best interest”. The economy is a reflection of that. It becomes obscured when there is interference in the choices people get to make.

Let me break it down real simple for you: The people who get stuff in this life are the people who do things to get them. This goes for politicians to plumbers – to capitalists and even communists.

Redefining words and concepts to fit your incorrect understanding of reality will not change this truth.[/quote]

Yes I know. People interact in order to decide what gets made and who gets it. Or do you deny that those are the fundamental problems of economics?

60

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The economy is supposed to decide what gets made, and who gets it.

Dude, you don’t get it.

The “economy” doesn’t do anything. People do. The economy is just the culmination of people deciding to what’s best for them.

By definition, all people only act in their “own best interest”. The economy is a reflection of that. It becomes obscured when there is interference in the choices people get to make.

Let me break it down real simple for you: The people who get stuff in this life are the people who do things to get them. This goes for politicians to plumbers – to capitalists and even communists.

Redefining words and concepts to fit your incorrect understanding of reality will not change this truth.[/quote]

Would you like to borrow my polo mallet to drive your point home? You’ll have to excuse him - he gets his hoped for socialist-utopia mixed up with his actual reality sometimes.

he has to redefine the terms, because otherwise you’re right . . . besides it’s not nice to confuse people with facts whose mind is already made up.