Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next > Last »

The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

Author Message
Alexei B.Miller
Co President of the Ros'Gaz Union State
*


Posts: 3,692
Words count: 630,277
Group: Basic
Joined: May2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 73
Experience: 6244
Glory Points: 710
Medals: 26

Vlaxia
Post: #21
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

I like the Koch's.....they pay my salary :3 i'm also a Libertarian.


"Hitler wanted to destroy Russia, everyone needs to remember how that ended"

Vladimir Putin

04.09.2014 05:29
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #22
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:
I like the Koch's.....they pay my salary :3

Labor workers were in exactly the same position... Until they discovered that without any labor laws they were completely expendable.

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:
i'm also a Libertarian.

Oh, my condolences.

04.09.2014 08:18
Quote this message in a reply
spitefire
Unregistered


Post: #23
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

@RP
It is not funny because the American economy is wrecked to the point that they have to hide the real numbers.
And if you find it funny it means you actually don't understand and have bought into an idea of mass murder.

look into Communist manifesto plank #9
corporations are a government enititys.
And they are clearly called for even if by a different name.

Yes isn't it so horrible him being a Libertarian and not wanting government to run around beating the hell out of people stealing from people and murdering people it is just so horrible and funny ha ha ha murder and abuse is so funny it is so evil that thous darn Libertarians don't want the government to round people up in cages and beat them up for engageing in non violent activity we need to teach them a lesson by laughing at them and asking th government to beat them up some more maybe we should stick them all in camps while we are at it that would be funny right?

Get a grip learn about a thing before you blindly fall off the verbal cliffs like marxists and every brand of statist do by broadbrushing everything.
here look into this guy see if he can't answer some of your questions.

http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/play...&flow=grid

04.09.2014 22:11
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #24
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

Oh yeah, Stefan Molyneux, the most "unbiased" thinker on the net. LoL. I remember several of his vids, I remember the one "The truth about Ghandi", in which he states that the british empire was bad in India, but not as bad as Stalin. Yep, definitely a guy to follow in the pursuit of wisdom.
And the US stagnation is not funny because regulated working hours, a minimum wage, criminalized child-labor, and race equality at the workplace are things of "MASS MURDER".

There is NO independence from government, when you as firms are trying to obtain profits in that government's currency. If you would actually forget about your brand of ethics, and look at how accounting works - you'd understand the reasons for why the economy is depressed. Again, no real economic arguments coming from you; just the ethics crusade of the typical cyber-libertarian. Government is an evil alien entity that rounds people up and does only bad things. It doesn't provide necessary things, such as property rights, laws, court system, fire-departments, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, research centers, welfare centers, police, army et all.
And the libertarians are simply screaming END welfare becuase THEY'RE gonna BANKRUPT the nation. And if you ask them what's your favorite writer, they're gonna say Ayn Rand - the chick who spent her life rallying against government, but when she got lung cancer she immediately applied for medicaid (public health care).
Keep true to your ethics, I've nothing against them; but do try to come with some sensible economic arguments.
Start first here: 43 chapters of austrian economics debunked.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogsp...-page.html

And spare me the anti repression meme of libertarians.

Rothbard's solution to the 1992 LA riots

Quote:
The little word "but" is the great weasel word of our time, enabling one to subscribe to standard pieties while getting one's real contrary message across. "Of course, I deplore communism, but . . ."; "Of course, I approve of the free market, but . . ." have been all too familiar refrains in recent decades. The standard reaction of our pundits, and across the entire respectable political spectrum, to the great Los Angeles et al. riots of April 29-May 2 went: "Of course, I can't condone violence, but . . . ." In every instance, the first clause is slid over rapidly and ritualistically, to get to the real diametrically opposed message after the "but" is disposed of.
The point, of course, is precisely to condone violence, by rushing to get to the alleged "real structural causes" of riots and the violence. While the "causes" of any human action are imprecise and complex, none of that is attended to, for everyone knows what the "solution" is supposed to be: to tax the American people, including the victims of the massive looting, burning, beating, killing rampage, to "assuage the rage of the inner cities" by paying off the rampaging "community" so handsomely that they supposedly won't do it again.
Before we rush past the riots themselves, the whole point of government, of an institution with a monopoly, or preponderance, of violence, is to use it to defend persons and property against violent assault. That role is not as obvious as it may seem, since the Los Angeles, state, and federal forces most conspicuously did not perform that function. Sending in police and troops late and depriving them of bullets, cannot do the job.
There is only one way to fulfill the vital police function, the only way that works: the public announcement--backed by willingness to enforce it--made by the late Mayor Richard Daley in the Chicago riots of the 1960s--ordering the police to shoot to kill any looters, rioters, arsonists, or muggers they might find. That very announcement was enough to induce the rioters to pocket their "rage" and go back to their peaceful pursuits.
Who knows the hearts of men? Who knows all the causes, the motivations, of action? But one thing is clear: regardless of the murky "causes," would-be looters and muggers would get such a message loud and clear.
But the federal government, and most state and local governments, decided to deal with the great riots of Watts and other inner cities of the 1960s in a very different way: the now accepted practice of a massive buyout, a vast system of bribes in the form of welfare, set-asides, affirmative action, etc. The amount spent on such purposes by federal, state, and local governments since the Great Society of the 1960s totals the staggering sum of $7 trillion.
And what is the result? The plight of the inner cities is clearly worse than ever: more welfare, more crime, more dysfunction, more fatherless families, fewer kids being "educated" in any sense, more despair and degradation. And now, bigger riots than ever before. It should be clear, in the starkest terms, that throwing taxpayer money and privileges at the inner cities is starkly coun terproductive. And yet: this is the only "solution" that liberals can ever come up with, and without any argument--as if this "solution" were self-evident. How long is this nonsense supposed to go on? If that is the absurd liberal solution, conservatives are not much better. Even liberals are praising--always a bad sign--Jack Kemp for being a "good" conservative who cares, and who is coming up with innovative solutions trumpeted by Kemp himself and his neoconservative fuglemen. These are supposed to be "non-welfare" solutions, but welfare is precisely what they are: "public housing "owned" by tenants, but only under massive subsidy and strict regulation--with no diminution of the public housing stock; "enterprise zones" which are not free enterprise zones at all, but simply zones for more welfare subsidy and privileges to the inner city.
Various left-libertarians focus on removal of minimum wage laws and licensing requirements as the cure for the disaster of the inner cities. Well, repeal of minimum wages would certainly be helpful, but they are largely irrelevant to the riots: after all, minimum wage laws exist all across the country, in areas just as poor as the inner cities--such as Appalachia. How come there are no riots in Appalachia? The abolition of licensing laws would also be welcome, but just as irrelevant.
Some claim the underlying cause is racial discrimination. And yet, the problem seems worse, rather than better, after three decades of aggressive civil rights measures. Moreover, the Koreans are undoubtedly at least equal victims of racial discrimination--and they also have the problem of English being their second, and often a distant second, language. So how is that Korean-Americans never riot, indeed that they were the major single group of victims of the Los Angeles riot?
The Moynihan thesis of the cause of the problem is closer to the mark: the famous insight of three decades ago that the black family was increasingly fatherless, and that therefore such values as respect for person and property were in danger of disappearing. Three decades later, the black family is in far worse shape, and the white family isn't doing too well, either. But even if the Moynihan thesis is part of the problem, what can be done about it? Families cannot be forced together.
A greater part of the cause of the rot is the moral and esthetic nihilism created by many decades of cultural liberalism. But what can be done about it? Surely, at best it would take many decades to take back the culture from liberalism and to instill sound doctrine, if it can be done at all. The rot cannot be stopped, or even slowed down, by such excruciatingly slow and problematic measures.
Before we can set about curing a disease we must have some idea of what that disease is. Are we really sure that "rage" is the operative problem? For the most part, the young rioters caught on television mostly did not look angry at all. One memorable exchange took place as the TV camera caught a happy, grinning young lad hauling off a TV set from a looted store and putting it in his car. Asked the dimwit reporter: "Why are you taking that TV set?" The memorable answer: "Because it's free!" It is no accident, too, that the arsonists took care to loot thoroughly the 10,000 stores before they burned them to the ground.
The crucial point is that whether the motivation or the goal is rage, kicks, or loot, the rioters, with a devotion to present gratification as against future concerns, engaged in the joys of beating, robbing, and burning, and of massive theft, because they saw they could get away with it. Devotion to the sanctity of person and property is not part of their value-system. That's why, in the short term, all we can do is shoot the looters and incarcerate the rioters.


PS: for your general knowledge, the labor movement phenomenon (people struggling for a better/fairer life) throughout history wasn't just composed of marxists. The movement itself is far older than Marx. You can look at the Magna Carta, the Renaissance, at Erasmus de Rotterdam, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Gottfried Leibniz, the american colonies, et all.

Here's a piece from Leibniz's Society and Economy (1671).

Quote:
Monopoly is avoided, since this Society always desires to give commodities at their fair price, or even more cheaply in many cases, by causing manufactured goods to be produced locally rather than having them imported. It will especially preclude the formation of any monopoly of merchants or a cartel of artisans, along with any excessive accumulation of wealth by the merchants or excessive poverty of the artisans--which is particularly the case in Holland, where the majority of merchants are riding high, whereas the artisans are kept in continual poverty and toil. This is harmful to the republic, since even Aristotle maintains that artisanship ought to be one of the worthiest occupations. Nam Mercaturs transfert tantum, Manufactura gignit. [For trade can carry only as much as the factories produce.] And why, indeed, should so many people be poor and miserable for the benefit of such a small handful? After all, is not the entire purpose of Society to release the artisan from his misery? The farmer is not in need, since he is sure of his bread, and the merchant has more than enough. The remaining people are either destitute or government servants. Society can likewise satisfy all the farmer's own needs, providing it always buys from him at a reliably fair price, whether that be cheap or dear. We can thereby ensure for all eternity against natural food shortages, since Society can then have what amounts to a general grain reserve.

Through establishment of such a Society, we eliminate a deep-seated drawback within many republics, which consists in allowing each and all to sustain themselves as they please, allowing one individual to become rich at the expense of a hundred others, or allowing him to collapse, dragging down with him the hundreds who have put themselves under his care. An individual may or may not ruin his own family, and then may or may not run through his own and others' funds.

Objection: Should money be invested in other countries? By no means. Each country shall, on the contrary, supply itself with those necessary commodities and manufactured goods which previously came from abroad, so that it will not have to procure from others what it can have for itself; each country shall be shown how properly to use its own domestic resources. In a country which has sufficient wool, manufacturing shall be established for the preparation of cloth; a country with an abundance of flax shall occupy its populace with the production of clothing; and so forth. And thus no country among those which permit Society the proper degree of freedom, will be favored over the other; rather, each shall be made to flourish in those areas in which God and Nature have allowed it to excel.

Manufacturing, therefore, shall always take place at the commodities' point of origin; whereas commerce, in accordance with its nature, shall be located at the rivers and oceans--an arrangement which only becomes disrupted (manufacturing being placed near commercial centers, far from its raw materials) when the necessary Society and cohesiveness is lacking in many locations, especially where there are no republics.

A great drawback of many republics and countries is that many places have more scholars (not to mention idle people) than they have artisans. But this Society has something for everyone to do, and it needs its scholars for continual conferences and joyous discoveries. This Society can have others adopt the profession of assuming responsibility for providing for unfortunates--e.g., the confinement of criminals, which is of great benefit to the republic.

One might object that artisans today work out of necessity; if all their needs were satisfied, then they would do no work at all. I, however, maintain the contrary, that they would be glad to do more than they now do out of necessity. For, first of all, if a man is unsure of his sustenance, he has neither the heart nor the spirit for anything; will only produce as much as he expects to sell (which is not very much given his few customers); concerns himself with trivialities; and does not have the heart to undertake anything new and important. He thus earns little, must often drink to excess merely in order to dull his own sense of desperation and drown his sorrows, and is tormented by the malice of his journeymen. But it will be different there: Each will be glad to work, because he knows what he has to do. Never will he be involuntarily idle, as he is now, since no one will work for himself, but rather jointly; and if one has too much and the other not enough, then one will give to the other.

On the other hand, no artisan will be suddenly obliged--as he sometimes is now--to torture himself and his men half to death with excessive work, since the amount of work will always remain more or less the same. The journeymen will work together, joyously vying with one another in the public factories, the masters themselves taking care of the work that requires more understanding. No master need be annoyed that an intelligent journeyman might desire to become a master himself, for how does this harm the master? Journeymen's room, board, and necessities will be provided free to all workers. No master will need to worry about how he is to provide for his children or marry them off respectably. The education of children will be taken care of by Society; parents shall be relieved of the task of educating their own children: All children, while they are small, shall be rigorously brought up by women in public facilities. And scrupulous attention will be paid that they do not become overcrowded, are kept clean, and that no diseases arise. How could anyone live more happily than that? Artisans will work together happily in the company's large rooms, singing and conversing, except for those whose work requires more concentration.

Most of the work will be done in the morning. Pains will be taken to provide for pleasures other than drinking--for example, discussions of their craft and the telling of all sorts of funny stories, whereby they must be provided with something to quench their thirst, such as acida. There is no greater pleasure for a thoughtful man, or indeed for any man once he becomes accustomed, than being in a company where pleasant and useful things are being discussed; and thus every group, including the artisans, should have someone to write down any useful remarks that may be made. But the Society's highest rule shall be to foster true love and trustfulness among its members, and not to express anything irritating, scornful, or insulting to others. Indeed, even rulers should eschew all insults unless nothing else is effective, since such behavior precludes the establishment of trust. No man shall be derided for a mistake, even if it be a serious one; rather, he should be gently admonished in a brotherly way, and at the same time, immediately and appropriately punished. Punishment shall consist in increased and heavier work, such as making a master work like a journeyman, or a journeyman like an apprentice.

The moral virtues shall be promulgated to their utmost and, as far as possible, according to the principle Octavii Pisani per gradus [of Octavius Pisa, by steps]. If it is observed that two people cannot settle their own dispute, they shall be separated. Lies will also be punished. Sed haec non omnia statim initio publicanda. [Let this, even though uncompleted, be published as a beginning.]


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 06.09.2014 12:45 by Helsworth.

04.09.2014 23:02
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Alexei B.Miller
Co President of the Ros'Gaz Union State
*


Posts: 3,692
Words count: 630,277
Group: Basic
Joined: May2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 73
Experience: 6244
Glory Points: 710
Medals: 26

Vlaxia
Post: #25
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

Helsworth i'm not THAT type of Libertarian....in fact that's not libertarianism at all. that's called Anarchism.

I believe that there should be a government. But that government should be limited in scope. Limited can mean many things to different people. Your "limited" could be too broad for me my "limited" could be restrictive to you.

What I advocate for is a government that is limited in the sense that its preserves property rights for individuals, governments, and businesses. Provide national defense, uphold contracts made by two mentally competent entities. A government which could provide welfare and some health services to those who strictly at a certain poverty level paid for by profits from stand alone state run corporations and mineral royalties (i'm not going to sit here and create a tax code lol). I am in no means saying that there should be no government. Such a concept is impossible because government can even be one of nomadic clans or family units. Governments are natural constructs of humanity and they exist in various forms.

ALSO I would like to point out that there is NO NO NO cookie cutter libertarians. So please do think one person's "libertarian stance" is representative of all libertarians. Even tho me ans spitefire are in the same party even we will disagree on some points.


"Hitler wanted to destroy Russia, everyone needs to remember how that ended"

Vladimir Putin

05.09.2014 05:04
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #26
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

spitefire Wrote:
@RP
It is not funny because the American economy is wrecked to the point that they have to hide the real numbers.

As far as I know, the U.S.A.'s G.D.P. continues to grow despite a worsening quality of life.

spitefire Wrote:
And if you find it funny it means you actually don't understand and have bought into an idea of mass murder.

When was the last time a minimum wage killed anybody?

spitefire Wrote:
look into Communist manifesto plank #9
corporations are a government enititys.
And they are clearly called for even if by a different name.

The Communist Manifesto states that assets would be managed by the state until it 'withers away'. That said, historically private corporations have done as much if not more damage as socialist/soviet regimes. The later at least had the decency to screw up only themselves for the most part, while the private corporations just stick their fingers in pretty much everywhere. Did you know that private companies are currently benefitting from the slave labor and Coltan conflict in the Congo? Did you know that in the past private U.S.A. firms aided Franco, Trujillo, and others via many means?

No-one here is excusing soviet/socialist crimes. But to say that being a free marketer makes you saint is just trash. Specially when free marketers have just as much blood on their hands - except theirs is more often foreigners' blood.

spitefire Wrote:
Yes isn't it so horrible him being a Libertarian and not wanting government to run around beating the hell out of people stealing from people and murdering people it is just so horrible and funny ha ha ha murder and abuse is so funny it is so evil that thous darn Libertarians don't want the government to round people up in cages and beat them up for engageing in non violent activity we need to teach them a lesson by laughing at them and asking th government to beat them up some more maybe we should stick them all in camps while we are at it that would be funny right?

Fun market facts:
#1 - Successful private companies often grow into corporations or are bought by them.
#2 - Successful corporations use heavy-handed legal means to ensure comptitive advantages, these including patents, legal suits, and lobbysts.
#3 - Highly profitable corporations need government. Who is going to protect the patents, if not the government? Who is going to ensure stupid ideas like "intellectual property" are kept around, if not via a government? Who is going to provide property defense?

A common mistake some (but not all) novice cyberpunk writters make is to make corporations the government - but this situation does not lasts because it is more profitable to let someone else bear the cost when you can. Why fight with other companies, when you can just form a cartel?

spitefire Wrote:
Get a grip learn about a thing before you blindly fall off the verbal cliffs like marxists and every brand of statist do by broadbrushing everything.

I am neither a Marxist nor a leftlist, actually. However, pretending that the government is the Ultimate Source of Evil™ is just as foolish as pretending that nationalizing everything is a definite solution.

You should read about the Industrial Revolution. The labor movement ocurred for a reason, y' know. When a complete free hand (specially one where the government just sits by and lets them do whatever they want), owners will just squeeze their workers as much as they can, just as totalitarian state would.

This post was last modified: 05.09.2014 11:47 by Helsworth.

05.09.2014 07:14
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #27
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

I've said this already while talking with Chad, who is a libertarian also. But one who understands how our present monetary and banking system works.
You can have a libertarian-sized government in our days - but you still need to get the macros right (fiscal policy) in order to keep the economy working at full employment and price stability. To maximize private sector employment, and to minimize public sector employment - you STILL need the government to spend MORE than it taxes.
It can do that directly and fairly to all citizens! The government provides people with these extra funds, you can call it a yearly income, and the people decide what they want to do with it - save it or consume it outright, form ventures with each other etc. As for taxation - it could be a flat rate on property, a small excise tax and a small VAT. No capital gains tax, no income tax.
What's so freakin' hard to understand? Why is it so hard to divorce the operational framework from one's own ethical view of the world? People kill more people with baseball bats than they do with guns (if we don't take into account war-zone). So what do we do? Do we ban baseball bats? Do we make the baseball bat out of rubber? Do we diminish the size/length of the baseball bat? It would be a stupid choice. The government is just a tool - a necessary one. The whole concept and framework of taxes and money is to solve a problem or set of problems. Our problem, that of the citizens, is with the assholes running government - those elected and unelected officials that we fail to hold them accountable for their actions.

Just as we need government laws to keep the market from accepting slavery, racism, child labor, child pornography, human trafficking et all - we need to keep the people in government in check, in order not to overthrow our freedoms and liberties, our public services, etc. Yet, both the republicans and democrats, the christian democrats and socialists have royally screwed us over... why? Because citizens get dumber and dumber. In a totalitarian regime, they are kept quiescent with fear. In a free/open regime, they are kept quiescent with consumerist propaganda, reality shows, porn, and sports. Yet, the latter is still better than the former. But that's how you fall prey to authoritarianism; by letting things deteriorate - letting poverty rise, letting the wealth gap rise, letting employment figures go down, cutting health care, welfare, education, science and research, increasing consumption taxes, income taxes, et all.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 06.09.2014 12:46 by Helsworth.

05.09.2014 11:40
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
spitefire
Unregistered


Post: #28
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

@RP

Quote:
As far as I know, the U.S.A.'s G.D.P. continues to grow despite a worsening quality of life.

Yes, the GDP grows just like a person's weight grows even if all they eat are Twinkies, in this case that would be all the money printing done by the federal reserve.

Quote:
When was the last time a minimum wage killed anybody?

I think a better question is how many people has the government had to kill or kidnap to enforce minimum wage.

Quote:
The Communist Manifesto states that assets would be managed by the state until it 'withers away'. That said, historically private corporations have done as much if not more damage as socialist/soviet regimes. The later at least had the decency to screw up only themselves for the most part, while the private corporations just stick their fingers in pretty much everywhere. Did you know that private companies are currently benefitting from the slave labor and Coltan conflict in the Congo? Did you know that in the past private U.S.A. firms aided Franco, Trujillo, and others via many means?

No-one here is excusing soviet/socialist crimes. But to say that being a free marketer makes you saint is just trash. Specially when free marketers have just as much blood on their hands - except theirs is more often foreigners' blood.

The state does not wither away it eats people until it gets to fat then explodes and kills lots more people.
Corporations and free markets are separate things a free market would not have a legal fiction that would allow certain parties to get out of contracts as soon as things went sour but socialist communist fascist basically all brands of government who have the power to do so always do because they do not want to be held accountable that is why they got in government that is why anyone gets into government to move resources to a place that is easier for them to get at with less work.
That is also why we have technology so we can get resources to a place more easily gotten to the difference is politics requires that there is always a gun waiting to force someone else to do things for them but technology does not enslave alone unless you mix it with politics.

Everyone of thous situations where you say the free market has killed will always have -the government gun- nearby and what that means is that it was in no way free market, but the hardcore statists will scream at the top of there lungs that there is no market without the government this is so they do no have to address the issue that there ideas are what is killing people not people working together without a government holding a gun to the necks of regular folks.

Quote:
Fun market facts:
#1 - Successful private companies often grow into corporations or are bought by them.
#2 - Successful corporations use heavy-handed legal means to ensure comptitive advantages, these including patents, legal suits, and lobbysts.
#3 - Highly profitable corporations need government. Who is going to protect the patents, if not the government? Who is going to ensure stupid ideas like "intellectual property" are kept around, if not via a government? Who is going to provide property defense?

A common mistake some (but not all) novice cyberpunk writters make is to make corporations the government - but this situation does not lasts because it is more profitable to let someone else bear the cost when you can. Why fight with other companies, when you can just form a cartel?

#1 if regular people do not form a corporation they will be destroyed by all the regulations imposed by government.
Should people let themselves get strung up in hundreds of regulations and end up millions in debt?
So long as the government is forcing them the moral is on government remember the Nuremberg trials thous who command hold the morals government commands and people obey because they need resources to live.
#2 Governments protect there resource management agencies.
#3 Corporations are the government hand in the economy right along with fiat currency. Fun fact if not for fiat currency we would not have had WW1 and WW2, WW1 would have puttered out long before getting really messy and there would not have been the setup for WW2.

It is true that it is too costly for non government agencies to run around with enough fire power to subdue each other without making themselves unprofitable, but without that firepower there is also no way to keep a cartel together, there are lots of things that can happen to make the cartel agreement a short lived one.

Quote:
am neither a Marxist nor a leftlist, actually. However, pretending that the government is the Ultimate Source of Evil™ is just as foolish as pretending that nationalizing everything is a definite solution.

Just do some thought experiments and try to apply everything that government does to everyone like money printing or kidnapping or stealing property and breaking contracts on a whim what would happen if the populous were to take any of these things as proper behavior that they should also engage in.

Quote:
You should read about the Industrial Revolution. The labor movement ocurred for a reason, y' know. When a complete free hand (specially one where the government just sits by and lets them do whatever they want), owners will just squeeze their workers as much as they can, just as totalitarian state would.

The government was not giving a free hand the government at that time was much weaker just to correct that error in suggestion that was made.
What you said there is contradictory, is the government sitting there letting them have a free hand or is it enforcing totalitarianism?
Or are you imagining that these magical people known as owners are going to single handedly pull an army out of there backsides, cause if the government is sitting by then they are also not sending an army to back them up.
Is this owner person inside the government then that would mean the government is not just sitting by cause the only people who are allowed to do what ever they want without penalty are government people, not all government people of course just the real Amoral ones that end up at the top.

06.09.2014 03:19
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #29
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

Utter ideological drivel. I've heard this so many times from cyber-libertarians.
Ask yourself, how many and how rough has nature had to screw over, before people finally said - you know, we can't live separate lives. Our clans need to unite, form a central authority to enforce laws that will benefit and protect us all.

RP is not contradicting himself. The market exists as such because of government enforced laws and regulations. The whole concept and framework of taxation and money is to solve problems. If the market is experiencing ills - ills which affect the public interest, automatically which affect private citizens; then government has the responsibility to intervene to correct those ills - not to stand idle and watch as that problem grows into an even bigger one, which leads to new others forming.

Your claim that without fiat currency, you would not have had WW1 and WW2 is really comical. Here's a fact for ya, China had fiat currency around the year 1000 AD. Other countries used fiat as well - be it tally sticks, bones, clay tablets, parchment et all.

A gold standard is NOT a product of free markets, it IS a government decision to tie the government's IOUs into a metal medium.
Third, gold didn't stop the Romans from waging wars for conquest, spoils, riches, and thralls. It didn't stop Spain's bloody conquests in the name of acquiring slaves and gold!

Aside from GDP measurments, we have economic sector measurments, in retail, in industry, in services, energy output, energy consumption, national figures, local figures, short trends, medium trend, long trends, inflation indexation, stock and flow measurements et all. But instead of actually looking into things, you choose to be an arm-chair libertarian - thinking that with a priori reasoning you can identity and solve the world's problems.

Here's another fact for ya. If government were not to issue money, we'd all be unemployed! We'd all be unable to pay our taxes! We'd all have our property confiscated by government!

Glad you posted all of this, it sated my curiosity into your beliefs. However, I'm sad that you choose to remain totally ignorant about the monetary system under which you live - and indeed, the rest of the world lives. Keep believing in these arm-chair myths... they're sure to liberate you into zealous ignorance.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 06.09.2014 12:16 by Helsworth.

06.09.2014 12:03
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #30
RE: The many times outrageous 'workers rights' laws have destroyed the American Economy

spitefire Wrote:
Yes, the GDP grows just like a person's weight grows even if all they eat are Twinkies, in this case that would be all the money printing done by the federal reserve.

G.D.P. does not represents "flat" money though, just the value of the total goods and services in use.

Quote:
The state does not wither away it eats people until it gets to fat then explodes and kills lots more people.

Historical note: In the Spanish Civil War, the anarchists and government minimalists were on the Republic's side. The hard-on marketers were on Franco's side.

Quote:
Corporations and free markets are separate things a free market would not have a legal fiction that would allow certain parties to get out of contracts[...]

Well, a contract is also a legal fiction. If two parties sign a contract without any third party to regulate or oversee it, the natural result is that the stronger or most avaricious part will take advantage of the other part. All Party A would need to take advantage of Party B would be something like numerical or military superiority - and rest assured Party B would be screwed over.

Quote:
Everyone of thous situations where you say the free market has killed will always have -the government gun- nearby and what that means is that it was in no way free market,[...]

Because in a free market the government does not need to enforce anything -- it just needs to sit by while the market kills everyone all by itself. Like in the Industrial Revolution.

Quote:
[...]but the hardcore statists will scream at the top of there lungs that there is no market without the government this is so they do no have to address the issue that there ideas are what is killing people not people working together without a government holding a gun to the necks of regular folks.

Oh, you can have markets without government. It is just that there is no need to "negotitate" or "barter" when you canjust "take" what you want.

Quote:
#1 if regular people do not form a corporation they will be destroyed by all the regulations imposed by government.
Should people let themselves get strung up in hundreds of regulations and end up millions in debt?
So long as the government is forcing them the moral is on government remember the Nuremberg trials thous who command hold the morals government commands and people obey because they need resources to live.
#2 Governments protect there resource management agencies.
#3 Corporations are the government hand in the economy right along with fiat currency. Fun fact if not for fiat currency we would not have had WW1 and WW2, WW1 would have puttered out long before getting really messy and there would not have been the setup for WW2.

#1 What I am saying is that the corporation (the natural evolution of profitable company) needs/wants a government to help keep it profitable. And yes, people on top are always screwing people on the bottom. This would ocurr even more in a place where the market is completely unrestricted - simply because the pretenses normally held by a government can be disposed with.

#2 I am not sure I understand that sentence. Goverments have secured resources in the past - often from other, foreign governments - by force. The exploitation of these resources is rarely done by the governmnet itself, however. More often than not all these resources are just privatized for meager sums.

#3 Wait, what? There was no fiat currency in 1914 nor in 1936. Heck, the Gold Standard was abandoned by Nixon (a Republican, by the way) because even he knew that there was no way the U.S.A. could keep the pretense of a gold-driven economy without massive stangnation. World War I & II were caused by ethnic/imperialist conflicts, and private companies benefitting extensively from them, too. And finally, did you know that the Great Depression of the U.S.A. ocurred due to the Gold Standard?

Quote:
It is true that it is too costly for non government agencies to run around with enough fire power to subdue each other without making themselves unprofitable, but without that firepower there is also no way to keep a cartel together, there are lots of things that can happen to make the cartel agreement a short lived one.

And I agree. A company could buy/forcibly merge with the others, effectively ending the cartel via a monopoly. They could also create a puppet "public" government effectively ending the cartel in theory but not in practice. They could also be defeated by a third party, so the cartel ends due to military defeat.

But, given that there are no conflicts with third parties, it is more profitable to screw poor people than other rich people. Other rich people have reosources, so it is easier to compromise with them. Poor people have nothing, so to the rich they are just toys.

Quote:
Just do some thought experiments and try to apply everything that government does to everyone like money printing or kidnapping or stealing property and breaking contracts on a whim what would happen if the populous were to take any of these things as proper behavior that they should also engage in.

I once met a libertarian on the Internet. He made the exact same mistake: Pretend that a living person should be treated as a legal fictional entity - the government. My question would be: Why do libertarians insist on treating the government as their "mate"? In the end it does not exist. Living persons do. Why should we treat individual people as the government is beyond me.

Also, have you done the thought experiment of Monopoly and taxes?

Quote:
The government was not giving a free hand the government at that time was much weaker just to correct that error in suggestion that was made.
What you said there is contradictory, is the government sitting there letting them have a free hand or is it enforcing totalitarianism?
Or are you imagining that these magical people known as owners are going to single handedly pull an army out of there backsides, cause if the government is sitting by then they are also not sending an army to back them up.
Is this owner person inside the government then that would mean the government is not just sitting by cause the only people who are allowed to do what ever they want without penalty are government people, not all government people of course just the real Amoral ones that end up at the top.

I sincerely suggest once more the read on the Industrial Revolution -- it is actually a rather long subject and it cannot be simply summarized, not without lossing a few important remarks. For the sake of this discussion however I will make the following resumé:

Past the 1800s, the first viable commercial machine enters the market and helps replace human workers in a time where all power was done by hand. The machine, powered by steam, would revolutionize society: The "Steam Engine".

What we have to note about the period is that any and all government "regulations" of the time applied to nobles. Merchants, a lower caste, were almost completely unhindered by law - provided they respected customs as commoners do, then they were allowed to go about in peace.

When machines enter the scene and merchants become the new high caste (because the nobility either phased out or was also incorporated into the new steam-age) they are free to dictate how their workers should be paid, what (if any) benefits should they receive, and if they should be punished (and how). Here a few things that private owners were allowed to do without any repercussion:

  • Female workers were abused and fired when pregnant. They also had to suffer from sexism.
  • If a worker was ill, he had to go to work ill or lose his job. It did not matter wathever he could feed his family or not, or if he had been a model employee or not.
  • Child labor was completely legal, so it was extensively used. Mines, chimenys, and other hard-to-reach and hazardous spaces were usually operated by and/or cleaned by child workers.
  • The above also received a meager pay for this work, and worked usually as much time as adult workers.
  • If a worker suffered an accident at work and a piece of machinery was damaged, then he had to pay for the damage. It did not matter if he died, either: His family was indebted to the owner until the damage was paid, which often meant working as in-practice slaves.
  • There was no minimun wage, so workers effectively competed with each other for jobs. Because owners knew this, they often hired the cheapest worker they could find. As a result, the pay was as low as possible, while profits were as high as possible.
  • In republics or any monarchy with a parliament/senate where workers could participate via voting, owners usually threatened and coerced their employees to cast their vote in a certain way. Because workers could lose their jobs if they did not agree, they did as they were told.
  • Racism was rampart through the time, and this was the way owners prefered it. It was a perfectly valid excuse not to hire a person, and when hired, they were subject to even lower-than-average pay.

And now, the thing to note here is that when government intervened, it did so to help the owners. Sometimes owners were perfectly capable of defending themselves via private militias. That is why unions were formed, why strikes were carried out, and why a whole story of repression of labor rights (and fight for labor rights) began.

08.09.2014 04:47
Quote this message in a reply
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next > Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Awarding American campuses a failing grade! Helsworth 2 1,642 14.09.2021 02:44
Last Post: loyedbend2811
  Apologies from an American. Kahnite 15 1,969 09.05.2020 02:58
Last Post: adder
  American negroes must escape American Leftism to become a great people again CommieScum 2 1,381 20.10.2017 22:04
Last Post: CommieScum
  UN human rights watchdog orders Saudi Arabia to stop stoning children Helsworth 0 1,267 03.01.2017 11:53
Last Post: Helsworth
  Why Brexit is good for workers, Jimmy Dore gets it! Helsworth 0 1,153 02.07.2016 17:51
Last Post: Helsworth
  American Gun Control yangusbeef 0 1,291 24.06.2016 19:02
Last Post: yangusbeef
  Pastafarian Denied Rights Because His Beliefs Are 'Fictional' Helsworth 3 1,287 18.04.2016 20:30
Last Post: yangusbeef
  China's economy is sputtering - Wall Street Journal dragonflare88 14 6,258 14.08.2015 14:43
Last Post: debauchery
  Cornel West on Bernie Sanders, Michael Eric Dyson, Trans Rights, and B.B. King Helsworth 0 1,545 05.08.2015 12:25
Last Post: Helsworth
  Bill Maher Destroyed Again And Again By Reza Aslan Helsworth 1 1,238 31.07.2015 05:25
Last Post: debauchery

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: