Politics in a Nutshell
-
josda1000 wrote:
What if there indeed was NO government. Think, how would people be "protected"? Would corporations barge into your house and say, "I want your money! Here's what I'm giving you!" No.
No, if there was NO government, then whoever had the biggest guns would end up in charge. Is that what you're advocating? Because if not, we're getting seriously sidetracked.
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, you're describing how a company grows. Now I'm saying how does a company really start up? It's through capital. You need to form capital because otherwise, you're stagnant. This is why there are only a FEW corporations in the world, and not a LOT. The more you tax, the less capital (in both senses of the term) a company has, and the worse of a chance it has to grow to compete.
I never argued that tax reductions would help small businesses. What I'm saying is that it's not feasible for these startups to compete with the big multi-nationals like BP, simply because of the necessary infrastructure. How much does it cost to build an oil pipeline? How much does it cost to run a drilling platform? How much does it cost to buy an oil tanker?
josda1000 wrote:
You're right, I agree. But don't you think it's at least a bit viable to say that you'd have at least a few more companies competing (I'm not talking about little gas stations. I'm saying that you'd have more Exxon/Mobil and BP companies). Yes, they'd be corporations. But I have never heard a horror story out of Exxon/Mobil.
It's possible that one or two more could start, but more likely than not, they'd either be forced out of the market by the big guys (Remember, no government to help protect them from hostile corporate strategies - The megacorps have built a science around being legally evil) or just bought out. As for horror stories, are you including or excluding oil spills? How about illegal trade with Sudan, despite UN sanctions in 2003? How about government bribery in Kazakhstan that same year? Alleged financing of the Indonesian military? Oh, and keep in mind that ExxonMobil is actually the merger of two pieces of Standard Oil, the ultimate megacorp that was broken up by the Supreme Court in 1911.
josda1000 wrote:
I agree. And I advocate for a separation of economy and state. People must be free to choose.
Right, an
Ian Shlasko wrote:
No, if there was NO government, then whoever had the biggest guns would end up in charge. Is that what you're advocating? Because if not, we're getting seriously sidetracked.
1. Yes, it is what I'm advocating. 2. Governments are already the ones with the biggest guns. 3. Is that what happened in Ireland, the Wild West (and we're not talking Hollywood style. We're talking about the truth. And not "Sons of Anarchy", which is a farce by name.), Plymouth? If you say yes, well, we'll end this conversation here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What I'm saying is that it's not feasible for these startups to compete with the big multi-nationals like BP, simply because of the necessary infrastructure. How much does it cost to build an oil pipeline? How much does it cost to run a drilling platform? How much does it cost to buy an oil tanker?
Absolutely. But how did those companies start? Did they have the capital at the outset to build it? I don't know either way. But I do know that there can be small companies that can build capital over time, and then can compete with those big guys. You can't just say that it will never happen.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's possible that one or two more could start, but more likely than not, they'd either be forced out of the market by the big guys (Remember, no government to help protect them from hostile corporate strategies - The megacorps have built a science around being legally evil) or just bought out.
What kind of "hostile strategies" are you implying? And I dare say that the corporations just USE the law to benefit themselves... they don't walk around them like some people say. As to being bought out, there's nothing wrong with that, if both parties agree. I mean, some of us don't like it, but I would say it's a deal between the two of them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As for horror stories, are you including or excluding oil spills? How about illegal trade with Sudan, despite UN sanctions in 2003? How about government bribery in Kazakhstan that same year? Alleged financing of the Indonesian military? Oh, and keep in mind that ExxonMobil is actually the merger of two pieces of Standard Oil, the ultimate megacorp that was broken up by the Supreme Court in 1911.
Oil spills, we've been over that. And yes, it happens, and I
-
josda1000 wrote:
You can't make this argument. The reason I say that is because food can be created on the fly with machines. I have stated before, that the only way you can get rid of money is if you can create food out of thin air... much like how money is created out of thin air right now.
What point are you trying to make? I'm giving a basic idea of the principles behind communism, and you're trying to argue that it won't work in real life. I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that it won't work in real life. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
josda1000 wrote:
No. You'd have slavery. You're right.
Slavery to who? If everyone is socially and economically equal, who are you a slave to?
josda1000 wrote:
I still don't agree with this, you have not convinced me of this in the least. I am advocating capitalism. You are saying that my idea will lead to corporatism, and I disagree.
We're dealing with this in the other thread, so no sense duplicating things here.
josda1000 wrote:
No, I disagree with this as well. Communism leads to dictatorship.
Dictatorship... Fascism... Call it whatever you want. It's authoritarianism, and I think we both agree that it's a Bad Thing (tm).
josda1000 wrote:
Right now we have fascism, which will lead to revolution eventually. This is unsustainable... but I don't wish to get into that.
Josh, you're starting to sound like CSS. You can make an argument that we're progressing toward fascism, or that our society has some elements of fascism, but this isn't a fascist state. The mere fact that we're able to use our real names and say these things on a public forum shows that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
What point are you trying to make? I'm giving a basic idea of the principles behind communism, and you're trying to argue that it won't work in real life. I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that it won't work in real life. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
Fair enough, I thought you were arguing that the specific point could indeed work, not that the system would work. That's why I argued it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Slavery to who? If everyone is socially and economically equal, who are you a slave to?
I do believe that all people are CREATED equal, not that all people should END UP equal. The thing is, some people have different strengths and weaknesses. More people are not creative enough to make use of their strengths, and therefore rely on this fabricated system we have (this does include some of my friends, actually). Just because you feel bad for them doesn't mean that you should steal money from me and Joe to pay Rob "the user". I make money, but I don't have enough to pay off my debts. Why? Taxes. I believe that all people should be treated with respect. All people should make their own way in life, and should be thoroughly responsible for themselves. We are indeed all CREATED socially and economically equal. This is what liberty is: I own myself, I do what I need to do and I do what I want to do. Nobody should tell me otherwise. This is why taxes are abhorrent, war is abhorrent, licensing laws are abhorrent, all of this. What is the proper role of government? It should be to serve justice. That's it. If someone violates my property (steals, destroys, "borrows" without consent). So, whom am I a slave to? I'm a slave to absolutely everyone in this population, but moreso to the people who do not realize that stealing/taxing and murder/war is still wrong and immoral.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Dictatorship... Fascism... Call it whatever you want. It's authoritarianism, and I think we both agree that it's a Bad Thing (tm).
lol (tm) I like that. yes, we are obviously in agreement here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Josh, you're starting to sound like CSS. You can make an argument that we're progressing toward fascism, or that our society has some elements of fascism, but this isn't a fascist state. The mere fact that we're able to use our real names an
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
No, if there was NO government, then whoever had the biggest guns would end up in charge. Is that what you're advocating? Because if not, we're getting seriously sidetracked.
1. Yes, it is what I'm advocating. 2. Governments are already the ones with the biggest guns. 3. Is that what happened in Ireland, the Wild West (and we're not talking Hollywood style. We're talking about the truth. And not "Sons of Anarchy", which is a farce by name.), Plymouth? If you say yes, well, we'll end this conversation here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What I'm saying is that it's not feasible for these startups to compete with the big multi-nationals like BP, simply because of the necessary infrastructure. How much does it cost to build an oil pipeline? How much does it cost to run a drilling platform? How much does it cost to buy an oil tanker?
Absolutely. But how did those companies start? Did they have the capital at the outset to build it? I don't know either way. But I do know that there can be small companies that can build capital over time, and then can compete with those big guys. You can't just say that it will never happen.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's possible that one or two more could start, but more likely than not, they'd either be forced out of the market by the big guys (Remember, no government to help protect them from hostile corporate strategies - The megacorps have built a science around being legally evil) or just bought out.
What kind of "hostile strategies" are you implying? And I dare say that the corporations just USE the law to benefit themselves... they don't walk around them like some people say. As to being bought out, there's nothing wrong with that, if both parties agree. I mean, some of us don't like it, but I would say it's a deal between the two of them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As for horror stories, are you including or excluding oil spills? How about illegal trade with Sudan, despite UN sanctions in 2003? How about government bribery in Kazakhstan that same year? Alleged financing of the Indonesian military? Oh, and keep in mind that ExxonMobil is actually the merger of two pieces of Standard Oil, the ultimate megacorp that was broken up by the Supreme Court in 1911.
Oil spills, we've been over that. And yes, it happens, and I
josda1000 wrote:
1. Yes, it is what I'm advocating. 2. Governments are already the ones with the biggest guns. 3. Is that what happened in Ireland, the Wild West (and we're not talking Hollywood style. We're talking about the truth. And not "Sons of Anarchy", which is a farce by name.), Plymouth? If you say yes, well, we'll end this conversation here.
Again, we're talking small scale versus large scale. In a small community, where people know each other, anarchy might work, just like communes work. In a large community, say Chicago, NYC, etc, do you honestly think things would stay peaceful for very long? Hell, if we get to that point, then this entire discussion is irrelevant, because large-scale economy probably wouldn't exist anymore, at least in anything CLOSE to its present form. Then you'd have your wish of only local businesses, no foreign relations (Until they got around to invading us), etc.
josda1000 wrote:
Absolutely. But how did those companies start? Did they have the capital at the outset to build it? I don't know either way. But I do know that there can be small companies that can build capital over time, and then can compete with those big guys. You can't just say that it will never happen.
Huge government subsidies, I suspect. And I'm not saying a startup couldn't start small and eventually grow... I'm saying it would probably be pushed out of the market before it even came close to competing with the giants. That's what competition is... Unless someone thinks of an amazing new way of drilling that's hugely more profitable, in which case they'll get tons of financing and will push BP out of the market instead... Or just get bought out by BP.
josda1000 wrote:
What kind of "hostile strategies" are you implying? And I dare say that the corporations just USE the law to benefit themselves... they don't walk around them like some people say. As to being bought out, there's nothing wrong with that, if both parties agree. I mean, some of us don't like it, but I would say it's a deal between the two of them.
Very true. They use legal loopholes to their own benefit. And there's nothing wrong with buyouts, except that they reduce competition. If ten new startups form, five never go anywhere, three get pushed out of the market, and the last two get bought-out, then where's the new competition? As for hostile strate
-
josda1000 wrote:
1. Yes, it is what I'm advocating. 2. Governments are already the ones with the biggest guns. 3. Is that what happened in Ireland, the Wild West (and we're not talking Hollywood style. We're talking about the truth. And not "Sons of Anarchy", which is a farce by name.), Plymouth? If you say yes, well, we'll end this conversation here.
Again, we're talking small scale versus large scale. In a small community, where people know each other, anarchy might work, just like communes work. In a large community, say Chicago, NYC, etc, do you honestly think things would stay peaceful for very long? Hell, if we get to that point, then this entire discussion is irrelevant, because large-scale economy probably wouldn't exist anymore, at least in anything CLOSE to its present form. Then you'd have your wish of only local businesses, no foreign relations (Until they got around to invading us), etc.
josda1000 wrote:
Absolutely. But how did those companies start? Did they have the capital at the outset to build it? I don't know either way. But I do know that there can be small companies that can build capital over time, and then can compete with those big guys. You can't just say that it will never happen.
Huge government subsidies, I suspect. And I'm not saying a startup couldn't start small and eventually grow... I'm saying it would probably be pushed out of the market before it even came close to competing with the giants. That's what competition is... Unless someone thinks of an amazing new way of drilling that's hugely more profitable, in which case they'll get tons of financing and will push BP out of the market instead... Or just get bought out by BP.
josda1000 wrote:
What kind of "hostile strategies" are you implying? And I dare say that the corporations just USE the law to benefit themselves... they don't walk around them like some people say. As to being bought out, there's nothing wrong with that, if both parties agree. I mean, some of us don't like it, but I would say it's a deal between the two of them.
Very true. They use legal loopholes to their own benefit. And there's nothing wrong with buyouts, except that they reduce competition. If ten new startups form, five never go anywhere, three get pushed out of the market, and the last two get bought-out, then where's the new competition? As for hostile strate
Ian Shlasko wrote:
do you honestly think things would stay peaceful for very long?
Yes, I honestly do. People would be forced to work together in order to live. You can't just stay huddled in a corner, not producing anything. Now, that means that either in small scales, they could either just work together agreeably, or they could pay each other with money. Either way, it's up to them, and that's what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a government to tell people what to do.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Hell, if we get to that point, then this entire discussion is irrelevant, because large-scale economy probably wouldn't exist anymore, at least in anything CLOSE to its present form.
That's precisely what I've been arguing this whole time.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Then you'd have your wish of only local businesses, no foreign relations (Until they got around to invading us), etc.
This is not EXACTLY what I mean, but sure. All I'm saying is that there can be free trade with other countries, and there can be trade with local or nonlocal business. Invariablly, there would be foreign relations... just, are we friends with them, or do we block everyone out? I'm for friendship. "Friends with all, entanglements with none." Meaning, no alliances, but trade with all, and do not invade or have bases all over the world as we do now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Huge government subsidies, I suspect. And I'm not saying a startup couldn't start small and eventually grow... I'm saying it would probably be pushed out of the market before it even came close to competing with the giants. That's what competition is... Unless someone thinks of an amazing new way of drilling that's hugely more profitable, in which case they'll get tons of financing and will push BP out of the market instead... Or just get bought out by BP.
1. This wouldn't happen with a smaller government. This is what I'm talking about. Either someone drills that hole on their own, or it doesn't happen, because investors don't flock to it. 2. If the small business grows and gets bought by BP, tough. I can't do anything about it, and nobody ever could.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Very true. They use legal loopholes to their own benefit. And there's nothing wrong with buyouts, except tha
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
What point are you trying to make? I'm giving a basic idea of the principles behind communism, and you're trying to argue that it won't work in real life. I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that it won't work in real life. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
Fair enough, I thought you were arguing that the specific point could indeed work, not that the system would work. That's why I argued it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Slavery to who? If everyone is socially and economically equal, who are you a slave to?
I do believe that all people are CREATED equal, not that all people should END UP equal. The thing is, some people have different strengths and weaknesses. More people are not creative enough to make use of their strengths, and therefore rely on this fabricated system we have (this does include some of my friends, actually). Just because you feel bad for them doesn't mean that you should steal money from me and Joe to pay Rob "the user". I make money, but I don't have enough to pay off my debts. Why? Taxes. I believe that all people should be treated with respect. All people should make their own way in life, and should be thoroughly responsible for themselves. We are indeed all CREATED socially and economically equal. This is what liberty is: I own myself, I do what I need to do and I do what I want to do. Nobody should tell me otherwise. This is why taxes are abhorrent, war is abhorrent, licensing laws are abhorrent, all of this. What is the proper role of government? It should be to serve justice. That's it. If someone violates my property (steals, destroys, "borrows" without consent). So, whom am I a slave to? I'm a slave to absolutely everyone in this population, but moreso to the people who do not realize that stealing/taxing and murder/war is still wrong and immoral.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Dictatorship... Fascism... Call it whatever you want. It's authoritarianism, and I think we both agree that it's a Bad Thing (tm).
lol (tm) I like that. yes, we are obviously in agreement here.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Josh, you're starting to sound like CSS. You can make an argument that we're progressing toward fascism, or that our society has some elements of fascism, but this isn't a fascist state. The mere fact that we're able to use our real names an
josda1000 wrote:
So, whom am I a slave to? I'm a slave to absolutely everyone in this population, but moreso to the people who do not realize that stealing/taxing and murder/war is still wrong and immoral.
See, now you're just stretching the term in order to inspire the image "slavery" implies. If everyone is a "slave" to everyone else, that's not slavery. That's coexistence.
josda1000 wrote:
And there's no way you can prove to me that we're not fascist. Arizona is definitely the epitome of this right now. We have random police stops. We have cameras that look at me when I'm at a frakking street light. We have cameras in people's bathrooms. We have cameras in schools, for crying out loud, looking at children. What the hell are they going to do?!
People in Arizona voted on that bill, didn't they? If not, they didn't care enough to protest it. That's how our system works. People get the government they want. The problem is that enough of the people are so easily manipulated through advertising and flowery speeches that they don't object to crap like that. If 50% of the population wants something done, then it'll probably get done. If 50% of the people are so afraid of illegal immigration that they're willing to put up with random stops, then that's what happens.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
do you honestly think things would stay peaceful for very long?
Yes, I honestly do. People would be forced to work together in order to live. You can't just stay huddled in a corner, not producing anything. Now, that means that either in small scales, they could either just work together agreeably, or they could pay each other with money. Either way, it's up to them, and that's what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a government to tell people what to do.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Hell, if we get to that point, then this entire discussion is irrelevant, because large-scale economy probably wouldn't exist anymore, at least in anything CLOSE to its present form.
That's precisely what I've been arguing this whole time.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Then you'd have your wish of only local businesses, no foreign relations (Until they got around to invading us), etc.
This is not EXACTLY what I mean, but sure. All I'm saying is that there can be free trade with other countries, and there can be trade with local or nonlocal business. Invariablly, there would be foreign relations... just, are we friends with them, or do we block everyone out? I'm for friendship. "Friends with all, entanglements with none." Meaning, no alliances, but trade with all, and do not invade or have bases all over the world as we do now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Huge government subsidies, I suspect. And I'm not saying a startup couldn't start small and eventually grow... I'm saying it would probably be pushed out of the market before it even came close to competing with the giants. That's what competition is... Unless someone thinks of an amazing new way of drilling that's hugely more profitable, in which case they'll get tons of financing and will push BP out of the market instead... Or just get bought out by BP.
1. This wouldn't happen with a smaller government. This is what I'm talking about. Either someone drills that hole on their own, or it doesn't happen, because investors don't flock to it. 2. If the small business grows and gets bought by BP, tough. I can't do anything about it, and nobody ever could.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Very true. They use legal loopholes to their own benefit. And there's nothing wrong with buyouts, except tha
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, I honestly do. People would be forced to work together in order to live. You can't just stay huddled in a corner, not producing anything. Now, that means that either in small scales, they could either just work together agreeably, or they could pay each other with money. Either way, it's up to them, and that's what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a government to tell people what to do.
You know as well as I do that's not how society works. People naturally form groups and subgroups, and someone will come out on top and take over, whether by force of arms or force of personality.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm for friendship. "Friends with all, entanglements with none." Meaning, no alliances, but trade with all, and do not invade or have bases all over the world as we do now.
I like the idea of that, but I don't think it's practical. When two countries go to war, it's hard to remain friends with both. When one country revolts and turns into a violent dictatorship, the "None of my business" argument won't stop them from nuking you just to make a point. I do agree that we go way too far in the other direction, and that it's time to pull some (Not all) of our forces home (Particularly out of Afghanistan - Enough already!), but I don't think sticking our heads in the sand is a solution. As Phil Ochs (60's folk singer) said, "We're the cops of the world, boys... We're the cops of the world." Not a good thing.
josda1000 wrote:
1. This wouldn't happen with a smaller government. This is what I'm talking about. Either someone drills that hole on their own, or it doesn't happen, because investors don't flock to it.
This isn't what WOULD happen. This is what DID happen. Unless you intend to obliterate all companies and infrastructure and start from scratch, this is what's already there.
josda1000 wrote:
In a smaller government (or none) the corporation could only buy it through nativity of the consumer, because that's the only way they get money.
Nativity? You lost me. Ever heard of a hostile takeover though? Public companies can always be bought, and private companies can be pressured into selling.
josda1000 wrote:
This is a strawman. Price fixing (hiking prices) is just a way for a business to stay in busi
-
Not getting into this debate, but here's a link with some details: http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/levelOfDebt.php[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt[^]
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
No, if there was NO government, then whoever had the biggest guns would end up in charge. Is that what you're advocating? Because if not, we're getting seriously sidetracked.
That is what government is your mother fukcing pieceo of fucking shit!:mad: You god damn bitch ass need to be whipped with a belt until you squeel like a p ihb.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
I did wonder when the sensible answers would appear in this thread
As barmey as a sack of badgers Dude, if I knew what I was doing in life, I'd be rich, retired, dating a supermodel and laughing at the rest of you from the sidelines.
-
Really? That's ironic, considering that a dictatorship is the polar opposite of socialism... Then again, North Korea is actually the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (DPRK)...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
dictatorship is the polar opposite of socialism
That's not entirely correct. If a dictator forces everyone to accept socialism - would that not be socialism anyway? Check out the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/[^])
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
dictatorship is the polar opposite of socialism
That's not entirely correct. If a dictator forces everyone to accept socialism - would that not be socialism anyway? Check out the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/[^])
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
But if the dictator is still in charge, then it's not true socialism, because socialism is defined as the the people sharing ownership of the means of production.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
But if the dictator is still in charge, then it's not true socialism, because socialism is defined as the the people sharing ownership of the means of production.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Socialism requires a ruling government that enforces the rules of socialism. Whether the ruling government is a one man job or not, is of little relevance in my opinion. There is no such thing as "true" socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, whatever-ism (except for maybe anarchism) in practice. Society will always be shaped by those in power, regardless of their numbers, and it will be shaped so that those in power benefit from it.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit