| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
redraiderdude187
The Madcap Laugher
Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 1152
Local time: 10:58 PM
Location: Houston, Texas
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | redraiderdude187 wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm asking why capitalism needs government. |
Capitalism needs a government because the individuals that run corporations are crooks, that's why. If they weren't accountable to anyone then an anarchy would turn into an aristocracy. Certain people, especially the rich businessmen, must be accountable to someone or they would rape an entire society. |
This is meant as encouragement. Try to imagine arguing against what you have just said.
I've counted four critical weaknesses in your argument. |
After re-reading my argument... you're right  . The argument was pretty weak because crooks are running our government right now and raping the society, but they still are somewhat held accountable to the public. In an anarchy, corporations could or would not have any accountability to anyone. I'm completely open to be more educated on the topic, but this is my opinion at least for now.
_________________
Above the hive, beyond the lynch mob, where two and two always make four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | redraiderdude187 wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm asking why capitalism needs government. |
Capitalism needs a government because the individuals that run corporations are crooks, that's why. If they weren't accountable to anyone then an anarchy would turn into an aristocracy. Certain people, especially the rich businessmen, must be accountable to someone or they would rape an entire society. |
This is meant as encouragement. Try to imagine arguing against what you have just said.
I've counted four critical weaknesses in your argument. |
After re-reading my argument... you're right . The argument was pretty weak because crooks are running our government right now and raping the society, |
Well that's one way to put it, but yes essentially all of the causes for objection that people have towards anarchy are already with us. Even when it comes to accountability. Theoretically the government is accountable to us, but that dosn't prevent them from shafting individuals on a regular basis.
| Quote: | | but they still are somewhat held accountable to the public. In an anarchy, corporations could or would not have any accountability to anyone. |
How so?
Corporations need to be accountable to some one or they can't guarantee share holder rights. No rights, no share holders. If a share holder can sue there own corporation, so can you.
| Quote: | | I'm completely open to be more educated on the topic, but this is my opinion at least for now. |
Well it's not even realy a question of education. All you have to do is consider the possibility that a lot of what you hold is just assumed. It's something you have to unlearn. For example the idea that without a central leader, we would all just go nuts and slaughter each other. How often do you get this feeling: "If only there wasn't a government... I would kill EVERYONE in this room!" Probably not often right? Most people aren't criminal, and we don't need a government to have police, and we don't necessarily always need police to protect ourselves.
It's only in fucked up desperate places where government/religious/sectarian leadership has screwed with peoples minds for long enough, and totally destroyed the economy, that civil violence is a problem.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: How Liberals Think |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | hillbillyatheist wrote: | | I plan to vote libertarian in 2008, provided they are on my state ballot. |
Don't let anyone tell you that this would be a wasted vote. About 10 years ago people tried to tell me that voting for Boris Bear, basically a guy in a bear costume who managed to get on the ballot, would be a wasted vote.
I agreed with Boris's platform though, and if I was going to bother voting I didn't AT ALL consider it a waste to show some numerical support for Boris. I mean, if democracy is basically no different than a trifecta, why not just skip ahead to a one party system? Save some misery. I expect that will be the net effect of mass strategic voting by the populace. The regional and/or demographic significance will just gradually homogenise to the point where no politician needs to give a damn.
Generally they already don't give a shit until the last possible minuet. Suddenly they remember that they are supposed to be representing the interests of some people who theoretically are there employers. |
Every time someone tells me it would be a wasted vote, I make a bet with them (a bet always refused). They vote 3rd party, and if their vote really does change the outcome of the election I give them $1000. If their vote doesn't, then they pay me nothing. It's a no cost bet to them, and they get to vote their conscience to boot.
I think they know that Democrat or Republican is generally a wasted vote except in some very few competitive districts.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | lumpymunk wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: |
I was hoping you might tell me because I don't plan on buying another book in the near future.
|
Capitalist Government is so slandered, blamed, misunderstood, and misrepresented that even if I were to give an honest effort at presenting it to you, |
I'm asking why capitalism needs government. |
Minarchist libertarians (as opposed to the anarchist ones) believe that a government is necessary to enforce the property rights that are the basis of a capitalist economy. Right or wrong that's their POV.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12846
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*nods to Jason*
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | | lumpymunk wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: |
I was hoping you might tell me because I don't plan on buying another book in the near future.
|
Capitalist Government is so slandered, blamed, misunderstood, and misrepresented that even if I were to give an honest effort at presenting it to you, |
I'm asking why capitalism needs government. |
Minarchist libertarians (as opposed to the anarchist ones) believe that a government is necessary to enforce the property rights that are the basis of a capitalist economy. Right or wrong that's their POV. |
Well, I disagree with that point of view.
They might believe that it's necessary. Why though? That's a rhetorical question, as I know what they would say, and it essentially boils down to a watered down version of what a socialist might say to them.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | Well, I disagree with that point of view.
They might believe that it's necessary. Why though? That's a rhetorical question, as I know what they would say, and it essentially boils down to a watered down version of what a socialist might say to them. |
And I'm not going to argue with you on this. Discretion being the better part of valor (and cowardice being the better part of discretion), I'm going to be very valliant and recognize when I'm outclassed for formal debate. I think I'll go beat up sjc instead.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | Well, I disagree with that point of view.
They might believe that it's necessary. Why though? That's a rhetorical question, as I know what they would say, and it essentially boils down to a watered down version of what a socialist might say to them. |
And I'm not going to argue with you on this. Discretion being the better part of valor (and cowardice being the better part of discretion), I'm going to be very valliant and recognize when I'm outclassed for formal debate. I think I'll go beat up sjc instead. |
It's not necessary to make fun of me.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:58 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | *nods to Jason* |
CET, you're not a minarchist (at least judging by your posts here and HBA's forum).
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: | Well, I disagree with that point of view.
They might believe that it's necessary. Why though? That's a rhetorical question, as I know what they would say, and it essentially boils down to a watered down version of what a socialist might say to them. |
And I'm not going to argue with you on this. Discretion being the better part of valor (and cowardice being the better part of discretion), I'm going to be very valliant and recognize when I'm outclassed for formal debate. I think I'll go beat up sjc instead. |
It's not necessary to make fun of me. |
I wasn't making fun of you. Take it as the compliment it was intended to be.
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | CET wrote: | | *nods to Jason* |
CET, you're not a minarchist (at least judging by your posts here and HBA's forum). |
Maybe he was nodding to the $1000 bet post.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12846
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | CET wrote: | | *nods to Jason* |
CET, you're not a minarchist (at least judging by your posts here and HBA's forum). |
What gave you the impression that I was? I agreed with Jason as to the purpose of government, which has little to do with my personal political beliefs.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
I wasn't making fun of you. Take it as the compliment it was intended to be.
|
LOL. I thought you were being ironic.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:58 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | What gave you the impression that I was? I agreed with Jason as to the purpose of government, which has little to do with my personal political beliefs. |
Nothing, I thought you were calling yourself one.
And I'm not sure you agreed with Jason, he only said what the minarchists' position is, I don't think he's one himself.
Anyways the whole misunderstanding took place precisely because you said you agree with the minarchist position, yet I know your political stance is not compatible with it.
Well, nevermind, sorry for the confusion.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2428
Local time: 7:58 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Am I a minarchist? Technically yes, but not as much as I used to be. I still beleive that the government should be restricted to the few jobs that can't be done better any other way, but that list is shrinking at a rapid rate. If nothing stops the trend, I will be a minarchist anarchist.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 10:58 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The difference in my opinion is really a matter of terminology, between capitalist government and anarchist "structure."
Property rights must be enforced by a third party that follows an agreed upon standard that the initiation of force is wrong.
The individual, although capable, if left to fend for himself indefinitely, would be over run in a gang-warfare environment. Anarchist structure is a gang-warfare environment.
The third party "government" must be expansive enough to invoke authority over all of the governed this is something local gangs people who would place their investments in cannot do. That is something that the anarchist "system" doesn't allow. This authority rides a fine line, expansive enough to apply and be enforcable to an entire nation, and restricted enough not to expand and be dedicated to the reinforcement of prior laws. Government for the people and by the people does not negate or shunt the individuals responsibility to be self-governing. I don't see an expansive limited standard with Anarchism. I see that with lazzi faire capitalist government.
Anarchists don't like calling that third party organization, provider of justice, protector of individual liberties, a government. Lazzi faire capitalists don't mind calling it government.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
