9 ms·

> You're not fact-checking and trying to be objective What fact-checking have I missed? In what way do you even begin to imagine that this discussion can be ob

> You're not fact-checking and trying to be objective What fact-checking have I missed? In what way do you even begin to imagine that this discussion can be objective? > or a free market economy to operate I wrote Capitalism, not a "free-market economy" which is a entirely theoretical concept that can never exist in practice. Only Capitalism and its concentration and wealth and power can actually exists. > Like I said, people having bad options doesn't make the situation "authoritarian" The CEO of the company is the authoritarian ruler of that company, that's pretty obvious? Yes, if you're privileged, you may be able to switch to another authoritarian instead. If you want to use another word for that relationship, I'm fine with it, the word isn't the important point here. But it's lack of freedom and democracy in the economic sphere and thus under Capitalism. > according to your crude socialist narrative is ANY ONE who has been successful That doesn't sound very objective. > Like I said, people needing to pick one of the several difficult options available to them, in order to earn enough to eat is, as Frédéric Bastiat wrote 170 years, the nature of reality, that exists with or without authoritarianism: No, it's not "the nature of reality". Other societies throughout human history didn't require selling your freedom most of your life. So that's objectively false. These are systematic conditions intentionally created by humans to the primary benefit of a subset of them. > It's that the person providing the "less worse option" is not doing anything to worsen the other options available to the person they are making their offer to. But they are? If they support the concentration of wealth and capital into the few, making it exclusive use to them, forces others to accept their offer. > and it's irresponsible for you to not consider the harm to an innocent party that is done when you make a wrongful accusation, and critically analyze the validity of the accusation, before you make it. What? What are the harm, innocent party, wrongful accusation supposed to be here?

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>What fact-checking have I missed? Like checking to see if the word 'authoritarian' applies to employers. Your logic supporting such an absurd notion is based on lazy leaps and non-existent critical analysis, showing a general sloppiness and irresponsibility in your proclivity to make accusations. >>I wrote Capitalism, not a "free-market economy" which is a entirely theoretical concept that can never exist in practice. This is just a pedantic, bad faith argument. Capitalism is synonymous with a free market economy in most contexts that these terms are used, and we can still comment on systems even if they don't exist in an absolutist form. >>Only Capitalism and its concentration and wealth and power can actually exists. No, capitalism is synomous with free markets, and concentration of wealth is totally orthogonal to a free market economy. And as for ideologies, capitalism doesn't exist. What socialist ideologues refer to as capitalism is nothing more than people having a right to own what they produce and acquire in trade in trade, and to do with what they own as they wish. This propaganda is intended to depict human liberty as unnatural, and socialist repression as the natural order of things. It's extreme deception motivated by a delusional utopianist fantasy. >>The CEO of the company is the authoritarian ruler of that company, that's pretty obvious? One more time, since you didn't read it last time: Authoritarianism implies non-consensual interactions. People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense, and the people offering them jobs in this environment are not authoritarians as a result. A top-down hierarchical structure also does not define authoritarianism. What's authoritarian is the state preventing people from trading their labor for income, to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology. >>That doesn't sound very objective. It's entirely objective. Objective reality deems socialism a crude ideological narrative. >>No, it's not "the nature of reality". Other societies throughout human history didn't require selling your freedom most of your life. So that's objectively false. These are systematic conditions intentionally created by humans to the primary benefit of a subset of them No, working for pay, or to raise crop to eat, is not selling one's freedom. That's a inflammatory characterization of doing what one must to survive and in no way involves an oppressive abrogation of freedom. And economic history shows people being responsible for themselves, and being unable to pillage others, is in the clear interest of humanity at large, with societies that enshrined these principles of liberty and rejected those lies, like socialism, that rationalize tyranny, seeing the fastest reduction in poverty. As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society, with your reference to "systematic conditions" that you imply could allow one to not have to work to eat, oh yes, Bastiat addressed that too: "He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. The Tyrant is still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government. We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it "I should like to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could you not facilitate the thing for me? By this means shall I gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace." >>But they are? If they support the concentration of wealth and capital into the few, making it exclusive use to them, forces others to accept their offer. You have provided no evidence that someone offering a job, in order to create a productive enterprise that will enrich both themselves and the consumer, is harming the worker by making other options worse for them. This is just the zero sum fallacy that assumes one business' profit is another's loss, that centuries of economic history disproves and basic economics invalidates. >>What? What are the harm, innocent party, wrongful accusation supposed to be here? I explained very clearly, your disingenuous obtuseness notwithstanding. You're accusing employers of being oppressors based on the flimsiest of logic.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > Like checking to see if the word 'authoritarian' applies to employers Have you never heard someone calling their boss "authoritarian"? I used it as a description of an unfree, undemocratic, top-down system that's used in our economic sphere under capitalism, if you don't like that one, pick something else that describes that. The specific word used is not what's important here. > Capitalism is synonymous with a free market economy in most contexts that these terms are used. > No, capitalism is synomous with free markets, and concentration of wealth is totally orthogonal to a free market economy. No, it's not. That's just historical revisionism. It's a system based on exclusive ownership of property etc. Societies have traded stuff throughout history without Capitalism and its institution of private-property rights etc. > People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense Well, it is already illegal for children and legality is still not a guide for morality. It's definitely in a social sense, which I have already explained. Also, I've already explained - you even quoted it - that it's not "forced by nature" like some natural law. It's man made. Proven by the fact that societies through history didn't have capitalist wage labour and did just fine wrt food. > This propaganda is intended to depict human liberty as unnatural, and socialist repression as the natural order of things. > It's extreme deception motivated by a delusional utopianist fantasy. > to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology. > Objective reality deems socialism a crude ideological narrative. > like socialism, that rationalize tyranny, > As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society More of your non-emotional objectiveness I see. > You have provided no evidence that someone offering a job Well, of course it's not the the act itself of offering a job, it's supporting and perpetuating the system - Capitalism - that sets up those conditions in the first place. Why do you have such a hard time of keeping this on a systemic level? > You're accusing employers of being oppressors based on the flimsiest of logic I'm discussing this as a systemic issue, not an individual. That should be obvious by now. And some employers certainly are oppressors, but the edge is towards the capitalist-class, not the local shopkeeper or whatever.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>Have you never heard someone calling their boss "authoritarian"? That is a figurative use of the term, and this kind of hyperbolic and even misleading use of language in informal dialogue is common. That doesn't mean you can describe anything top-down as authoritarian in formal terms. In any serious discussion, such a definition would be completely rejected as overly broad. >>The specific word used is not what's important here. Given the specific word use makes a particular claim, that is the basis for your other claims, it's extremely important. Authoritarian means non-consensual. Free market interactions are by definition consensual, as deemed by a jury of citizens. >>No, it's not. That's just historical revisionism. No, this is just your projection. You're engaging in historical revisionism. The standard use of the term 'capitalism' is synomous with free markets. >>Well, it is already illegal for children and legality is still not a guide for morality. Courts deem children to not have the ability to provide consent, which is unlike adults, so your example shows nothing. As for "legality is still not a guide for morality", in this case, the law is moral, since it says only consensual contracts are valid, with random samplings of citizens, formed as juries, making the determination. >>It's definitely in a social sense, which I have already explained. No, the social sense of "non-consensual" is someone threatening someone else with violence to deprive them of other options. It is not "people being required to work in order to acquire resources to feed themselves". >>Also, I've already explained - you even quoted it - that it's not "forced by nature" like some natural law. It's man made. Proven by the fact that societies through history didn't have capitalist wage labour and did just fine wrt food. That's a totally absurd claim: there were no societies that didn't have free markets / capitalism / work-for-wages and did "just fine wrt food". >>More of your non-emotional objectiveness I see. That you see no need to get emotional about socialist tyranny shows the lack of conscience behind your crude ideologically motivated position. >>Well, of course it's not the the act itself of offering a job, it's supporting and perpetuating the system - Capitalism - that sets up those conditions in the first place. I've already addressed this fallacious argument. I'll post it again: As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society, with your reference to "systematic conditions" that you imply could allow one to not have to work to eat, oh yes, Bastiat addressed that too: "He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. The Tyrant is still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government. We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it "I should like to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could you not facilitate the thing for me? By this means shall I gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace." >>I'm discussing this as a systemic issue, not an individual. You were earlier implying any one employing someone is an oppressor. That you don't take responsibility for this shows a general recklessness toward politics.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>What fact-checking have I missed? Like checking to see if the word 'authoritarian' applies to employers. Your logic supporting such an absurd notion is based on lazy leaps and non-existent critical analysis, showing a general sloppiness and irresponsibility in your proclivity to make accusations. >>I wrote Capitalism, not a "free-market economy" which is a entirely theoretical concept that can never exist in practice. This is just a pedantic, bad faith argument. Capitalism is synonymous with a free market economy in most contexts that these terms are used, and we can still comment on systems even if they don't exist in an absolutist form. >>Only Capitalism and its concentration and wealth and power can actually exists. No, capitalism is synomous with free markets, and concentration of wealth is totally orthogonal to a free market economy. And as for ideologies, capitalism doesn't exist. What socialist ideologues refer to as capitalism is nothing more than people having a right to own what they produce and acquire in trade in trade, and to do with what they own as they wish. This propaganda is intended to depict human liberty as unnatural, and socialist repression as the natural order of things. It's extreme deception motivated by a delusional utopianist fantasy. >>The CEO of the company is the authoritarian ruler of that company, that's pretty obvious? One more time, since you didn't read it last time: Authoritarianism implies non-consensual interactions. People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense, and the people offering them jobs in this environment are not authoritarians as a result. A top-down hierarchical structure also does not define authoritarianism. What's authoritarian is the state preventing people from trading their labor for income, to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology. >>That doesn't sound very objective. It's entirely objective. Objective reality deems socialism a crude ideological narrative. >>No, it's not "the nature of reality". Other societies throughout human history didn't require selling your freedom most of your life. So that's objectively false. These are systematic conditions intentionally created by humans to the primary benefit of a subset of them No, working for pay, or to raise crop to eat, is not selling one's freedom. That's a inflammatory characterization of doing what one must to survive and in no way involves an oppressive abrogation of freedom. And economic history shows people being responsible for themselves, and being unable to pillage others, is in the clear interest of humanity at large, with societies that enshrined these principles of liberty and rejected those lies, like socialism, that rationalize tyranny, seeing the fastest reduction in poverty. As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society, with your reference to "systematic conditions" that you imply could allow one to not have to work to eat, oh yes, Bastiat addressed that too: "He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. The Tyrant is still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government. We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it "I should like to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could you not facilitate the thing for me? By this means shall I gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace." >>But they are? If they support the concentration of wealth and capital into the few, making it exclusive use to them, forces others to accept their offer. You have provided no evidence that someone offering a job, in order to create a productive enterprise that will enrich both themselves and the consumer, is harming the worker by making other options worse for them. This is just the zero sum fallacy that assumes one business' profit is another's loss, that centuries of economic history disproves and basic economics invalidates. >>What? What are the harm, innocent party, wrongful accusation supposed to be here? I explained very clearly, your disingenuous obtuseness notwithstanding. You're accusing employers of being oppressors based on the flimsiest of logic.

cloudfifty 5y ago
> Like checking to see if the word 'authoritarian' applies to employers Have you never heard someone calling their boss "authoritarian"? I used it as a description of an unfree, undemocratic, top-down system that's used in our economic sphere under capitalism, if you don't like that one, pick something else that describes that. The specific word used is not what's important here. > Capitalism is synonymous with a free market economy in most contexts that these terms are used. > No, capitalism is synomous with free markets, and concentration of wealth is totally orthogonal to a free market economy. No, it's not. That's just historical revisionism. It's a system based on exclusive ownership of property etc. Societies have traded stuff throughout history without Capitalism and its institution of private-property rights etc. > People being forced by nature to work in order to feed themselves is not 'non-consensual' in any legal or social sense Well, it is already illegal for children and legality is still not a guide for morality. It's definitely in a social sense, which I have already explained. Also, I've already explained - you even quoted it - that it's not "forced by nature" like some natural law. It's man made. Proven by the fact that societies through history didn't have capitalist wage labour and did just fine wrt food. > This propaganda is intended to depict human liberty as unnatural, and socialist repression as the natural order of things. > It's extreme deception motivated by a delusional utopianist fantasy. > to enforce the incoherent moral principles of socialist ideology. > Objective reality deems socialism a crude ideological narrative. > like socialism, that rationalize tyranny, > As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society More of your non-emotional objectiveness I see. > You have provided no evidence that someone offering a job Well, of course it's not the the act itself of offering a job, it's supporting and perpetuating the system - Capitalism - that sets up those conditions in the first place. Why do you have such a hard time of keeping this on a systemic level? > You're accusing employers of being oppressors based on the flimsiest of logic I'm discussing this as a systemic issue, not an individual. That should be obvious by now. And some employers certainly are oppressors, but the edge is towards the capitalist-class, not the local shopkeeper or whatever.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Have you never heard someone calling their boss "authoritarian"? That is a figurative use of the term, and this kind of hyperbolic and even misleading use of language in informal dialogue is common. That doesn't mean you can describe anything top-down as authoritarian in formal terms. In any serious discussion, such a definition would be completely rejected as overly broad. >>The specific word used is not what's important here. Given the specific word use makes a particular claim, that is the basis for your other claims, it's extremely important. Authoritarian means non-consensual. Free market interactions are by definition consensual, as deemed by a jury of citizens. >>No, it's not. That's just historical revisionism. No, this is just your projection. You're engaging in historical revisionism. The standard use of the term 'capitalism' is synomous with free markets. >>Well, it is already illegal for children and legality is still not a guide for morality. Courts deem children to not have the ability to provide consent, which is unlike adults, so your example shows nothing. As for "legality is still not a guide for morality", in this case, the law is moral, since it says only consensual contracts are valid, with random samplings of citizens, formed as juries, making the determination. >>It's definitely in a social sense, which I have already explained. No, the social sense of "non-consensual" is someone threatening someone else with violence to deprive them of other options. It is not "people being required to work in order to acquire resources to feed themselves". >>Also, I've already explained - you even quoted it - that it's not "forced by nature" like some natural law. It's man made. Proven by the fact that societies through history didn't have capitalist wage labour and did just fine wrt food. That's a totally absurd claim: there were no societies that didn't have free markets / capitalism / work-for-wages and did "just fine wrt food". >>More of your non-emotional objectiveness I see. That you see no need to get emotional about socialist tyranny shows the lack of conscience behind your crude ideologically motivated position. >>Well, of course it's not the the act itself of offering a job, it's supporting and perpetuating the system - Capitalism - that sets up those conditions in the first place. I've already addressed this fallacious argument. I'll post it again: As for your mental gymnastics to try to discredit a free society, with your reference to "systematic conditions" that you imply could allow one to not have to work to eat, oh yes, Bastiat addressed that too: "He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. The Tyrant is still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government. We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it "I should like to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could you not facilitate the thing for me? By this means shall I gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace." >>I'm discussing this as a systemic issue, not an individual. You were earlier implying any one employing someone is an oppressor. That you don't take responsibility for this shows a general recklessness toward politics.