Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Haha!
Yes, take Ron Paul's economic advice.
Seriously, PLEASE take it.
And yet you display a portrait of the great Ludwig Von Mises?
Is this you being ironic, sarcastic, or have you finally considered the validity of a causal-realist approach to economic theory?
Finally? I'll admit I haven't yet dug too deeply into the underlying philosophies, but I have considered the mechanics of your theories. You already know how I feel regarding them.
I'm trying to promote the popularity of free-market ideologies, so that hopefully economic rightists will come to power and finally melt down capitalism for good.
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I'm trying to promote the popularity of free-market ideologies, so that hopefully economic rightists will come to power and finally melt down capitalism for good.
Hmmm...it might just work.
Could it be the overlords really understand the greatness of a market based economy and are thus propping up Socialism merely to discredit it? It seems to be working....
I hope your plan doesn't backfire and end up getting a bunch of neocons back in power. They did not practice capitalism but rather fascism while mistaking it for capitalism.
It would behoove you to study as much Mises as you possibly can so that you can recognize fascism when you see it.
Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 10467
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I'm trying to promote the popularity of free-market ideologies, so that hopefully economic rightists will come to power and finally melt down capitalism for good.
Hmmm...it might just work.
Could it be the overlords really understand the greatness of a market based economy and are thus propping up Socialism merely to discredit it? It seems to be working....
I hope your plan doesn't backfire and end up getting a bunch of neocons back in power. They did not practice capitalism but rather fascism while mistaking it for capitalism.
It would behoove you to study as much Mises as you possibly can so that you can recognize fascism when you see it.
But he likes fascism.
As long as its "democratic" and they all vote the way he wants them too and there are no unintended consequences that is.
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
economic rightists will come to power and finally melt down capitalism for good.
Yea, because capitalism is pure evil. Can you imagine all of the bad outcomes from someone thinking of a better way to build a product, or worse yet innovating something brand new, take it to market, make money and make other peoples lives better.
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Hmmm...it might just work.
Could it be the overlords really understand the greatness of a market based economy and are thus propping up Socialism merely to discredit it? It seems to be working...
Well, for one thing, I don't see many socialist policies to which you could be referring, so I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. But even if you were right, it doesn't make any sense: socialism has already been discredited as far as the massive capitalist propaganda machine is concerned. At the very least, there is no socialist/leftist movement in the West that poses a serious threat to capitalism. In fact, most "leftist" parties are far more salubrious to capitalism than right-wing parties. Why would it waste the time?
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
orion wrote:But he likes fascism.
As long as its "democratic" and they all vote the way he wants them too and there are no unintended consequences that is.
Voting the way I want them too is not at all required. I expect them to vote in their own self-interest.
Your favorite fantasy however, requires people to adopt many behavior patterns rarely seen in homo sapiens.
You won't see this, of course, so I won't spend any more time on you. However, if I were you, I'd try to develop a taste for fascism--you'll have to at least tolerate it, if you want capitalism to last.
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
ZEB wrote:Yea, because capitalism is pure evil. Can you imagine all of the bad outcomes from someone thinking of a better way to build a product, or worse yet innovating something brand new, take it to market, make money and make other peoples lives better.
How dare they!
Crush it man, destroy it.
Ha ha kids, yea gotta love em.
If you say so. I don't believe that capitalism is evil. I don't believe in any such thing as evil. I don't structure everything in terms of good vs evil.
But gosh, you've really made me think: how did we ever get anything done before capitalism? Because you know, people hadn't invented anything before it came along. Nor is a great percentage of our current opulence due to discoveries made by government funding, or scientists with no plans to sell anything.
Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 10467
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:But he likes fascism.
As long as its "democratic" and they all vote the way he wants them too and there are no unintended consequences that is.
Voting the way I want them too is not at all required. I expect them to vote in their own self-interest.
Your favorite fantasy however, requires people to adopt many behavior patterns rarely seen in homo sapiens.
You won't see this, of course, so I won't spend any more time on you. However, if I were you, I'd try to develop a taste for fascism--you'll have to at least tolerate it, if you want capitalism to last.
Quite frankly, when the choice is between fascism and your rather vague idea of socialism I would take fascism any time.
Then, you reduce peoples "interests" to their economic interests. Ironically that makes you much more materialist than capitalism as a system forces people to be.
Also, coming from a socialist I think I can live with the accusation that my ideology has a unrealistic view of human nature. Where I want to channel a healthy egotism to serve the greater good you feel that you can rely on their wisdom and benevolence?
If you do you are just one in a long line of naive democrats that thought that the people could do no wrong if someone only removed the nobility/clerics/bourgousie/corporations.
If you dont, you are just a run of the mill statist who thinks people need to be forced to do what is good for them because you, and you alone, know better then they themselves do.
Either way, after 200 years of democratic experiments and 100 years of dabbling in industriel collectivism I think the track record of classic liberalism is still pretty good, compared to the alternatives.
Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 10467
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Yea, because capitalism is pure evil. Can you imagine all of the bad outcomes from someone thinking of a better way to build a product, or worse yet innovating something brand new, take it to market, make money and make other peoples lives better.
How dare they!
Crush it man, destroy it.
Ha ha kids, yea gotta love em.
If you say so. I don't believe that capitalism is evil. I don't believe in any such thing as evil. I don't structure everything in terms of good vs evil.
But gosh, you've really made me think: how did we ever get anything done before capitalism? Because you know, people hadn't invented anything before it came along. Nor is a great percentage of our current opulence due to discoveries made by government funding, or scientists with no plans to sell anything.
First of all, those "government funded scientists" would not have any funds without the wealth created by the most efficient economic system so far.
Then, if you really want to use the centuries and sometimes millenia of economic stagnation as an argument against capitalism, well, way to make our point for us.
What "we" got done before capitalism was a live expectancy of around 30, rotting teeth, soul crushing manual labor, disease, illiterate superstition and unbearable poverty.
Caution, if you see anyone attempting to start a business do not attempt to stop them yourself. I repeat DO NOT attempt to stop him yourself. Report the incident to your nearest community organizer they are trained on how to deal with such a dangerous person.
This has been a paid announcement from your government supported local community organization.
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
orion wrote:Quite frankly, when the choice is between fascism and your rather vague idea of socialism I would take fascism any time.
So now you'll take fascism over socialism, whereas before they were the same thing? Some interesting things happen in your head.
Then, you reduce peoples "interests" to their economic interests. Ironically that makes you much more materialist than capitalism as a system forces people to be.
An economic system should address economic interests. I don't attempt to expand the scope of the discussion beyond its natural limits. Furthermore, I never claimed to be coming at this from a non-materialist vantage point. This doesn't mean I am "forcing" people to be more materialist, it simply acknowledges the reality of the situation. I am less mystical than the capitalists, for sure.
Also, coming from a socialist I think I can live with the accusation that my ideology has a unrealistic view of human nature. Where I want to channel a healthy egotism to serve the greater good you feel that you can rely on their wisdom and benevolence?
I am already aware that you can live with being wrong about a great many things. You say you want to "channel" egotism but there is no such channeling if you accept the free-market hypotheses. It is supposed to work itself out, no channeling required (and we have seen how that works out numerous times before). Then you go on to make the same foolhardy mistakes about the nature of socialism that you always have, despite being shown your errors. Far from relying on the benevolence of the state, or the population, or the workers, socialism does the opposite, and allows groups to control their own affairs. The difference is in the proper recognition of what is social in nature and what is individual. Capitalism inevitably allows individuals to make social decisions, and thus creates a source of tension and conflict.
If you do you are just one in a long line of naive democrats that thought that the people could do no wrong if someone only removed the nobility/clerics/bourgousie/corporations.
It may seem strange to you that there are those who do not utilize a utopian framework for their ideas.
If you dont, you are just a run of the mill statist who thinks people need to be forced to do what is good for them because you, and you alone, know better then they themselves do.
Ignoring the false dilemma you present, it is you who create and maintain the state, so complaining about it is hardly honest, though that never stopped a libertarian in the midst of an argument. Anyway, coming from an economic rightist, this seems contradictory, as it is you who is always harping on "natural hierarchies" and whatnot. I believe most of the libertarians on this board supported the proposition that only property owners be allowed to vote (strange that for a group that speaks so much about progress, you are continually attempting to turn the clock back several centuries), or only those who pass a test, or both. Don't pretend to be egalitarian now.
Either way, after 200 years of democratic experiments and 100 years of dabbling in industriel collectivism I think the track record of classic liberalism is still pretty good, compared to the alternatives.
I know, and you will continue to think that, no matter how many facts get in your way. This is actually a very interesting topic, but it would be impossible to have the conversation with you.
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
orion wrote:First of all, those "government funded scientists" would not have any funds without the wealth created by the most efficient economic system so far.
Ignoring the important role that government has played in facilitating and, in many instances, actively contributing toward the wealth of private companies (read, you're wrong), it doesn't matter, because they wouldn't have had the funding if left to the market anyway.
Then, if you really want to use the centuries and sometimes millenia of economic stagnation as an argument against capitalism, well, way to make our point for us.
This is an interesting perspective (not to say unexpected), but I really don't think you want to go too far down this path. Implicitly, you're saying that everything that happened while capitalism was/is the mode of production happened because of capitalism (obviously attempting to credit capitalism with all of the progress we have made), but under these premises you also have to accept that capitalism was responsible for everything bad that happened during this time, which you steadfastly refuse to do. In short, when times are good, blanket generalizations are the order of the day, but when times are bad you want to get technical and make all kinds of exceptions. Could you please be a less blatant hypocrite?
The alternative is to actually look into circumstances in detail, and use some discernment, but then things get complicated, and the Austrian assumptions don't hold up very well.
What "we" got done before capitalism was a live expectancy of around 30, rotting teeth, soul crushing manual labor, disease, illiterate superstition and unbearable poverty.
Interestingly, this was also the case after capitalism in many areas for a long time, yet you always ignore this. We only got past this stage after the rise of labor unions and government intervention which, according to your pet theories, should both be harmful, and yet they are the only thing which helped us progress past this brutal first phase of capitalism.
And of course I needn't tell you that these kind of conditions (not, of course, equally as wretched, but still pretty bad) persist in many areas. But of course, as a libertarian, if you can't see it, that means it doesn't happen.
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
ZEB wrote: Caution, if you see anyone attempting to start a business do not attempt to stop them yourself. I repeat DO NOT attempt to stop him yourself. Report the incident to your nearest community organizer they are trained on how to deal with such a dangerous person.
This has been a paid announcement from your government supported local community organization.
Thank you.
That would be silly. Capitalism stops them pretty effectively itself. No need for intervention.
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Ignoring the important role that government has played in facilitating and, in many instances, actively contributing toward the wealth of private companies (read, you're wrong), it doesn't matter, because they wouldn't have had the funding if left to the market anyway.
My brother in law saved his money for several years, quit his job and opened a furniture store, that was 7 years ago. He does pretty well with that store, he has 8 employees, and pays his taxes on time.
Now tell me how did government help him? I can tell you how they hurt him, but how exactly did they help him?
ZEB wrote: Caution, if you see anyone attempting to start a business do not attempt to stop them yourself. I repeat DO NOT attempt to stop him yourself. Report the incident to your nearest community organizer they are trained on how to deal with such a dangerous person.
This has been a paid announcement from your government supported local community organization.
Thank you.
That would be silly. Capitalism stops them pretty effectively itself. No need for intervention.
In a free market you might be stopped by someone building a better mouse trap for less money and passing that savings onto the customer.
Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 10467
ZEB wrote: Caution, if you see anyone attempting to start a business do not attempt to stop them yourself. I repeat DO NOT attempt to stop him yourself. Report the incident to your nearest community organizer they are trained on how to deal with such a dangerous person.
This has been a paid announcement from your government supported local community organization.
Thank you.
I go with the broken window theory.
You need to crush the lemonade stands or else entrepreneurship spreads like a disease!
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
ZEB wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Ignoring the important role that government has played in facilitating and, in many instances, actively contributing toward the wealth of private companies (read, you're wrong), it doesn't matter, because they wouldn't have had the funding if left to the market anyway.
My brother in law saved his money for several years, quit his job and opened a furniture store, that was 7 years ago. He does pretty well with that store, he has 8 employees, and pays his taxes on time.
Now tell me how did government help him? I can tell you how they hurt him, but how exactly did they help him?
Maybe I was unclear. I didn't mean all companies. Mainly big ones. My apologies.
You're actually right, big business and the state are oftentimes harmful to small companies. That is to say, capitalism is often harmful to small companies.
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
ZEB wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote: Caution, if you see anyone attempting to start a business do not attempt to stop them yourself. I repeat DO NOT attempt to stop him yourself. Report the incident to your nearest community organizer they are trained on how to deal with such a dangerous person.
This has been a paid announcement from your government supported local community organization.
Thank you.
That would be silly. Capitalism stops them pretty effectively itself. No need for intervention.
In a free market you might be stopped by someone building a better mouse trap for less money and passing that savings onto the customer.
Nothing wrong with that is there?
No, but what does that have to do with capitalism? You're conflating things again.
Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1652
orion wrote:I go with the broken window theory.
You need to crush the lemonade stands or else entrepreneurship spreads like a disease!
Ironically, capitalism destroys many small-scale operations like this. Thanks for wiping out this little girl's dreams, orion! But, now that capital will be put to more productive uses.
By the way, did you even watch the video? They said it was an unsafe location. But whatever. That post certainly was less painful than digging yourself deeper into the hole you started with your last post.
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Ignoring the important role that government has played in facilitating and, in many instances, actively contributing toward the wealth of private companies (read, you're wrong), it doesn't matter, because they wouldn't have had the funding if left to the market anyway.
My brother in law saved his money for several years, quit his job and opened a furniture store, that was 7 years ago. He does pretty well with that store, he has 8 employees, and pays his taxes on time.
Now tell me how did government help him? I can tell you how they hurt him, but how exactly did they help him?
Maybe I was unclear. I didn't mean all companies. Mainly big ones. My apologies.
You're actually right, big business and the state are oftentimes harmful to small companies. That is to say, capitalism is often harmful to small companies.
Fascism.
Fascism.
Fascism.
Please learn the difference.
Capitalism implies free markets. They cannot be free if they are being manipulated by fascist policies.
It's not facism when free markets evolve naturally into abominations.
It's human nature that rules will be bent at a point when the strongest competitor(s) will cross some line and the others will have to follow in terms of roughlessness.
I have zero problems with free markets, but how do I let them stay that way?
Humans have the tendency to cheat and act dumb, or better to create systems too complex for them to understand.
Couple this with globalization and today's networking and traffic system and and you get surreal consequences, for instance:
In Europe, where bureaucracy in brussels decides fishing quota and banana size.
But also, multinational companies that harvest a third world country's ressources that nobody from upper management will ever see with his own eyes. No identification with a product and no ties or responsibility to the land.
I don't know what's worse.
Article Discussions
