Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the real fundamental problem is that everyone's a selfish bastard.

I hope you're not being serious because that simply isn't true. People are self-interested, which encompasses varying degrees of selfishness and altruism toward others in varying amounts.

That's all that can be accurately said about humans in regard to selfishness v. altruistism.

you're using weird definitions... what IYO is the difference between "selfishness" and "self-interest"?

Self-interest encompasses both selfishness and altruism.

It's within my interests to care about my close friends and family, and less so for some guy in Xinghua. Am I selfish? Am I altruistic? No, it's neither. That's just me being self-interested.

Selfishness alone is interest only in one's self, but it also excludes one's interest in doing things for others (i.e. altruism). Humans do both of these things to varying degrees for varying people, so economists use the word "self-interest." It's more accurate and doesn't make unfounded criticisms about all humans.

so then would you agree that everyone's a self-interested bastard?

Everyone's self-interested, some of them are bastards, and some of those bastards are capable of ruining a lot for everyone else.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:But what BBS is saying is that corporations are forever evolving because they compete, and they evolve to make more money, including tactics to control the government regulations. And that the government regulation doesn't evolve, because it doesn't compete.

But what barrack says is also true, this corporation/government marriage is only this century's way of the powerful to control the "lazy". Truth is, that drive to power is in all of us, only it's stronger in others, given genetics and circumstances, and those with power won't let go off it.

Think of you as powerful for a minute, with me money, the privileges, the women, the possibilities.. would you give up your power only because some lazy fat ass is screaming at news on the tv?

It's just the dance of life, live water down a stream, going down as it has always gone down.

But it really isn't. The rise of political capitalism takes huge leaps since the 1890s. Before that, we had corporations, businesses, and whatever, but for several reasons the government was involved not nearly as economically as it is. What encouraged the government to become more involved (to the benefit of a select few interest groups) was the incentives provided by such interest groups, perhaps a change in laws which allowed this, but most importantly, the ratchet effect:

"Never let a good crisis go to waste," and many American politicians took this to heart. The rise of political capitalism is intertwined around states of crisis and political intervention. With a crisis, the appeal to the state becomes strongest. See the Gallup polls on President Bush and favorable views toward the state before and after 9-11. The crisis occurs, nearly everyone screams for state intervention, and the special interest groups and the government get the go-ahead. After the crisis, the bureaucracies and policies are hardly ever retrenched. They remain, or reappear in new names, at the taxpayers' expense.

This story isn't one of all history, or the "dance of life." This has not been "going down as it has always gone down." It predominantly begins in the 1890s--and even more so in WW1, the Great Depression, and WW2--for the US.

Yeah, well.. you can call the Great Depression a "political opportunity" OR you can say it was a real event caused by idiots who decided to let greed and the markets rule the world, to ignore on-the-ground-truths, like the fact that agriculture depends heavily upon the weather and natural systems... and our country, ultimately depends heavily on agriculture.

Today, we/businesses/politicians catering to big corporations ignore that water is truly a limited, but necessary resource; we also pretend that damage to the world around us in the form of pollution, species eradication, just don't really matter except as isolated news bytes or "causes" de celeb to be fixed by recycling and donations to the humane society or sierra club.

In truth, capitalism was much, MUCH better than feudalism, which it largely replaced. Free capitalism is superior to cronyism.. .but I am not sure how to utterly divest the crony from the market. Communism is certainly too extreme an answer. People don't fundamentally like equality, not really. In fact, people don't really and truly want equality of opportunity. They just want to make sure their kids , and then their friends and relatives, get chances at what they want.

What we really need is not complete "freedom" fo the market, which really amounts to fuedalism of accumulated wealth, instead of fuedalism based primarily on land. (yes, influence, minerals and the like also play into both).
We need a system where wealth is tied to production, BUT only production that is sustainable for the very long term in an environmental and human sense. If we destroy the world around us or demand more than people can give over the long haul, then the system will fail.

PLAYER57832 wrote:asldfjaslkfjas flskdjfalskjflasjfkajsldkfjaslkdfjalsdkjflaskjfkas fljkjflksjadfl kasjlfkje kgt wihjg aiouwerghjearuighaeughaegheaghaekjghaekjgha hasjkfhnawefi jqwpoijfoiasmv klsfvilajf nw8uaenr uangiuah gajfgnawuhfiuwphg parng ajkrngauehgawbnfkjenasfjaopa oiwjefr ioawjefianmwfijaopijag ah ouawhfpuawhfanfjash aijoiwjfoiwhguioerhg iuhnauihaiwuhgaghr auhrg h hah goawh uahrgiuarhg apgh iauerg haerhgawehfkjanwefk jhnarg.

However, asldfjaslkfjas flskdjfalskjflasjfkajsldkfjaslkdfjalsdkjflaskjfkas fljkjflksjadfl kasjlfkje kgt wihjg aiouwerghjearuighaeughaegheaghaekjghaekjgha hasjkfhnawefi jqwpoijfoiasmv klsfvilajf nw8uaenr uangiuah gajfgnawuhfiuwphg parng ajkrngauehgawbnfkjenasfjaopa oiwjefr ioawjefianmwfijaopijag ah ouawhfpuawhfanfjash aijoiwjfoiwhguioerhg iuhnauihaiwuhgaghr auhrg h hah goawh uahrgiuarhg apgh iauerg haerhgawehfkjanwefk jhnarg.

To go on a tangent, asldfjaslkfjas flskdjfalskjflasjfkajsldkfjaslkdfjalsdkjflaskjfkas fljkjflksjadfl kasjlfkje kgt wihjg aiouwerghjearuighaeughaegheaghaekjghaekjgha hasjkfhnawefi jqwpoijfoiasmv klsfvilajf nw8uaenr uangiuah gajfgnawuhfiuwphg parng ajkrngauehgawbnfkjenasfjaopa oiwjefr ioawjefianmwfijaopijag ah ouawhfpuawhfanfjash aijoiwjfoiwhguioerhg iuhnauihaiwuhgaghr auhrg h hah goawh uahrgiuarhg apgh iauerg haerhgawehfkjanwefk jhnarg.

Furthermore, asldfjaslkfjas flskdjfalskjflasjfkajsldkfjaslkdfjalsdkjflaskjfkas fljkjflksjadfl kasjlfkje kgt wihjg aiouwerghjearuighaeughaegheaghaekjghaekjgha hasjkfhnawefi jqwpoijfoiasmv klsfvilajf nw8uaenr uangiuah gajfgnawuhfiuwphg parng ajkrngauehgawbnfkjenasfjaopa oiwjefr ioawjefianmwfijaopijag ah ouawhfpuawhfanfjash aijoiwjfoiwhguioerhg iuhnauihaiwuhgaghr auhrg h hah goawh uahrgiuarhg apgh iauerg haerhgawehfkjanwefk jhnarg.

I'd ask you for sources, but given your track record on that, it would be pointless for me to ask.

How about you start a new thread instead?

patches70 wrote:The State has an ontological imperative to expand to the point of of controlling all levels of community, markets and society. So called looting done by the evil capitalists and corporations would not even be possible without The State enforcing rules of parasitic predation. The end result is always the same with financialized. centralized economies. A massively expanding kleptocracy.

Not really. there is an old saying "might makes right". It used to be military power. Today, its money and corporate/legal power. Guess who has the "might", now.

In our system, the government was set up to protect individuals from government overreaches. That has worked to a large extent, up until the electronic media age, the government put on a reasonable show of not invading people's houses (when they did, it was covertly ..and thus more limited than in the old monarchial days, much less capricious, though of course not entirely "fair"), of not falsely imprisoning people (again, a few blips, but compared to the old days...).

Today, ALL of that is being quickly thrown out the window as corporate power is quickly outstripping government power. The constitution of the US won't protect us against abuses of BP, because A. most of their "legal power" and money are offshore/overseas B. The company is almost more powerful than most governments. Sure, they lack an army, but they really don't need one.. yet.

So, what we are seeing is not an expansion of government overreach, no matter how much the right wing tries to make that claim, but a reduction in the power of the government compared to the power of corporations. And, one thing is being made perfectly clear. Corporations do NOT have our basic interests at heart. If they did, we would not see the increased concentration of wealth at the very top, right alongside the increase in the US debt... and now, the reduction in social services and environmental protections.

Oh yeah.. a question what were the top income tax rates during the Eisenhower, Reagan, Carter and Bush administratons?

Player does make a good argument about the army power, despite everyones' protests. Sure the governments have a monopoly on violence, but guess who has a monopoly on the governments?

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Hm, I'm not sure what you mean...

because self-interest is also a fundamental driver behind political decision-making, and in general political capitalism. With a move toward freer markets, the capability for the state to intervene in the market diminishes, thus the self-interest of politicians and crony capitalists no longer matters when their capability is diminished.

I believe Rockafeller put the lie to this quite nicely.

your answer is less government regulation and a free market?

with that logic, who is controlling corporations if not governments? you expect large-scale private enterprise to regulate itself even at the sacrifice of its profit margin? because i think we all know that doesn't happen.

yang guize wrote:your answer is less government regulation and a free market?

with that logic, who is controlling corporations if not governments?

Consumers and the competition.

yang guize wrote: you expect large-scale private enterprise to regulate itself even at the sacrifice of its profit margin?

Explain please.

GreecePwns wrote:Player does make a good argument about the army power, despite everyones' protests. Sure the governments have a monopoly on violence, but guess who has a monopoly on the governments?

PLAYER refuses to acknowledge that the few corporations which hold strong influence over governments are only able to enjoy that power because the government is the only source of that power.

Why?

show

GreecePwns wrote:Sure the governments have a monopoly on violence, but guess who has a monopoly on the governments?

To answer your question, no one has a monopoly on government. That doesn't make sense. A monopoly is a single producer which has prohibited others from competing (i.e. no (legally) free entry). For example, producer A makes X, and everyone else is prohibited from producing X. Therefore, producer A is a monopoly.

If you wish to say that corporations have undue control over government, then I'll try to have you clarify that. "All corporations?" "Through what means?" "And, when all is said and done, how can the influence of corporations over government result in legislation to their benefit? (i.e. why is lobbying the government so profitable?)

the patterns we can see in countries where there is little official power over industries does not suggest that enterprise will regulate itself honestly. take the example of apple. apple is based in the usa and behaves very unfairly in china (including breaking our laws, and behaving in a way that would break usa law). because the usa is 'hands off', it does not regulate apple. so how does the ordinary worker in china stand up to apple? apple's malpractice can only be effectively contained by intervention from governments.
and what if a food corporation uses its contacts and resources to monopolise the food market, able to do so because the government is not regulating (hypothetical)? the consumer who decides not to buy food from them out of principle will starve.

'sacrifice of its profit margin'
basically, if the cost of regulating themselves is greatly reducing profits. industry is always willing to 'listen to the people' and reform its bad practice, but they do so in a thin and superficial way that will not cost them much money. so they produce a poster campaign saying 'fairness to our workers', which everyone can see, rather than just paying their workers more, which would cost more.

Free market isn't the answer. The same will happen as happen with our government; the ultra rich will control through their monopolies and conglomeration. The problem is it is about profits and pushing that profit limit. Instead of doing things out of the good of humanity. May seem ideological but it better than chasing money, which isn't real anyways.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Player does make a good argument about the army power, despite everyones' protests. Sure the governments have a monopoly on violence, but guess who has a monopoly on the governments?

PLAYER refuses to acknowledge that the few corporations which hold strong influence over governments are only able to enjoy that power because the government is the only source of that power.

Because the root of all power is not government, it is wealth.. and the work that creates that wealth.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Player57832 wrote: So, what we are seeing is not an expansion of government overreach, no matter how much the right wing tries to make that claim, but a reduction in the power of the government compared to the power of corporations.

When increasing government expenditures and bureaucracies and scope of authority in the monopolized legal system no longer count as "expansion of government overreach," then there's not much that can be rationally drawn from any debate with player on this topic. Of course, she'll redefine "power" as to fit her worldview, and then when I counter that, or ask for clarification, she'll redefine it and/or go on a tangent. It would be a slippery slope from logic with that one.

LOL.. LOL...LOL
Nice try, but no. That a government controls the legal system is a hallmark of a government that functions, not as you claim "government expansion". Without the rule of law, upheld by the government, all you have is bribes and graft. Other systems might exist temporarily, but descend quickly.

indeed. you can argue that 'all power comes from government', but what about when members of the government are subject to pressure from the industries? if a private industry is allowed to control a country's press, it has the power to destroy politicians at will. this is a large sword for it to dangle over the head of the politician.

there is a difference between being the person who carries out an action and being the person who decides whether that action is carried out.

BBS, I know you wanted a full and well-thought out response to your very valid questions. But here's the TL;DR

We're in agreement, but in that post cynical GreecePwns was cynical.

Nola_Lifer wrote:Free market isn't the answer. The same will happen as happen with our government; the ultra rich will control through their monopolies and conglomeration.

You're making a very bold prediction, so I'll ask some questions so that you can provide more evidence for your prediction.


(1) How do the "ultra rich" impose their control through monopolies and by forming conglomerates?

Nola_Lifer wrote:The problem is it is about profits and pushing that profit limit. Instead of doing things out of the good of humanity. May seem ideological but it better than chasing money, which isn't real anyways.

Money is a medium of exchange, and media of exchange are real--regardless if you deny that fact. Money, or Federal Reserve Notes (cash money), is also real in the sense that it is one of many capital goods which can be exchanged for other capital goods.


(2) How is seeking profits and "doing good for humanity" mutually exclusive goals?



(3) What is your alternative policy which will fulfill the goal of "doing things out of the good of humanity"?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Player does make a good argument about the army power, despite everyones' protests. Sure the governments have a monopoly on violence, but guess who has a monopoly on the governments?

PLAYER refuses to acknowledge that the few corporations which hold strong influence over governments are only able to enjoy that power because the government is the only source of that power.

Because the root of all power is not government, it is wealth.. and the work that creates that wealth.

If the root of all power is wealth, then why is it that wealthier organizations/societies can be controlled or defeated by less wealthier organizations/societies?

For instance, during the Iranian revolution, the religious group took control, although their wealth relative to the competing groups was significantly less. Therefore, your claim that "wealth is the root of all power" is false. But even if you were to say that ""wealth is the root of all power--for most cases," it would still be false. Wealth is useful, but it itself is no the root of all power. In many cases, wealth alone simply doesn't lead to power, nor is wealth the only function of power (even 9-11 is an example which contradicts your claim).

Why? Because it depends on how wealth can be used within a given institutional framework. Within a given institutional framework (say, USA 1890s), if the users of x-amount of wealth discover the means to convince other individuals to wield their authority to those users' benefits, then it doesn't matter how much wealth the entire nation of uninvolved citizens have. This is the story of political capitalism and how it began in the US.

It wasn't about wealth. It was about the use of wealth in influencing the politicians who had the capability to enact legislation which would benefit those users (i.e. crony capitalists).

Now, all you have is the following claim: "the work that creates that wealth" is "the root of all power." But that's inaccurate because it treats all work that creates wealth as leading to the root of power. Why? Say I open up a steel mill and hire a lot of people. Our work would create me wealth and some wealth for those workers. But where's the power? Can I force people to only buy my steel in a competitive marketplace? No, unless I can wield state-granted power, which is what the crony capitalists did. So, it still depends on the "use of wealth" in conjunction with "politicians and bureaucrats, who wield the primary source of power through their monopolies on regulation, legislation, and the legal system.

Furthermore, in order for your claim to be true, all politicians and bureaucrats must be wealthy, "or work to create wealth," but apparently, they need not be wealthy since they can trade state-mandated priveleges in exchange for wealth. Wealth, nor the "working to creating wealth" are the root of power. Power lies in the ability of the State through its monopoly on the use of force, so that it can enforce its legislation and regulations.

Therefore, you're absolutely wrong. The root of the necessary power lies within the government, which has cooperated with certain economic interest groups, who in turn receive state-granted privileges and also influence public policy in their favor. The fundamental constrain on crony capitalism is the authority of the State, which you continue to appeal to for erroneous reasons; however, since the State is susceptible to economic interest groups and since the State fails in constraining itself, then the result will be crony capitalism/political capitalism.

You adhere to the nirvana fallacy. The government does not fulfill your good intentions for it is run by humans, corruptible by humans, and oversees its own monopolies. It's a rigged system bound to cave into the demands of crony capitalists, who can't or refuse to compete in the freer market arena.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Player57832 wrote: So, what we are seeing is not an expansion of government overreach, no matter how much the right wing tries to make that claim, but a reduction in the power of the government compared to the power of corporations.

When increasing government expenditures and bureaucracies and scope of authority in the monopolized legal system no longer count as "expansion of government overreach," then there's not much that can be rationally drawn from any debate with player on this topic. Of course, she'll redefine "power" as to fit her worldview, and then when I counter that, or ask for clarification, she'll redefine it and/or go on a tangent. It would be a slippery slope from logic with that one.

LOL.. LOL...LOL
Nice try, but no. That a government controls the legal system is a hallmark of a government that functions, not as you claim "government expansion". Without the rule of law, upheld by the government, all you have is bribes and graft. Other systems might exist temporarily, but descend quickly.

Since you provided no evidence to the contrary, then your claim "what we are seeing is not an expansion of government overreach" remains false. Of course, you've changed the definition (which remains unclear to the outside observer of your mind) of "government expansion" and if you didn't (somehow), then your failure to defend your viewpoint would so far make your position false. But hey, as far as you perceive, you'll continue to be correct even though you ignore actual definitions of words and fail to address opposing arguments. That was easy.


Also, this is false: "That a government controls the legal system is a hallmark of a government that functions."

1. The dictator of Zimbabwe and his government control the legal system.
2. A hallmark of a government that functions is one which controls the legal system.
3. Therefore, (according to PLAYERIAN logic), Zimbabwe is "a hallmark of a government that functions."
-----> WHOOPS


Also, this is false: "[i]Without the rule of law, upheld by the government, all you have is bribes and graft[/i]."

Customary law can uphold the rule of law and does not require a government. Bribes and graft exists in both social orders, so that phrase is irrelevant.


Everything you just said has been shown to be false. I expect an irrational/illogical response to follow.

GreecePwns wrote:BBS, I know you wanted a full and well-thought out response to your very valid questions. But here's the TL;DR

We're in agreement, but in that post cynical GreecePwns was cynical.

It's all good. I'll hit up that AnCap thread soon too. I've got a saved draft of 100-200 words so far. Might have to cut it down.

I'm just glad BBS finally publicly acknowledged my (correct) view on politics.

yang guize wrote:apple is based in the usa and behaves very unfairly in china (including breaking our laws, and behaving in a way that would break usa law). because the usa is 'hands off', it does not regulate apple. so how does the ordinary worker in china stand up to apple? apple's malpractice can only be effectively contained by intervention from governments.

Why does the US government take a hands off approach to Apple?

Answer: Apple donates money to political campaigns.

Is Apple operating in a free market (in the US or China)?

Answer: No, Apple is at a competitive advantage because of the governmental policies in the U.S. and China, which are influenced by Apple's contributions to campaigns, promises of cushy post-political career jobs, and the like.

Yang Guize is a shell user made by the People's Republic of China.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Yang Guize is a shell user made by the People's Republic of China.

Still. That's my favorite argument to make with my liberal friends.

Liberal friend: BLARGH ARGH! BAIN CAPITAL ROMNEY! BLARGH!
thegreekdog: Hey, is that an iPhone?
Liberal friend: Shut up rich boy!

or

Liberal friend: BLARGH ARGH! WORKING CONDITIONS OF POOR! YARGH!
thegreekdog: Hey, can I see your iPad?
Liberal friend: I hate you so much.