87 replies to this topic

[Leiska]

Georgegad, on 04 May 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Seriously? You are suggesting they would like being pawns of corporate greed if they only had the chance to try it?

I find that a little ridiculous. Nobody has a real need for 17 different brands of the same thing. It only happens in our world due to capitalism and would never occur in a more efficient system.

If there are real reasons to have 17 different types of object then obviously the clans would have all 17 versions available upon request.

Pawns of corporate greed? Since when did corporations force anyone to buy phones? Only governments force people to buy things. There are 17 brands of phones only if people want to buy enough phones to support 17 brands. If there was only one brand, it would likely be bad because there would be no competition and hence no incentive to innovate. Unless the government grants that only producer a monopoly, it'll be an open invitation for more competent competition to arise.

That's how capitalism leads to constant innovation and purification from inefficiencies that doesn't happen in government driven endeavours. This is why a government constantly grows and never shrinks until the economy collapses under its weight, usually resulting in a currency crisis (hint: this is what the entire western world faces in the very near future). When a company falls behind the curve, it goes bankrupt and the resources it was utilizing will be directed towards other more useful activities. When a branch of government falls behind the curve, the government simply throws more tax funds at it and the waste continues.

Naglinator, on 04 May 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

Funny, earlier on you said how inefficient the centralized research is. However, the Marik's were unable to cure their son of leukemia in their shining example of capitalism but the Davion centralized NAIS managed to have a cure.

Do you always try to prove your point by referring to fictional events? If you wanted to make this point you could have referred to NASA and whatever agency handled the Soviet space program. They were (and NASA still is) hugely ahead of the private space tech industry. Why? Because the respective governments granted them enormous budgets.

A private company would simply not have generated enough investor and customer interest to raise that kind of funds, but because governments can steal at will (taxation backed by armed forces), they managed to do it. The question we can now ask is: was it actually worth it? Because people were unwilling to pay unless forced, I think it's quite clear it was not. After all, the only way for us to reliably measure the value of an endeavour is to ask how willing people are to pay to obtain the results of said endeavour.

Edited by Leiska, 05 May 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[Georgegad]

Leiska, on 05 May 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Pawns of corporate greed? Since when did corporations force anyone to buy phones? Only governments force people to buy things. There are 17 brands of phones only if people want to buy enough phones to support 17 brands. If there was only one brand, it would likely be bad because there would be no competition and hence no incentive to innovate. Unless the government grants that only producer a monopoly, it'll be an open invitation for more competent competition to arise.

That's how capitalism leads to constant innovation and purification from inefficiencies that doesn't happen in government driven endeavours. This is why a government constantly grows and never shrinks until the economy collapses under its weight, usually resulting in a currency crisis (hint: this is what the entire western world faces in the very near future). When a company falls behind the curve, it goes bankrupt and the resources it was utilizing will be directed towards other more useful activities. When a branch of government falls behind the curve, the government simply throws more tax funds at it and the waste continues.

LOL. Well you clearly have a strong attachment to capitalism and i am very happy you enjoy it so much. Personally i find that most of what you have mentioned is simply capitalists patting each other on the back and justifying their own existence.

Non capitalists would suggest that capitalism actually stifles innovation in more cases than it encourages it and would put it forward as one of the most harmful forces in the modern world.

But, since you clearly have strong feelings for your position i will refrain from making a huge political argument of it and simply suggest that we agree to disagree.

[Daneel Hazen]

Georgegad, on 05 May 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Really 99.99%? If you are typing things out i would love to hear the bit where it says that. That would seem to give them a lower percentage of people in the military than some modern countries. A very odd thing for a warrior society.


Wait, i see the problem...........

I'm not sure you do. The book clearly states that 110000 out of 1.15 billion are warriors which equates to not even one percent of the population. That is for one clan but it could be considered typical. Additionally freebirths are still clansmen... and they are not a byproduct. O_o Don't even know what else to say about that or where you even get that idea. They are even under their own eugenics program because their marriages are arranged by the state and encouraged to have children... while prohibited from having them with sexual relations outside of their marriage for that express reason.

[Daneel Hazen]

I sent fasa an email to ask if I could just make a digital copy of the sourcebook and post it. I'll see what they say...

[Lee Ving]

Erasus Magnus, on 03 May 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

It`s called "DAS Kapital".
And by free market society you mean Voluntaryism, i believe?
Voluntaryism basically is nothing but Anarchy renamed. And its`s not crazy at all. They make a lot of valid points.
They do not refer to the definition of Capitalism that most of us refer to . Their stance is that our current iteration of Capitalism is a form of Socialism and has nothing to do with a free market.

It`s interesting stuff and a good read.

Can't say I've read the entire thing, but Der is more fitting with my understanding of the work I have read quite a bit of it, Trotsky, Bakunin, Mahkno, etc.

Anarchism and capitalism are not the same thing; in practice they are antithetical. Capitalism protects the idea of private property and division of the community commons. Anarchism embraces the idea of the commons and the notion of produce as capable, provided as needed.

In short, anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction of terms. In long, www.infoshop.org's Anarchist FAQ has a great explanation of why.

Leiska, on 03 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

This is the crazy part:

Like all command economies (socialism) by nature, the Clan system is highly susceptible to cronyism, corruption and despotism. In a society like this, you get ahead by sucking up to your patrons, while in a market economy (capitalism) you get ahead by serving the population's needs. This is why the free market is the only remotely moral way to distribute wealth. It's also why only the market economy can direct resources to activities that the population actually needs rather than activities that the political elite needs or thinks the population needs.

Also, billionaires don't "soak up money", they invest it. The investment then creates more jobs, products and services that increase the living standards of the entire population. This is why average living standards have never risen faster than during the 19th century despite wealth gaps that seem extreme even by today's standards. The industrial tycoons built the world and laid the foundation for our comfortable modern lives because the largely laissez faire economic policies of the time let them do that. It would be impossible today.

They invest it in protecting themselves. If you don’t think the revolving door between the highest positions in government and major corporations is indicative of corruption and cronyism, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Placement of the richest in the positions of power is strongly indicative of plutocracy, if not right outright trans-national corporate rule.

“The industrial tycoons built the world”

That’s laughable. The people they consistently beat, shot, stabbed, and paid low wages built the world. These benevolent industrialists you're speaking of fought tooth n nail against reforms like child labor laws, OSHA, paid leave, and 8 hour working days. They stole the fruits of the working class’ labors; ascribing that to "their efforts" because their family benefited enough from past wage or chattel slavery to have the resources to centralize into a new industry is just a continuation of the status quo (the wealthy exploiting the poor).

"Like all command economies (socialism) by nature"

Except federated syndicalism is not a command economy as such, it still has marketable goods that can co-exist with ideas of equal pay for equal labor, and the 30 hour full time work week.

"This is why average living standards have never risen faster than during the 19th century despite wealth gaps that seem extreme even by today's standards."

Can you provide citation to a source that demonstrates greater economic inequality for the majority of the population in the 19th century (1800s) versus the 21st century? I'd be very interested to see it. I know that wealth has continued a consistent trend towards greater and greater consolidation into the hands of the wealthy for the past 40 years.

http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

An income inequality chart that begins right before the roaring 20s and stretches to 2007 shows roughly equal levels of inequality in share of overall GDP today and then. Doesn't seem to match with your notion that it has greatly leveled out. I'd still be willing to concede that feudal & Renaissance economy was likely far more centralized an unequally distributed if you can source that, I just don't know one way or another.

http://en.wikipedia...._States#History

Framing the discussion solely in terms of income, not including property is also distracting. You can see that wealth is primarily concentrated in holdings separate from yearly wage income.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

Edited by Lee Ving, 06 May 2013 - 06:15 AM.

[-Muta-]

Is there a way to start a clan?

[Leiska]

Georgegad, on 05 May 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

But, since you clearly have strong feelings for your position i will refrain from making a huge political argument of it and simply suggest that we agree to disagree.

I suppose you're experiencing a major case of cognitive dissonance.

Lee Ving, on 06 May 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

In short, anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction of terms. In long, www.infoshop.org's Anarchist FAQ has a great explanation of why.

On the contrary, socialism cannot exist without state intervention. Capitalism is based on the idea of private property and the only way to deprive someone of private property is through theft. The only way to do that lawfully is to use the government as a middle man. A socialist anarchist therefore has to support the idea of forcibly taking what someone else has made, which is essentially a hierarchic, and therefore anti-anarchist, notion.

Quote

They invest it in protecting themselves. If you don’t think the revolving door between the highest positions in government and major corporations is indicative of corruption and cronyism, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Placement of the richest in the positions of power is strongly indicative of plutocracy, if not right outright trans-national corporate rule.

I'm well aware of this phenomenon and I'm absolutely against it. When the state has too much power, it becomes lucrative and various special interests will attempt to take it over. Do you think lobbying would be a multi-billion dollar business if governments had no authority to make the decisions lobbyists want them to make? Of course not.

This is not a capitalist (read: free market) phenomenon but a statist phenomenon.

Quote

That’s laughable. The people they consistently beat, shot, stabbed, and paid low wages built the world. These benevolent industrialists you're speaking of fought tooth n nail against reforms like child labor laws, OSHA, paid leave, and 8 hour working days. They stole the fruits of the working class’ labors; ascribing that to "their efforts" because their family benefited enough from past wage or chattel slavery to have the resources to centralize into a new industry is just a continuation of the status quo (the wealthy exploiting the poor).

They raised the capital, made the investments and ran the businesses. Without them those people they supposedly beat, shot, stabbed and paid low wages to would not have built squat. People agreed to work in their factories and workshops because it was the better alternative, not because they were forced to.

Quote

Except federated syndicalism is not a command economy as such, it still has marketable goods that can co-exist with ideas of equal pay for equal labor, and the 30 hour full time work week.

Please explain, I'm not familiar with the concept of federated syndicalism. However, production can only happen in two ways: voluntarily or by decree. All economic activity in a free market is voluntary, while a socialist society mixes in elements of a command economy. A pure command economy cannot exist because the complexity of a modern economy makes it impossible to run.

Quote

Can you provide citation to a source that demonstrates greater economic inequality for the majority of the population in the 19th century (1800s) versus the 21st century? I'd be very interested to see it. I know that wealth has continued a consistent trend towards greater and greater consolidation into the hands of the wealthy for the past 40 years.

An income inequality chart that begins right before the roaring 20s and stretches to 2007 shows roughly equal levels of inequality in share of overall GDP today and then. Doesn't seem to match with your notion that it has greatly leveled out. I'd still be willing to concede that feudal & Renaissance economy was likely far more centralized an unequally distributed if you can source that, I just don't know one way or another.

http://en.wikipedia...._States#History

I don't have any aggregate statistics from that time period, however, at least John D. Rockefeller's personal net worth dwarfed anything we've seen in modern times, yet average living standards were obviously lower.

As for the rise in inequality in the last 40 years, I'll give you a hint: The Nixon shock. We think government wealth redistribution works primarily from the rich to the poor, but that's an illusion. In reality, the greatest tool for wealth redistribution is monetary policy and the inflationist policies of modern central banks are to blame. Do you know what zero interest rates and the various QE programs around the world are doing to your retirement savings? They're bleeding right into the pockets of the rich and from there into various bubbles, such as housing, equities, and the mother of all bubbles: government bonds.

[Zerberus]

Miragezero, on 05 May 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

I sent fasa an email to ask if I could just make a digital copy of the sourcebook and post it. I'll see what they say...

You might get sued just for the idea

[Lee Ving]

Leiska, on 06 May 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

On the contrary, socialism cannot exist without state intervention. Capitalism is based on the idea of private property and the only way to deprive someone of private property is through theft. The only way to do that lawfully is to use the government as a middle man. A socialist anarchist therefore has to support the idea of forcibly taking what someone else has made, which is essentially a hierarchic, and therefore anti-anarchist, notion.

Merriam-Webster defines socialism as, "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Emphasis added - collective can mean decentralized and operate on market demand. The Federated Syndicalism as I termed it is a polite way to say anarcho-syndicalism, or libertarian socialist, or a number of other -isms that describe a philosophy of organizing the means of production similarly to what Chomsky might advocate for.

That said, the means of consolidating the vast majority of wealth into the hands of the few has been a theft from the commons which has existed as a cultural notion for centuries. Taking that back for the community is only theft once it has been codified that privatizing everything is okay; stealing back what was already stolen is simply an expression of class-war attempting to even the scales.

Quote

I'm well aware of this phenomenon and I'm absolutely against it. When the state has too much power, it becomes lucrative and various special interests will attempt to take it over. Do you think lobbying would be a multi-billion dollar business if governments had no authority to make the decisions lobbyists want them to make? Of course not.

This is not a capitalist (read: free market) phenomenon but a statist phenomenon.

Capitalism is not a means of organizing government, simply a term to describe a specific type of economy. To claim that business inundating government with funds is due to statism and not capitalism is a bit disingenuous - once the economy is organized in that manner, it naturally follows that economy seeks to exert greater influence on government.

Quote

They raised the capital, made the investments and ran the businesses. Without them those people they supposedly beat, shot, stabbed and paid low wages to would not have built squat. People agreed to work in their factories and workshops because it was the better alternative, not because they were forced to.

Where did they raise this mythical capital from? Disproportionate distribution of wealth into the hands of the few at the costs of the many. Those huge waves of unionization that started with the railroad strikes in the 1880s that didn't stop until WW2? That was a result of that extreme disparity and consolidation.

"Forced" is an interesting concept; the great hemorraging of workers from their sharecropping and subsistence farms occurred because of the consolidation of wealth into fewer and larger agribusiness farms. Namely those that could afford the tools to greatly reduce the labor requirements of modern agriculture. If you don't have a job, and can't compete where you were, you are indeed forced into a new profession.

Quote

Please explain, I'm not familiar with the concept of federated syndicalism. However, production can only happen in two ways: voluntarily or by decree. All economic activity in a free market is voluntary, while a socialist society mixes in elements of a command economy. A pure command economy cannot exist because the complexity of a modern economy makes it impossible to run.

Federated syndicalism is a goal of industrial unionism - it is by voluntary means responding to market forces.
https://en.wikipedia...cho-syndicalism - is a good place to start reading up on it. The CNT in Spain provides one of the few examples of this in practice (before tarrifed out of weapons, backstabbed by Stalin and the communists, and front-stabbed by the nationalists backed by ******).

Quote

I don't have any aggregate statistics from that time period, however, at least John D. Rockefeller's personal net worth dwarfed anything we've seen in modern times, yet average living standards were obviously lower.

As for the rise in inequality in the last 40 years, I'll give you a hint: The Nixon shock. We think government wealth redistribution works primarily from the rich to the poor, but that's an illusion. In reality, the greatest tool for wealth redistribution is monetary policy and the inflationist policies of modern central banks are to blame. Do you know what zero interest rates and the various QE programs around the world are doing to your retirement savings? They're bleeding right into the pockets of the rich and from there into various bubbles, such as housing, equities, and the mother of all bubbles: government bonds.

I'd think Bill Gates' net work easily rivals if not surpasses Rockafeller's but its hard to comment on without real data to back up that notion.

No doubt that the centralized banking system has a big part to play in devaluation of currency, but alongside that we have to consider Freidman's Chicago School Economic Theory as a big participant. Policy decisions from Carter and especially Reagan forward have driven similar ideology, which encourages economic hemorraging to create a greater singular concentration of wealth. Income inequality in Chile is a perfect textbook example of their theory in practice.

I'd blame globalization and the declining competitiveness of Western industrialized workers in the face of extremely cheap wage-slaves from foreign lands to be a huge factor in that inflationary loss also. Simultaneously, corporate profits and profits for the top 1% of society have continued to cumulatively grow even when accounting for inflation while the wages of the rest of society have not grown equally.

Edited by Lee Ving, 06 May 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[zraven7]

Topic of conversation deemed double-ungood. Recommend placement in memory hole,

[SuperDude431]

Georgegad, on 05 May 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Really 99.99%? If you are typing things out i would love to hear the bit where it says that. That would seem to give them a lower percentage of people in the military than some modern countries. A very odd thing for a warrior society.

Dont look at the Clans as a nation. Look at them as a millitary force. The warrior cast acts as the combat arms branch of the millitary the Civilians are the Support. Now Look up a modern millitary force. At best only 1% to 4% are actual combat arms the rest are support. And no. Going through basic training and having a rifle dosnt make you combat arms.

Edited by Ian Marcus Kain, 06 May 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[Leiska]

Lee Ving, on 06 May 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

That said, the means of consolidating the vast majority of wealth into the hands of the few has been a theft from the commons which has existed as a cultural notion for centuries. Taking that back for the community is only theft once it has been codified that privatizing everything is okay; stealing back what was already stolen is simply an expression of class-war attempting to even the scales.

So, essentially what you're saying is that the current ownership relations are phony because they grew from times when wealth was primarily conquered by arms, and that what is required to rectify this problem is a violent one-time radical redistribution of all assets?

I don't see how this is practically, or even theoretically, possible to execute, or compatible with the "libertarian" part of libertarian socialism for that matter.

Quote

Capitalism is not a means of organizing government, simply a term to describe a specific type of economy. To claim that business inundating government with funds is due to statism and not capitalism is a bit disingenuous - once the economy is organized in that manner, it naturally follows that economy seeks to exert greater influence on government.

Wealth will always attempt to influence those in power. It doesn't matter how it was obtained, it will be used as a bribe if there are people to bribe. Where do we have the greatest concentration of power for sale? In the government. Take the power away and there is nothing to sell and thus no buyers.

The idea of having a powerful government with essentially unlimited authority in the economic lives of individuals is a statist one. Such a government is extremely profitable to control.

Quote

Where did they raise this mythical capital from? Disproportionate distribution of wealth into the hands of the few at the costs of the many. Those huge waves of unionization that started with the railroad strikes in the 1880s that didn't stop until WW2? That was a result of that extreme disparity and consolidation.

They raised the capital from investors. Rockefeller, for example, presented his business idea (Standard Oil) to investors, convinced them to invest in his company and eventually his superior product started to dominate the competition. Standard Oil innovated the use of tanks and pipelines instead of barrels and dropped the cost of kerosene to a fraction of what it had been before. He essentially gave reliable lighting to the entire US, something which previously only the rich had been able to afford.

Were unscrupulous and even unlawful methods used? I'm sure. Crime is crime and always wrong, but in general the greatest entrepreneurs always hugely enrich the entire world. After all, the princess could always afford silk stockings, but it took capitalism to make them affordable to the shop girl.

Quote

"Forced" is an interesting concept; the great hemorraging of workers from their sharecropping and subsistence farms occurred because of the consolidation of wealth into fewer and larger agribusiness farms. Namely those that could afford the tools to greatly reduce the labor requirements of modern agriculture. If you don't have a job, and can't compete where you were, you are indeed forced into a new profession.

If a person has two alternatives A and B, both of which suck, and he chooses the one he thinks sucks less, he is not being forced. Force can only come from an external factor, otherwise we would define our bodies' need for sustenance a great evil as it "forces" us to work for a living.

If a person sells his farm to a larger land owner who he cannot compete against, he does so voluntarily even if he hates the outcome. He is not forced to sell, he is simply falling behind the curve and it sucks for him, however, everyone else benefits from the lower cost agricultural products.

Quote

Federated syndicalism is a goal of industrial unionism - it is by voluntary means responding to market forces.
https://en.wikipedia...cho-syndicalism - is a good place to start reading up on it. The CNT in Spain provides one of the few examples of this in practice (before tarrifed out of weapons, backstabbed by Stalin and the communists, and front-stabbed by the nationalists backed by ******).

It seems to me that anarcho-syndicalists view their bosses as having superior rights, which is, at least theoretically and on a general level, false. Both individuals are governed by the same laws and it is not a slave/master relationship but a mutually voluntary contractual relationship. Instead of cursing at your bosses, why don't you just quit? Work elsewhere or start your own business.

Quote

I'd think Bill Gates' net work easily rivals if not surpasses Rockafeller's but its hard to comment on without real data to back up that notion.

Nah, Gates isn't even the richest person alive, Carlos Slim Helu is and his estimated net worth is only $73 billion, much less than the estimated $340 billion (in today's dollars) of Rockefeller before he donated much of it away in his later years.

Quote

No doubt that the centralized banking system has a big part to play in devaluation of currency, but alongside that we have to consider Freidman's Chicago School Economic Theory as a big participant. Policy decisions from Carter and especially Reagan forward have driven similar ideology, which encourages economic hemorraging to create a greater singular concentration of wealth. Income inequality in Chile is a perfect textbook example of their theory in practice.

Actually, Friedman's monetarist ideas were largely ignored by policy makers in the US. His primary work was within monetary theory and none of it was ever implemented by the Federal Reserve. They favoured the Keynesian approach which is largely responsible for the mess modern economies are in. I'm in favour of an Austrian (Mises) approach to monetary theory, not monetarist (Friedman), however, Friedman is not to blame for poor policy decisions in any major economies of the world simply because nobody listened to him.

Pinochet did likely pick up an idea or two from Friedman when dictating his economic policies for Chile, however, they were actually a great success. When his military junta took over, Chile's economy had been ruined by a socialist government. The state was insolvent, the Chilean peso was going through hyper inflation and the population was among the poorest in South America. Despite Pinochet's tyrannical rule, only 20 years later Chile had become the #1 wealthiest nation in South America with the highest average living standards and Chileans can thank Pinochet's free market reforms for that.

Quote

I'd blame globalization and the declining competitiveness of Western industrialized workers in the face of extremely cheap wage-slaves from foreign lands to be a huge factor in that inflationary loss also. Simultaneously, corporate profits and profits for the top 1% of society have continued to cumulatively grow even when accounting for inflation while the wages of the rest of society have not grown equally.

They are not slaves, they are poor farmers who found a new alternative in industry and they gladly take it. If you think you could waltz into a sweat shop, shut it down and expect cheers from the workers, you're deluded. They'd tear you apart for taking away the one option besides sustenance farming they had.

Edited by Leiska, 06 May 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[Khanahar]

Wow. So much off-topicness. We get it guys, you all understand macroeconomics and the other guys are ideological morons.

On topic: Clan players should be rewarded with Honor points (or some similar name) to simulate how renown as a warrior can get you things. This would also allow for a soft rewarding of Zell.

Carry on with political discussion.

[Daneel Hazen]

Yeah... you guys are being pretty tame but the new rule is you have to work clans somewhere logically into your arguments . ;-p FASA wrote back... Catalyst has the copyright on the out of print material. Hopefully if they won't allow for a fan copy they will do one.

[Featherwood]

DifferentFish, on 03 May 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

I'm aware. Really the ridiculous thing is that's lasted for 300 years when the USSR barely made it past 50.

All western scum have united to down USSR' economy. It were the words of Thatcher that she afraid more of soviet economy, rather than army.

[Lee Ving]

Leiska, on 06 May 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

So, essentially what you're saying is that the current ownership relations are phony because they grew from times when wealth was primarily conquered by arms, and that what is required to rectify this problem is a violent one-time radical redistribution of all assets?
I don't see how this is practically, or even theoretically, possible to execute, or compatible with the "libertarian" part of libertarian socialism for that matter.

It wasn't primarily conquered by arms, it was gradually eroded in the interests of those with a monopoly of violence in a given area (which is the definition of what a state is, at its most basic).

The libertarian part is after the society has been established. You have the liberty to either leave the society and try to take all your horde with you (which much of the ruling class in Spain did during their market crash ala the Great Depression), or you can try to work collectively with the rest of the people you are reliant upon to exist comfortably without making that comfort by means of detriment to your workers.

You think the ones who did the theft in the first place and have years of Divine-Right doctrine, or capitalist "through your own hard effort" propaganda cemented in their consciousness are simply going to return to a non-coercive interaction with their workers? I'd love it if they did. They sort of did in Spain, until a couple of years passed and that was given up.

Quote

Wealth will always attempt to influence those in power. It doesn't matter how it was obtained, it will be used as a bribe if there are people to bribe. Where do we have the greatest concentration of power for sale? In the government. Take the power away and there is nothing to sell and thus no buyers.

The idea of having a powerful government with essentially unlimited authority in the economic lives of individuals is a statist one. Such a government is extremely profitable to control.

So then how do those individual actors defend their enterprises? If wealth is one and the same as those in power, is it not an arbitrary distinction to say that "money seeks to influence" when that money is the same actor who holds influence?

Seeking to eliminate the state which puts restrictions on non-state enterprise actors so that those actors will act in anything other than their own self interests is paramount to a return to feudalism, except we're now talking multinational corporations instead of feudal fiefdoms.

Quote

They raised the capital from investors. Rockefeller, for example, presented his business idea (Standard Oil) to investors, convinced them to invest in his company and eventually his superior product started to dominate the competition. Standard Oil innovated the use of tanks and pipelines instead of barrels and dropped the cost of kerosene to a fraction of what it had been before. He essentially gave reliable lighting to the entire US, something which previously only the rich had been able to afford.

Were unscrupulous and even unlawful methods used? I'm sure. Crime is crime and always wrong, but in general the greatest entrepreneurs always hugely enrich the entire world. After all, the princess could always afford silk stockings, but it took capitalism to make them affordable to the shop girl.

Silk stockings won't keep you from starving. They do not forgive the imbalance of resources or the terrible sacrifices made by those in the lowest positions of power either.

You avoided my question with a redherring however; where did those investors get their money? The buck does stop somewhere, and it is usually in the hands of the producing people in this case. Financial speculation does not actually create new goods outside of its own rigged gambling system.

Quote

If a person has two alternatives A and B, both of which suck, and he chooses the one he thinks sucks less, he is not being forced. Force can only come from an external factor, otherwise we would define our bodies' need for sustenance a great evil as it "forces" us to work for a living.
If a person sells his farm to a larger land owner who he cannot compete against, he does so voluntarily even if he hates the outcome. He is not forced to sell, he is simply falling behind the curve and it sucks for him, however, everyone else benefits from the lower cost agricultural products.

One word: foreclosure. Forcible evictions at gunpoint by the sheriff aren't some kind of foreign reality to many of the Oakies from the dust bowl. Yet you want to tell me "starve or work" is an option? "Be homeless or migrate with the rest of millions of other workers to the city where you can eek out a minimal living?"

Quote

It seems to me that anarcho-syndicalists view their bosses as having superior rights, which is, at least theoretically and on a general level, false. Both individuals are governed by the same laws and it is not a slave/master relationship but a mutually voluntary contractual relationship. Instead of cursing at your bosses, why don't you just quit? Work elsewhere or start your own business.

What? Where did you even get the notion that there are bosses in an anarcho-syndicalist society? The latter part is entirely accurate, and common practice in industrial unionism.

Quote

Nah, Gates isn't even the richest person alive, Carlos Slim Helu is and his estimated net worth is only $73 billion, much less than the estimated $340 billion (in today's dollars) of Rockefeller before he donated much of it away in his later years.

The more you know, interesting.

Quote

Actually, Friedman's monetarist ideas were largely ignored by policy makers in the US. His primary work was within monetary theory and none of it was ever implemented by the Federal Reserve. They favoured the Keynesian approach which is largely responsible for the mess modern economies are in. I'm in favour of an Austrian (Mises) approach to monetary theory, not monetarist (Friedman), however, Friedman is not to blame for poor policy decisions in any major economies of the world simply because nobody listened to him.

Pinochet did likely pick up an idea or two from Friedman when dictating his economic policies for Chile, however, they were actually a great success. When his military junta took over, Chile's economy had been ruined by a socialist government. The state was insolvent, the Chilean peso was going through hyper inflation and the population was among the poorest in South America. Despite Pinochet's tyrannical rule, only 20 years later Chile had become the #1 wealthiest nation in South America with the highest average living standards and Chileans can thank Pinochet's free market reforms for that.

He didn't "pick an idea or two" - he had students from Chicago come down to his country to rearrange the economic approach the state was taking. "...they were actually a great success," depends entirely on your perspective. If you're part of the majority of the population who lost what little wealth they did have due to them, you probably feel different. If you were assassinated for trying to fight those policies, likewise probably not a sunny disposition.

http://en.mercopress...34-oecd-members

"At 56.1% of adults employed, Chile has the third lowest employment rate in the OECD after Turkey and Hungary, and much lower than the group’s average of 66.1%."

"ncome inequality in Chile is the highest in the OECD (with a Gini coefficient of 0.50), much higher than the OECD average of 0.31. At 18.9%, Chile also has the third highest relative poverty rate in the OECD after Mexico and Israel and well above the OECD average of 11.1%."

Great success indeed.

Quote

They are not slaves, they are poor farmers who found a new alternative in industry and they gladly take it. If you think you could waltz into a sweat shop, shut it down and expect cheers from the workers, you're deluded. They'd tear you apart for taking away the one option besides sustenance farming they had.

Wage slave was the term I used, which is very different from chattel slavery. "Poor farmers who found" means "persons who were forced out of their industry and desperately cling to life by now doing the only option available via ____."

Now you're presenting a strawman argument in regards to unionizing factory workers? I don't think Coca-Cola assassinates organizers because they're ineffective. If they had an accurate understanding of the reason their other option was taken away from them, they'd probably organize like the Zapatistas do against "Free Trade" agreements (free trade being an oxymoron at that - doublespeak plus one).

Edited by Lee Ving, 07 May 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[Lee Ving]

Khanahar, on 06 May 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Wow. So much off-topicness. We get it guys, you all understand macroeconomics and the other guys are ideological morons.

On topic: Clan players should be rewarded with Honor points (or some similar name) to simulate how renown as a warrior can get you things. This would also allow for a soft rewarding of Zell.

Carry on with political discussion.

The Freebirth seeks to criticize the origins of our equitable distribution of economic "wealth" and you do not feel the blessed vision of Kerensky alongside its origins in practice to be important? Much less to care for the Terran customs driving it, which we so honorably must re-conquer?

I smells a fedcom rat.

Miragezero, on 06 May 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Yeah... you guys are being pretty tame but the new rule is you have to work clans somewhere logically into your arguments . ;-p

They're in there, deeply embedded, like my recon unit in your lance command.

[VerusZetec]

DifferentFish, on 03 May 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

That is arguably the most ridiculous fictional thread I've ever seen.

FTFY

[Leiska]

Lee Ving, on 06 May 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

It wasn't primarily conquered by arms, it was gradually eroded in the interests of those with a monopoly of violence in a given area (which is the definition of what a state is, at its most basic).

Well, I should have been more clear but I meant with force in general even if violence isn't directly applied. We are in agreement here.

Quote

You think the ones who did the theft in the first place and have years of Divine-Right doctrine, or capitalist "through your own hard effort" propaganda cemented in their consciousness are simply going to return to a non-coercive interaction with their works? I'd love it if they did. They sort of did in Spain, until a couple of years passed and that was given up.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Quote

So then how do those individual actors defend their enterprises? If wealth is one and the same as those in power, is it not an arbitrary distinction to say that "money seeks to influence" when that money is the same actor who holds influence?

Seeking to eliminate the state which puts restrictions on non-state enterprise actors so that those actors will act in anything other than their own self interests is paramount to a return to feudalism, except we're now talking multinational corporations instead of feudal fiefdoms.

Individual actors can defend their enterprises either through personal defensive force (armed guard) or by governmental law enforcement. An anarcho-capitalist would tell you private law can not only exist, but is preferable to centralized government law, however, I haven't read enough Rothbard to have come to that conclusion as of yet. What government can enforce has to be properly defined in the constitution and the people need to be prepared to protect the constitution, even with armed uprising if necessary. As Jefferson put it: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." If this fails, they will temporarily succumb to an era of tyranny.

Quote

Silk stockings won't keep you from starving. They do not forgive the imbalance of resources or the terrible sacrifices made by those in the lowest positions of power either.

Irrelevant. If the shop girl can afford silk stockings, she can also afford to eat and quite expensively at that, and the shop girl is in the lowest position of power.

Quote

You avoided my question with a redherring however; where did those investors get their money? The buck does stop somewhere, and it is usually in the hands of the producing people in this case. Financial speculation does not actually create new goods outside of its own rigged gambling system.

How should I know? Most likely they or their parents worked, saved and invested in a business of their own or someone else's business. Have you never held a job?

Quote

One word: foreclosure. Forcible evictions at gunpoint by the sheriff aren't some kind of foreign reality to many of the Oakies from the dust bowl. Yet you want to tell me "starve or work" is an option? "Be homeless or migrate with the rest of millions of other workers to the city where you can eek out a minimal living?"

Just because life sometimes sucks, it doesn't mean you can suspend laws of economics. It just isn't possible. If you're being foreclosed upon, it means you've messed up/life kicked you in the nuts and you've gone insolvent. Remember: If you're in debt, you don't actually own your property, the creditor does. If you go bankrupt, the control of the property is then transferred to its rightful owner. Otherwise it would be a simple matter to steal significant assets by taking a loan, buying something and then just declaring bankruptcy. Actually, nobody would grant a loan if he law said that.

Quote

What? Where did you even get the notion that there are bosses in an anarcho-syndicalist society? The latter part is entirely accurate, and common practice in industrial unionism.

I was referring to the current world. There very much are bosses (both management and owners) now and from what I've read, anarchists carry a grudge against them even though they themselves agreed to work under them and refuse to quit. It boggles the mind.

Quote

He didn't "pick an idea or two" - he had students from Chicago come down to his country to rearrange the economic approach the state was taking. "...they were actually a great success," depends entirely on your perspective. If you're part of the majority of the population who lost what little wealth they did have due to them, you probably feel different. If you were assassinated for trying to fight those policies, likewise probably not a sunny disposition.

This is actually not true. Friedman and his group never actually met the country's leaders, they simply had a series of seminars at a university.

Quote

http://en.mercopress...34-oecd-members

"At 56.1% of adults employed, Chile has the third lowest employment rate in the OECD after Turkey and Hungary, and much lower than the group’s average of 66.1%."

"ncome inequality in Chile is the highest in the OECD (with a Gini coefficient of 0.50), much higher than the OECD average of 0.31. At 18.9%, Chile also has the third highest relative poverty rate in the OECD after Mexico and Israel and well above the OECD average of 11.1%."

Great success indeed.

The OECD consists of 34 countries, most of which are highly developed Western economies. Of course Chile is not going to compare amazingly well. Also, income inequality and relative poverty are not problems, absolute poverty is. You're probably not that poorly off if you only own two luxury yachts even though your neighbours all have seven. Chasing income equality will surely lead to greater income equality, but it will also make the poorest even poorer. This is why low economic freedom heavily correlates with low average living standards.

Chile GDP/capita vs Latin America average (notice how Pinochet's economic reforms in 1975 mark the turning point): http://en.wikipedia....ta_LA-Chile.png

Chile Human Development Index: http://hdrstats.undp...ofiles/CHL.html

Chile easily beats its neighbours. Sure, rapid changes like those implemented by Pinochet are going to leave a lot of people in trouble. Humans just can't adapt instantly, so I don't think it was the correct way to go about things (not to mention the brutal ways he silenced political dissidents in), however, the Chilean economy was in a death spiral and who knows how bad it would have gotten if Allende was allowed to continue his destructive policies any further.

Quote

Wage slave was the term I used, which is very different from chattel slavery. "Poor farmers who found" means "persons who were forced out of their industry and desperately cling to life by now doing the only option available via."

Now you're presenting a strawman argument in regards to unionizing factory workers? I don't think Coca-Cola assassinates organizers because they're ineffective. If they had an accurate understanding of the reason their other option was taken away from them, they'd probably organize like the Zapatistas do against "Free Trade" agreements (free trade being an oxymoron at that - doublespeak plus one).

You're still not presenting any solutions, only complaining about how bad some people according to your perspective have. Chinese factory workers earn more at the factory than at the family farm to which they could return at any time if they wished to. So, what are you going to do? Steal someone else's property and give to them so they can buy an education and get a nice office job? Perhaps you'll donate some of your own income? This is the question socialists can never seem to answer.

I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about in the second paragraph.

Edited by Leiska, 06 May 2013 - 03:39 PM.

[Daneel Hazen]

/glances at moderation tools

/thinks about freedom

/glances at moderation tools

/thinks about how Khan Pryde would handle this

/drinks beer