Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Market Socialism

Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2017 11:57:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
As defined by wikipedia, Market socialism is "a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy."

I personally prefer a cooperative ownership of the means of production, as probably anyone who has debated me on capitalism, cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or capitalist businesses know.

So my question is:
What would you capitalist-supporters have against a market economy that has cooperative ownership of the means of production?

I just don't understand why so many of you oppose it, when in many ways, it would be better than what we currently have. If you want support for that statement, just go look at any of my debates about capitalism where I brought up worker cooperatives and cooperatives in general.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 2:56:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/4/2017 11:57:46 PM, Capitalistslave wrote:
As defined by wikipedia, Market socialism is "a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy."

I personally prefer a cooperative ownership of the means of production, as probably anyone who has debated me on capitalism, cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or capitalist businesses know.

So my question is:
What would you capitalist-supporters have against a market economy that has cooperative ownership of the means of production?

I just don't understand why so many of you oppose it, when in many ways, it would be better than what we currently have. If you want support for that statement, just go look at any of my debates about capitalism where I brought up worker cooperatives and cooperatives in general.

If this happens as a result of voluntary association I would have no possible objection. I don't see how anyone could. That also means that top down business structures must be free to exist.
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 9:01:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 2:56:43 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

If this happens as a result of voluntary association I would have no possible objection. I don't see how anyone could. That also means that top down business structures must be free to exist.

I'm not sure that top-down business structures should be allowed to exist given how much worse they are in comparison to worker coops in a number of ways, and that they seem to limit liberty. Liberty should be the most upheld virtue, and the government should protect our liberties.

Sure, perhaps allowing top-down business structures gives the business owner liberty, but at the cost of their employees' liberty. More people's liberty are at stake when allowing traditional business models than who you're promoting. The government has a duty to protect the liberty of the most people possible.
reece
Posts: 427
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 10:26:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 9:01:32 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/5/2017 2:56:43 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

If this happens as a result of voluntary association I would have no possible objection. I don't see how anyone could. That also means that top down business structures must be free to exist.

I'm not sure that top-down business structures should be allowed to exist given how much worse they are in comparison to worker coops in a number of ways, and that they seem to limit liberty. Liberty should be the most upheld virtue, and the government should protect our liberties.

Sure, perhaps allowing top-down business structures gives the business owner liberty, but at the cost of their employees' liberty. More people's liberty are at stake when allowing traditional business models than who you're promoting. The government has a duty to protect the liberty of the most people possible.

It doesn't help when top-down businesses own the government.
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 10:36:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 10:26:10 AM, reece wrote:

It doesn't help when top-down businesses own the government.

And that's part of the problem. I think that's why most people are kept ignorant of alternatives to the capitalist business model: our capitalist overlords don't want us to turn to something else. 89% of people don't even know what cooperatives are, for example, but 78% of people who do know, prefer them to traditional businesses.
http://www.geo.coop...

Imagine what would happen if everyone knew about coops. They would boom so much in the economy that they would likely become the majority.
reece
Posts: 427
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 10:46:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 10:36:50 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/5/2017 10:26:10 AM, reece wrote:

It doesn't help when top-down businesses own the government.

And that's part of the problem. I think that's why most people are kept ignorant of alternatives to the capitalist business model: our capitalist overlords don't want us to turn to something else. 89% of people don't even know what cooperatives are, for example, but 78% of people who do know, prefer them to traditional businesses.
http://www.geo.coop...

Imagine what would happen if everyone knew about coops. They would boom so much in the economy that they would likely become the majority.

Not before the puppets and their masters crack down.
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 1:19:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/4/2017 11:57:46 PM, Capitalistslave wrote:
As defined by wikipedia, Market socialism is "a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy."

I personally prefer a cooperative ownership of the means of production, as probably anyone who has debated me on capitalism, cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or capitalist businesses know.

So my question is:
What would you capitalist-supporters have against a market economy that has cooperative ownership of the means of production?

I just don't understand why so many of you oppose it, when in many ways, it would be better than what we currently have. If you want support for that statement, just go look at any of my debates about capitalism where I brought up worker cooperatives and cooperatives in general.

Co-operative ownership is already the predominant form of business in the U.S. and its economy is dependent on it.
reece
Posts: 427
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 2:14:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 1:19:45 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 4/4/2017 11:57:46 PM, Capitalistslave wrote:
As defined by wikipedia, Market socialism is "a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy."

I personally prefer a cooperative ownership of the means of production, as probably anyone who has debated me on capitalism, cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or capitalist businesses know.

So my question is:
What would you capitalist-supporters have against a market economy that has cooperative ownership of the means of production?

I just don't understand why so many of you oppose it, when in many ways, it would be better than what we currently have. If you want support for that statement, just go look at any of my debates about capitalism where I brought up worker cooperatives and cooperatives in general.

Co-operative ownership is already the predominant form of business in the U.S. and its economy is dependent on it.

Are you sure you're not talking about the cooperative oligarchy?
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 3:17:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 2:14:20 PM, reece wrote:
At 4/5/2017 1:19:45 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 4/4/2017 11:57:46 PM, Capitalistslave wrote:
As defined by wikipedia, Market socialism is "a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy."

I personally prefer a cooperative ownership of the means of production, as probably anyone who has debated me on capitalism, cooperatives, worker cooperatives, or capitalist businesses know.

So my question is:
What would you capitalist-supporters have against a market economy that has cooperative ownership of the means of production?

I just don't understand why so many of you oppose it, when in many ways, it would be better than what we currently have. If you want support for that statement, just go look at any of my debates about capitalism where I brought up worker cooperatives and cooperatives in general.

Co-operative ownership is already the predominant form of business in the U.S. and its economy is dependent on it.

Are you sure you're not talking about the cooperative oligarchy?

No I'm writing about shareholders. Your workers in a co-op are shareholders just as shareholders in big business. Both control the means of production, expansion and a boardroom that decides on the management structure and aims of the company. There is very little difference between them.
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2017 8:29:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 1:19:45 PM, GrimlyF wrote:

Co-operative ownership is already the predominant form of business in the U.S. and its economy is dependent on it.

I'm not sure what you mean, but what I mean is that each business would be considered a cooperative. Right now, less than 1% of businesses in the US are actually coops.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2017 12:29:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/5/2017 9:01:32 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/5/2017 2:56:43 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

If this happens as a result of voluntary association I would have no possible objection. I don't see how anyone could. That also means that top down business structures must be free to exist.

I'm not sure that top-down business structures should be allowed to exist given how much worse they are in comparison to worker coops in a number of ways, and that they seem to limit liberty. Liberty should be the most upheld virtue, and the government should protect our liberties.

Sure, perhaps allowing top-down business structures gives the business owner liberty, but at the cost of their employees' liberty. More people's liberty are at stake when allowing traditional business models than who you're promoting. The government has a duty to protect the liberty of the most people possible.

It is not at the cost of the employees' liberty. It is a voluntary exchange of labor. Anyone can start a business themselves or start a business with a group of people (coop). They don't because not everyone wants to take the risk, or to run a business, which can be a ton of work. And the government makes it really difficult to do so.

"The government has a duty to protect the liberty of the most people possible."

First I'd have to accept that 'the government' has any legitimate authority at all. Then I'd have to agree on what 'liberty of the most people' actually means. Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.
You cannot claim that the relationship between employer and employee is by force, and so to limit that association would be a violation of liberty for the individuals involved. There is no 'greater good' to which you can violate this principle. There is only the defense of injustice, and the only injustice is the use of force or fraud.
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2017 1:47:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/10/2017 12:29:24 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

It is not at the cost of the employees' liberty. It is a voluntary exchange of labor. Anyone can start a business themselves or start a business with a group of people (coop). They don't because not everyone wants to take the risk, or to run a business, which can be a ton of work. And the government makes it really difficult to do so.
You keep calling it a voluntary exchange of labor, but you don't recognize that most people have no choice but to work under someone. You need capital to start a business, and most people don't have that. So, because of that, most people are forced to work under someone in order to live. Most people don't know coops exist, so those are not an option for most people since you need to know about something in order for it to be an option. For example, I currently work for a traditional company(though it is a non-profit so that helps a bit), but I would definitely work for a coop if there was one near me, but there aren't any near me. I had no choice, in order to get the things I need and want, but to work under someone. How is that voluntary?

First I'd have to accept that 'the government' has any legitimate authority at all. Then I'd have to agree on what 'liberty of the most people' actually means. Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.
In reality, it's not possible to promote everyone's liberty. Some people want to have the liberty to kill people, but we shouldn't give them that liberty. Some people, such as capitalists, want the liberty to exploit people, but that doesn't mean we should give them that liberty either.

And the government has legitimate authority when the people in the society consent to the government. That is what gives government legitimate authority. What I wonder is, why do you consider business owners legitimate authority, when we don't get to vote for them, but you don't consider government legitimate authority, when we do vote for them. That doesn't make sense. That's like arguing monarchy is a more legitimate form of government than a democracy.
You cannot claim that the relationship between employer and employee is by force, and so to limit that association would be a violation of liberty for the individuals involved. There is no 'greater good' to which you can violate this principle. There is only the defense of injustice, and the only injustice is the use of force or fraud.
It is by force. I'm personally forced to work under someone currently because there are no coops in my vicinity, and I don't have the money to go move somewhere where there are coops. If I want to live comfortably, I have to work under someone. I have no choice. Why would I choose to work under someone when I could have say over a business myself through a cooperative? Why would I work under someone when coops pay their workers much more than traditional businesses? It's only because I'm forced to.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 1:54:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/10/2017 1:47:33 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/10/2017 12:29:24 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

It is not at the cost of the employees' liberty. It is a voluntary exchange of labor. Anyone can start a business themselves or start a business with a group of people (coop). They don't because not everyone wants to take the risk, or to run a business, which can be a ton of work. And the government makes it really difficult to do so.
You keep calling it a voluntary exchange of labor, but you don't recognize that most people have no choice but to work under someone. You need capital to start a business, and most people don't have that. So, because of that, most people are forced to work under someone in order to live. Most people don't know coops exist, so those are not an option for most people since you need to know about something in order for it to be an option. For example, I currently work for a traditional company(though it is a non-profit so that helps a bit), but I would definitely work for a coop if there was one near me, but there aren't any near me. I had no choice, in order to get the things I need and want, but to work under someone. How is that voluntary?


Why can't you start a co-op? This is the first question you need to answer in order to realize what I am talking about. You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation.

First I'd have to accept that 'the government' has any legitimate authority at all. Then I'd have to agree on what 'liberty of the most people' actually means. Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.
In reality, it's not possible to promote everyone's liberty. Some people want to have the liberty to kill people, but we shouldn't give them that liberty. Some people, such as capitalists, want the liberty to exploit people, but that doesn't mean we should give them that liberty either.


Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.
Again it is not exploitation if everyone has equal protection under the law. This is not the case. For instance, and this is just one of many, the fractional reserve banking system uses fraud to steal trillions from the economy. See, if you are able to keep the products of your labor instead of having them stolen from you by this broken and corrupt system, you'd have the capital to start your co-op.

And the government has legitimate authority when the people in the society consent to the government. That is what gives government legitimate authority. What I wonder is, why do you consider business owners legitimate authority, when we don't get to vote for them, but you don't consider government legitimate authority, when we do vote for them. That doesn't make sense. That's like arguing monarchy is a more legitimate form of government than a democracy.


Vote for who? Do you mean the candidates chosen by the two opposing and equally ridiculous and ignorant parties? It does not work the way you have been brainwashed to believe it does. Democracy as you understand it is an illusion. The only true democracy and the literal translation of the word is "rule by the people".

You cannot claim that the relationship between employer and employee is by force, and so to limit that association would be a violation of liberty for the individuals involved. There is no 'greater good' to which you can violate this principle. There is only the defense of injustice, and the only injustice is the use of force or fraud.
It is by force. I'm personally forced to work under someone currently because there are no coops in my vicinity, and I don't have the money to go move somewhere where there are coops. If I want to live comfortably, I have to work under someone. I have no choice. Why would I choose to work under someone when I could have say over a business myself through a cooperative? Why would I work under someone when coops pay their workers much more than traditional businesses? It's only because I'm forced to.

Start that co-op.. you'll see. You can do it, it's just not going to be easy.
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 3:08:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2017 1:54:47 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 4/10/2017 1:47:33 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:

Since you asked the same thing a couple times, I'll put them at the top and address it:
Why can't you start a co-op? This is the first question you need to answer in order to realize what I am talking about. You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation.
Start that co-op.. you'll see. You can do it, it's just not going to be easy.
To start a business, it requires capital. Right now, I have about $1500 in savings(and it only grows by about $200 a month), that's not going to be enough to start a co-op by itself. According to this[1] the average starting costs of a business is $30,000, and even the smallest of businesses need $3000 to start. I know co-ops would be started by having every worker pitch into the co-op's starting costs, however, everyone I know has much less money to their name than I do and almost all of them are unemployed. So, it's not really an option for me to start a co-op for this reason. I'm pretty sure all of my friends have less money to their name than I do, but I suppose I could ask them if they would be interested in starting a co-op and pitching some money in for it, but that's assuming that I can get at least another $1500 from them altogether. I'm pretty sure two of my friends only have a few hundred dollars to their name each, and my girlfriend I'm not sure how much she has now(mainly because she has been spending more recently), I'll have to ask.

Also, I'd like to point out that all of my friends and I have different goals in life. I want to become a psychiatrist and at some point start a psychiatric firm that is a worker coop, however, my two friends: one wants to become a writer and one wants to become a math professor. If we were to start a co-op, it would be very short-lived because we would move onto other things in several years.

And actually, I'm pretty sure the cost for starting the business would be higher wouldn't it? We would need property to put the business on right? I'm pretty sure that's expensive and would easily be more than $3000 by itself. Or I suppose we could have purely an online business I guess.

If you can think of a way that I can possibly start a co-op, by all means do so, but I'm pretty sure I'm forced to work under someone if I want to earn things.
Source:
[1] https://www.sba.gov...

Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.
Again it is not exploitation if everyone has equal protection under the law. This is not the case. For instance, and this is just one of many, the fractional reserve banking system uses fraud to steal trillions from the economy. See, if you are able to keep the products of your labor instead of having them stolen from you by this broken and corrupt system, you'd have the capital to start your co-op.
I doubt that would happen. Once more, look at the 1800s. The federal reserve didn't exist, nor did any central bank for a good portion of the 1800s. Business regulations didn't exist, the minimum wage didn't, etc. For all intents and purposes it was laissez-faire capitalism. Every worker was paid crap back then and put through terrible hours, terrible working conditions, and could barely afford the necessities in life etc. What would stop the capitalists from doing all of that all over again if the government stayed out of the economy and there was no federal reserve? I'd probably be paid a dollar an hour(or less) if not for the minimum wage I have here in California of 10.50.

Vote for who? Do you mean the candidates chosen by the two opposing and equally ridiculous and ignorant parties? It does not work the way you have been brainwashed to believe it does. Democracy as you understand it is an illusion. The only true democracy and the literal translation of the word is "rule by the people".
This is sort of irrelevant. Yes, our system is not so democratic right now, but what I'm saying is if we did have a democratic government, would you consider that a legitimate use of authority? And if so, why is capitalism a legitimate use of authority when we did not consent to who the business owners are?
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2017 3:20:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/10/2017 12:29:24 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
It is not at the cost of the employees' liberty. It is a voluntary exchange of labor. Anyone can start a business themselves or start a business with a group of people (coop). They don't because not everyone wants to take the risk, or to run a business, which can be a ton of work. And the government makes it really difficult to do so.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. :)
You're assuming that everyone is as ambitious and capable -both physically and mentally as you and that they have the resources - both financial and social - to migrate.
You note that not everyone wants to take the risk of starting a business and that the government makes it difficult (with those pesky regulations that prevent your restaurant from cooking with water from the ditch out back to save on your water bill) so you do understand that most people can't start and run a business, thereby you must admit that most people are forced to accept whatever payment an employer decides is most beneficial to his organization.

"The government has a duty to protect the liberty of the most people possible."

First I'd have to accept that 'the government' has any legitimate authority at all.

We the People give the government it's authority so I think you must, as a citizen, accept it as a legitimate authority or move somewhere with a more compatible system.

Then I'd have to agree on what 'liberty of the most people' actually means. Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.

Please do define what 'liberty of the most people' actually means.

You cannot claim that the relationship between employer and employee is by force, and so to limit that association would be a violation of liberty for the individuals involved.

I can and do make that claim and explained it. Now what?

There is no 'greater good' to which you can violate this principle. There is only the defense of injustice, and the only injustice is the use of force or fraud.

So we can't isolate someone with a deadly contagious disease? To do so would violate their liberty for the greater good.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 1:56:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2017 3:20:05 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/10/2017 12:29:24 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
It is not at the cost of the employees' liberty. It is a voluntary exchange of labor. Anyone can start a business themselves or start a business with a group of people (coop). They don't because not everyone wants to take the risk, or to run a business, which can be a ton of work. And the government makes it really difficult to do so.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. :)
You're assuming that everyone is as ambitious and capable -both physically and mentally as you and that they have the resources - both financial and social - to migrate.
You note that not everyone wants to take the risk of starting a business and that the government makes it difficult (with those pesky regulations that prevent your restaurant from cooking with water from the ditch out back to save on your water bill) so you do understand that most people can't start and run a business, thereby you must admit that most people are forced to accept whatever payment an employer decides is most beneficial to his organization.


If you don't find food and water sources and tend to your mortal form, you will die.
Society doesn't exist to break the laws of physics and conjure these things into existence.
We are not all here to serve you. We band together to trade our skills and share our labor so that we may more efficiently facilitate our survival as flesh and blood creatures. I own you nothing, society owes you nothing.
Those 'pesky regulations' I'm talking about have nothing to do with a restaurant cooking with ditch water (a surely successful business model). It has to do with the fact that insurance and pharmaceutical companies now control the entire healthcare market. Or that our economy is being sucked dry by a banking system regulated into existence. These 'regulations' have been written by lobbyist to enslave the consumer and keep competition from arising. If you think I am speaking some lame uneducated right wing banter you have the wrong guy.

"The government has a duty to protect the liberty of the most people possible."

First I'd have to accept that 'the government' has any legitimate authority at all.

We the People give the government it's authority so I think you must, as a citizen, accept it as a legitimate authority or move somewhere with a more compatible system.


'We the people' blah, blah, blah was written by a small group a slave owners to further advance their own personal interests. No citizen had signed a contract agreeing to this authority and if they had they are all dead. Who are you to give me some false choice of "accept it as a legitimate authority or move somewhere with a more compatible system"? What a ridiculous statement.

Then I'd have to agree on what 'liberty of the most people' actually means. Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.

Please do define what 'liberty of the most people' actually means.


I have no idea and neither do you, that was my point

You cannot claim that the relationship between employer and employee is by force, and so to limit that association would be a violation of liberty for the individuals involved.

I can and do make that claim and explained it. Now what?


You can claim you're an Chinese jet pilot, but you're not, just as you are not forced into working for someone. Go and get an education and skills and work to create your own business instead. Or go live off the land in some remote area. It doesn't matter you have a choice outside of what the law prohibits you from. The law and those 'pesky' regulations maybe forcing you to work 40 hours a week just to barely get by and pay your overlords, but that is not the fault of the business owner. They are merely offering you a better way of life than you would otherwise have within this broken system.

There is no 'greater good' to which you can violate this principle. There is only the defense of injustice, and the only injustice is the use of force or fraud.

So we can't isolate someone with a deadly contagious disease? To do so would violate their liberty for the greater good.

You'd be defending the lives of anyone being exposed to them, and possibly the whole species so obviously yes.
The person with the disease would be knowingly endangering anyone they would come in contact with, making them a direct violator of another's life and liberty.
I'm not sure why this has to be spelled out all the time, and it's always someone with this undeserved condescending tone..
This is not the 'liberty' to kill everyone around you, I shouldn't have to explain that. It is the liberty to act on your own free will without impeding on another's right to do the same.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 3:06:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/11/2017 3:08:26 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/11/2017 1:54:47 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 4/10/2017 1:47:33 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:

Since you asked the same thing a couple times, I'll put them at the top and address it:
Why can't you start a co-op? This is the first question you need to answer in order to realize what I am talking about. You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation.
Start that co-op.. you'll see. You can do it, it's just not going to be easy.
To start a business, it requires capital. Right now, I have about $1500 in savings(and it only grows by about $200 a month), that's not going to be enough to start a co-op by itself. According to this[1] the average starting costs of a business is $30,000, and even the smallest of businesses need $3000 to start. I know co-ops would be started by having every worker pitch into the co-op's starting costs, however, everyone I know has much less money to their name than I do and almost all of them are unemployed. So, it's not really an option for me to start a co-op for this reason. I'm pretty sure all of my friends have less money to their name than I do, but I suppose I could ask them if they would be interested in starting a co-op and pitching some money in for it, but that's assuming that I can get at least another $1500 from them altogether. I'm pretty sure two of my friends only have a few hundred dollars to their name each, and my girlfriend I'm not sure how much she has now(mainly because she has been spending more recently), I'll have to ask.

Also, I'd like to point out that all of my friends and I have different goals in life. I want to become a psychiatrist and at some point start a psychiatric firm that is a worker coop, however, my two friends: one wants to become a writer and one wants to become a math professor. If we were to start a co-op, it would be very short-lived because we would move onto other things in several years.


It sounds like a coop isn't really something that would benefit you. I mean medical offices join together pretty often. But you could just pay your employees a larger share of the office's profits. Essentially if you want people to get paid more equally and share ownership, you can share ownership and the profits of your business with your employees.

And actually, I'm pretty sure the cost for starting the business would be higher wouldn't it? We would need property to put the business on right? I'm pretty sure that's expensive and would easily be more than $3000 by itself. Or I suppose we could have purely an online business I guess.


Starting a doctor's office.. No idea, probably not cheap..
I did start a painting business when I was younger and used the first check to by ladders and brushes. A friend of mine started a landscaping company with a push mower and no money to speak of, and ended up with dump trucks, trailers, a bobcat and lots of equipment -and customers.
You could start something online, you can create whatever you can think of.

If you can think of a way that I can possibly start a co-op, by all means do so, but I'm pretty sure I'm forced to work under someone if I want to earn things.
Source:
[1] https://www.sba.gov...


Yeah, if you want to have a computer, yeah you probably need to labor for it in some way unfortunately. You are still not forced. If working for someone wasn't a possibility, what would your options be then?

Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.
Again it is not exploitation if everyone has equal protection under the law. This is not the case. For instance, and this is just one of many, the fractional reserve banking system uses fraud to steal trillions from the economy. See, if you are able to keep the products of your labor instead of having them stolen from you by this broken and corrupt system, you'd have the capital to start your co-op.
I doubt that would happen. Once more, look at the 1800s. The federal reserve didn't exist, nor did any central bank for a good portion of the 1800s. Business regulations didn't exist, the minimum wage didn't, etc. For all intents and purposes it was laissez-faire capitalism. Every worker was paid crap back then and put through terrible hours, terrible working conditions, and could barely afford the necessities in life etc. What would stop the capitalists from doing all of that all over again if the government stayed out of the economy and there was no federal reserve? I'd probably be paid a dollar an hour(or less) if not for the minimum wage I have here in California of 10.50.


In the 1800s there was slavery... why is this relevant? Because it is to give you some perspective on how other people were doing at the time.
No electricity, no bathrooms, agricultural jobs if you could find any, that were not any easier. Probably, because that job was being done by slaves!
Hordes of immigrants where fleeing their horribly oppressive native governments, starvation, disease.. to put it simply, the 1800s probably sucked in general.
The factories and the wages were terrible.. compared to what exactly?
Why then did people from all over come here to work in these horrible factories?

Vote for who? Do you mean the candidates chosen by the two opposing and equally ridiculous and ignorant parties? It does not work the way you have been brainwashed to believe it does. Democracy as you understand it is an illusion. The only true democracy and the literal translation of the word is "rule by the people".
This is sort of irrelevant. Yes, our system is not so democratic right now, but what I'm saying is if we did have a democratic government, would you consider that a legitimate use of authority? And if so, why is capitalism a legitimate use of authority when we did not consent to who the business owners are?

The only authority I see as legitimate is one that defends injustice. That which I define as the initiation of force. If we all can universally agree that we don't like being forced, we can all agree that the use of force against another is an injustice, if the word means anything.
This is a way to create law from a point of objectivity rather than by the subjectivity of a religion for example.
How can you have the right to 'not consent' to someone starting a business? So if someone wants to take it upon themselves to offer a good or service in exchange for something of equal value, we should stop them? Or they should be forced to share with us the product of their labor?
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 8:55:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 3:06:55 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

Starting a doctor's office.. No idea, probably not cheap..
Well, that's for the future. I could do other businesses beforehand.
I did start a painting business when I was younger and used the first check to by ladders and brushes. A friend of mine started a landscaping company with a push mower and no money to speak of, and ended up with dump trucks, trailers, a bobcat and lots of equipment -and customers.
Anyways, that's all great and all, but I wouldn't be able to start a cooperative unless other people were willing to join me. I have no idea whether I could get my friends to join me. If I started some other kind of business, it would be contrary to my beliefs: hence that I have no choice but to work under someone.
You could start something online, you can create whatever you can think of.
I don't have any skills or talents to speak of, other than I can drive a forklift now thanks to my current job. How exactly am I supposed to start a business with only the ability to drive a forklift? To start my own business, let's suppose I would be the only one in the business, because I most certainly wouldn't make other people work under me and I profit off of their work. So, if I'm the only one in the business, that means I need some sort of skill to provide people with some sort of service or item. As you can see, starting a business is not an option.

Yeah, if you want to have a computer, yeah you probably need to labor for it in some way unfortunately. You are still not forced. If working for someone wasn't a possibility, what would your options be then?
I don't know of any other options. Even if there are other options, I don't know them and that still means I am forced to work for someone if I want to earn money, because you need to know about other options in order to be able to make a choice. I don't get to make a choice about whether I work for someone in order to get things I need/want. I have to do it if I want to get things I need/want.

In the 1800s there was slavery... why is this relevant? Because it is to give you some perspective on how other people were doing at the time.
Okay, so that you can't pull that stupid trick again, let's talk about post 1864 1800s. There was no slavery during this time. There were still terrible wages, terrible working conditions, etc even after slavery was gone. It's completely irrelevant that you brought up slavery, don't try to pretend it was, by looking at when slavery ended, this shows this was an irrelevant point.
No electricity, no bathrooms, agricultural jobs if you could find any, that were not any easier. Probably, because that job was being done by slaves!
See above about post 1864 America in the 1800s.

Hordes of immigrants where fleeing their horribly oppressive native governments, starvation, disease.. to put it simply, the 1800s probably sucked in general.
The factories and the wages were terrible.. compared to what exactly?
Why then did people from all over come here to work in these horrible factories?
That doesn't make it any better that the conditions were horrible dude. You're justifying the fact that capitalists exploited people to work in terrible working conditions and terrible wages because the alternative was worse. That would be like if I said "You have no choice but to have either your head cut off by some folks over there, or your arm cut off by me". You obviously would choose to have your arm cut off since you could possibly survive that, whereas having your head cut off, you cant. and then I could say "you have no reason to complain because the alternative was worse". Hell no, I shouldn't even have made the alternative to having your head cut off that you should have your arm cut off! That is literally what you sound like when you try justifying Capitalists' exploiting people by pointing out that the alternative was worse. Capitalists shouldn't exploit, PERIOD. It doesn't matter that the alternative was worse. They should have offered higher wages, kept the work space safe, and not demanded such a long work day from their workers.

The only authority I see as legitimate is one that defends injustice
I'm pretty sure you meant justice, if not, you're fvcked up.

That which I define as the initiation of force. If we all can universally agree that we don't like being forced, we can all agree that the use of force against another is an injustice, if the word means anything.
That's not enough. You can and should use force if someone's rights are being violated. People should be Forced NOT to commit first degree murder. People should be forced NOT to exploit people or do anything that harms another person's rights.
This is a way to create law from a point of objectivity rather than by the subjectivity of a religion for example.
How can you have the right to 'not consent' to someone starting a business? So if someone wants to take it upon themselves to offer a good or service in exchange for something of equal value, we should stop them? Or they should be forced to share with us the product of their labor?
We should stop them from being able to exploit people. If their income comes from piggybacking off of the labor of other people, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. People have a right to have the product of their labor. A product of an employee's labor is the expansion of the business, for without the employees, the business wouldn't be able to grow much. You can't very well open up a new store without people who are willing to work at said store. Because of this, employees are entitled, through the right of having the product of one's own labor, to jointly own a business.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 3,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 6:11:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Business loans are for start-up capital. It's the way most people do it. You just have to put in the time to write a business plan to present so the bank knows they're going to get their money back at some point and at what time they can expect to get their money back. Basically, anyone is free to start their own business. It just takes work that most people would rather not do because they never studied business or how business works.
[Censored by Airmax]

Writing Queen of DDO

Check out the latest episode of Nautilus:
http://www.debate.org...

It's a great series... some say

If you want to see the trailer for my movie, go here:
http://www.debate.org...

"This is all just propaganda," Airmax

"Oops wrong account," UtherPenguin
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 8:49:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 6:11:55 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Business loans are for start-up capital. It's the way most people do it. You just have to put in the time to write a business plan to present so the bank knows they're going to get their money back at some point and at what time they can expect to get their money back. Basically, anyone is free to start their own business. It just takes work that most people would rather not do because they never studied business or how business works.

Banks tend not to loan to cooperatives... that's the other problem with our system. If a bank won't loan to my business just because I'm making it a coop, then obviously I still have no choice.

I have no idea why banks tend not to loan to coops though because, as you'll know if you've paid any attention to my debates on the matter or saw my forum post about it, coops survive at a greater rate than traditional businesses, so if anything, the bank is more likely to get their money back and not have to worry about the business failing.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 3,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 8:59:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 8:49:22 PM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/12/2017 6:11:55 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Business loans are for start-up capital. It's the way most people do it. You just have to put in the time to write a business plan to present so the bank knows they're going to get their money back at some point and at what time they can expect to get their money back. Basically, anyone is free to start their own business. It just takes work that most people would rather not do because they never studied business or how business works.

Banks tend not to loan to cooperatives... that's the other problem with our system. If a bank won't loan to my business just because I'm making it a coop, then obviously I still have no choice.

I have no idea why banks tend not to loan to coops though because, as you'll know if you've paid any attention to my debates on the matter or saw my forum post about it, coops survive at a greater rate than traditional businesses, so if anything, the bank is more likely to get their money back and not have to worry about the business failing.

Well, it's not really fair to compare coops and traditional businesses in the category of longetivity. As you've noted, hardly any coops exist, and I imagine whoever runs them has done plenty of research on how to run them. The same is not always true for traditional businesses. Someone may open a restaurant or a discount retail shop not knowing everything they need to know to run a business because they haven't done all the research necessary.

Most people who start a restaurant think that it's all about your food, and at the end of the day, their costs outweigh their sales, and they die. It happens with a ton of traditional businesses. I'd say the main reason for the difference is just that people who start a coop know more going in.

That's not to say coops are bad, but I can understand why certain banks would be skeptical. They only have business if they have cash, and if they're not confident they will get that back, they won't loan their money. So a loan officer that knows little about coops may be significantly more skeptical that they'll actually get their money back.

That's why I agree with you to a degree. I think education on coops is a good thing, because situations like that don't happen. I'm big on free enterprise, so I believe anyone should be able to start whatever kind of business they want, which includes coops.
[Censored by Airmax]

Writing Queen of DDO

Check out the latest episode of Nautilus:
http://www.debate.org...

It's a great series... some say

If you want to see the trailer for my movie, go here:
http://www.debate.org...

"This is all just propaganda," Airmax

"Oops wrong account," UtherPenguin
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 9:11:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 8:59:21 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:

Well, it's not really fair to compare coops and traditional businesses in the category of longetivity. As you've noted, hardly any coops exist, and I imagine whoever runs them has done plenty of research on how to run them. The same is not always true for traditional businesses. Someone may open a restaurant or a discount retail shop not knowing everything they need to know to run a business because they haven't done all the research necessary.
Well, that's one theory, but another possibility is that middle-class and poor people are more likely to know what sells well to middle class and poor people than a single wealthy individual, who is disconnected from poor and middle class people(the vast majority of people in our nation) which is who is usually in charge of a traditional business. Additionally, I think a single individual, or a few people, are more likely to make a poor business decision than many people.

We don't know whether it's because of what you said or what I said unless we actually did research into this. I haven't found anything as of yet to explain why cooperatives have more longevity than traditional businesses. But, of course, that might be only because I focused on the descriptive statistics rather than the inferential statistics of cooperatives.
Most people who start a restaurant think that it's all about your food, and at the end of the day, their costs outweigh their sales, and they die. It happens with a ton of traditional businesses. I'd say the main reason for the difference is just that people who start a coop know more going in.

That's not to say coops are bad, but I can understand why certain banks would be skeptical. They only have business if they have cash, and if they're not confident they will get that back, they won't loan their money. So a loan officer that knows little about coops may be significantly more skeptical that they'll actually get their money back.

That's why I agree with you to a degree. I think education on coops is a good thing, because situations like that don't happen. I'm big on free enterprise, so I believe anyone should be able to start whatever kind of business they want, which includes coops.
Yes, I suppose the banks may be ignorant of cooperatives themselves. However, you'd think they wouldn't be since they're in the business of loaning to companies so they should be familiar with every business model out there. But maybe they're not, which if that's the case, that makes them rather incompetent.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 3,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 10:58:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 9:11:22 PM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/12/2017 8:59:21 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:


Well, it's not really fair to compare coops and traditional businesses in the category of longetivity. As you've noted, hardly any coops exist, and I imagine whoever runs them has done plenty of research on how to run them. The same is not always true for traditional businesses. Someone may open a restaurant or a discount retail shop not knowing everything they need to know to run a business because they haven't done all the research necessary.
Well, that's one theory, but another possibility is that middle-class and poor people are more likely to know what sells well to middle class and poor people than a single wealthy individual, who is disconnected from poor and middle class people(the vast majority of people in our nation) which is who is usually in charge of a traditional business. Additionally, I think a single individual, or a few people, are more likely to make a poor business decision than many people.

We don't know whether it's because of what you said or what I said unless we actually did research into this. I haven't found anything as of yet to explain why cooperatives have more longevity than traditional businesses. But, of course, that might be only because I focused on the descriptive statistics rather than the inferential statistics of cooperatives.
Most people who start a restaurant think that it's all about your food, and at the end of the day, their costs outweigh their sales, and they die. It happens with a ton of traditional businesses. I'd say the main reason for the difference is just that people who start a coop know more going in.

That's not to say coops are bad, but I can understand why certain banks would be skeptical. They only have business if they have cash, and if they're not confident they will get that back, they won't loan their money. So a loan officer that knows little about coops may be significantly more skeptical that they'll actually get their money back.

That's why I agree with you to a degree. I think education on coops is a good thing, because situations like that don't happen. I'm big on free enterprise, so I believe anyone should be able to start whatever kind of business they want, which includes coops.
Yes, I suppose the banks may be ignorant of cooperatives themselves. However, you'd think they wouldn't be since they're in the business of loaning to companies so they should be familiar with every business model out there. But maybe they're not, which if that's the case, that makes them rather incompetent.

Well they may not know to know about them. There's already a lot of businesses. Just off the top of my head there's a sole proprietorship, LLC, partnership, limited partnership LLP, limited LLP, private corporation, public corporation. There are also some states that just don't accept coops as businesses. I know I looked at every business you could register in my state, and a coop wasn't one of them. That would be another hinderance.
[Censored by Airmax]

Writing Queen of DDO

Check out the latest episode of Nautilus:
http://www.debate.org...

It's a great series... some say

If you want to see the trailer for my movie, go here:
http://www.debate.org...

"This is all just propaganda," Airmax

"Oops wrong account," UtherPenguin
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2017 11:25:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 10:58:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:

Well they may not know to know about them. There's already a lot of businesses. Just off the top of my head there's a sole proprietorship, LLC, partnership, limited partnership LLP, limited LLP, private corporation, public corporation. There are also some states that just don't accept coops as businesses. I know I looked at every business you could register in my state, and a coop wasn't one of them. That would be another hinderance.

True, but I actually just did my taxes recently, and on the tax program I use, they ask if any income I got came from a cooperative, which I thought was interesting. So, anyone who does their taxes would have at least heard of the word.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 3,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2017 12:09:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 11:25:30 PM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/12/2017 10:58:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:

Well they may not know to know about them. There's already a lot of businesses. Just off the top of my head there's a sole proprietorship, LLC, partnership, limited partnership LLP, limited LLP, private corporation, public corporation. There are also some states that just don't accept coops as businesses. I know I looked at every business you could register in my state, and a coop wasn't one of them. That would be another hinderance.

True, but I actually just did my taxes recently, and on the tax program I use, they ask if any income I got came from a cooperative, which I thought was interesting. So, anyone who does their taxes would have at least heard of the word.

That's true. I guess we live in different states then lol.
[Censored by Airmax]

Writing Queen of DDO

Check out the latest episode of Nautilus:
http://www.debate.org...

It's a great series... some say

If you want to see the trailer for my movie, go here:
http://www.debate.org...

"This is all just propaganda," Airmax

"Oops wrong account," UtherPenguin
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2017 12:13:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2017 12:09:31 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:

That's true. I guess we live in different states then lol.

Well, this was for federal taxes. It doesn't matter what state you live in.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 3,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2017 12:19:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2017 12:13:38 AM, Capitalistslave wrote:
At 4/13/2017 12:09:31 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:

That's true. I guess we live in different states then lol.

Well, this was for federal taxes. It doesn't matter what state you live in.

Ah, makes sense then. Anyway, I'm out of stuff to say on the subject. Good talk.
[Censored by Airmax]

Writing Queen of DDO

Check out the latest episode of Nautilus:
http://www.debate.org...

It's a great series... some say

If you want to see the trailer for my movie, go here:
http://www.debate.org...

"This is all just propaganda," Airmax

"Oops wrong account," UtherPenguin
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2017 12:28:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 1:56:27 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 4/11/2017 3:20:05 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/10/2017 12:29:24 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
It is not at the cost of the employees' liberty. It is a voluntary exchange of labor. Anyone can start a business themselves or start a business with a group of people (coop). They don't because not everyone wants to take the risk, or to run a business, which can be a ton of work. And the government makes it really difficult to do so.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. :)
You're assuming that everyone is as ambitious and capable -both physically and mentally as you and that they have the resources - both financial and social - to migrate.
You note that not everyone wants to take the risk of starting a business and that the government makes it difficult (with those pesky regulations that prevent your restaurant from cooking with water from the ditch out back to save on your water bill) so you do understand that most people can't start and run a business, thereby you must admit that most people are forced to accept whatever payment an employer decides is most beneficial to his organization.


If you don't find food and water sources and tend to your mortal form, you will die.
Society doesn't exist to break the laws of physics and conjure these things into existence.

So you're going to simply ignore the very real and obvious issue that I described above? How very libertarian of you. Again, you can't just wave your magic libertarian wand and suddenly people with have the ability to migrate.

We are not all here to serve you.

Who is "we" in your comment? Business owners? Because if that is your "we" then again, your selfish libertarian attitude is preventing you from recognizing that laborers are not here to serve YOU.

We band together to trade our skills and share our labor so that we may more efficiently facilitate our survival as flesh and blood creatures.

That's all well and good until you stop trading your labor for mine and start giving me some other form of compensation; like money. At that point we are no longer "...together to trade our skills and share our labor..." At that point YOU start taking more of the fruits of my labor than you are paying for and holding that your position is worth more than my labor.

I own you nothing, society owes you nothing.

Yes, actually you and society, do. As a society we owe each other or it no longer functions and we end up with a revolution, as we have seen many times throughout history when the laborers finally rise up against the privileged takers.

Those 'pesky regulations' I'm talking about have nothing to do with a restaurant cooking with ditch water (a surely successful business model).

Oh, yes of course, here let me find an analogy that you can comprehend... How about, those pesky regulations that prevent you from polluting the Cuyahoga river to the point of it catching fire. Or maybe you prefer the regulation that says you shouldn't ignore problems with your deepwater oil rig which then turns into the worst oil spill in history... Regulations are created because something happened to require them; we don't just decide how thick the coating on electrical wires needs to be to keep someone from making money but rather to stop the electrical fires that kill people.

It has to do with the fact that insurance and pharmaceutical companies now control the entire healthcare market. Or that our economy is being sucked dry by a banking system regulated into existence. These 'regulations' have been written by lobbyist to enslave the consumer and keep competition from arising. If you think I am speaking some lame uneducated right wing banter you have the wrong guy.

Thank you for noting that without proper regulations, businesses will do unethical/immoral/dangerous things for short term profits.
If you think I am speaking some lame uneducated left wing banter you have the wrong guy.

"The government has a duty to protect the liberty of the most people possible."

First I'd have to accept that 'the government' has any legitimate authority at all.

We the People give the government it's authority so I think you must, as a citizen, accept it as a legitimate authority or move somewhere with a more compatible system.


'We the people' blah, blah, blah was written by a small group a slave owners to further advance their own personal interests.

Hmm... I'm beginning to doubt your education. There is a difference between the DOI and the Constitution. There is also considerable evidence that the formation of the Republic was not merely to advance the personal interests of a small group of wealthy land owners, some of which owned slaves at the time.

No citizen had signed a contract agreeing to this authority and if they had they are all dead.

Actually they fought a war to have their independence. My ancestors fought for it.

Who are you to give me some false choice of "accept it as a legitimate authority or move somewhere with a more compatible system"? What a ridiculous statement.

But not so ridiculous for you to tell someone to move someplace else for a better job?

Then I'd have to agree on what 'liberty of the most people' actually means. Or I could accept (as I do) that the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty for each and every individual equally.

Please do define what 'liberty of the most people' actually means.


I have no idea and neither do you, that was my point

Then it follows that you can't claim that "the only use of force that is legitimate, is in the defense of liberty" if you can't define what 'liberty of the most people' actually means.

You cannot claim that the relationship between employer and employee is by force, and so to limit that association would be a violation of liberty for the individuals involved.

I can and do make that claim and explained it. Now what?

You can claim you're an Chinese jet pilot, but you're not, just as you are not forced into working for someone.

I and CapitalistSlave have both described for you how force is used and, as par for the libertarian position, you simply ignore it and continue to make your fallacious claim. Perhaps you simply didn't read how that force happens. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Go and get an education and skills and work to create your own business instead. Or go live off the land in some remote area. It doesn't matter you have a choice outside of what the law prohibits you from.

Who are you to tell me to... oh wait, we already dealt with this.

Continued in next post...
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2017 12:48:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/12/2017 1:56:27 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 4/11/2017 3:20:05 AM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/10/2017 12:29:24 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

Continued from previous post:

The law and those 'pesky' regulations maybe forcing you to work 40 hours a week just to barely get by and pay your overlords, but that is not the fault of the business owner.

It's not? Who's fault is it? Oh, it's my fault that you need an employee to perform some labor that you can't or don't want to perform and so you hire whomever will do it cheapest? So what will you do if no one will do the job at the price you'd like to pay? Oh, you'll pay someone more or do it yourself? Do you see where I'm going here?

They are merely offering you a better way of life than you would otherwise have within this broken system.

I'm not sure how I feel about you sticking up for a system that you so readily claim is broken... But I do know how I feel about the ridiculous premise.

There is no 'greater good' to which you can violate this principle. There is only the defense of injustice, and the only injustice is the use of force or fraud.

So we can't isolate someone with a deadly contagious disease? To do so would violate their liberty for the greater good.

You'd be defending the lives of anyone being exposed to them, and possibly the whole species so obviously yes.
The person with the disease would be knowingly endangering anyone they would come in contact with, making them a direct violator of another's life and liberty.

And so you will then violate that persons liberty. Thank you for agreeing that your comment "There is no 'greater good' to which you can violate this principle." is nonsense.

I'm not sure why this has to be spelled out all the time, and it's always someone with this undeserved condescending tone..

Because your argument is fallacious and I think you know it but proffer it anyway to see if you can get away with it. Therefore, the condescending tone. In fact my tone is usually condescending when I discuss the libertarian position because libertarians deserve it for their selfish and self-serving position.

This is not the 'liberty' to kill everyone around you, I shouldn't have to explain that. It is the liberty to act on your own free will without impeding on another's right to do the same.

And yet, at every turn the libertarian does exactly that. You want the liberty to extract labor from others without regard to how that effects their liberty, so that you can enjoy more luxury/leisure.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
Capitalistslave
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2017 6:15:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
NOTE:

I will likely be voluntarily leaving ddo, possibly permanently. I'll have to think about it some more, but there's a chance you won't be seeing me around anymore. I'm for sure going to be taking a break from it for a while in order to pursue other things, such as possibly starting a youtube channel and focusing on my school work.

There are never enough people who vote on debates, this site seems to be very unpopular, and I don't know if I really want to continue being here. I'll give it some thought.

Just thought I'd post this here though, in case someone replies to something I said here and wonders why I don't reply back.