Entitlement
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and NOBODY believes that shit.
italy and germany had large nationally run industries, which were FAILING due to bureaucratic incompetence.
both italy and germany, as part of Benito's New Plan, transferred NOMINAL: ownership to tursted flunkies, who were then responsible for turning these operations around, under STATE CONTROL, with THE STATE pocketing most of the proceeds.
the nominal ownership was a mechanism to allow motivation through profits (phony crony capitalism) and through the threat of being declared disloyal, and facing a firing squad if you fail to do your job.
The State still controls the industry, even if you get to call it your own, to impress chicks at parties. and if you fail to deliver, The State will take it back, and give it to somebody else.
here in a capitalist society we dont call that ownership, we call it a FRANCHISE.
as long as you keep making payments and dont fuck it up, you can claim to own it, but if you fail to abide by the contract, the real owner comes and takes it back, then finds a new, more responsible Franchisee.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Citation required *
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Nazi privatization:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x/abstract
Italian fascist privatization:
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/12319
Academic historical research trumps your word salads.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x/abstract
Italian fascist privatization:
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/12319
Academic historical research trumps your word salads.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
No Particular Reason To Cite This Shit Again*
Just Read The Thread Where You Last Tried To Run This Same Drag*
If I Do Cite It, AGAIN, Youll Just Make The Same Failed Argument In Another Thread And Again Demand I Cite This Same Shit.*
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Repeating the same nonsense bullshit over and over is so helpful to your cause.
if you keep throwing out the same bullshit story, no matter how many times it is DEMONSTRATED to be based on Newspeak and flawed asumptions, eventually everybody will forget that youre a Zapatista, who are in fact Authoritarian Marxist Prohibitionists who resort to violence as soon as their lies fail.
Aren't you making the same argument I was inquiring about, only using a different term? I.e., now you use the word "capitalism" when pure caplitalism doesn't (and hasn't) existed? I.e., you're arguing to a principle which doesn't exist -- in the same way people use the term "socialsm" to evoke an emotion which probably isn't justified (when we consider how the evoker doesn't use it consistently, for example, in opposition to socialized markets they personally benefit from.).
During the 12 years of the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation, they had purer capitalism. For example, New Yorkers had Rhode Island and New Jersey in a very desireable condition. Wasn't good for residents of RI and NJ. Other states felt interstate commerce suffered under this looser affiliation. Instead of letting the market sort it out, they adopted the much larger government of 1789.
Are you saying they were wrong? That it was "poisonous to capitalism?" You'd like to go back to the good old days, where coastal states could control the importation of goods to interior states (via control of their ports, airspace and borders)?
I know you wouldn't because you've already explained how society benefits from stability, predictability. I'm just illustrating how terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" are selectively used. We live under a system of socialized capitalism. The founding generation made one of the largest steps toward it when they rejected the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation after just 12 years.
Today, words like "capitalism," and "socialism" are selectively used in the context of "the founders would spin in their graves if they could see..." The founders couldn't foresee their own needs just 12 years later. And, how those who selectively use those terms today, it seems as those many don't recognize their own needs.
So, the real estate market has been destroyed for decades because we socialized it through the use of coercive zoning laws and building codes? A majority dictating how you and I may enjoy and dispose of our own property?
I would only add that those socializations to markets were done because, at that time people saw the damage which was already beginning absent socialization. It seems like a comfortable arm-chair position to enjoy the benefit of socialized markets (i.e., zoning laws, building codes, border states who can't extort their neighbors), using the word "socialsim" and "entitlement" as a slur against anything that doesn't seem beneficial, while dismissing all the beneficial socializations to markets as just a fact of life because, well, too painful to go back.
To me, it still sounds like "socialism" boils down to whose ox is being gored. The word is selectively used as a pejorative. I can understand disagreeing with a use of society's power to affect commerce. But, using absolute terms like "socialsim" (as a slur) and "capitalism" (as a perfect goal) seems deceptive. It seems like a cheap way to claim a moral high road that doesn't exist considering how those terms are selectively deployed.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You mean the thread where you linked an article presented as "economic encyclopedia" written by republican Sheldon Richman?
By the way, I linked two academic historical research papers. I know you think education is a left wing conspiracy, that's why you're dumb.
Just a reminder, fascism is a form of capitalism, hence the privatization.
Let's define private ownership and profit.
If I sink my capital into the private ownership of a plot of land, and my profit will be my personal enjoyment of this investment, doesn't society's laws regulating how I use my land (zoning laws), how I build (building codes), etc., hasn't the State consumed my profits?
Would you say we should live by pure capitalism, eliminate zoning laws and building codes? That, to maximize profits, everyone should have to buy sufficient property to buffer their use (profit) of their property from the effects of their neighbor's use (profit) of their own private property? Everyone should have to partially demolish existing structures on land they purchase to ensure the previous owner built to a quality suitable to the new owner's standards?
Capitalism simply doesn't exist in the form your terms imply. We've lived under a system of "socialized capitalism" for over 200 years. All that's being debated is whether various forms of socialized markets are worth the intrusion. Some things (like building codes and zoning laws) are well accepted. Other things, not. That doesn't mean the other things are a violation of an absolute principle (capitalism), or an example of an oppsite principle (socialism). We live in a world where both are shades and degrees.
Isn't that what happens when people buy real estate with restrictions placed upon their use of that property by the State? Are you saying you'd support the abolishment of zoning laws so we could enjoy the pure benefits of capitalism? (Such as, my neighbor converting her home into a late-night biker bar?).
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Capitalism can not exist without a state to protect property.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Nope. The State, in order to preserve the smooth operation of society, limits your absolute liberty to do as you please, so your shit will not impinge on your neighbors.
if you buy a piece of land and want to build a factory, you are NOT allowed to dump your industrial wastes into the nearby stream, even if you own the land where the stream crosses your property.
if you buy a condo, you cant transform it into a 24 hour discotheque or a heroin flop, or an opium den, or a brothel, or a rape dungeon, or a sweatshop full of slaves, or a fireworks factory, or a rendering plant for deceased mafiosos, or a temple of Yog Shothoth.
That would reduce your neighbor's ability to NOT be sucked through The Gate Of Nightmares, into the domain of The Elder Gods who wait, deathlessly, dreaming in their undying sleep
this is the price you pay for living in a society. if you simply must truck with the Ancient Ones, you should do that in Bir Tawil, where such activities will not harm your neighbors.
that is reductio ad absurdum.
building codes are there to protect tenants, neigbors, customers and passers by from shoddy construction that falls down.
if you decide to live in the deep woods, you can build your shack as rickety as you desire. when it falls down it will not harm anyone but you.
there is no "absolute principle" of capitalism, save that everything in capitalism is negotiable and transactional. thats how it works.
if you want to build a rickety tower of bamboo and duct tape 300 feet high with a 2 ton anvil balanced on top, you can do it, as long as it doesnt threaten anyone else, or anyone else's property.
unfortunately this means youll have to construct your Wile E Coyote Roadrunner Trap in the wilderness.
society frowns on such schemes in general, and the shoddy engineering involved in most Acme products, in specific
I agree. It's a balancing act. However, I don't believe that comes through when terms like "socialsim, entitlement and capitalism" are used as absolutes. The words become convenient ways to stop thinking. "Ah, that's socialism, and we all know socialism is the opposite of capitalism... good luck Comrade."
The founders were influenced by Civic Republicanism. By today's political standard (divisiveness, polarization) it was a strange blend of liberty and collectivism. It emphasized society should exist to promote individual liberty. Such government was considered "virtuous." But, that such a government could not exist without "virtuous" citizens. A virtuous government compelled citizens to public duty/participation. Through public participation, individuals came to see how the "common good" was their private good.
Today, people simply consider their private good. Government does everything for us because we don't want to serve in public duties. I think this would be a far more fruitful area for improvement. Reinstituting the ideals of civic republicanism. Rather than painting everything as "us vs. them" socialism vs capitalism, words that don't have the meaning implied by their usage.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
well he's not grabbing money from your pocket, Mr. cleans-pools-in-the-hot-sun-non-stop-for-$25k-a-year.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but we do agree on kynes' wholesale rape of the english language.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that guaranteed universal income ain't gonna get you a pool, tubby.
gonna have to go out and work if you actually want the luxuries, like always.
I agree. But, if that's not "socialsm," why is extended unemployment benefits or bailout of financial markets "socialism." In either case, it limits what individuals can do with their property/capital because the limitation is seen as beneficial to society.
I don't want my neighbor to convert her home into a late-night biker bar. Instead of accepting my personal responsibility to live within my means, and buy sufficient property to buffer myself from my neighbor's use of her property, I take the easy route: public law which prevents my neighbor's full enjoyment of her property *for my benefit*.
The hard route would be my moving out of my home, creating a "buyers market" for a biker (or deaf person) who might appreciate the proximity to a late night biker bar.
Likewise, my money was used to bailout the unemployed and bad investment choices because the stabilization seemed equally beneficial. Instead of me having more money to take advantage of motivated labor and cheap properties, the labor and financial markets were propped up because we (as a society) didn't want that kind of volatility.
You may argue that it's not "real" stability. We'll pay later, etc. But zoning laws and building codes aren't perfect either. When I buy a property with the prospect that I won't have to worry about my neighbor convering her home into a late-night biker bar, someday I'll find myself hoisted upon the same pitard (required to buy unnecessary property zoned for my new commercial ideas.).
Both are based upon the same cost/benefit rationale. That we're a better society for intervening in otherwise "free" markets. Describing one as "socialism" is just (as far as I can tell) a cheap way to denigrate something that isn't seen as valuable. Implying a violation of principle whose violation we accept (even enjoy) every day.
I've built things with 2x4 spaced 24" on center and it never fell down. Why do you use scare tactics to promote your form of socialism?
Do you see what I mean? If you truly believe extended UI benefits and bailout of financial markets is "socialism," then why should you dictate to me that everyone will be better off if I'm required to use 2x6s when *I* don't need them? Why do you want to interject yourself into consensual relationships. Why can't my guests be trusted to inquire whether I used 2x6s, and use their best judgement? I mean, by imposing your will on me because *you're* too lazy to make those inquiries yourself, you may cause me to be unable to afford a 4th bedroom which my now unemployed guest would appreciate -- leading to that guest needing support in other ways -- like extended UI benefits.
(wink).
"Socialism" is in the eye of the beholder. Whose ox is being gored. You perceive benefit from using the State to force everyone to construct to an uncessarily high standard because the predictability and security/stability is beneficial. We do the same thing in other areas, and suddenly "hey, that's socialism."
Seems like it would be more truthful to just say the cost isn't worth the benefit rather than applying a label which, by your own standards doesn't mean what you want us to believe it means.
We find state coercison to be beneficial. The founding generation did too -- after just 12 years of living under more freedom. In fact, at that time they had their own form of welfare. It was common for communities to "warn out" new members. If they didn't do so within a period of time, the community would be responsible for supporting the new member should that member become unable to care for themselves. By "warning out," the community's responsibility would only be to carry the individual to the town they came from.
By implication, this means communities felt an obligation to take care of its members who fell on hard times. They "socialized" losses.
Sure, it wasn't to the extent it is today. But, they lived in an era when you could earn a living from the soil rather than work as a "sharecropper" for another in an "at will" relationship. Just as the founding generation couldn't foresee its needs just 12 years later (by replacing their libertarian Articles of Confederation with a relatively massive new government to promote stability and security), generations have extended their view of what is desirable levels of responsibility to individuals and markets.
This constant evolution to meet new needs resulting from changes in society (such as, from agrarian to industrial) isn't "socialsm" or "entitlement" any more than when the founding generation voted to nationalize one state's resources for the benefit of other states.
Hyperbolic labels to invoke kneejerk reactions don't help (IMO).
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
you are confused.
we ALREADY have Unemployment Benefits. eliminating this (admittedly Socialist) program/entitlement would destabilize our system like a motherfucker, so we are pretty much stuck with it, until somebody finds the skill, the will and the way to extract it from the system without touching the sides, and making the buzzer go off.
Unemployment Benefits are socialist, because they are an IMPOSITION by The State upon the employer (who really shouldnt give a squirt of piss if you are unemployed after he fires you) who pays for it.
The State has determined that FORCING the employer to pay into the "trust fund" for unemployment benefits is in The State's Interest (it keeps the unemployed off the welfare rolls, which is what you call Forcing an Externality, in econ-speak) and the Demos agreed, because it cost them nothing, and reduced their exposure to the consequences of failure.
to YOU, the employee, unemployment benefits are a Benefit, to the employer, they are a Cost Of Doing Business, which is imposed on them by The State. without The State's imposition of this program, the employer is VERY unlikely to come up with this plan on his own, since it profits him naught, but costs him plenty, costs which he must pass along to his customers.
increasing unemployment benefits is MORE Socialism, and MORE socialism is the basis for Democratic Socialism's slow creeping advance, and as already established, i do not consider Socialism, nor any other kind of Marxism to be a winning proposition
when The State, with the agreement of the majority of the Demos, determines that some particular rule is in the interests of Society, it is not necessarily Socialist.
Banning the home manufacture of fireworks and explosives is NOT Socialist. it is not an imposition of the states desires, it is a forbidding of a thing which is generally regarded as a hazard to everyone in proximity to your fireworks factory.
prohibiting the sale of alcohol, tobacco and firearms to children is NOT Socialism, it is a prohibition designed for the safety of children who are invariably not responsible enough to make good choices with that stuff.
the heart of Socialism resides in what is Imposed, not what is forbidden.
in a classical liberal society (like this one) anything which is not expressly forbidden is presumed to be permitted, and The State tries to be very careful with it's Impositions From Authority (hence the great butthurt over the draft, taxes, eminent domain, obamacare, etc...)
you are conflating Prohibitions with Impositions, when they are two VERY different things.