|
jrodefeld posted:Let's talk about something else for a bit. There is a reason why I keep coming back here and posting.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Personally I'm still waiting to find out why I should care about property rights. If you think our future benevolent world government is gonna hesitate to exterminate you along with all the other dissenters just because you play a bit of basketball, buddy you got another thing comin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Have you heard the expression "hard cases make bad laws?" There are libertarians who have spoken about such extreme situations, but I want to speak about "lifeboat scenarios" in general because they are practically worthless regarding the validity of ethics or law that must be based on normal situations, not extreme and unusual circumstances that most of us are unlikely to ever encounter. Nearly every system of ethics breaks down in the most extreme of situations. What, neither this nor the Rothbard quote answers the question at all. Those hard cases absolutely exist, so we should just what, never bring it up and decide to die if it ever happens to us? The only way I can parse this answer in a non-ridiculous way is that you're agreeing property rights aren't absolute and cases exist (where it's life-or-death for one person versus a virtually unnoticeable inconvenience for another) when property rights aren't all-controlling and should be violated, but this shouldn't become a general rule. In which case, congratulations you've just made the case for progressive taxation, liberal democracy, and the welfare state!  Alhazred posted:No, lets talk about that you were calling the UAE and Qatar economic free despite the fact that they have slavery. Also this, you don't get to hold up theocratic slave states as paragons of liberty to which the USA and Europe should aspire and then go "so, what's your favorite food guys, I like a good Chicago deep dish who prefers New York Style?" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also this, you don't get to hold up theocratic slave states as paragons of liberty to which the USA and Europe should aspire and then go "so, what's your favorite food guys, I like a good Chicago deep dish who prefers New York Style?" Of course he'd like deep dish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrqSizC-T-4
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Guys, if he can stop and realize that we're not beep boop androids trying to bring about the glorious communist revolution and do in fact have reasons for believing the way we do, he might stop being quite the aggravating jerk. No offense meant, Jrode. If you like RPGs I *really* recommend Undertale. It's a beautiful little RPG that keeps track of almost everything you do, and it's really funny. And you don't have to kill anyone. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:we're not beep boop androids trying to bring about the glorious communist revolution
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Speak for yourself pal. I *mean*, that we're not just wanting to bring about said glorious communist revolution for shits and giggles, or because we want to be contrarian, or even that we think it'd be funny. We're more inclined towards socialist policies because of things we've experienced, and studies/research we've done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Getting people to open up and talk about themselves is cult recruitment 101 stuff. (As well as standard for door to door sales, which shares a lot of the same characteristics). When arraigned against a group of people hostile to your ideology, first humanize yourself, then encourage them to open up, then try and crowbar your beliefs/product into the mix with slight personalization. "Oh yeah, I was lonely too, but then I found the light" I'm sure you're all lovely people, but I don't think this is the social mixer you all are thinking of it as. If JRod honestly wants to get more from SA's community this really isn't the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
n-thing the recommendation that you explore SA more, jrod. You paid money to be here, you may as well get more out of your account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Undead Hippo posted:Getting people to open up and talk about themselves is cult recruitment 101 stuff. (As well as standard for door to door sales, which shares a lot of the same characteristics). When arraigned against a group of people hostile to your ideology, first humanize yourself, then encourage them to open up, then try and crowbar your beliefs/product into the mix with slight personalization. "Oh yeah, I was lonely too, but then I found the light" This post is violating the non-aggression posting principle, you should show more respect for posting rights. Just because you do not currently own any private messages does not mean you should show jealousy towards your fellow posters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I *mean*, that we're not just wanting to bring about said glorious communist revolution for shits and giggles, or because we want to be contrarian, or even that we think it'd be funny. Bryter posted:Speak for yourself pal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's talk about something else for a bit. Debate & Discussion: The Problem Attic > JRod Thread 2: Let's talk about something else for a bit But you want to know about me? Fine. I grew up in an abusive home that showed me exactly what happens when people with power over others are left to regulate themselves. Escaped that, went to college, did everything right like everyone said to. Buckled down, got a STEM degree, graduated cum laude, and emerged into the depths of a recession caused entirely by banks being allowed to regulate themselves. Struggled to find even temp work outside my field, without any grandparents to borrow money from interest free, and with private charities tapped out because I was far from the only person to be going through that situation. I only avoided homelessness because of food stamps. Eventually I got a job doing QA work for a company that made gas masks, working with chemical weapons agents day in and day out. The looming threat of OSHA crackdowns were the only thing that got the plant to implement any kind of safety provisions, especially after multiple people on the production line started suffering from hexavalent chrome exposure. I overheard the plant manager wishing he could goons to run over striking workers with a truck on more than one occasion. Eventually the stress of the job (and likely low-level cyanide gas exposure) pushed my anxiety issues from my childhood into a full-blown panic disorder, which I only was able to get under control using medications that wouldn't exist without government research money. Now I'm going for my PhD at a public university, and I'm only able to handle the work because of those same government-funded drugs. I had the privilege of teaching general chemistry to kids from worse backgrounds than mine, who were only able to go to college thanks to the GI Bill. And I do research in solar energy, because I have some semblance of humanity and want to pay society back for the unfathomable benefits it provided for me. So next time you're wondering why we're so loving hostile to you here, it's because you insist that the only moral society is one where I would be a childhood runaway, homeless, slowly poisoned, or murdered by my boss instead of being able to realize my potential. The government was an overwhelming force for good in my life and in the lives of thousands of people like me, and I will be god damned if I'm going to pull that ladder up behind me. Also I like watching hockey and want to keep bees someday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
jrod, did you ever play Sid Mier's Alpha Centauri? You might seriously enjoy this LP of it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3695372
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
You know what, disregard everything I just said. Now that I know jrod likes basketball, I am able to overcome my bias against him and libertarians in general. Congratulations Rodimus, skimming a pirated copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People has paid off! Teach us how to make our country as free as Qatar, wise one!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
Me and my wife just bought a house, along with me getting a new full-time job, adopting some pets, and a ton of other changes have been adding a ton of stress (both "good" and bad) to my life, which has been playing hell with my depression and means I haven't been able to participate very much in my hobbies or passions in order to destress. Thankfully this thread came along and has helped a little bit. So thanks, J to the rod to the efeld. But besides this I enjoy modeling Warhammer 40k (I hope to have a 500 point Imperial Army done by sometime in 2035), writing short-stories, although I'm not nearly as talented enough as Caros to get published, playing MGSV, Mad Max, Witcher III, and looking forward to AssCreed: Dapper Dan's Victorian Adventure, and Fallout 4: The Falling Out. And finally I love Pen&Paper RPGs, even though I haven't had a group to play with since I moved, and I'm even developing my own P&P about being a mecha pilot who controls their warsuit by plugging gigantic The Matrix style data-spikes into their brain and nervous systems. So look forward to that sometime around never. So now hopefully you can start viewing us as real flesh and blood people and not "Left-Progressive" straw men like you've been doing for the last three years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:and I'm even developing my own P&P about being a mecha pilot who controls their warsuit by plugging gigantic The Matrix style data-spikes into their brain and nervous systems. So look forward to that sometime around never. Completely irrelevant to the thread, but I will throw money at you if you can get this into a semi-coherent state. Actually, if you're serious about it, I may know some people who might be able to help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Hey jrod you've ignored literally every post I've made directed at you and have never once answered one of my questions. Care to explain why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
My hot take is that anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism as proposed by j-ro here would evolve into anarcho-communism within weeks if not days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:My hot take is that anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism as proposed by j-ro here would evolve into anarcho-communism within weeks if not days. My hot take is that if jrod's system ever was implemented he would quickly find out how fun it is to toil for the glory of Immortan Joe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:My hot take is that anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism as proposed by j-ro here would evolve into anarcho-communism within weeks if not days. Oh come now. Individual ownership of everything? All of society being reduced to compacts between people? The starting scenario is only distinguishable from feudalism if you squint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Oh come now. Individual ownership of everything? All of society being reduced to compacts between people? The starting scenario is only distinguishable from feudalism if you squint. Mainly because libertarianism is just feudalism with the serialnumbers filed off. Poorly. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
This is not an unknown part of the cycle, he's done this before when I took the tact of explaining to him that I was the literal embodiment of all his assertions about government aggression as a government worker and it boiled down to "oh I'm sure you're a nice person when you're not commiting AGGRESSION against everyone, shame you chose to be a horrible statist which has no redeeming value what so ever" to paraphrase him. Its in the other thread rather early on. That is when I stopped responding in good faith to jrod.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Oh come now. Individual ownership of everything? All of society being reduced to compacts between people? The starting scenario is only distinguishable from feudalism if you squint. I didn't say those weeks or days would proceed smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:This is not an unknown part of the cycle, he's done this before when I took the tact of explaining to him that I was the literal embodiment of all his assertions about government aggression as a government worker and it boiled down to "oh I'm sure you're a nice person when you're not commiting AGGRESSION against everyone, shame you chose to be a horrible statist which has no redeeming value what so ever" to paraphrase him. Its in the other thread rather early on. Yeah, I recall this happening before, I just enjoy giving him the benefit of the doubt here because when he does make his turn back to "all of you are aggressing against me", it will give me more material to be an rear end in a top hat to him about later. When I said D&D posting culture encourages assholish posting, I wasn't lamenting that fact. Yeah it can lead to moments where someone who genuinely doesn't know much about politics says something dumb and gets a whole bunch of poo poo for it, but I cannot imagine discussing politics on a forum where everyone has to feign friendliness to someone arguing "I think UHC is theft, poors should just avoid getting cancer if treatment is so expensive, if getting treatment for cancer didn't cost an arm and a leg everyone would get cancer just for funsies". Sometimes, the only response to an abhorrent opinion is a combination of "gently caress you" and mockery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:Politics in general is a touchy subject. Vaccination talk for example will bring me into a near blinding rage because I've seen my young niece hacking her lungs up in agony because she couldn't be vaccinated and other people were too irresponsible to keep up their end of the social contract. Its simply hard to get as consistently angry about things that don't matter, such as Batmans compared to things that do like lifesaving healthcare and the distribution thereof. Vaccines are also one of those things that it's impossible to separate emotion from reason on, because people on both sides believe (well, in one case KNOW) that the other side is creating a massive public health issue that's literally killing people. I have a friend whose child has severe allergies and is one of the rare people who legit can't have vaccines because he's allergic to the preservatives—which you'd think would make his parents super pro-vaccine, since their son can still benefit from vaccines if everyone else is vaccinated. But nope, they're staunch anti-vaxxers because they saw their baby hurt by vaccines. They even know that he's one in a million, they just can't think about it logically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Libertarian stances on vaccination are telling and indicative of a lot of the problems with the ideology. I remember once a libertarian friend of a friend on Facebook was trying to, idk, court favor by saying "Hey guys, I totally don't agree with the anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory, I believe the science is on the side of vaccination, but gosh I just don't think the government should force parents to vaccinate their children." Now, the "force" at issue was the idea that public schools should mandate vaccination as a condition of enrollment, so it seems like it's the perfect opportunity for the free market to step up and provide a private leper colony school. But even more bothersome to me is that this guy expected kudos for his reasonable disagreement, but so what? Who cares if you aren't against the science if in practice, you will support policies that kill children? Why should I be glad for your support for policies that kill children because they are based on an irrational fear of big government rather than an irrational fear of big pharma?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's talk about something else for a bit. There is a reason why I keep coming back here and posting. Most political internet forums are populated by people who don't know anything. They frankly aren't any fun to participate in. But on the other hand, this is not a way to have a debate. I'd be happy to debate just one of you or a small number of those who are serious, but taking on thirty at once is unwieldy at best. No. Stop. Go back. You are not debating. You come in, state some points, and when those points get refuted or evidence against them gets posted, you ignore the refutations and carry on as if nothing has happened. You don't want to debate, you want to come in, state something, and demand we agree regardless whether the statement is true or not. This is not unexpected either, and why we laugh at libertarians, because this is normal SOP for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Yo OP, I'm Choctaw. Does this mean I should be able to go to Average Neighborhood, Mississippi, tell the people there whose families have lived there 100+ years to hit the road so I can live communally with some of my friends and family? That's how they lived way back in the olden days. Plains tribes followed the herds. They clearly didn't see owning property as a god-given right, why should anyone in this thread? Who's to say that your concept of "owning" land and living there forever is any more right than theirs? Also, if you're wanting to talk about something unrelated to the thread, I suggest clicking on literally any of the hundreds of other threads on SA. You know there exists a forum outside of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Also, Jrod, I just want to remind you that on top of everyone else's offers my offer to debate you on your stance of ethics that I made in the other thread still stands as well. You have no shortage of opportunities to have the one-on-one debate you're asking for. You just have to actually nut up and accept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Andorra posted:Yo OP, I'm Choctaw. Does this mean I should be able to go to Average Neighborhood, Mississippi, tell the people there whose families have lived there 100+ years to hit the road so I can live communally with some of my friends and family? That's how they lived way back in the olden days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Let's talk about something else for a bit. There is a reason why I keep coming back here and posting. Most political internet forums are populated by people who don't know anything. They frankly aren't any fun to participate in. But on the other hand, this is not a way to have a debate. I'd be happy to debate just one of you or a small number of those who are serious, but taking on thirty at once is unwieldy at best. So the answer is that you really don't want to know what most of these poster's hobbies are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
my hobby is hunting libertarians for sport and then feeding them to pugs
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:my hobby is hunting libertarians for sport and then feeding them to pugs Those poor pugs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Andorra posted:Yo OP, I'm Choctaw. Does this mean I should be able to go to Average Neighborhood, Mississippi, tell the people there whose families have lived there 100+ years to hit the road so I can live communally with some of my friends and family? That's how they lived way back in the olden days. The Libertarian go-to answer to this is that European settlers ~mixed their labor with the land~ which makes their right to it more special because factories got built on it or some poo poo. It is an effectively meaningless distinction that only serves to benefit those currently sitting on the land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Caros posted:Mods, please change thread title to "Why Should We Care About Property Rights? Because I will fight you!" I have never laughed so hard at a thread title in my life. Mods I will pay you 100 liberty bucks if you do this, you are entering into joinder with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
My current hobby is finding it really, really funny that jrode didn't actually bother looking at the list he copy-pasted from some libertarian site to make sure it didn't include literal slave states. Later my hobby will be finding it really, really funny when he pretends it never happened. Keep on keeping on, you dumb bastard 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:I have never laughed so hard at a thread title in my life. Mods I will pay you 100 liberty bucks if you do this, you are entering into joinder with me. i will punch any mod irl who doesn't change the title
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:The Libertarian go-to answer to this is that European settlers ~mixed their labor with the land~ which makes their right to it more special because factories got built on it or some poo poo. It is an effectively meaningless distinction that only serves to benefit those currently sitting on the land. The libertarian view seems to be that the land should go to whoever can use it for the most. As in whoever makes it the most productive deserves it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The libertarian view seems to be that the land should go to whoever can use it for the most. As in whoever makes it the most productive deserves it. Also they define what productive means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd be happy to debate just one of you or a small number of those who are serious, but taking on thirty at once is unwieldy at best. Well why just reply to the "small number" of those of us who are serious? Think of it as a market where you are free to choose the most worthwhile posts to respond to! It's not the fault of the rest of us that you respond to posts about whether Triple H is a racist. I've still got my post, which is most serious, for you to respond to: jrodefeld posted:The issue I am trying to get across is that if you took a situation where humans are suffering in abject poverty and starvation in a third world African country and your solution is simply for them to implement redistributive policies that take the wealth of the dictator and the (relatively speaking) "wealthy" and divided that money between the poor people of that country, you would have hardly helped anyone. Redistributing wealth in a tiny pie where there is not much wealth to go around skirts the real issue. Yes, if tyrants run your government and hoard all the wealth that does exist, they can seem relatively comfortable. And there is no question they ought to be ousted from power and are clearly exploiters of the poor and everyone else who isn't a member of the dictator's regime. Okay, you don't seem to have realised the problem I was drawing up that the premise and conclusions to your argument are simplistic strawmen that do not represent either reality or the views of 'left-progressives'. The problem I pointed out with your Africa example was that it was a simple binary choice between letting someone in starvation keep their loaf of bread or taking some of it to share was that neither option is what the "left-progressives" would be suggesting in that instance and the idea would be to get the starving person MORE commodities so they weren't in such dire needs, not to leave them the same amount or take from them. Although you've taken this on board a little in your response, we're now offered a ternary choice where the third option still doesn't represent the views of socialists, social democrats, etc. I could have gone into it more on my end (although I did think that if you were going to criticise other people's positions you'd be aware of what they are first) so I'll hold up my hands here say "my bad" and elaborate for you on what the actual positions being put forth as a counter to your own are. There are a variety of different left-wing views about how different developing economies should work. Although there are differing opinions, they all fit within a certain framework that rules out the possibility of a free-market approach being beneficial. They aren't based on simply "Let's redistribute because it's right" they're focused on "let's have a more regulated and redistributive economy because it's fairer and helps develop countries" Let's look at a few. Ha Joon Chang, a popular introductory figure to left-wing economics, who is a Professor of Political Economy of Development at Cambridge University has looked at the economic set-up of modern developed countries while they were developing and concluded Ha Joon Chang posted:"that the developed countries did not get where they are now through the [free market] policies and institutions they they recommend to developing countries today. Most of them actively used 'bad' trade and industrial policies, such as infant industry protection and export subsidies - practices that these days are actively frowned upon, if not actively banned by the WTO (World Trade Organisation" (Kicking Away The Ladder). His view is basically an expansion of the one I out forward in my post here. The crux of it is that your claimed are an economic urban myth that you have bought into without looking at the evidence, that rather than countries being built up by relying on laissez-faire policies they were actually heavily protectionist. In the post I've linked to I've given examples of the USA throughout the 19th and early 20th century but the same applies to other countries like France and the UK and if you're interested or dispute this then I'm happy to elaborate on this. In turn, this gives us a good indication that these policies are the kind of ones that countries should be using to develop now - even though the larger countries are trying to push free trade on them. From historical precedent, which you attempt to cite with no evidence, the government has a big role to play in ensuring the industrialisation and development of a country and claims of it being based on laissez-faire policies are simply false. This ties into the position of academics like Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank and Nobel Prize Winner, who in books like Making Globalisation Work and Globalization and Its Discontents who has pushed similar ideas: Stiglitz posted:"If developing countries are to enter into such industries, those industries have to be protected until they are strong enough to compete with established international giants. Tariffs result in higher prices - high enough that the new industries can cover costs, invest in research, and make the other investments that they need in order to eventually be able to stand on their own feet. This is called the "infant industry argument" for protection. It was a popular idea in Japan in the 1960s - and in the United States and Europe in the nineteenth century. Most successful countries did in fact develop behind protectionist barriers: critics of globalisation accuse countries like Japan and the United States, which have climbed the ladder of development, of wanting to kick the ladder away so that others can't follow." (Making Globalisation Work) Tariffs and dumping duties and other protectionist measures are vital tools that have been used by the now developed countries to get where they are. Disallowing these powerful strategies from the countries today is simply harmful to their ability to develop. This isn't to say that free trade can be harmful in every instance, but it is specifically trying to develop and industrialise a country and the areas where it is useful rarely see free trade happening. Agriculture is a key example of where free trade would be helpful for global development but free trade in agriculture is not in or itself going to industrialise a country and the areas needed for development require protectionism.For the developing countries the current system of free trade in some areas and protectionism in others is set up to be the exact reverse of what is needed. Stiglitz points out a good example where in 2005 the US opened itself up to 97% types of goods when produced in the least developed countries. The 3% which was kept protected was things like Bangladeshi textiles and apparel which they do produce at low cost and would want to sell in a fair market to undercut the US and other developed nations, while the 97% that was opened up was things like jet engines and all manner of other things what are beyond the capacity of the developing nations to produce. Simply put it was a free trade agreement which did the complete opposite of what the developing countries wanted, giving free trade in the areas it didn't matter and where they specifically didn't want it and keeping protectionism in places where they needed free trade. Free trade can be helpful, but only in some situations and understanding why involves needing a good knowledge of the processes involved. The fact that you try and take the example of Hong Kong (which actually isn't that free trade seeing as the government owns ALL the land and the companies are merely renters) and assume that the system which applies to a small city-state trading post with unique geographical and historical advantages will apply to all nations everywhere without any critical analysis just shows your comparisons are fairly superficial.. Economists are typically split into three camps in terms of the contributors to national capital accumulation. There are those who believe geography is the primary factor, those who believe market integration is the primary factor and those who believe institutions are the primary factor. I think Rodrik, Subramanian and Trebbi's fairly well known 2004 study gives a good overview of these positions in the introduction. You'll also note that the findings of the study give primacy to institutions as the key driver of growth, with some support from geography and with free trade policies actually having a negative effect on growth. And as we're talking about development and inequality, I would also suggest you have a look at Branko Milanovic's work and especially his conception of the most relevant type of inequality (simultaneously looking at the inequality internal to a state and in comparison to other states) and how the current neo-liberal more free trade orthodoxy has resulted in record highest of equality that may be decreasing soon - but only because of the effect of the non-free trade economies of India and, even more so, China. Basically your idea that the third alternative is simply "Redistribute all the money" is wrong. Frankly redistribution is needed as Piketty made such a big splash about in Capital in the 21st Century but equality is not the sole concern. A non-laissez faire approach is being pushed by other specifically because there is historical evidence and modern academic studies and logic which show it is more effective and allows countries to develop effectively in a manner that free market policies do not. The co-operative aspect of your response I'm going to spend less time on as I'm not really willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there about how you've missed the point. Your position was "A problem with "democracy" and all forms of collective ownership either of the factory or of public spaces is that use for such resources is heavily constrained by the need for consensus to act. If all workers owned factories together, endless meetings and deliberations would be required to make any decisions about the use of capital and production. Furthermore, conflict is enhanced rather than reduced. Who would REALLY have the final say on the use of collectively owned property?" Now you don't agree with by rebuttal because it is anecdotal, but the problem is you agree with the basis of my anecdote (and in having to do so have had to specify that you're only talking about if the entire economy was run on a co-operative basis) and in support of your view you have nothing, not even an anecdote or any other scrap of evidence. I don't usually use anecdotes, but the reason I did here is because it was just one of any number of examples which showed your point of view is wrong. We know Co-operatives are not doomed to failure because they exist now and the circumstances you describe don't happen. You now apparently believe that in a fully co-operative economy everything we know about how co-operatives work would suddenly changed for no given reason and all co-operatives would suddenly change to work in an inefficient and obviously stupid manner? Why would anyone possibly think this would occur? You've offered no rationale and it seems to be based on everyone suddenly getting very very stupid and changing the basis of how these companies are run for absolutely no reason. Hence why I say you're holding onto unsupported ideological narratives; you make these wild sweeping statements that at face value seem absurd and do nothing to back them up. Democratising the workplace does not mean democratising every single decision. Having a once yearly meeting to elect directors of the company, decide on a way forward and cast votes on important workplace matters democratises the workplace. Staying half an hour late once a month to have monthly meetings of each office/factory to discuss and deal with local issues democratises the work place. It does not involve democratic unity of every single mundane decision and trying to frame it as that just shows how irrelevant your comparison is. The nature of a co-operative is not that you have "to achieve democratic consensus for every single business decision" so your point is irrelevant. Hell, a lot of good business will spend this kind of time with employees anyway. The Human Relations school of business management thought (used to good effect in Japan) specifically focuses on working with and engaging with employees in the nature of running the business and many non-co-operative business will spend similar amounts of time discussing workplace issues even if automatic primacy isn't given to majority opinions of the workforce. Not to mention the issues which come with a lack of democracy in the workplace, where strikes are a notable drain on efficient. You also don't seem to have responded at all to my pointing out how countries did not grow by lassie faire economics, which is what you had claimed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:51
|
|
