I just don’t think the task of government is to meddle in our livelihoods. — NOS4A2

the abolition of state control over economic activity would come to fruition. — NOS4A2

Here again you’re separating that which cannot be separated. Without government — without laws, regulations, patents, even the corporation itself (a legal fiction) — there is no economy. It’s not like the economy is something that exists in pure form if only liberated from laws and regulations.

That’s why laissez-faire is a fantasy. I don’t mean it’s an improbable dream— I mean it’s complete nonsense.

All it ultimately does is justify a version of “small government,” which in practice means: Deregulating big business and providing tax cuts — for the corporate sector (i.e., there capitalist class). That’s what all the rhetoric and slogans about “freedom” and “liberty” amount to. (And, of course, continuing to spend billions of taxpayer money every year on industry subsidies and handling externalities.)

The goal should be taking our production of goods and services out of the hands of a small group of owners and into the hands of workers themselves — i.e., to democratize the workplace. If you’re in favor of democracy and “small government,” this should be the goal. In that case, I’m also in favor of small government— because without the government, the elites wouldn’t be looting America. I’d be in favor of big government if it actually helped people other than plutocrats.

If there are no positions of power for the plutocrats to occupy, it doesn’t follow that the absence of these positions of power leads to plutocracy. — NOS4A2

“No positions of power” is essentially meaningless. Plutocracy is power in the hands of the wealthy.

We can point to existing state structures and say “that is plutocracy” until the cows come home, but we are no less pointing to the state. Plutocrats can achieve control through democratic means. — NOS4A2

If by the state you mean the government, which I assume you do, then that consists of people. It’s a group of people that make up what we call “government.” These people make laws and enforce laws. These people are susceptible to corruption and bribery and manipulation. In today’s world, the US government is mostly bought by business interests— multinational corporations. They must still be elected by the population, however.

An answer to this problem is to abolish the state. In the very long run, I would like to see that happen. But that’s in the long term.

First I’d like to abolish corporate rule. Your answer, however, is to abolish democracy.

Plutocrats don’t gain power by “democratic means.” They’re a minority, and they fear and despise democracy — they have since the beginning of the country.

What you haven’t done is shown how laissez-faire leads to plutocracy, is all I’m saying. — NOS4A2

And what I’m saying is laissez faire doesn’t lead to anything. Because it’s a fantasy.

The IDEA or the GOAL of “free markets” and a “separation of state and economy”, however, while both fantasies, do serve as nice stories for the ruling class— who know very well it’s complete bullshit.

It’s a nice utopian fantasy, though. Too bad it has such awful real world effects by deluding people into defending the corporate takeover of America.

But to market fundamentalists, I’m sure it’s still the governments fault — Xtrix

I look around and see competing interests competing for state power. — NOS4A2

You're nothing if not predictable.

You could say the same vague thing in the 50s and 60s too. Better economy in those days, however. Odd that the same can't be said for when the "era of big government [was] over."

All of them intervene in the economy through the very means you defend — NOS4A2

What "means" would that be? I don't recall defending the billions of dollars that the plutocracy -- mostly corporate America -- put into buying government officials (through campaign contributions, lobbying, etc) every year.

yet we’re supposed to act aghast when they seize and use them. But it doesn’t follow that the absence of those means leads to them seizing them. — NOS4A2

Is it possible to be more vague? What do the last two "them"s refer to?

Once again you've trailed off into gibberish. An excellent line of defense, I admit.

What it means in practice is simply: the violent demolition of any democratic control over how people live their lives, turned over instead to tiny minorities of people and entities with enormous amounts of money. Laissz-fair is a myth, and so is the meme - and it is nothing but a meme - of the fake antagonism between government and economy. — StreetlightX

Yes indeed. Again, a telltale sign of said proponents' true feelings about "democratic control" and "freedom": how they react to corporate governance, where there's zero democracy.

How does separating the state and economy lead to a plutocracy? — NOS4A2

The “state” has never, and will never, be separated from an “economy.” So: how does that fantasy goal lead to plutocracy?

Well, look around. Then compare to other times in economic history. Far higher concentration of wealth and power now than in the 50s and 60s. The shift in pretext (laissez faire) and policies (neoliberalism) occurred in the 70s. Pretty easy to check what has happened since. All in the age of “Government is the problem,” no less.

But to market fundamentalists, I’m sure it’s still the governments fault— and so we need even MORE deregulation and unbridled corporate looting. Heads I win, tails you lose.

capitalism will kill us all, in the long run.
— StreetlightX

Probably not. — frank

Do you get tired of being utterly vacuous? 10.7 thousand posts…95% fatuous.

Spend less time on Twitter.

The best way to regulate a system, is when you have governance influenced by the people involved.
While it is not perfect, as no one ideology ever is, people always have some type of say and influence to minimize the implementation of the winners destroying the playing field for everyone else. — Philosophim

Yes indeed.

But since “laissez faire” is just a bullshit excuse for plutocracy and is completely anti-democracy, don’t expect anything more than “Government is the problem” — their go-to slogan. The alternative? The magic of the “free” market of course! Bam! Solved.

Laissez-faire: not only hasn’t existed but cannot exist. An idiotic ideal fabricated to justify plutocracy.

What believers in laissez-faire ultimately are is anti-democracy. Look no further than the way these deluded proponents defend corporate governance (zero democracy) while attacking political governance (some democracy) — all while throwing around words like “liberty.”

Good for a laugh, I suppose.

The stuff we refer to by the word "iron" exists even if we don't use the word "iron" to refer to them. And I'm saying that the things we refer to by the word "iron" have 26 protons, and will continue to have 26 protons even if we change the meaning of the word "iron". — Michael

Iron is a class of objects, not an object. Classes are human inventions with human criteria and humans bring them into existence by declaration, they neither exist nor have properties without humans. — Isaac

I think you can both be right, depending on whether we believe the world exists -- or beings exist -- even without human beings. Provided I'm understanding you both accurately.

Michael, I take you as saying "the being to which I refer when I say the word 'x' persists regardless of what I call it." So that blob of "stuff" over there that I'm pointing to is still what it is, no matter what symbols or sounds we create to refer to it. I think in the real world of everyday experience, of course this is true. That thing coming towards me at 80 kph is still going to kill me, whether I call it a "truck" or not.

Issac, I tend to sway more towards the position of "classes are human invention" as well. It all comes from the human mind, ultimately. To me this echos Kant. "Gold" doesn't exist any more than Ursa Major does.

:up:

So now biology is called transphopbia? — stoicHoneyBadger

No— you repeatedly bringing the topic up is. Pretty obvious, actually.

But nevermind. Continue on with your pet culture war issue.

It's not like I am interested in digging up 30 year or Mann or Gore videos to prove something. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah, exactly. Because those videos don’t exist. Nor do those idiot claims that you fabricated.

So not just a climate denier and transphobe, but a liar to boot. Nice trifecta.

Seems you been learning too much stuff that's not very accurate. — stoicHoneyBadger

:rofl:

Oh? Like what, specifically?

I won’t hold my breath.

that men can turn into women — stoicHoneyBadger

Quite obsessed with that issue, aren’t you. As I said before, I’m not interested in your transphobia.

There was a video of this Mann guy talking in front of congress(?), promising Washington DC going underwater in the near future. — stoicHoneyBadger

No, that’s just your idiotic claim. A claim repeated from whatever denialist bullshit you’ve gorged yourself on. Which is why you offer no references, no such video, etc.

“Al Gore claimed we’d all be dead by 2020! Hahaha! Fool!”

To climate denying cretins, facts don’t matter. It’s about what “feels” good. That’s all the science they care about.

Ask and astrologer if his predictions are accurate and I have no doubt he will show you a few that actually came true. If you want a scientific approach, look for those that failed. — stoicHoneyBadger

Or, if you want to stay a climate denier like you, just ignore everything that doesn’t fit that belief. That easy. Bam! “Science.”

Don’t worry your little head about it. I know you didn’t read the article — which is why it wasn’t meant for you.

The thing you don't want to grasp here is the ability to verify a theory in an experiment. — stoicHoneyBadger

Climate change is a fact, not a “theory” (a term you don’t understand).

There’s a mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the rate of change is outside natural variability. The spike in global average temperature is the result of the industrial Revolution — burning fossil fuels, increasing deforestation through agricultural practices, etc.

There’s a thing called the Internet where you can LEARN about this stuff.

Or continue on being a buffoon. Works either way for me.

And predictions have been spot on. Despite those who repeat denial propaganda want to claim.

https://amp.onlineathens.com/amp/2014160007

Journalists are getting clicks on scary titles. Politicians get votes from scared people. Green energy shills are getting government payouts. Celebrities get to fly around in private jets, telling people how they should live. Even Austin the weirdo, who lives in his mom's basement, can walk around with a placard and feel like he is saving the earth. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yes— it’s all a big hoax. Overblown. Thankfully we have experts on here like up to lead us down the right path with your intuitions. “small number no make big effect.”

Brilliant.

For some real reporting on why climate deniers like this troll even exist, and repeat the stupid bullshit they’re told, see the latest Frontline piece. No reading involved— so that should help. Big oil has been spreading misinformation for decades.

Notice how you are moving the goalposts. Ok, temperature changes some 10 degrees every day/night cycle. It changes 50 degrees during the year. Having a 20 degree difference between average temperatures withing two sequential years is not unusual. Yet having a 1 degree increase in 30 years is the end of the world? Does that sound reasonable? — stoicHoneyBadger

Translation: How can 1 degree (such a small number) be such a BIG deal (not a small number)?

It took 50 years and thousands of scientists, and now finally the breakthrough insight we’ve all overlooked — pointed out by a guy on the Internet.

No need to learn about the subject.

Let me try: quantum mechanics seems spooky and unreasonable. How do we know what happens at small levels? Has anyone seen these things?

Bam. Refuted. And don’t tell me to read about it — I don’t need to read about things that are so OBVIOUSLY ridiculous. Quantum mechanics…climate change…electromagnetism…all on par with horoscopes and unicorns.

:rofl:

:ok:

For anyone serious about learning about sea level rise:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

So you blindly trust some group of people, who claim to know something you can't verify? — stoicHoneyBadger

No, it’s a group of experts with overwhelming evidence that can be verified by anyone who wants to know about it. They can explain it to me and answer any questions I have about it. This is typical of science.

Or we can walk into a physics department and say “quantum mechanics seems unreasonable to me” and leave it at that.

gender studies — stoicHoneyBadger

Someone’s been watching a lot of Fox News I see.

I’m not interested in your therapy.

sharp increase — stoicHoneyBadger

Who said it would be a sharp increase? You notice that sea level has indeed risen. Your claims about sharp increases or cities being under water are your own fabrications. That’s not what’s being claimed. There are areas in the world — like the Maldives and areas of Bangladesh where sea rise already is causing real problems. But no one is saying the seas will consume New York overnight. No one.

at this rate — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah…great job. So I guess that settles it! You’ve singlehandedly refuted all of climate science! Somehow they missed your extraordinary insight! Good work!

We have been promised sea levels raising, extreme weather events, etc. for decades, yet none of that has materialized. — stoicHoneyBadger

Actually, it has. Sea level has risen, and extreme weather events happen every year — breaking records. Not to mention average global temperatures are the hottest year after year. But I know that means nothing for those who don’t want to believe it.

It all boils down to the fact that the idea of a minuscule ~1 degree warming causing some global catastrophe does not sound reasonable. — stoicHoneyBadger

That’s because you don’t have a clue about the Earth’s climate.

Nevermind. It sounds unreasonable to you, so I guess that settles it. What are all those stupid scientists who’ve dedicated their entire lives to understanding the earth talking about? Idiots!

If nothing happens in 5 years, 10 or 20 — stoicHoneyBadger

We don’t have to wait— they’re already here, and have been visible now for about a decade. Which is exactly what was predicted back in the 1980s. Believe it or not, there’s a lot of information about this — all free. Or you can talk to a climatologist, and they’ll explain it to you.

Or you can go on believing you know more than them because you spent 5 minutes thinking about it and have judged it to be “unreasonable.” Your call.

Interesting stuff.

Don’t bother with trolls. Climate deniers don’t know about science or care about science. They’re as interested in “science” as creationists are.

50 years worth of research, overwhelming evidence (of which I give a sample in the OP), 99% consensus, etc — all irrelevant to those who follow Trump’s lead. It shows up in the stupid questions, for example about “optimal CO2” and so forth. Wow! They’ve cracked the case! Single handedly! All from spending 15 minutes on Wikipedia. Imagine the level of ego? It’s impressive.

And isn’t it funny how science ignoramuses ALWAYS point to Popper? It’s almost as if that’s the only philosophy of science they’ve ever heard about. :chin:

It is science. Your own ramblings notwithstanding. Feel free to take your Republican talking points elsewhere.

“Optimal CO2 level.” :lol:

Would you agree that not knowing what is the optimal temperature or what is the optimal co2 level all other speculations are futile. — stoicHoneyBadger

Would I agree with the random musings of an Internet troll with no understanding whatever of climatology? That’s an easy “no.”

We have a duty not to lie — Olivier5

Coming from someone actively denying US involvement. Rich.

Unlike your lies . — Olivier5

US involvement in this war is beyond question. You’re welcome to continue on with delusions.

No they are not. — Olivier5

Yes, they are. Your delusions are your own.

The US is helping Ukraine fight this war via weapons donations, but the US is not fighting itself directly. It's an important distinction if one wants to avoid WW3. — Olivier5

If you want to be clear, then specify what you mean. You didn’t saying “directly fighting the war.” Yes, we’re all aware that the US does not have boots on the ground. They’re still fighting this war by contributing support. They’re as involved as one can be.

And everybody else -- all the consumers and companies not selling fossil fuels but buying it -- have to pay them through the nose. How is that good for their business? — Olivier5

I assume by “their” you’re referring to consumers and other companies. True, it’s not good for many consumers, small businesses, etc. But “they” don’t have the pull that Big Oil does.

The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it. — Olivier5

There’s no way Ukraine lasts this long without military support, as you know. So yes, the US is also fighting this war.

For one, Putin can find in him the strength to make peace, irrespective of the US. — Olivier5

True. And Trump can find the strength to admit he lost the election fairly.

For two, so can Zelensky. If he wants to go for peace, the US can't stop him. — Olivier5

He’s already made proposals.

For three, I don't know where you've seen that the war is good for business. Inflation is already here. Global recession awaits us after the Russian debt default. — Olivier5

It’s extremely good for business. Take a look at Lockheed stock since the beginning of the war — to name one arms manufacturer. So that’s one giant sector — defense contractors.

Another is the fossil fuel industry. They’ve been very happy indeed, now that they can present themselves as heroes.

“Inflation is already here” — and? That’s not bad for business, and in fact is largely created by business.

This actually brings us to Heidegger, that I already explained — Angelo Cannata

You mean what you’ve completely fabricated.

Please stop misleading people.

They have no interest in a negotiated settlement. This war is good for business, and so there's little chance the US will allow Putin any kind of path to save face. What they've done is spent billions of dollars to arm Ukrainians and prop up resistance while issuing economic sanctions (which, as always, will mostly hurt the population of Russia, not the elites-- despite talking points).

As I pointed out already, history is relevant to the present IFF you can derive a lesson from it applicable in the present. Otherwise it's water under the bridge. What lesson do you derive from your 'historical context', pray tell? — Olivier5

That the United States has a major role to play in this conflict, historically and currently -- and are, as usual, making things worse by rejecting peace negotiations. (There are historical reasons for this as well.)

I can't do anything about Russia. As a US citizen, I can at least do something -- however small -- about my government's actions. This is why I bring up the US, in part. But even if I weren't a citizen, given that the US is the world superpower, it would still be relevant indeed.

The Russians have made it fairly clear that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line and completely unacceptable. Since at least 2008. After 2014, the US doubled down. It was only a matter of time before Putin responded. John Mearsheimer had been predicting it for years, in fact.

anti-NATO flute. — Olivier5

Pointing out relevant historical context gets slapped with “anti.” Criticize American foreign policy? You’re anti-American.

Fairly typical jingoism.

Views precede being. Only when there are views there is being. — Haglund

:rofl:

Yes— because you can definitely have views when you don’t exist. I guess digestion precedes being alive, too. :roll:

Glad you choose idiocy over truism so you can argue for no reason — be happy with it!

If Canada and Mexico wanted to enter in a strategic alliance with China, what would it say about their perception of the US as a neighbor? — Olivier5

Irrelevant.

Better than having a so-called adult take on existence. Which is just another view — Haglund

Being precedes views.

You’re just contradicting yourself because you’re confused by words. It’s about as profound as saying “that’s your opinion.” Riveting. But stick with it if you must.

That things “are” is non-controversial; to deny it or attempt to pretend like it’s “just a view” is truly embarrassing. Such is the state of “philosophy” I guess.