You lied and pretended I said it. — NOS4A2

You did say it.

I have had no relationship with a corporation that was not voluntary and premised on mutual agreement. If I were to come across arraignments that were not to my liking, I’d not sign any contract. If I don’t like their product or service I don’t buy it. — NOS4A2

#1. Your relationship with the state is also voluntary. You can leave. Isaac has now pointed that out repeatedly. The onerousness of leaving can be discussed, but I'll remind you that leaving a job is also not always so easy -- nor is simply "not signing any contract" (mostly there is no contract, and jobs are at-will) -- which you would know if you read anything mildly contradictory of "state=bad."

#2. The state does not have a monopoly on violence either, really. That's another bullshit slogan.

#3. The state does not exclusively exploit the "fruits of one's labor" either. Corporations do so all day every day. But that's okay because it's "voluntary" (see #1).

Whatever readings your political outlook is based on -- who knows. But try new material, because it's feeble.

It’s a neat trick. Capitalists are absolutely in favor of big government. They hate only the aspects you mention. Yet they rally the angry NOSes of the world against the evil state. Anything happens, blame the state.

Have to admire its effectiveness. Gets the attention off of them, and promotes “small government” in all the ways that are beneficial to their interests — like deregulation and tax cuts. While still taking their $800 billion a year in defense contracts and billions in bailouts, of course.

Libertarianism: liberty for private capital, tyranny for workers.

"If you don't like it, just leave" is a fallacy. — NOS4A2

Indeed.

Yet it’s fine for you to use regarding jobs. Not only is it fallacious, it’s simpleminded.

Glad you finally see that.

…

One can be both ignorant and horrible simultaneously.

states ... utilize force and compulsory cooperation.
— NOS4A2

They do not. You are free to leave. — Isaac

Right. Plus laws are made by congress, who are elected by the public. You’re welcome to organize more voters or run for office yourself and change those laws. Or you can just leave.

Leaving a country is harder than quitting a job…yeah, most of the time. But not always. In any case— tough shit.

Your ranting about states would be perfectly fine were it not for the fact that you refuse to condemn illegitimate private power.

If abuse is private, it’s fine — if it’s done by democratically elected officials, it’s evil.

You’re just an inconsistent hypocrite. That’s why you’re so nauseating.

I don’t think anyone can own a country and I have given no group of people or any institution the right to dictate how I conduct myself. — NOS4A2

And I don’t think anyone can own electricity…or a building…or a corporation. So I guess it evens out.

I give corporations no right to dictate how I conduct myself. I don’t have to deal with them just as you don’t have to live in a state. Difficult to move? Terrible choice? Tough shit— it’s difficult to avoid corporations too.

These fucking libertarians are totally, 100% OK with corporate tyranny that rules over when you can literally go to the bathroom between 9am and 5pm but will get mad about having to pay taxes. — Streetlight

Why don’t you just admit that this is an accurate description, NOS? At least be honest. Put down the laissez faire and liberty bullshit. If you have no interest in democracy or liberty at work, you have no interest in democracy or liberty.

:up:

“State bad.”

Keep fighting the good fight against social institutions and democracy while minimizing and defending the most egregious private injustices.

“I can do whatever I want with my slaves — they’re private property.”

Anti-competitive practises as a direct result of deregulation lead to less efficient use of resources and more expensive goods. — Benkei

It’s interesting that in the age of “Government is the problem,” of small government— getting the state out of the way through deregulation — not only has wealth inequality soared, but consolidation/monopolization has increased. There are less corporations in various markets, not more. (E.g., telecommunications, meat, agriculture, energy, retail, entertainment.)

Apologists want to convince us not to believe our lying eyes. The results of neoliberalism are right in front of us. This is what comes of approaching “laissez faire.”

The closer you get to that “ideal,” the shittier everything becomes.

"I made a company. It's mine. If you don't like your starvation wage, go find another company." — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right.

You have the choice. Don’t want to work for someone else for meager wages? You have the right to quit. Because life is that simple.

These are the same people who cry endlessly about unemployment benefits and who despise social security and Medicaid— or social welfare programs generally.

So it’s not as if they say “hey, you can quit— I’m in favor of strong social safety nets so that people can choose to leave shitty job conditions more easily and increase competition.” That would at least be SOMETHING. Maybe that would warrant some serious attention. But no … they want to abolish all of that.

Reminds me of these “pro lifers.” They’re pro life until the baby comes out, then you’re on your own. As George Carlin put it: “pre-born you’re fine; pre-school, you’re fucked.”

When it comes to jobs, it’s even worse— you’re fucked either way. The subtext: shut up and do your job, you lazy, freeloading welfare queen.

That’s all it boils down to— behind all of the talk about liberty and laissez faire and “fruits of one’s labor,” etc: utter contempt for working people, for democracy, for majority vote, for unions, for social programs, for worker participation. Basically for anything “social” altogether. What’s left? The individual; namely, “me.”

It’s an anti-social and even sociopathic view. Which is evident by how NOS and his cadre can be counted on to arrive at the worst possible conclusions time and again. Literally if you knew nothing else about a topic, just read what he says and you’ll know that thinking the opposite is the correct move.

If only I could find someone like this in the world of gambling - I’d be a billionaire.

Anarcho-capitalists: defending corporate tyranny while denouncing state tyranny.

What would be respectable, or at least consistent, would be to condemn the fundamentally illegitimate system of corporate governance. That you can't bring yourself to do so -- or simply aren't capable of recognizing it -- is telling. — Xtrix

You really don’t deserve a “say” in the government, in that case. You can always leave the country if you don’t like paying taxes. You shouldn’t get a vote just because you happen to be born here.

So Walmart workers should get no say in what happens to the “fruits of their labor” — to the profits which they generate. Got it. Seems perfectly fair. Fuck those people. Also fuck the Starbucks employees, those “latte pouring” peons.

This coming from a guy who whines endlessly about the injustices of the state. Magnificent.

Corporations are not governments, though. — NOS4A2

True. They're stilled governed, and governed by people. People who make decisions which many others have to live with. True, you could argue workers, the community, the planet, etc. don't really "have to" live with them -- but again, if that explanation satisfies you - so be it.

If a group of people start a corporation it makes no sense to me that others, by virtue of them accepting a job there, should have control over it. — NOS4A2

Notice I didn't mention worker control. That's another discussion worth having. All I mentioned was the fact that most multinational corporations (the fortune 500, etc.), are not governed as co-ops -- they're top-down structures. The decisions are made by a board of directors -- a handful of people -- and the CEO/top executives, also a handful of people. The thousands (or millions) of workers get no say. The workers are certainly included in generating profit, yes? Yet it's a handful of people who decide what to do with those profits. If that's not exploiting the "fruits of one's labor" I don't know what is.

If one wants to argue that this is somehow the result of the state, there is of course a shred of truth in it -- e.g., corporations couldn't exist in their current form without the law, without legal personhood; owners couldn't get away with abuse if it wasn't allowed by the state, etc. But in my view that's a shallow analysis. And here I'm being as generous as I can.

It makes no sense to me that the people who conceive of, fund, build, accept the risk, and who are responsible for its operation from its conception until its demise should not get to decide how it should operate. — NOS4A2

Walmart could exist just fine without the Waltons. It's the workers that keep Walmart running, not the owners. The owners don't manage, run, stock, and maintain any of the Walmart buildings. That someone starts a business doesn't grant them the right to exploit people. Our economy shouldn't be structured in this way. Private ownership is not grounds "anything goes" -- otherwise slavery could still be around (and, in some forms, still is).

Good luck "building, accepting risk, and operating" a business alone. If others have a crucial role in generating profits (as workers at Walmart do), they should at minimum have some input into how those profits are allocated. As it stands now -- unsurprisingly -- 90% go back to shareholders. I seriously doubt workers would vote for this, if given the opportunity. But since it's an anti-democratic institution, that's off the table. And thanks in part to apologists like you, it'll stick around for a long time yet I'm sure.

This is why your railing against the state's "injustices" is such a joke. You're able to see injustice on the state level...yet ignore or minimize injustice at the heart of our economy. What would be respectable, or at least consistent, would be to condemn the fundamentally illegitimate system of corporate governance. That you can't bring yourself to do so -- or simply aren't capable of recognizing it -- is telling.

I would say “just quit” because it is a far better course of action than attempting to force others to give up control of their creations so that Xtrix might feel better. — NOS4A2

No one said anything about giving up their creations.

Also, I would say "just leave" rather than subject others to a ridiculous "laissez faire" system to make NOS feel better. An island awaits you.

I just don’t see where the tyranny is. — NOS4A2

Corporations are not run democratically. Elections (which is how officials, who make up the “state”, obtain their positions) are democratic.

Thus people have some say in the latter decisions. Workers have no say in the decisions of the board of directors.

Avoiding corporations is nearly impossible. In terms of employment, it’s nice to know you stick with the age-old “just quit and work somewhere else” mantra, despite it being explained to you numerous times just how mindless it is. Way to justify an anti-democratic, plutocratically-run institution while railing against “exploitation” of the state!

Let me give the equivalent response to your whines about state power: move to an island somewhere. No one is forcing you to interact with a state. It’s totally voluntary.

Synopsis of this odd thread:

Abolish the state. Replace it with individuals freely cooperating in trade. Privatize everything. The only laws should be establishing and protecting private property.

This is actually considered the goal to strive for, and has been thrust upon working and middle class Americans as an ideal by intellectuals working in service of capitalist plutocrats.

NOS is one such brainwashed advocate, and a poor one at that.

First it’s The Wealthy, then corporations, now it’s multinational corporations. — NOS4A2

There’s no difference— the capitalist class, the “owners,” are the “wealthy” class that own the corporations. It’s fairly obvious — provided one wants to face reality rather than defend plutocracy as you do. In the latter case, I’m sure it’s all very perplexing. “Corporations” now become any small business, any incorporated co-op, etc. — so confusing! How can they be a problem!

You can run for President or Senator if you wish. In the same way as one can “start a corporation.” The difference is that one is democratic and the other undemocratic in its function. Since you’re unwittingly pro-plutocracy and anti-democracy, I can see why you want to minimize the power and tyranny of the one while highlighting the problems of the other (which no doubt exist).

If corporations are so powerful then you ought to start one, — NOS4A2

:roll:

I’m talking about multinational corporations — what is often called “big business.” Apologists love to be disingenuous about this— as if we’re talking about mom and pop stores.

Anything to distract from the fact that corporations are the way capitalists currently organize, that they’re run undemocratically, and that they currently own and run the government (i.e., PEOPLE in positions of power).

But yes, I’ll automatically be catapulted to power by filing articles of incorporation.

Pro-big-business, but anti-state: ignorance is the only way to get there. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well NOS is just a simpleminded person. Barely coherent. If you want someone much more serious and infinitely more influential, look to Friedman. Still completely wrong, but gives a better sense of what’s used for cover.

Let me see if I can anticipate: it’s the State’s fault.

Never mind that the “state” is an abstract entity and doesn’t “do” anything at all. It doesn’t think or feel or act any more than “county” or “city” does. Thus, very easy to blame for the looting of America and exploitation of workers by capitalists.

They want everyone blaming the state, while simultaneously controlling the state.

A fun game for this thread: take a shot every time NOS says “fruits of one’s labor.”

If I’m so naive on the topic it should be easy for you to name a wealthy person who has committed murder and violence “just as much as the State has”; or name one wealthy person in Russia or China who has arrested someone and confiscated his wealth. I can give countless examples of States engaging in such behavior. — NOS4A2

Yes…States are bad seeds. I once saw a State rob a convenient store downtown. Can’t say I ever saw a wealthy guy do that.

Germany killed lots of people. Germany has always been a real asshole. The United States too — a huge dickhead.

That these laws often favor the wealthy or are not applied equally is not due to the wealth of the beneficiaries, but to State malfeasance, incompetence, and greed of state officials. — NOS4A2

So the wealthy individuals who make up the government, who pass laws that favor their class or their donors, are to blame. True. It’s also the greed and malfeasance of those who bribe said officials.

I guess the axiom is: “state bad.” Forget nuance, history… or reality.

States do not control corporations. There’s no law telling boards of directors to distribute 90% of profits to shareholders. Corporations are gifts from the state— and they are run by the people who own and run the state: the wealthy.

We can run a corporation to beneficent ends. We cannot run a state towards beneficent ends. — NOS4A2

There’s no reason either cannot be run for beneficent ends.

As it stands, corporations are not generally run for beneficent ends. They’re run for owners. The state, which they run, also functions this way. Neither are inevitable.

If by "potentially democratic" you mean we get to vote for another mammal to control how we live and to steal the fruits of our labor, I want nothing to do with it. — NOS4A2

We can vote in our neighbors for board of selectmen. We can vote for people who are decent— potentially. On the national level, where both major parties are owned by the corporate sector, there’s little choice.

Compare to the function of a corporation. Where’s the democracy there? They too steal the “fruits of our labor,” and give 90% back to their shareholders. Oddly you don’t seem to care much about this. You’d rather first go after the institution with even a modicum of democracy.

Great logic.

I think I get it:

Abolish the state. Why? Because they allow the corporate sector to own and run it. No state, no plutocracy.

It's democracy's fault, ultimately. So don't blame the corporations or the corporate sector -- who are totally unaccountable; they're just representing their interests along with all other interests, including the "little guys." Rather, blame the existence of the state, where leaders are somewhat responsible to the demos.

I realize now that NOS is a Rothbard wannabe. Too bad. Anarcho-capitalism is a sick, preposterous joke.

The idea that someone owns the state and has the monopoly on violence as soon as he hits a certain net-worth isn’t worth thinking about. Not even Moses could come up with a sillier scapegoat. — NOS4A2

You mean a sillier straw man, which is all this is. "As soon as he hits a certain net-worth"? What kind of idiocy is this? Is this truly where your mind goes when you hear that the wealthy "own the state"?

The state is not a social institution run anti-socially [...] it is an anti-social institution running exactly how it was designed to run.

So it's designed to be run by plutocrats? Maybe. Certainly looks that way.

Actually, what you're really describing is the corporation. Take a look at how that functions. I assume you're even more against them, yes? No, I forgot -- they don't have the "monopoly on violence." They're complete tyrannies with zero democratic participation, but at least they don't have the "monopoly on violence."

So let's turn all our rage to the one institution that's potentially democratic, and away from the institution that's unabashedly anti-democratic (which also happens to own and run the state).

"Abolish the state!" Fine. Oddly enough, I share that goal in the long run. But I also like to face the current reality.

The wealthy absolutely adore people like you. "Useful idiots" indeed.

Are you for abolishing nuclear weapons (and I don't just mean "in theory, but" - I mean practically, now, making first concrete steps)? — RolandTyme

Anyone sane is in favor of abolishing nuclear weapons.

Shell also said that it would increase the pace of share buybacks in the second quarter, to $4.5 billion, compared with $4 billion for the first quarter, and that it would raise the dividend by 4 percent, to 25 cents per share.

NY times today.

Just thought I’d drop it in this thread to remind ourselves what’s really going on here.

Plenty of money to use on things that matter — preventing war, aid to the suffering, prevention of climate change, raising wages, healthcare, infrastructure, etc etc.

But no. The profits — which all workers, their communities and their tax dollars helped to generate — must go back to the shareholders. The stock price must go up.

We all know who owns the stocks. (Spoiler: it’s not Joe Sixpack.)

Whatever little money is left … that’s your cost of living increase — which rarely keeps up with inflation (especially now). That’s maybe a new building and be equipment. Maybe.

I guess it’s up to the wealthiest stock-holding citizens to save the world. Fun to watch as they play astronaut and buy Twitter on a whim.

The wealthy don’t posses the monopoly on violence. The state does. — NOS4A2

For the hundredth time: they OWN THE STATE.

They also ARE the state. More than half of those in congress are millionaires. The rest have to go through the wealthy to be in congress in the first place. There are very, very few exceptions.

But keep trying to separate the two. Good compartmentalization -- anything to avoid reality, I suppose. Impressive.

This shouldn’t be the least bit surprising. There will be plenty of other decisions to come. Watch EPA v. West Virginia, for example, which WILL limit EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions. Will be even deadlier than this one. Etc.

Republicans will still take the house and senate, by the way.

90% of profits go back to shareholders, in the form of dividends and buybacks. Who decides this? The shareholders (through their boards of directors) -- who represent maybe .001% of the company.

Anyone who defends this system, directly or indirectly, doesn't give a damn about "liberty".

Ditto for anyone who is against democracy at work.

Anti-politics: hating government, while ignoring private power.

"The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. Therefore, you want to keep corporations invisible and focus all anger on the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500."

Laissez faire is just another form of this.

There is no economy without government therefor laissez-faire is nonsense. Not a strand of bubble gum can connect the premise to the conclusion. — NOS4A2

Yes. Laissez faire is nonsense because "free markets" don't exist and cannot exist. Period. So the very idea is nonsense. So to is trying to separate "economy from state."

The state is always involved in the economy.
Thus, getting the state "out of" the economy is nonsense.

That you're struggling with this is telling.

though one has to struggle to find reason in these objections. — NOS4A2

:lol: No -- you struggle to find reason.

The freedom to pay workers $15 an hour, rake in billions in profits on their backs, and distribute 90% of those profits to major shareholders— while giving CEOs 350 times what the average worker makes.

What all the “laissez faire” talk is cover for. A cute story to tell the masses you’re fucking over at every turn.

But the usefulness of the term doesn’t automatically justify regulatory behavior, nor does it negate minding your own business. Anyone can mind his own business, refuse to regulate another’s economic activity, refuse to be an interloper, so I don’t think the principle is as nonsensical as you make it out it to be. — NOS4A2

What principle? The pure fabrication of laissez-faire?

Can individuals choose to "mind their own business"? Sure. Can individuals choose to work cooperatively together? Of course. So what?

I'm concerned with looking at the real world -- how the government/the economy/the corporation or any other abstraction functions in the real world.

As I said before, I'm in favor of small government -- because the government has been captured by moneyed interests. I'm in favor of democracy -- including democracy at work.

Protectionism, mercantilism, subsidies, corruption—this is state intervention in a nutshell. I could be wrong but it appears that you are more concerned about who benefits from state intervention rather then the behavior of state intervention as such. — NOS4A2

No, I'm interested in a healthy society. A government "for the people" -- a democracy -- is one way to go. I'm more in favor of that, yes. I'm in favor of people being able to control the major decisions that affect their lives, at every level. So yes, if society as a whole benefits -- rather than the wealthiest .01% of society -- I think that's relevant. Especially when it's claimed we're a government "for the people."

Currently the state "intervenes" for the wealthy. It is owned by capitalists. Capitalism/plutocracy should be overthrown long before government is. There's no reason why governments can't work for people.

Speaking of nonsense, how many years and how many votes have you spent waiting for a return on your investment? — NOS4A2

What investment? You're quite right: this is indeed nonsense.

just as it is wrong to steal the fruits of someone’s labor. — NOS4A2

Nice to know you're anti-capitalist.

Corporate taxes make up only 3.9% of US tax revenue. — Benkei

Could you link me your source for this? I didn’t think it was so low. Not surprised.

Or are you one of those libertarians who are all for the liberties of the corporations and against the rights of the people? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Bingo.

No. One is not at liberty to interfere with another’s liberty. — NOS4A2

Like the liberty to produce toxic waste…or accelerate climate change…or allocate 90% of profits to shareholders…or bribe politicians.

So goes this conception of “liberty.”

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.