It does. Without military, you have no state. Without state, you have no property rights to protect and “enforce” through your security guards.
— Xtrix

Secirty guards aren't law — Garrett Travers

No one has claimed security guards are “law.” Quite the opposite in fact. The law is what grants property rights— in the real world. True, they could be handed down from Zeus— but that’s irrelevant.

None of the above statement changes the fact that I am not responsible for the children other people created and abused, or their healthcare. — Garrett Travers

But our government could be — and should be. I’m happy to see my tax money go there. You aren’t. Fair enough. You and Scrooge would get along very well.

What's been in dispute is the necessity of the state to do so. — Garrett Travers

No, that hasn’t once been in dispute — except while talking to yourself. You brought that irrelevant point up, not me.

“Property rights are granted by states through laws.”

“Yes, but most protect their own property.”

Still wrong, incidentally — but even if true, totally irrelevant.

Sorry that you’re struggling.

No one has claimed security guards are “law.” Quite the opposite in fact. The law is what grants property rights— in the real world. True, they could be handed down from Zeus— but that’s irrelevant. — Xtrix

No, the law recognizes that my property rights are not to be violated, as there are no rights without property rights. It doesn't grant me them, it recognizes them. The founders of this country made that explicitly clear.

But our government could be — and should be. I’m happy to see my tax money go there. You aren’t. Fair enough. You and Scrooge would get along very well. — Xtrix

This is the correct mode of being. You may have your feelings about government, that's fine by me. What is not fine by me is you, or anyone else, choosing for me. When you give that authority to the state, it uses such authority to double the harm for every good it does. You know this just as I do. You see the innocent people locked behind cages for decades, the endless bodies both in our streets and abroad, the exorbitant sums of cash fueling wars you and I didn't vote for. It's plain to see for all who have eyes to look.

No, that hasn’t once been in dispute — except while talking to yourself. You brought that irrelevant point up, not me.

“Property rights are granted by states through laws.”

“Yes, but most protect their own property.”

Still wrong, incidentally — but even if true, totally irrelevant.

Sorry that you’re struggling. — Xtrix

Except they aren't. They're recognized by law, there's a difference, and they are ensured predominantly by private owners. It is not a concept that requires law. These are issues you actually need to work out in your head because it skews your perception of the role of individuals in society if you don't. For example, you kept saying property rights are tantamount to healthcare, this isn't the case. One is the recognition of free individual action, and the other is the appropriation of action and labor as a means of provision. These are totally different and contradictory concepts.

How about this, you stop insulting me, and I'll quit insulting you, and let's have this discussion and see if we can't work something out? Believe it or not, I actually have a vested interest in seeing where opposing sides can become compatible. You already know where I'm coming from: I follow the precepts of Stoicism, Objectivism, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics; and I generally get where you're coming from, a general left leaning perspective on social issues and what appears to be basically Deontological Ethics.

What do you say?

No one has claimed security guards are “law.” Quite the opposite in fact. The law is what grants property rights— in the real world. True, they could be handed down from Zeus— but that’s irrelevant.
— Xtrix

No, the law recognizes that my property rights are not to be violated, as there are no rights without property rights. It doesn't grant me them, it recognizes them. The founders of this country made that explicitly clear. — Garrett Travers

As if property rights are handed down by God. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that they're legal rights granted and enforced by states -- i.e., a gift from states.

Private property cannot exist without a political system that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics.

Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science.

There are plenty of "rights" without property rights. There's no private property in China, for example, yet they go on just fine anyway.

I suppose if we define property as literally anything, then you can get your answer in one step. But I was assuming we're talking about the real world. In the real world, we can talk about legality. What's much harder to discuss is rights as "natural" or "God-given" or something of that sort.

You may have your feelings about government, that's fine by me. What is not fine by me is you, or anyone else, choosing for me. — Garrett Travers

Like I said at the beginning -- if states (governments) can grant property rights (and patent rights, and corporate personhood, etc), which allows for the massive wealth inequality and hoarding of resources that we see, they can also grant the right to the basic human needs of its citizens. Which, it turns out, is good for everyone. To deny the latter and keep the former is pure hypocrisy.

When you give that authority to the state, it uses such authority to double the harm for every good it does. You know this just as I do. — Garrett Travers

No, because I don't accept the doctrine that "government is the problem." There's plenty to criticize about governments, no doubt. But there's no reason to believe they're inherently evil -- if they work for the people, they can work for the greater good and, in fact, often do. The United States government "of the people" should be responsive to those people -- and it usually isn't. That's a problem. Why isn't it? Because they (the people making up the government) have been bought. It really is that simple. Plenty of good scholarship on this. I think we all agree.

The belief that government is the problem, and the libertarian claims about "freedom" ("free enterprise," "free markets," "free trade," etc.; in its highest and most clever form embodied by Milton Friedman), ends up serving the special interests of corporate America. This is the problem in my view. While we're busy blaming everything on big government, as we have for at least 40 years, nearly everything -- except corporate power -- has gotten worse. Look at any economic metric. Stocks are way up, no doubt -- but that proves the point when you look at who the major shareholders are.

So if we want to be serious about the problems we face, we can't say "business is the problem" any more than saying "government is the problem." It's just not that simple.

Except they aren't. They're recognized by law — Garrett Travers

It is not a concept that requires law. — Garrett Travers

OK, let me parse this a little. There are two things we're talking about here:

(1) Property rights -- or any rights -- as natural, inalienable, God-given, etc. The argument being that they exist one way or another, objectively and factually, regardless of the existence of a nation-state or laws.

(2) Property rights -- or any rights -- as legal entities.

I'm talking about (2). We could argue about (1), but I'm willing to grant it. In which case, whether states "recognize" or "grant" rights is irrelevant. What's relevant is that they create the legal right. Perhaps the Native Americans had "rights" to the land they inhabited for centuries -- I would argue there's something to that. Did they have legal rights? Unfortunately no. That doesn't mean they didn't fight for their lands -- of course they did.

So the point, again, is simple: since private property is a legal right, and this legal right (which can be upheld in court and protected by the state if needs be) is granted by the law, and the law is created and enforced by a government (in our case, the constitution and the military/law enforcement respectively), then why not also "recognize" or grant legal rights of "life" (i.e., sufficient conditions for living)? The preamble to the constitution mentions the "general welfare." I think we should take both very seriously -- not simply one over the other.

We can claim that government's recognition of property rights is more basic than the others. I don't agree with that. And, since we're all citizens of this country, and pay into the government, all of us are supporting the government -- the government which also grants legal property rights. So I'm helping to protect the property rights of Berkshire Hathaway, the patent rights of Pfizer, the landholdings of BlackRock, the legal personhood of corporations, the grotesque military budget, etc. Why is that perfectly fine, but giving checks to those in poverty isn't?

I guess it's just a matter of what we believe the function of government should be. I think it should serve the people's interests and promote the common good.

How about this, you stop insulting me, and I'll quit insulting you, and let's have this discussion and see if we can't work something out? — Garrett Travers

Fair enough. It's less time consuming to be a punk, but I'll try.

You already know where I'm coming from: I follow the precepts of Stoicism, Objectivism, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics; and I generally get where you're coming from, a general left leaning perspective on social issues and what appears to be basically Deontological Ethics. — Garrett Travers

Like I said before, there's no logically inconsistent about objectivism, in my view. I was into Ayn Rand for a while myself -- and still respect a lot of what she says. But I think her views on capitalism are in part a reaction to her experiences of the Soviet Union, and what was taken as socialism/communism. So she pushed the other way, in favor of laissez-faire -- but that's an ideal, one that has never really been tried, one that may not even be possible, and one where even if implemented could arguably lead to destruction. I don't share the value that competition in the free market leads to all kinds of great things.

And for full disclosure: I think we need to move towards anarchism (in the traditional sense), i.e., democracy all around (including the workplace) and then, in the long run, perhaps a system along the lines Plato discussed in the Republic, or Nietzsche hints about.

Just for fun....

As if property rights are handed down by God. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that they're legal rights granted and enforced by states -- i.e., a gift from states. — Xtrix

That's as ridiculous as saying, "the government respects your right to life, as if your life was handed down by God." No, property rights are the natural conclusion to logically assessing the nature of the huamn being and what he/she requires to sustain his/her own life. Meaning, liberty from coercion to pursue possessions that allow his/her life to continue in accordance with his/her natural, biological needs. No god required.

There are plenty of "rights" without property rights. There's no private property in China, for example, yet they go on just fine anyway. — Xtrix

Actually there are property rights for those who administer the state in China, and they, like good little Aristocrats, delegate to whom to give rights of property and to what degree. To the degree they sustain themselves, is to the exact degree they subsist as a people outside of abject misery by delegating rights of property. And no, they do not go on just fine. They've been the conductors of multiple genocides and millions of people live in squaler and heartache. This is something you really need to re-assess, and I mean that as friend.

I suppose if we define property as literally anything, then you can get your answer in one step. But I was assuming we're talking about the real world. In the real world, we can talk about legality. What's much harder to discuss is rights as "natural" or "God-given" or something of that sort. — Xtrix

Property is anything one has possession of that did not involve the violation of individual boundaries on the part of another to obtain. I don't discuss rights as that, I discuss rights as an amalgam of two things: one being, the logical assessment of individual right to action and the boundaries thereof, and two the societal relationship between peoples that is responsible for creating a political domain of freedom. In other words, both the ethical question, as well as the legal.

(2) Property rights -- or any rights -- as legal entities.

I'm talking about (2). We could argue about (1), but I'm willing to grant it. In which case, whether states "recognize" or "grant" rights is irrelevant. — Xtrix

Okay, now were getting somehwere. Alright, so you grant one, that rights are inalienable.

What's relevant is that they create the legal right. Perhaps the Native Americans had "rights" to the land they inhabited for centuries -- I would argue there's something to that. Did they have legal rights? Unfortunately no. That doesn't mean they didn't fight for their lands -- of course they did. — Xtrix

They do create a legal right, that's of course true. The question to ask about Native Americans is: did they recognize the rights of eachother to inhabit such lands? If the answer is, yes, then yes. If the answer is, no, as they were constantly warring with eachother for land, then the answer is clearly that imperialism takes the day. I'm of a mind that rights apply to all those and only those who are not violating them, be it Native Americans, or the authors of the Monroe Doctrine. I hope that really does clear that specific element up. To reiterate, you maintain your rights when not violating the rights of others.

Like I said before, there's no logically inconsistent about objectivism, in my view. I was into Ayn Rand for a while myself -- and still respect a lot of what she says. But I think her views on capitalism are in part a reaction to her experiences of the Soviet Union, and what was taken as socialism/communism. So she pushed the other way, in favor of laissez-faire -- but that's an ideal, one that has never really been tried, one that may not even be possible, and one where even if implemented could arguably lead to destruction. I don't share the value that competition in the free market leads to all kinds of great things. — Xtrix

Well, hear hear, brother. You and I agree on some stuff. Of course her reaction was to her abusers, but that doesn't make it any less coherent, as you conceded. It is not and never has been the purpose of Laissez-Faire to lead to anything other than the freedom of individuals to produce as they see fit, granted they respect the rights of others. That is the only point to Capitalism. Not that it is going to produce all these great things, which, it simply happens to. Unfortunately, the only types of markets and economies to ever exist are dirigistic ones, meaning controlled and influenced by states, or political actors seeking protection from competition and rights violations. So, I'm with you there.

And for full disclosure: I think we need to move towards anarchism (in the traditional sense), i.e., democracy all around (including the workplace) and then, in the long run, perhaps a system along the lines Plato discussed in the Republic, or Nietzsche hints about. — Xtrix

I happen to be an anarchist, myself. As far as I am concerened, states, all of them, have lost there right to exist long ago. Just about after the second or so genocide. One thing I can say about markets, they have never produced such carnage or tragedy outside of state influence. Ever. Never in history. In an anarchic society, you could have your co-ops and democratic methods, and erect commons, which will be essential to the success of your experiment. All of this, while peacefully co-existing with those who opt-out of said structure in favor of markets and private property. The ONLY way to achieve this, and why left and right is actually compatible, though they don't often notice, is through the implementation of Free Markets - totally - and voluntary commons within which private property is not permitted as a principle of said commmons. I'll ask you, do you see how we're far more compatible than dissimilar? I'd like you to.

— Xtrix

Hehaha!

And no, they do not go on just fine. They've been the conductors of multiple genocides and millions of people live in squaler and heartache. — Garrett Travers

Yes, plus endless wars, overwhelming inequality, global hegemony keeping many nations oppressed, etc.

And China's pretty bad too.

Okay, now were getting somehwere. Alright, so you grant one, that rights are inalienable. — Garrett Travers

Well there's a lot to say about that, but yes for the sake of argument, let's grant that's true.

To reiterate, you maintain your rights when not violating the rights of others. — Garrett Travers

Yeah but this ignores that we live in a community. To speak of individual rights is fine, but we also have an impact on others around us -- every choice we make. In some ways, even the guy who goes to live in a cave is having an impact on others.

The basic concepts here are individualism, ownership, rights, and the priority of rights. I've come to see that the greater good, our fellow human beings -- both here and around the world -- is much more important. Not because I'm altruistic, but because it also affects me. A good example is the pandemic. What is it our business to worry about whether other countries get vaccines? I think it's obvious why.

But even within this country, I think the fear of fascism and authoritarianism, which is no doubt a rational fear, has led to the development of these ideas you subscribe to -- those articulated by Rand, Friedman, Hayek and others -- and the implementation of which has led to some terrible results. Now that could be as unfair as saying Stalinism represents "communism" or Marxian thought -- which I think is true. Regardless, look at the outcomes. Something clearly isn't working in this neoliberal era.

It is not and never has been the purpose of Laissez-Faire to lead to anything other than the freedom of individuals to produce as they see fit, granted they respect the rights of others. That is the only point to Capitalism. Not that it is going to produce all these great things, which, it simply happens to. — Garrett Travers

Well if they've never been tried, it's hard to make that claim. Perhaps they would, by some invisible hand, etc., but that's purely theoretical.

But like I mentioned, it's arguable whether free markets can even conceivably exist. I don't think they can -- but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that they haven't yet been tried, and that the world's economies are mostly mixed economies.

I also reject the values. So even if we grant free markets can exist and, if they did, would naturally lead to desirable societal outcomes, I would still object to he system. I object to slavery for this reason as well, regardless of whether all parties involved are happy.

I happen to be an anarchist, myself. As far as I am concerened, states, all of them, have lost there right to exist long ago. — Garrett Travers

So perhaps anarcho-capitalist or something like that. Fine -- we agree about the state. In the meantime, while we live with the state (at least a centrally controlled state), we can ask what its function should be. Namely, I don't agree with ...

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

I think we can and should ask more of our collective efforts than this.

But even if Rand (or, better and more serious in my view, Friedman) is correct -- it's all theoretical. That may very well be the goal -- just as communists have a goal -- but the fact is that it hasn't been tried (or if it has, no one will admit it)...what we have are policies that lean more right or left. And for the last 40 years, and currently, we're living in a neoliberal era -- an era of the "Washington consensus." That's moving away from the New Deal, Keynesian policy (the era of Bretten Woods, Glass Steagall, etc.) and towards the right. How has it turned out compared to that era? If you look at it, it doesn't look good. And I think the ideas of Friedman and others are used to rationalize nothing more than conservative, corporate power.

I think what's required is abolishing capitalism altogether. It's done enormous harm as a socioeconomic system.

One thing I can say about markets, they have never produced such carnage or tragedy outside of state influence. — Garrett Travers

They've only existed with state influence. So yes, if we blame slavery, the crash of '29 and the depression, the crash of 1907, the crash of 1987, the crash of 2008, etc., the monopolies we see today and throughout history, the stagnant wages, the outsourcing of jobs, the shuttering of factories, the financialization of the economy, the massive CEO compensations and stock buybacks, etc., to the state -- then that's simply selection bias. Anything that happens that's negative...that's because of the state. Anything positive is because of the free market and capitalism.

But at best that's an incomplete analysis. The state isn't the one deciding what to do with the gargantuan profits of corporate America. Sure, they bail them out and subsidize them, but they don't mandate net earnings allocation. That's handled by the owners of the companies. When all one cares about is profit, we see over and over again how externalities are ignored.

Lastly, even if we attribute all negatives to state action preventing the free market from working its theoretical wonders, the question is: who runs the state? Are the people advocating for bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, and favorable legislation? Hardly. The people are not being listened to, except at the periphery. As I said before, it's not the people that write the laws -- it's the thousands of lobbyists representing corporate America.

Corporate America -- and every good capitalist -- knows very well that they need the state. They need the laws, the protection, the infrastructure, the subsidized labor, the handling of externalities, the bailouts and the favorable monetary policy of the Fed. They also know that when things go wrong, the people get angry, and revolution is always a possibility. They're not stupid. So who's to blame for the widespread discontent? Easy answer: the government! The president. The congress. Corrupt politicians. And we see that. It's Trump, or Ted Cruz, or Obama, or Biden, or whoever. I rarely hear the average American talk about Jamie Dimon or Larry Fink, or the Business Roundtable, or ALEC, or the WEF, etc. There's stirrings of it a little more these days, after Occupy and the Tea Party, but that's a fraction. Both the mainstream left and right put all of their attention on the government. I think it's all a mistake if we ignore the major powers that control the government.

I'll ask you, do you see how we're far more compatible than dissimilar? I'd like you to. — Garrett Travers

We all have commonalities. I think we want similar outcomes, but I'm not sure we both see eye to eye on what the problems are and what the causes of these problems are. So solutions will also be skewed because of this, despite both wanting freedom, justice, etc.

Yes, plus endless wars, overwhelming inequality, global hegemony keeping many nations oppressed, etc.

And China's pretty bad too. — Xtrix

China is much, much worse. But, I don't stand to defend states and never will.

Yeah but this ignores that we live in a community. To speak of individual rights is fine, but we also have an impact on others around us -- every choice we make. In some ways, even the guy who goes to live in a cave is having an impact on others. — Xtrix

No, it is specifically this concession that allows for the existence of community. If you respect the sovereign boundaries of your fellow human, community emerges as a by-product, and so does respect and empathy for one's circumstances. Sovereignty is the cover charge to peaceful society.

I think we can and should ask more of our collective efforts than this. — Xtrix

You can ask more, but what you should never regard as your right is to compel me via threat of violence to help you in supplying whatever provisions you need for your project. Our government was created with the expressed intention to be a nation of laws whose primary purpose is to protect rights. Providing for the general welfare does not mean forced federal taxation to pay for any social cause statists can get their hands on, and was supposed to be limited by state's rights to decide such action based on the democratic process, and what budgets would allow for. I for one agree with the above statement. That is the only legitimate government. Charity is for charity.

They've only existed with state influence. So yes, if we blame slavery, the crash of '29 and the depression, the crash of 1907, the crash of 1987, the crash of 2008, etc., the monopolies we see today and throughout history, the stagnant wages, the outsourcing of jobs, the shuttering of factories, the financialization of the economy, the massive CEO compensations and stock buybacks, etc., to the state -- then that's simply selection bias. Anything that happens that's negative...that's because of the state. Anything positive is because of the free market and capitalism. — Xtrix

It's not like I wish it to be that way, my friend. It simply is that way. Capitalism is nothing more than a domain that recognizes the right of every individual to accrue, exchange, and produce private property. It is inherently anti-state. Systems that show any disregard to this model, predicated on anything other than protecting the citizens from harm, are in direct violation of Capitalism. I just described every single state that has ever existed. It is the state that sanctioned slavery, it is the state that caused the depression, it was states the ground 100mill humans into nothingness in the last century, and so on... That was not the recognition of every human to own and trade and produce private property. It was the exact opposite. Even simple taxation is the violation of Capitalism, as my private funds that are my property are stolen from me without recourse, involuntarily, and with no hope of negotiation. I could go all day on this topic.

Corporate America -- and even good capitalist -- knows very well that they need the state. They need the laws, the protection, the infrastructure, the subsidized labor, the handling of externalities, the bailouts and the favorable monetary policy of the Fed. They also know that when things go wrong, the people get angry, and revolution is always a possibility. They're not stupid. So who's to blame for the widespread discontent? Easy answer: the government! The president. The congress. Corrupt politicians. And we see that. It's Trump, or Ted Cruz, or Obama, or Biden, or whoever. I rarely hear the average American talk about Jamie Dimon or Larry Fink, or the Business Roundtable, or ALEC, or the WEF, etc. There's stirrings of it a little more these days, after Occupy and the Tea Party, but that's a fraction. Both the mainstream left and right put all of their attention on the government. I think it's all a mistake if we ignore the major powers that control the government. — Xtrix

Need for a state? I fear you may be right. Ayn Rand certainly thought so, and she really put some thought into shit. The Fed can go strait to hell, it's an abomination that has cause immeasurable harm. Discontent? The internet. This always happens in history when a mass communicative paradigme shift occurs. You might think of the printing press of 1400's and the Reformation that ensued thereafter. People's worldview are being torn asunder, and it's leaving them in maddness. It will pass. However, a clear view into what politicians are upto will CERTAINLY be a factor in exacerbating that paradigm shift. As far as ignoring them, you'd do well to never, ever ignore the people with their hand on the political gun. They've meant business every time they've had their hand on it. You watch those fuckers like hawks, it could very well be your ass if you don't, that goes for everybody. In other words, I'm with you there, brother.

Rights do not require that you hear of them, nor understand anything of their history, but only that your sovereignty as an individual is recognized — Garrett Travers

The way I look at it, the value of the sovereignty and protection of freedom of the individual must grasped from a ‘selfish’ perspective. That is , we give such such protections to others because that’s the only way to assure them for ourselves. But I think this applies as well to the political atmosphere of our urban communities, in which support for government taxation and participation in aspects of life from environmental protectionand climate change mitigation to gun control to protection of alternate genders is done out of such ‘selfish’ motives. Why the willingness of over-educated urban and academic ( and increasingly , high tech corporate) America to sacrifice individual sovereignty when traditional small town America finds such public interference to be an intolerable breach of rights?
I think this gets back to what freedom and sovereignty are for. Yes , they are to protect and encourage individual pursuit of pleasure, hedonism, satisfaction.
I prefer to talk about these in terms of individual innovation and creativity. My theory is that 21at century academic and educated urban cultures are organizing themselves i. increasing complex ways. They are globally networked and interactive such as to promote continual innovation. I think the willingness for sacrifice of individual sovereignty is for the sake of a richer potential for individual expression of creativity. This would seem to be self-contradictory, but I think this rests on the idea that even as we have individuals desires and points of view, we have the capacity to influence each other in positive ways , ways which can be studied and organized into policy for social engineering. The left encourages publically structures social experimentation and manipulation. because they see person as a nodes in a giant feedback loop that has the potential to enrich all participants, not just as participants in a larger whole. but as individuals who can paradoxically express their individuality more and more fully through such means. Notice how social expression is hawked by advertisers to urban hipsters who support BLM , language policing and Critical Race theory.

I think the idea of social engineering is so profoundly threatening to traditional Americans because they simply don’t belief that human beings are able to understand each other well enough for such engineering to be anything but a disaster, or simply because they are for indicating freedom. Public projects whose inequivocal value is obvious to them they do support ( like the trans-continental railroad or the interstate highway system)

This objection comes up over and over again in conservative think tank writings I’ve followed over the years. They simply believe that it is hubris to think humans can mess around with God-given or natural human nature and make any sense of it, much less
turn it into social engineering policies. so best to leave it to its own devices , the invisible hand.

The accusation of selfishness leveled against the right from liberals I think misreads this skepticism and caution as a lack of caring.

The way I look at it, the value of the sovereignty and protection of freedom of the individual must grasped from a ‘selfish’ perspective. That is , we give such such protections to others because that’s the only way to assure them for ourselves. But I think this applies as well to the political atmosphere of our urban communities, in which support for government taxation and participation in aspects of life from environmental protectionand climate change mitigation to gun control to protection of alternate genders is done out of such ‘selfish’ motives. Why the willingness of over-educated urban and academic ( and increasingly , high tech corporate) America to sacrifice individual sovereignty when traditional small town America finds such public interference to be an intolerable breach of rights? — Joshs

Primarily from fear. When people don't have answers to complex questions, they first run to mommy and daddy for aid. And as far as taxation is concerned, there isn't a single thing you named that I would voluntarily pay for. I would have to be forced to, which I am.

I prefer to talk about these in terms of individual innovation and creativity. My theory is that 21at century academic and educated urban cultures are organizing themselves i. increasing complex ways. They are globally networked and interactive such as to promote continual innovation. I think the willingness for sacrifice of individual
sovereignty is for the sake of a richer potential
for individual expression of creativity. — Joshs

And I, as a sovereign thinker, am 100% on board with all of you getting together to do that. If you have to steal my property, or force me to participate to see it happen, then you are violators of freedom and will create 2 parts harm for every good you do. Just as our current government does.

The left encourages publically structures social experimentation and manipulation. because they see person as a nodes in a giant feedback loop that has the potential to enrich all participants, not just as participants in a larger whole. but as individuals who can paradoxically express their individuality more and more fully through such means. — Joshs

Yes, they want your individuality to be subsumed by the greater individuality, and the want most to be at the head of that hierarchy. In other words, they want your identity and they also want their own, they just know how to make you feel guilty about it.

I think the idea of social engineering is so profoundly threatening to traditional Americans because they simply don’t belief that human beings are able to understand each other well enough for such engineering to be anything but a disaster, or simply because they are for indicating freedom. Public projects whose inequivocal value is obvious to them they do support ( like the trans-continental railroad or the interstate highway system)

This objection comes up over and over again in conservative think tank writings I’ve followed over the years. They simply believe that it is hubris to think humans can mess around with God-given or natural human nature and make any sense of it, much less
turn it into social engineering policies. so best to leave it to its own devices , the invisible hand.

The accusation of selfishness leveled against the right from liberals I think misreads this skepticism and caution as a lack of caring. — Joshs

Nicely put and I suspect this is correct. Misreading skepticism and caution as a lack of caring is a new one for me which I will mull over.

Nicely put and I suspect this is correct. Misreading skepticism and caution as a lack of caring is a new one for me which I will mull over. — Tom Storm

That would be great if you did. The idea that I am not caring if I discriminate in my considerations on whether I will provide aid to someone is bizarre. It's what everyone does in any given situation. You don't just open your home to beggers and orphans. And even if you were the type, you can't house them all, thus some form of discriminatory practice is put in place.

Not sure how that relates to Josh's comment.

It seemed like you were saying that the idea of skepticism and caution being misread as not caring was something that you were just now reflecting on. Did you mean something else? Because that's what I remarked upon.

The idea that I am not caring if I discriminate in my considerations on whether I will provide aid to someone is bizarre. It's what everyone does in any given situation. You don't just open your home to beggers and orphans. — Garrett Travers

I don't consider this relevant to my take on Josh's point. But you and I are too far apart on these matters, let's not even start. :wink:

No prob, homie. I don't have conversations with people they don't want to have. Even If I'd love to know where I disconnected.

:cool:

China is much, much worse. — Garrett Travers

On what metric? Let's be concrete. I agree -- I wouldn't want to live there -- but a lot has been overblown, while ignoring the good (it's often said that "capitalism has risen more people out of poverty than any system", for example, when it's overwhelmingly China that's responsible for this -- is that "capitalism"?).

Yeah but this ignores that we live in a community. To speak of individual rights is fine, but we also have an impact on others around us -- every choice we make. In some ways, even the guy who goes to live in a cave is having an impact on others.
— Xtrix

No, it is specifically this concession that allows for the existence of community. If you respect the sovereign boundaries of your fellow human, community emerges as a by-product, and so does respect and empathy for one's circumstances. Sovereignty is the cover charge to peaceful society. — Garrett Travers

Recognizing others as human beings is a good thing. I'm not disputing that. I'm talking about externalities. Individuality fine; trade is fine. I wouldn't exclusively raise both to the level that Rand does, but no doubt they're important and have been part of human existence for a long time indeed.

What I'm talking about is externalities. I may do something that's good for me, or for my company -- or may make a trade that's beneficial to me and another person. What doesn't get considered in all this are the effects to third parties. Pollution is a good example, as is climate change. Right now we're heading to disaster with the warming planet. Why? Because fossil fuel companies, using the same tactics as the tobacco companies, have successfully delayed any transition away from their products -- all for short term profits. Can we fault them when they're doing what companies (supposedly) are required to do?

That's capitalism. It's based in private ownership and private profit. The less its regulated -- i.e., moving more towards "freedom" of the market -- the worse things get for the rest of the country, as we see in the neoliberal era. Global warming is one example -- but there are countless others. Quite apart from politics, something is going awry. It's just that people blame it on different things. One side says it's the government, the deep state, the bureaucracy, or the liberals; the other side says it's the Republican party, the 1%, etc.

Providing for the general welfare does not mean forced federal taxation to pay for any social cause statists can get their hands on — Garrett Travers

Nor does it mean taxation to pay for what Rand considers proper functions of government -- protecting private property, law enforcement, courts, etc. I didn't agree to that. You have no right taking my money to pay for those things either. Can't have it both ways. As long as their is taxation, however, and billions are spent on military funding and corporate America, I think we can take a page from other countries and provide national healthcare as well, etc. Given especially that we're the wealthiest country on earth (or maybe that's China now -- but we're close).

You want to make it sound like private property costs me nothing because the state doesn't protect it, private owners do. But in the case of land -- leaving personal property aside -- the state is constantly reinforcing contracts. If you own the land, the state allows you to protect it and not get put in prison, for example. And, of course, they provide military to protect the entire country, and all the property within it.

Private property, again, isn't free. Rand recognizes this too, she just thinks it's a proper role of government. The founders had every reason to believe this to. Fine. It's in the constitution. But so is the promotion of the general welfare -- which they also recognized is very important.

We have millions of Americans in poverty, with stagnating wages and massive debt, rampant drug abuse, etc. To argue it's unfair for our money to be "stolen" and go to charitable causes -- because that's coercion -- and not also note that it's equally unjust for our money to go to protecting private property and military expenditures, is just hypocrisy. If this is what your philosophy leads you to, you should recognize something has gone wrong along the way. Like a math problem, it's worth going back and checking your work. Everything may have looked fine, but clearly the results are wrong.

Anything positive is because of the free market and capitalism.
— Xtrix

It's not like I wish it to be that way, my friend. It simply is that way. — Garrett Travers

But it really isn't. If this is truly what you believe, then you're on par with a Christian who claims everything good is a result of Christianity. "It simply is that way." While we can easily see that Christianity has also done untold harm, he or she cannot.

Being a believer in free markets and a version of capitalism that precludes any possibility of failure is an unfalsifiable dogma.

I would ask for examples, but I can anticipate what they'd be. The example of China is a good one. A communist country. Yet they've pulled millions out of poverty. Why? Capitalism. So China is a good country? No, they're very bad. Why? Communism.

It's just not serious.

The fact is that there are no free markets, and never have been. It's a nice theory that one day, if ever we achieve truly free markets, we'll have wonderful results -- but it hasn't happened yet. Under that rationalization, in fact, we've done far worse -- that's the last 40 years. Compared to the prior 30 years, under a more center program (Keynesian policies) -- there's no contest.

Capitalism is nothing more than a domain that recognizes the right of every individual to accrue, exchange, and produce private property. It is inherently anti-state. Systems that show any disregard to this model, predicated on anything other than protecting the citizens from harm, are in direct violation of Capitalism. I just described every single state that has ever existed. It is the state that sanctioned slavery, it is the state that caused the depression, it was states the ground 100mill humans into nothingness in the last century, and so on... That was not the recognition of every human to own and trade and produce private property. It was the exact opposite. Even simple taxation is the violation of Capitalism, as my private funds that are my property are stolen from me without recourse, involuntarily, and with no hope of negotiation. I could go all day on this topic.

Saying capitalism is a "domain that recognizes" is incoherent to me. You're defining it out of any relevance. Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, one based on private ownership and unique in its relationship between employers and employees. Like feudalism before it, we have a different organization of power.

To argue that the state causes slavery, the depression, etc. -- Here again, because there's never been free markets, it's easy to make the claim. Mostly untrue, but there's some truth to it (the Fed's monetary policy after the crash was a factor, etc).

But what about corporate allocation of profits? How is the state responsible for those decisions? They're not. This is one area which I mentioned specifically for the very reason that the state plays no role. It's up to the board of directors of these institutions. So why all the stock buybacks? If we say it's because the government, the SEC under Reagan and guided by Friedman ideas, changed the rules -- then yes, you're mostly right. So I guess in that case we should re-implement the regulations that were in place prior to 1982? Or is that anti-free market?

Can't have it both ways.

Discontent? The internet. This always happens in history when a mass communicative paradigme shift occurs. — Garrett Travers

I think the discontent goes far beyond the Internet. The Internet -- particularly social media -- has exaggerated it, but the feelings have been brewing for years. Which isn't a surprise when you look at the numbers. Look at real wages, at debt, at the cost of education and home ownership, at healthcare outcomes, at the enormous transfer of money from the bottom 90% to the top 10% over 40 years (something like 50 trillion dollars, according to the RAND corporation), etc. Yeah, it's no wonder people are pissed -- left, right, and center.

On what metric? Let's be concrete. I agree -- I wouldn't want to live there -- but a lot has been overblown, while ignoring the good (it's often said that "capitalism has risen more people out of poverty than any system", for example, when it's overwhelmingly China that's responsible for this -- is that "capitalism"?). — Xtrix

Well, there are birth restrictions, and active on-going genocide, forced poverty, ideological suppression, just to name a couple things that should serve the purpose. And no, only people who are repeating what they've heard say that. the proper way of saying that is: to the degree that China has exapanded rights of property and the freedom of markets to operate naturally, is the exact degree to which people in China have been lifted out of poverty. It isn't Capitalism, much closer to Fascism, or Socialism (as administered by the state).

What I'm talking about is externalities. I may do something that's good for me, or for my company -- or may make a trade that's beneficial to me and another person. What doesn't get considered in all this are the effects to third parties. Pollution is a good example, as is climate change. Right now we're heading to disaster with the warming planet. Why? Because fossil fuel companies, using the same tactics as the tobacco companies, have successfully delayed any transition away from their products -- all for short term profits. Can we fault them when they're doing what companies (supposedly) are required to do? — Xtrix

There isn't single Capitalist that I know of, that assesses these issues rationally, that doesn't have a problem with the above highlighted conscerns. However, I will remind you that the tactics that are put in place that allow such companies to not only grow to that size, but to comport themselves in the manner in question are generated by the state, and the state funds them and protects them in doing so. Free Market businesses and corps with those kinds of standards would be phased out in almost no time at all as a result of competition. As it currently stands, Corps are the protected class and the State is the ruling class that protects and authorizes them.

That's capitalism. It's based in private ownership and private profit. The less its regulated -- i.e., moving more towards "freedom" of the market -- the worse things get for the rest of the country, as we see in the neoliberal era. Global warming is one example -- but there are countless others. Quite apart from politics, something is going awry. It's just that people blame it on different things. One side says it's the government, the deep state, the bureaucracy, or the liberals; the other side says it's the Republican party, the 1%, etc. — Xtrix

Well, no, it isn't, because they are funded via taxation of state created fiat currency controlled and manipulated by both the Fed and Congress. Not to mention the protections and contracts and anti-trust and patent laws. Far from Capitalism, my friend. Dirigisme, that's what you're identifying. And the only time in 20 years we've moved away from heavy, deep regulation was under Trump, and it wasn't near enought to stop the Fascism slowly approaching. I don't say it's the liberals, or the Republicans, I say it is the statists who keep expanding the role of government, keep artificially inflating the dollar, keep sending our stolen money to fund oversees wars, keep funding prisons housing innocent people, and so on. Anyone who says other wise is motivated by ideological possession almost guaranteed. Maybe not all, but almost all.

Nor does it mean taxation to pay for what Rand considers proper functions of government -- protecting private property, law enforcement, courts, etc. I didn't agree to that. You have no right taking my money to pay for those things either. Can't have it both ways. As long as their is taxation, however, and billions are spent on military funding and corporate America, I think we can take a page from other countries and provide national healthcare as well, etc. Given especially that we're the wealthiest country on earth (or maybe that's China now -- but we're close). — Xtrix

Rand doesn't advocate involuntary taxation, neither do I. I don't believe any organization has the right to steal your labor, that's a shake down, mob style. We advocate a system of voluntary government funding, so that the people eternally hold a fiscal veto over the actions of the government and its duplicitous controllers. Sure, we can provide healthcare, for a time. But, wealth is created, value is created, not printed. Venezuela knows what I'm saying. They also thought they could provide for their people, with all that juicy money coming from the oil fields. What happens when people stop buying, when America goes oil independent? Then everything falls apart and everyone loses their minds. Just as it happened in the Weimar Republic. Just as it happened in Russia under the Reds. Just as it is going to in China. I'd rather build a system without that almost guaranteed potential. And when it comes to taking a page out of the book of other countries, those countries are literally scaffolded and maintained by the health of our markets, our industries, our trade deals, and our innovations. If we fall, the world falls along with it, and so will their benefits; and the calapse will look at the Great Depression and say "hey, hold my Corona, you ain't see nothin yet."

Saying capitalism is a "domain that recognizes" is incoherent to me. You're defining it out of any relevance. Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, one based on private ownership and unique in its relationship between employers and employees. Like feudalism before it, we have a different organization of power. — Xtrix

No, my friend, these are Socialist lies. The Feudal system was NOT an ecomic relationship between people, it was a power hierarchy predicated on brute force and the Divine Right of Kings to rule. So was Absolute Monarchy and so was Mercantilism - all of which being derivations of one another adapted through hundreds of years. Capitalism is NOT a power dynamic, but many hierarchies, predicated on the exchange of value via the ability of he who participates. One is political and forced, the other non-political and voluntary. It is also hierarchies that are scalable, not based on genetics, and subject to positive change as a result of buyer discretion. The closest examples that we have of Feudalism in the modern world are North Korea and Saudi Arabia, to name a couple. Those are NOT free market societies. Capitalism is the unseen, unattempted societal model that will rise out of thousands of years of Statist societies of all kinds, be they City States, Empires, Feudal States, Absolute Monarchies, or Socialist States. We are in late stage Dirigisme. And we're so close, man. Here is the definition of Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. That should shed some light. The politics mentioned are the politics of non-interference and the respect for the sovereign boundaries of the indivdual, which is to say him and his private property.

But what about corporate allocation of profits? How is the state responsible for those decisions? They're not. This is one area which I mentioned specifically for the very reason that the state plays no role. It's up to the board of directors of these institutions. So why all the stock buybacks? If we say it's because the government, the SEC under Reagan and guided by Friedman ideas, changed the rules -- then yes, you're mostly right. So I guess in that case we should re-implement the regulations that were in place prior to 1982? Or is that anti-free market? — Xtrix

I implore you to research how modern corps are erected and what the state does to ensure longevity out of them. Such practices include: funding from the treasury, contracts, tax-breaks, regulatory protections, patent protections, and anti-trust laws that totally bust the idea of even attempting to compete with them in any realistic way. I implore you to do this, my friend. YES, it is the state that is allowing for this, and seeing to its continued existence. As far as stock buy-backs, that isn't an issue. Stock buy-backs do nothing to the bottom line that workers recieve, or anything like that. It's just a topic people bring up to cast shareholders in a negative light. These people simply play the game that the state has engineered for them to play. This goes all the way back to the early 1800's that Mark Twain called the gilded age, he called it that because, although big businesses were creating jobs and increasing standards of living, they were literally in mutual co-operation with politicians that would fundamentally create the ground work for the modern corp.

I think the discontent goes far beyond the Internet. The Internet -- particularly social media -- has exaggerated it, but the feelings have been brewing for years. Which isn't a surprise when you look at the numbers. Look at real wages, at debt, at the cost of education and home ownership, at healthcare outcomes, at the enormous transfer of money from the bottom 90% to the top 10% over 40 years (something like 50 trillion dollars, according to the RAND corporation), etc. Yeah, it's no wonder people are pissed -- left, right, and center. — Xtrix

Perhaps. On this particular subject I confess it's just an intellectual hunch that I've picked up from reading. Everytime in history there is a mass expansion of communication and information exchange, the world unravels. You might recall the printing-press and the reformation that followed, of which the Earth still holds echo. But, I'd say it's less wages and more the falling buying power of the dollar. This particular source was eye-popping for me, you should explore it when you have the chance, if you haven't already: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ We know when all of this really got kicked into high-gear.

Well, there are birth restrictions, and active on-going genocide, forced poverty, ideological suppression, just to name a couple things that should serve the purpose. — Garrett Travers

These aren't metrics. True, there are birth restrictions and suppression of information. I assume by genocide you're referring to the Uyghurs. The US knows all about crimes against humanity, of course -- especially to Muslims. As far as forced poverty goes -- not sure what you're referring to, considering they've lifted 700+ million people out of poverty (per the World Bank) and Xi's government has spent billions attempting to pull even more out of poverty -- and apparently has succeeded.

Again, plenty of terrible things to say about China. Plenty of terrible things to say about the US as well. Who's "far worse"? I'd prefer to live in the United States, myself -- but just because I'm a citizen and feel that way doesn't prove or disprove anything. In many respects, China has been a huge success and is currently outpacing the United States in many metrics.

the proper way of saying that is: to the degree that China has exapanded rights of property and the freedom of markets to operate naturally, is the exact degree to which people in China have been lifted out of poverty. It isn't Capitalism, much closer to Fascism, or Socialism (as administered by the state). — Garrett Travers

The level of state intervention in the Chinese economy is overwhelming. There are no free markets. China has opened trade with the world, which was a smart move -- but they're still an authoritarian regime. And a very successful one, unfortunately. The world is a complex place -- even good things came out of Nazism, for example. Yes, we can pretend that nothing good came out of it, but that's emotion speaking.

True, we can attribute their success to capitalism somehow, or to the small degree that they were capitalist, or to "free markets," or the approaching of free markets, or whatever else we want to claim -- but I anticipated that already. That's simply motivated reasoning. There's no evidence for it, and nothing that can be used to disprove it. So it's a religious belief, an economic dogma. The faith in efficient markets really does parallel Christian faith in this regard.

It's like arguing "China has lifted 700 million out of poverty, therefore their market must be 40% free." It's just lunacy. We have to do better than this. Not liking China is no excuse for irrationality any more than arguing the Volkswagen didn't come out of the Nazi regime, but out of the degree to which they were _____. (Christian, capitalist, altruists, whatever.)

There isn't single Capitalist that I know of, that assesses these issues rationally, that doesn't have a problem with the above highlighted conscerns. However, I will remind you that the tactics that are put in place that allow such companies to not only grow to that size, but to comport themselves in the manner in question are generated by the state, and the state funds them and protects them in doing so. Free Market businesses and corps with those kinds of standards would be phased out in almost no time at all as a result of competition. As it currently stands, Corps are the protected class and the State is the ruling class that protects and authorizes them. — Garrett Travers

I'm not sure about the first part. They may be decent people otherwise, but I don't think you can be rational about any of this if you're a "believer" in capitalism. It's simply the nature of the game: you make profits for your company, preferably each week but definitely each quarter, or you're out. You're out as CEO, you're out as board chairman, you're acquired by other companies, you're attacked by hedge funds, etc. Remember the Friedman Doctrine: the sole responsibility of a corporation is to make a profit. We see the results. To the point where even in the face of an environmental disaster, the fossil fuel industry is still fighting to keep the industry alive -- for obvious reasons.

As to the second part, what you're stating is the efficient market hypothesis. With a free market, and free competition, everything will sort itself out naturally. There's zero evidence for this, historical or otherwise. It's at best simply hypothetical -- at worst a complete fantasy which enormous harm has been done in the name of.

Corporate America is the ruling class -- that's how wealth organizes itself, in the multinational corporation. It's here that the real power lies -- because they essentially own the state. We can say they're "protected," yes -- but they're protected for a reason. They weren't always as protected as they are today. But take a look at the cost of political campaigns -- especially since Citizens United. It's skyrocketed. Pretty obvious what the results will be.

Now true, we can blame the government. But to me that's kind of like blaming the puppet. The real power in America comes from concentrations of wealth. The rest -- politicians included -- become their employees. That's capitalism for you.

That's capitalism. It's based in private ownership and private profit. The less its regulated -- i.e., moving more towards "freedom" of the market -- the worse things get for the rest of the country, as we see in the neoliberal era. Global warming is one example -- but there are countless others. Quite apart from politics, something is going awry. It's just that people blame it on different things. One side says it's the government, the deep state, the bureaucracy, or the liberals; the other side says it's the Republican party, the 1%, etc.
— Xtrix

Well, no, it isn't, because they are funded via taxation of state created fiat currency controlled and manipulated by both the Fed and Congress. — Garrett Travers

What does the "they" refer to? Who's funded by taxation?

I can't really make heads or tails of this statement. It's true we have fiat currency and that the Fed controls monetary policy (the money supply, interest rates, etc)...but I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote above.

Not to mention the protections and contracts and anti-trust and patent laws. Far from Capitalism, my friend. — Garrett Travers

Not sure why anti-trust laws are in there, but yes -- the state allows capitalism to go on. We're a mixed economy, as are almost all nations on earth. It provides the foundation of capitalism -- in private ownership. I don't see how that's "far from capitalism." Rand herself argues for protections of contracts as a function of government.

You're just kind of losing me here, I guess. I've provided a definition of capitalism I think is reasonable. It's based in private ownership, private profit, and unique in its employer (owner) / employee (worker) relationship. That's what separates it from other systems in history -- because we've had all kinds of systems, just as we've had all kinds of governments.

Dirigisme, that's what you're identifying. — Garrett Travers

Neoliberalism is hardly dirigisme. The New Deal era perhaps (I wouldn't agree, but that's when you had much more regulation, more unions, more robust welfare programs, etc) -- but certainly not the last 40 years. And it was the last 40 years I was identifying.

Coming back again and again to blaming the state is exactly what I'm trying to show you doesn't work. The analysis simply breaks down. If the argument that less regulation, more privatization, less taxes, smaller government, etc. -- the neoliberal program -- is a good one (based on Rand and Friedman's principles), as it provides for freer markets (not totally free, but more free than the decades prior), then we should be seeing proportional results -- the kind you mentioned earlier when trying to account for China's success with poverty.

The results of the last 40 years has been a disaster. I could go through the specifics if you like, but if you compare the era from the 40s-70s to the 80s-today, the results may surprise you. One era you had what Friedman and Rand railed against (the New Deal policies), the other you had policies they advocated for. You say the latter is dirigisme makes me wonder: what ISN'T dirigisme? Has it ever existed? Has it even come close to existing? When? Where?

And the only time in 20 years we've moved away from heavy, deep regulation was under Trump, and it wasn't near enought to stop the Fascism slowly approaching. — Garrett Travers

Trump was continuing what had been going on for decades, beginning with Reagan -- who did far more damage than Trump, in many ways.

They also thought they could provide for their people, with all that juicy money coming from the oil fields. What happens when people stop buying, when America goes oil independent? Then everything falls apart and everyone loses their minds. — Garrett Travers

You mean when the US imposes severe sanctions? Yes, it's pretty obvious to anyone what would happen.

Saying capitalism is a "domain that recognizes" is incoherent to me. You're defining it out of any relevance. Capitalism is a socioeconomic system, one based on private ownership and unique in its relationship between employers and employees. Like feudalism before it, we have a different organization of power.
— Xtrix

No, my friend, these are Socialist lies. — Garrett Travers

It has nothing to do with socialism. It's also not a "lie," it's a definition. I'm not claiming it's "the" definition -- capitalism, like socialism, is a complex word. Many interpretations, no doubt. I'm offering one, and not an uncommon one -- actually pretty standard -- and willing to explain it further. So I'm not sure where this comment is coming from, or why what I said is so threatening as to make it.

The Feudal system was NOT an ecomic relationship between people, it was a power hierarchy predicated on brute force and the Divine Right of Kings to rule. — Garrett Travers

A power hierarchy doesn't involve relationships between people? The very heart of feudalism was the relationship between a lord and a vassal. The divine right of kings is somewhat related. As for brute force, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Force was a factor there as well, but not central.

Maybe an outside source can help a little:

Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was the combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs that flourished in Medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor.

(Wikipedia)

The land was called a fief, which is where feudalism gets its name. Manorialism plays a big role, and so on.

It was one system. Slavery is another system. There are all kinds of socioeconomic/political systems. My point in bringing it up was to contrast it to capitalism, which is a different socioeconomic system. It grew up out of the middle ages and took off in the industrial revolution.

I don't think any of this is controversial.

Capitalism is NOT a power dynamic, but many hierarchies — Garrett Travers

Feudalism had many hierarchies as well. Hierarchies are structures of power, and involve power dynamics -- almost by definition.

There are all kinds of gradations of rank in every society. Capitalism is no different in this respect. But instead of a king at the top -- as with monarchy -- or with masters and lords as in slavery or feudalism, respectively, we have a different hierarchy. Who's at the top? Well, to make it concrete, let's look at a corporation. Who's at the top of a corporation? Yes, the CEO -- but also the chairman of the board of directors. The board of directors are voted in by the shareholders (one share, one vote -- so especially the major shareholders). These are the owners (technically, not legally the owners, but de facto owners).

So one could argue it's the shareholders, the board of directors, and perhaps the CEO and a handful of other executives. That's really not many people -- maybe 50? In a corporation that employs hundreds, thousands, even millions of people -- that's the top of the pyramid.

What are "employers"? Just another word for owners, really. Who owns the corporation? The public? No -- they're owned by private individuals.

So there you go. That, in my view, is the heart of capitalism. It's a system based in private ownership. The corporation is the example I use because it's the primary form of organization today. They're owned and controlled privately -- not through the government. The state can regulate and legislate, no doubt -- but for the last 40 years it's been the opposite: de-regulation, tax cuts, etc. Not to mention subsidies and bailouts. The state works for the corporate sector -- for the owners of this country.

Look at the word "capitalist," which pre-dates the word capitalism, and it begins to become clear. A capitalist is an owner of capital. Again, it's about ownership -- but private ownership. Marx says the private ownership of the "means of protection," a particular kind of property, but I like to just say private property generally.

The closest examples that we have of Feudalism in the modern world are North Korea and Saudi Arabia, to name a couple. Those are NOT free market societies. — Garrett Travers

True -- Saudi Arabia is a mixed economy. Sweden is a mixed economy. Germany is a mixed economy. Brazil is a mixed economy.

There are no free markets. If free markets is how you're defining capitalism, then it doesn't exist any more than a communist utopia exists.

So saying something isn't a free market society is pointless. The United States isn't a free market society either.

Here is the definition of Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. — Garrett Travers

Well, fine -- that's kind of what I was saying earlier -- with the important qualification that, again, there is state intervention on nearly every level in the United States, China, German, Japan, India, etc. That is, there are no free markets and the owners of capital don't have complete control over trade and industry -- the state plays a huge role. So if capitalism is a system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners, then capitalism exists exactly nowhere.

But yes, private ownership, private property, private profit -- those are essential features of capitalism. The relationship between owners and their wage-workers, their employees, is a unique one in history. The owner is not a lord, is not a king, is not a clergy -- his power comes from his ownership of property, of capital. He owns the land, the factories, the equipment, the means of production, etc., and gives some of his/her money (not protection from harm, not from the devil) to the worker in exchange for their labor. This is the game, the rules of the game.

That game -- that system -- is capitalism.

As far as stock buy-backs, that isn't an issue. Stock buy-backs do nothing to the bottom line that workers recieve, or anything like that. — Garrett Travers

This is just factually wrong. It has in fact impacted the bottom line of workers. It's partly why wages have stagnated. There's a lot of good, non-partisan scholarship on this, in fact. Happy to give references. The numbers are astounding -- trillions of dollars in buybacks in the last couple decades. Companies often issue debt to finance buybacks -- and so the debt picture is looking very bad indeed. It's been sustained temporarily by QE, but it's not pretty.

Why do they do this? Why buy back stocks? What good does it do? Ask yourself.

You might recall the printing-press and the reformation that followed, of which the Earth still holds echo. — Garrett Travers

There's no doubt technology is playing a huge role. My only point was that this discontent pre-dates a lot of the more recent, and more troubling, technology (iPhones, social media, etc.).

These aren't metrics. True, there are birth restrictions and suppression of information. I assume by genocide you're referring to the Uyghurs. The US knows all about crimes against humanity, of course -- especially to Muslims. As far as forced poverty goes -- not sure what you're referring to, considering they've lifted 700+ million people out of poverty (per the World Bank) and Xi's government has spent billions attempting to pull even more out of poverty -- and apparently has succeeded. — Xtrix

Be a bit more specific about metrics and I'll try to assess what you're talking about. As far as pverty, yes they've done much better of the course of the past decade. Which again hearkens back to what I said about introducing market principles and expanded property rights. The reduction in poverty is commensurate with the departure from Moaist policies and an introduction to a more Capitalist approach at economics. Here's a good article on that written by economists from the World Bank: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2021/09/24/whats-next-for-poverty-reduction-policies-in-china/

I'd prefer to live in the United States, myself -- but just because I'm a citizen and feel that way doesn't prove or disprove anything. In many respects, China has been a huge success and is currently outpacing the United States in many metrics. — Xtrix

Let's hope it stays that way. I don't think the Uyghurs would share your optimism. Or, the Falun Gong.

The level of state intervention in the Chinese economy is overwhelming. There are no free markets. China has opened trade with the world, which was a smart move -- but they're still an authoritarian regime. — Xtrix

I know, that's specifically what I was referring to when I said it is far worse than America. I didn't sta there were free markets, I said to the degree China expanded property and free market principles. Not that they are Free Market, Free Markets don't exist.

That's simply motivated reasoning. There's no evidence for it, and nothing that can be used to disprove it. — Xtrix

Defer to the article above, it describes how China has been slowly transitioning from Communist economic policies to more Capitalist ones. That isn't to say it is completely Capitalist. Again, Capitalism requires Free Markets, or it isn't Capitalism, but Dirigisme.

Now true, we can blame the government. But to me that's kind of like blaming the puppet. The real power in America comes from concentrations of wealth. The rest -- politicians included -- become their employees. That's capitalism for you. — Xtrix

It's exactly the opposite. The government controls, manipulates, prints, and lends all of the money. The government has more money at its disposal than any corporation that it allows to exists. If it is wealth that is the source of power, which it isn't, it's wealth + monopoly on violence, then it follows that the government is actually the puppet master(s) and the Corps do their bidding. Which is why Corps are always lobbying, they can't do what the state doesn't allow them to do. That's Dirigisme for you.

What does the "they" refer to? Who's funded by taxation? — Xtrix

Corporations. The modern Corporation is funded by the government, which indebts us to its spending, thereby rendering us tax slaves to the Government and by extension the Corps it funds and protects.

The results of the last 40 years has been a disaster. I could go through the specifics if you like, but if you compare the era from the 40s-70s to the 80s-today, the results may surprise you. One era you had what Friedman and Rand railed against (the New Deal policies), the other you had policies they advocated for. You say the latter is dirigisme makes me wonder: what ISN'T dirigisme? Has it ever existed? Has it even come close to existing? When? Where? — Xtrix

So, again, you should visit that link I sent you wtfhappened in1971. Wages and earnings have been stagnating since 1971 with the advent of fiat. A procession that began with 19th Amendment in 1912, along with the establishment of the Fed and the massive expansion of government role in the econmy from Wilson and F.D.R, that has simply not stopped since then. The reason we haven't seen that commensurate increase is because markets have grown less and less free by the decade since the depression. The post-war boom was an artifical spending spree that mirrored that of the 20's almost to a T. HAs nothing to do with Free Market expansion. And no, as I said, Free Market Capitalism is the final thrust out of 10,000 years of government controls both politically, and economically. It has always been Dirigisme.

Trump was continuing what had been going on for decades, beginning with Reagan -- who did far more damage than Trump, in many ways. — Xtrix

Trumps started what hadn't been addressed in couple decades.

You mean when the US imposes severe sanctions? Yes, it's pretty obvious to anyone what would happen. — Xtrix

No, that's not what I meant, and sanctions were not in any way what unravelled Venezuela. Venzuela banked all of their social spending on the oil fields and went bankrupt because nobody wanted their oil after a while, so began barrowing form China and others. This is wha precipitated their decline, not sanctions. That simply didn't help. And if the argument is that te sanctions imposed upon Venezuela harmed them because they were unable to perform a greater amount of market activity, you'd just be demonstrating the need for Free Markets. which is my point to begin with.

A power hierarchy doesn't involve relationships between people? The very heart of feudalism was the relationship between a lord and a vassal. The divine right of kings is somewhat related. As for brute force, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Force was a factor there as well, but not central. — Xtrix

No, a power hierarchy is not an ECONOMIC relationship. It is a relationship predicated upon the application of force as authorized by God. The collecting of taxes and rents on this basis is only possible with the extended use of force to suppress populations and relegate them to respective classes as determined by the Aristocracy. Force was the CENTRAL role, that's not even a question. You have to apply force to people to keep them in their place, other wise they'll just do something else, and you have to tax them to coerce their labor to fund your war and architectural campaigns. That is exactly what was central to Feudalism. Not the ownership property. Any society where there are slaves and serfs bound to landlords as a caste, is a society where private property rights are not respected, but delegated top down.

Maybe an outside source can help a little: — Xtrix

I think you need to read your own source a bit more closely. The "structuring" part is what you need to mince. The people doing the structuring, instead of allowing people to structure their own lives, is the key for you to understand this topic. It's top down, seen to by force and coercive taxation, relegating humans to immobile castes. This is Dirigisme, again. Not Capitalism.

Feudalism had many hierarchies as well. Hierarchies are structures of power, and involve power dynamics -- almost by definition. — Xtrix

Feudalism has ONLY power hierarchies predicated upon lineage or clergy, and they determine the nature of your entire life. An economic hierarchy, as I said, is predicated on ability and is scalable. One s forced, the other voluntray. You need to connect these distinctions, or you're never going to understand this.

So there you go. That, in my view, is the heart of capitalism. — Xtrix

Yes, that's correct. That would be the heart of Capitalism if government didn't control, manipulate, artificial inflate, and arbitraily print fiat currency and didn't authorize, regulate, tax, contract, and protect Corporations for it's own gains. That's Dirigisme. You're like, right there, man. You're right at the cusp of seeing who's really in charge here and who's causing all the issues.

There are no free markets. If free markets is how you're defining capitalism, then it doesn't exist any more than a communist utopia exists. — Xtrix

I agree, the difference is, it hasn't even been attempted. That's the issue. Where as communist states have been tried on every continent.

then capitalism exists exactly nowhere. — Xtrix

Bingo. Meaning all of this vitriol associated with Capitalism is by definition a distraction from the heart of the actual issue at hand: Government domination of markets as means to fulfill their desires within the context of competing power hierarchies around the globe, all conducting themselves in exactly the same manner. The Feudal lords, my friend, have snuck up on us once more, only this time they've successfully convinced people that their fellow man is a terrorist and that the guy who discovers a cure for diabetes is a monster for giving it away for free: "That's Capitalism, for you." Utter, fucking, bullshit.

Happy to give references. — Xtrix

Shoot me some, I'll have a look.

There's no doubt technology is playing a huge role. My only point was that this discontent pre-dates a lot of the more recent, and more troubling, technology (iPhones, social media, etc.). — Xtrix

Yeah, it's damn near a certainty.



Damn, that was a long forum.... These are gonna get longer. Wanna move this chat to private? No pressure.

So you really would think that the Biden administration would think that maternity flight suits are more important than the threat of Chinese hypersonic missiles are designed to destroy US aircraft carriers? — ssu

Of course not, but I think some people, including active service members, might think that those things are indeed indicative of pervasive wokeness in the military that needs to be fought and eliminated. And I think people like Milley give those people ammunition by saying that "white rage" caused the January 6th insurrection, for example - which I think was just a bunch of idiotic Trump supporters being idiots; as far as I can tell it wasn't racially motivated.

Damn, that was a long forum.... These are gonna get longer. Wanna move this chat to private? No pressure. — Garrett Travers

Agreed. That's fine with me. It'll take me a little bit to respond in any detail, but after reading your response I think the basic issue has become clearer, and one I touched on earlier: the source of the problems. Again and again you come back to governments. What I'm arguing is that we have to look at who controls the government. When you look at that, I think it's pretty clear who does. But it's not the people. Tom Ferguson has done interesting work on this, in terms of what policies are enacted.

So if the government is the problem, and the government is actually controlled by capitalists....then I think it's clear as to where we should look.

Of course not, but I think some people, including active service members, might think that those things are indeed indicative of pervasive wokeness in the military that needs to be fought and eliminated. And I think people like Milley give those people ammunition by saying that "white rage" caused the January 6th insurrection, for example - which I think it was just a bunch of idiotic Trump supporters being idiots; as far as I can tell it wasn't racially motivated. — ToothyMaw

(Actually I agree with the latter)

Yet what can one say? Only that there are these juicy narratives that people want to use and fit everything into. If the narrative is that "The Democrats are making the military woke...and thus the combat capability of the military is in danger", then you will try to find every small detail that you can use for that narrative, be it maternity flight suits or whatever.

Of course the "normal" answer would be that the military is part of the society and hence everything that happens in the society in general will typically show also in the military. When there was segregation in the US, then the US military was segregated. When it stopped, so did it in the military too. The armed forces aren't so detached from the overall society as some people assume. And likely there is a law or regulation that demands pregnant workforce has the right to have fitting clothes in their work.

Yet what can one say? Only that there are these juicy narratives that people want to use and fit everything into. If the narrative is that "The Democrats are making the military woke...and thus the combat capability of the military is in danger", then you will try to find every small detail that you can use for that narrative, be it maternity flight suits or whatever. — ssu

Yes, I know that any small detail can be considered confirmation of some backwards-ass belief, but my point that actually playing into the wokeness narrative is detrimental remains true. Milley shouldn't be talking about "critical race theory", which he might not even know is a legal theory that started in the seventies that is highly academic and also criticized by legal scholars, but rather about inclusiveness and diversity as a tangible strength, and that, as you point out, the military will inevitably reflect society at large. Milley and others who are confronted with accusations of promoting critical race theory in the military should just not accept those terms, mostly because they almost certainly aren't even teaching our soldiers actual critical race theory.

In fact, it almost seems fallacious to me to suggest that we (the reasonable people) shouldn't play smarter just because some people will twist details to suit their narrative.

Btw, when I say that Milley should or shouldn't do something I am referring to what I think would be smart for him to do; he can say whatever the fuck he wants, obviously, and is a soldier who has served his country - unlike me, a random dude on the internet who has never had to pick up a rifle. Just thought I should qualify my last post with that.

Obviously it was a poor decision from Milley to talk about critical race theory or to refer to it. But then he I think it's his least worries in Public Relations. Far more dangerous for him (and the armed forces) is the toxic political theatre that the himself and the armed forces are dragged into in Washington. Just think about it: you have political turmoil in Washington DC, the Speaker of the House phones you (not the other way around) and then makes public the call and uses the obviously private telephone call to push her party's side.

So when you had a President that at least thought seriously about using the armed forces to alter elections, you know how perilous the situation is for such a well respected institution like the US armed forces. That's where Milley had to walk the real tight-rope between the commander-in-chief and the constitution.

As I've said earlier, the FBI and it's director were the first to be used political pawn used by both sides (without skipping a beat) to their partisan polemics. First James Comey was a Republican stooge that did more damage to the Democrat party than the Russian trolls ever could do. Then suddenly he became instantly a Democrat stooge from a hero. How does that happen? I think that officials who by law ought to be non-political and serve an elected adminstration (whatever party it comes from) ought to understand that now the political fighting is so abysmally toxic, that they have to approach politicians like when talking to a hostile foreign entity...when it comes to anything that can be used in party politics. You just have to weigh what you say. Whatever you say (or can be depicted to have said) can and will be used to promote the partisan political line. Being non-political or apolitical will simply not be accepted in the current political atmosphere: either you are with their party or you work for the enemy party. If they can use you, they will, and not care at all if then you are forced out.

There cannot be such a grave crisis that these two parties wouldn't think about their partisan objectives and use it to attack the other party in order to win in the next elections. Milley should understand that.

And that's really the sad thing with the US now. At least in my puny small country I know that if and when the shit really hits the fan, the partisan political bickering is put aside and the political parties work as a team and are capable to work as an unified team when the effort is really needed.

With the US I'm really not so sure.