I can do as you suggest and not buy food, not work, become homeless, move to another country, because no one is forcing me to consume food or live with a roof over my head, but knowing that all of this is being used to avoid the points of my criticisms leaves me with little choice but to ignore it. — NOS4A2

Maybe you really are just too dense to get the point being made, so I'll bite and state it explicitly:

Corporations are run undemocratically. Unlike the government. To argue the former is OK and the latter not because the former is associated with "voluntarily" is simplistic, in the same way that arguing one is "voluntarily" associating with a state is also simplistic.

Millions of people have to work, otherwise they starve and become homeless. When you're poor, you take a job anywhere. This is why Amazon moves their facilities to places like Bessemer, Alabama or to a poor country. Paying people meager wages, giving them no say in what happens within the company, and hoarding 90% of the profits they all help to generate is unjust. At least on par with an income tax.

The problem is that you're too sick to see any of this, and find a way to bring it back to the state or ignore the problem outright.

I was only confirming to my interlocutor that it is true I can leave the country if I do not like it.



What you claim I said:

“In terms of employment, it’s nice to know you stick with the age-old “just quit and work somewhere else” mantra”

What I said:

“ 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.”

One is a fallacy, the other is a description of my own behavior.

You are no more or less free to choose the rules of your government than you are the rules of your employment. — Isaac

I don't fully agree. Why? Because in a state where you can vote in representatives/officials, that's your say. In a corporation, you don't even have a vote. You don't vote in your boss or your board of directors. You simply accept what they decide.

True, it feels as if we don't have any say in the federal government because it's so remote. But we really do. And when it comes to the state and local level, we have a lot of say -- if we choose to leverage it.

Really this makes NOS' position even less convincing, and exposes just how absurd it is to rail continually and exclusively against the "state" while ignoring the far worse injustices of corporations.

One is a fallacy, the other is a description of my own behavior. — NOS4A2

Ohh, I see. So it's just a description of your behavior and your feelings.

Well I appreciate your personal experiences, but unfortunately that doesn't mean shit to this conversation.

But good to know you admit that "just quit" is a fallacy. So given that you acknowledge this, finally, your position is even more weak. Since one cannot "just quit," just as one cannot "just leave" a country, neither are truly "voluntary." And since you predicate the rest of your argument on exactly this, you once again have sunk into incoherence.

Corporations are little tyrannies. As much as you feel the "state" is. The real difference is that you have some say in what a state does. Yet you rail exclusively against only the latter. :chin:

Your complaints about corporate structure and governance do not mean shit to this conversation, and is little more than a red herring. Further, your false equivalency between the two is bonkers, in my opinion. I’ve entertained it because I appreciate your input, as snide and hilarious as it might be. We can leave it at that, take it up in a different thread, or discuss the merits and demerits of laissez-faire.

discuss the merits and demerits of laissez-faire. — NOS4A2

The main problem is that it tends to fail. 2008 is an example. A lack of regulation leads to the explosion of a speculative bubble and everyone suffers.

Lol. So you have no argument.

Let's go over how this is relevant yet again. (Remember I'm not writing for you -- you're hopeless. Go back to sleep, it's irrelevant. Skip it.)

For anyone else:

* Laissez faire is complete nonsense. You cannot have an economy without some governance.

* The impossible goal that is laissez faire serves one purpose: to convince those who are not in the ruling class to cheer "small government," when in reality it's just a cover for maintaining big government for the corporate sector while cutting taxes and deregulating industries (the part they want "hands off").

* The state has democratic participation. Corporations do not.

* The corporate sector owns and runs the state.

With all that fairly well understood, this thread is absurd from the start. It's a cover for the state, nothing less.

The objections to Laissez-faire are ethical, not economic.
— Banno

They're also economic. — Benkei

The congenital deformity of economics is that it thinks of itself as amoral.

Seeking efficiency is an ethical choice. But if it be granted then you are right that @NOS4A2's economics is naive.

"Living for others" is the very nature of the body politic, and what ethics is about. Expecting the state to "mind it's own business" is a demonstration of Greek idiocy.

True, it feels as if we don't have any say in the federal government because it's so remote. But we really do. And when it comes to the state and local level, we have a lot of say -- if we choose to leverage it. — Xtrix

I can see your point, but we can, in theory, 'vote with our dollar' on corporations too. If we all refused to buy from Amazon, they'd be gone in a day. The problem is, as I'm sure you know, that corporations create de facto monopolies (in both resources, and employment), and control the means of production to create a constraint on choice. The problem I see in modern democracy is that political institutions are barely any more limited in their ability to similarly monopolise and so create constraints on choice. I know we can all vote for a better politician, but there needs to a) be one available, and b) be a sufficiently mobilised, informed, and care-free fellow electorate to join with us to elect them.

Existing political power structures can limit (a) by restrictive requirements for financing, access to media, access to intermediate institutions.

They can limit (b) by simple gerrymandering, but more nefariously by creating conditions of scarcity which limit political activism (simple poverty, association laws, etc) as well as conditions which limit access to information.

I suppose the limits to (b) are mostly surmountable - they make political power difficult, not impossible, to wield. I'm not convinced of the extent to which the constraints in (a) don't simply render the opportunities of (b) obsolete.

It may be that there are certain political systems in which we can wield power, but then there are some consumer and employee interventions which work too - strikes and boycotts, for example.

So I agree they're different enough to make the case complex, but personally, I still don't see a lot between them.

Really this makes NOS' position even less convincing, and exposes just how absurd it is to rail continually and exclusively against the "state" while ignoring the far worse injustices of corporations. — Xtrix

Yes, I agree here. Even if one accepts my more jaded view of politics, the very existence of a voting system makes the idea that one only has a say in the system that has none utterly absurd.

But if it be granted then you are right that NOS4A2's econ — Banno

I don't think so. The state isn't the only entity that can guarantee the community's moral expectations. If you think the state has to take that role, you need to explain why. And that's not a moral question.

The state is the res publica; it is us working together. Any other "entities" that you might site may take on that role only as sanctioned by the state. It's not that the state has to take that role, but that taking on that role is what the state is.

Any other "entities" that you might site may take on that role only as sanctioned by the state — Banno

What do you mean? As an example, I recently had peripheral dealings with a woman who was homeless and apparently suicidal. I knew of three entities in the community that could help. It was a matter of determining which one could do it immediately. All three are religiously-based groups.

What kind of sanctioning does the state do for these kinds of organizations?

What kind of sanctioning does the state do for these kinds of organizations? — frank

You were able to do so because your state permits the existence of religious institutions. If they were persecuted into obscurity you would not have been able to make use of them.

The main problem is that it tends to fail. 2008 is an example. A lack of regulation leads to the explosion of a speculative bubble and everyone suffers.

No policy of laissez-faire has existed in the United States. As far as I can tell, Federal regulations have only increased. (https://www.quantgov.org/regulatory-accumulation)




https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats

You were able to do so because your state permits the existence of religious institutions. If they were persecuted into obscurity you would not have been able to make use of them. — Banno

So the fact that the state forebears waging war on religious organizations means the state helped that woman?

No policy of laissez-faire has existed in the United States. — NOS4A2

The 2008 crisis is widely known to have resulted from a gap in regulation of the financial industry.

One little gap led to the disappearance of 55 trillion dollars and an impending global economic catastrophe that was forestalled by a handful of states.

Yep. Of course a better solution would have been for her not to be homeless and to have access to metal health support.

Yep — Banno

Ok. So the state, just by allowing people to help one another, is actually doing the helping.

:up:

Despite the accumulation of regulation, they failed at their one duty, and then used the public purse to bail out their friends.

Ok. So the state, just by allowing people to help one another, is actually doing the helping.

Statist morality in a nutshell.

Poorly. Better if the state had taken a more direct role in helping her.

Despite the accumulation of regulation, they failed at their one duty, and then used the public purse to bail out their friends. — NOS4A2

No. There was no regulation of derivatives.

The story is that Greenspan was warned that this pocket of confusion was brewing and he refused to do anything about it based on his belief in the virtues of laissez-faire.

He later admitted to Congress that he was wrong. Laissez-faire is dangerous. It causes catastrophes. That's why we don't do it.

Better if the state had taken a more direct role in helping her. — Banno

Why?

Why? — frank

...and so we are doing ethics, not economics.

No. There was no regulation of derivatives.

The story is that Greenspan was warned that this pocket of confusion was brewing and he refused to do anything about it based on his belief in the virtues of laissez-faire.

He later admitted to Congress that he was wrong. Laissez-faire is dangerous. It causes catastrophes. That's why we don't do it.

No policy of laissez-faire has existed. The American government has had its hands in the economy since its inception. The second federal law ever passed in the US was a tariff. All economic catastrophes since then have occurred under the supervision and regulation of the US government.

All economic catastrophes since then have occurred under the supervision and regulation of the US government. — NOS4A2

Well, no. I just gave you an example of how a lack of regulation creates chaos which requires state intervention. The Great Depression is obviously another case of that.

I gave you evidence that there is no such thing as a "lack of regulation", and in fact there is a massive accumulation of regulation over time. The causes of the crisis were myriad, but to pin it on a system of laissez-faire when it has occurred in a highly-regulated mixed-economy is a bit out of bounds.

I gave you evidence that there is no such thing as a "lack of regulation", and in fact there is a massive accumulation of regulation over time. The causes of the crisis were myriad, but to pin it on a system of laissez-faire when it has occurred in a highly-regulated mixed-economy is a bit out of bounds. — NOS4A2

This argument is just a denial of facts that are readily available.

You need to try the moral hazard argument.

Do you believe the United States had a laissez-faire system until the 2008 crisis?

Do you believe the United States had a laissez-faire system until the 2008 crisis? — NOS4A2

I don't think the United States would exist if it had earlier had a laissez-faire "system"