I think I get it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone sane is in favor of abolishing nuclear weapons.

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

NY times today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the hundredth time: they OWN THE STATE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ditto for anyone who is against democracy at work.

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

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

Laissez faire is just another form of this.

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

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

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

That you're struggling with this is telling.

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

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

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

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

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

What principle? The pure fabrication of laissez-faire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice to know you're anti-capitalist.

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

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

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

Bingo.

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

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

So goes this conception of “liberty.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're nothing if not predictable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably not. — frank

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

Spend less time on Twitter.

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

Yes indeed.

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

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

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

Good for a laugh, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

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

:up:

So now biology is called transphopbia? — stoicHoneyBadger

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

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

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

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

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

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

:rofl:

Oh? Like what, specifically?

I won’t hold my breath.

that men can turn into women — stoicHoneyBadger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant.

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

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

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

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

No need to learn about the subject.

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

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

:rofl:

:ok:

For anyone serious about learning about sea level rise:

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

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

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

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

gender studies — stoicHoneyBadger

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

I’m not interested in your therapy.

sharp increase — stoicHoneyBadger

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

at this rate — stoicHoneyBadger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting stuff.

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

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

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

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

“Optimal CO2 level.” :lol:

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

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