Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of hayenmill
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - hayenmill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
General / Re: To Welfare Haters
« on: December 08, 2009, 10:41:58 AM »
I have already explained how I oppose the government in all its actions, including corporate welfare, and how it is people like you who are the enablers of corporate welfare through your willingness to tolerate the government "crutches" that you find more agreeable.

Obviously you misinterpreted my whole post then.

Quote
One person can run one or more "businesses", and in an informal sense a child playing legos might tell another child that is bothering him to "mind his own 'business'".  When two or more people form a legal entity that can outlive them, however, then it's called a "corporation", no matter if those contracts are enforced by a government, by a competing mesh of free market arbitration authorities, or even if they don't have a coherent plan for enforcing them at all.  For example, if the FreeTalkLive.com domain and Web-site(s) are owned by Ian, and he puts Mark's and Julia's names on the contract with the hosting company to give them the right to take over control if he's incapacitated, then you can call FreeTalkLive.com a "corporation" of sorts.

I only use the term corporation to refer to a business which has an unfair privilege over other businesses and is now dependent on that privilege, always seeking to expanding it. In that sense, FreeTalkLive is not a corporation. It does not have limited liability or corporate personhood, nor does it have a state-granted monopoly on broadcasting or a special license which gives them an advantage over other radio shows.

Quote
Sure, corporations find it in their interest to pay off whatever Mafia bosses come between them and their customers, but a thug like Obama doesn't go on stage and say "vote for me because Goldman Sachs gave me a ton of money and now I owe them", he tells the plebs whatever lies they're most likely to swallow.  Those who live by the sword (i.e. initiate aggression) deserve to die by the sword, and those who want to steal via big government deserve to be stolen from!

sure

Quote
It's an empirical fact of history and of the present day that the most capitalist societies have the most minimalist and restrained governments, while the most socialist societies have the most tyrannical ones.  I am right, and the commies are wrong.

good for you

Quote
The same place where mathematics "come from" - empiricism.

So where exactly have they come from? historical observation? I already told you i agree with rights because they have shown that they allow for a more just and fair society. But what i'm questioning is if you believe they come from "god" or they are "axiomatic" or they come from any other objective source rather than accepting that they only "come" because people agree on them subjectively.

Quote
By its definition, Natural Law (on which Natural Rights are based) is the societal ruleset that leads to the greatest empirically-observable competitive advantage over other potential rulesets.  (This is based on the single axiom of evolutionary pragmatism - that life and civilization are desirable.)  A society built on the premise that murder and theft are permissible would do as poorly as a spaceship built on the premise that Pi equals 3.000!

sure whatever

Quote
Is the Pythagorean Theorem a "subjective agreement among people"?  No, it is provable in hundreds of different ways, and people who engage in geometry find it in their interest to be rational, just as people who are as rational in the field of political philosophy find it imperative to recognize Natural Rights.  Fortunately geometry is not a science through which would-be tyrants can acquire a great power monopoly, so it has not been as corrupted by religious lies as the science of political philosophy has been.  The same erroneous political ideas that have been shown to yield negative results since antiquity continue to gain popularity over and over again!

The pythagorean theorem is objectively proveable. rights are not objectively proveable (other than the fact that it IS objective the fact that they help create a better society). What im asking is only an objective justification that they come from somewhere else other than subjective consensus and historical proof.

Quote
There are many reasons why studying economic history objectively has been far more difficult that studying a math problem on a piece of paper, and most of those reasons relate to the shortness of human perspective.  How can you test the merits of an irrational religion (government) when that religion has near-total grip all over the world, injecting ever-more cultural bias into the cultures it controls though child education, influence over academia and military training, control over the recording of history, and so forth.  Without those cultural biases, it would be much easier to see how there exist certain economic laws that are essential for sustaining and further growing a civilization: thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, and so on.

sure whatever

Quote
Government disappearing in one day won't do anyone any good (see my Gradualism thread), but a gradual phase-out of government force over the next few decades would have a tremendously positive effect for the human civilization as a whole, including the countless millions of people who are WalMart's stake-holders (investors, employees, and customers).  Do you really think that a company that can get millions of different products to 7000+ stores all over the world on razor-thin profit margins cannot negotiate access to privately-owned transportation infrastructure (or build its own), or do whatever else you think government bureaucrats have a magically-unique competence at doing?!

I dont think government bureucrats have a magically unique competence at doing anything. I dont know where you got that from, and i dont understand why you insist on the strawman that i support government.

Quote
It would be a long and off-topic argument to discuss how different-sized retail companies are affected by different government subsidies and tax schemes.  Yes, if WalMart's (or Amazon's, etc) current success comes from over-dependence on government aid then it would have a harder time competing on a level playing field once the government is phased out, but it would have several decades to prepare for that eventuality and adjust accordingly.  If mom'n'pop stores become more competitive as the result, that's OK by me, and if they don't they don't.  Free market is all about merit-based competition - may the better stores win!

Exactly. So you agree that using wal-mart as a future example of a free-market in action is somewhat flawed?

Quote
Throughout American history, most consumer-oriented and B2B businesses have preferred to limit the growth of government, and generally wanted the government to just leave them alone (military manufacturers and other government contractors being a minor exception).  Most businessmen have been Minarchists, but if ideas about polycentric jurisprudence and private defence agencies hadn't been forcefully excluded from their education then many could have become Anarcho-Capitalists as well.

Its possible, but not really relevant.

Quote
More importantly, most corporations can continue operating just fine without government help.  Sure, WalMart would have to hire more private security to compensate for the absence of municipal police, etc, but that's just a minuscule fraction of the savings they'd get from not having to pay income, property, or any other taxes.  A company like Microsoft, knowing that government force is being phased out say 20 years from now, would know it has to transition itself away from selling licenses to selling hardware, certifications, consumer and B2B contract-based services, or whatever else they happen to think up.  Furthermore, you must remember that corporations are transitory abstractions: someone may work for, invest in, or do business with Corporation A but switch over to Corporation B as circumstances change without a great loss.


Yes well, we enter the realm of "How government should be eliminated". I think gradualism won't work, if nothing else, by the historical examples that is had only grown its power, not reduced it. I prefer direct action - counter-economics - culminating in a revolution.

2
General / Re: To Welfare Haters
« on: December 06, 2009, 03:01:26 PM »

You advocate force to combat justly-acquired rights / capital / "privilege".  The defining quality of what a government is and isn't is the institutionalized initiation of force.

Are government privileges to corporations justly acquired rights? Was it "right" for the government to initiate force to citizens in order to fund and subsidize the actions of many of these corporations?

Quote
Corporations, on the other hand, can exist just fine without state power.  A corporation is just a mutual agreement between two or more (or possibly millions) human beings.  You can have binding contracts through polycentric jurisprudence by insuring contracts with third party arbitration agencies who then become responsible for their enforcement.

A corporation, by its very definition, is dependent on state power. This is why there's the term corporations and the term businesses.

Why are corporations dependent? Read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personality

Quote
No major politician in American history has ever been elected on promises of corporate welfare.  When the socialist mob supports big government in order to initiate aggression against the "fat cats" (i.e. the competent), I consider it to be a great injustice, especially because it has far-reaching economic consequences that can bring a modern economy to its knees, as it has in many socialist hell-holes the world over.  When those same "fat cats" subvert state power and use it to their advantage - what else to call it but... "poetic justice"?

How do you know that a politician has never been elected on promises of corporate welfare? Have you ever seen the major sponsors of most political campaigns? I'd reccomend (though i'm pretty sure you won't watch it) Michael Moore's new movie where he SHOWS that barack obama had many major corporations sponsoring his political campaign. Obviously they do not do this out of the kindness of their hearts. Ask yourself why.

Many (not all) so called fat cats only got so fat due to direct/indirect government help. Microsoft is an excellent example of this. It wouldn't have as much wealth or as high a market status as it has now if it weren't for government patents and intellectual property laws.

Quote
Capitalism and the state are diametrically opposed in their philosophies.  Capitalism is inherently individualistic, because all capital comes as a consequence of human thought and action, which are individual in nature.  Socialism is inherently collective by its very definition.  You can't have socialism without the state, or else who's going to kill people for refusing to be socialists and force them to dance to the same tune?

This depends on one's definition of capitalism and one's definition of socialism. Read my other thread (Drop the term capitalism) to see where I stand on this.

Its funny how you say that socialism cannot exist without the state and commies say capitalism cannot exist without the state. Either semantics are fucked up, or both are right (the state is a precondition for both those ideologies) or both are wrong.

Quote
Which part of "people have a 'right to life' because a society that fails to recognize that right cannot evolve out of the stone age" still escapes you?  The same applies to liberty and property as well - the society that violates natural rights the least has a demonstrable materialistic advantage over societies that violate them more.

Where do rights come from? Are they inalienable? Why?

We already agreed on that the concept of rights have consequentialist advantages (the utility they bring is greater than if they were not used), i'm asking you to prove that they come from "somewhere" other than subjective agreements among people.

Quote
Corporations don't need the government.  Sure, some may benefit from the government some of the time, but it's a net loss for most.  Businesses benefiting from the government is like snakes trying to benefit by eating their own tails!

Wal-mart would not last 1 day if the government dissipated tomorrow.

The success of these chains results from their ability to undercut their local competitors with lower prices. But their lower prices are possible only because of the massive state subsidies to trucking, shipping, infrastructure, aviation, etc. If such corporations had to cover their own costs in these areas, they likely would not be able to compete with local alternatives (not praising local alternatives, just sayin'...).

Quote
Everything that the government does can be done MUCH better, MUCH safer, and MUCH cheaper by the free market instead, and, most important of all, without empowering an unstable and unaccountable power monopoly that can become more evil at any time in the future, as countless other governments throughout history have done.

Agreed. But then, why do you claim products of government action (corporations) are examples of the free-market when making a case for defending free-markets?

Quote
Me personally...  I've quit a high-paying consulting job once rather than register an LLC, as was required of me.  I am a life-long tax resister who's now talking about growing his own food (or buying food from other Free Staters) to avoid taxes and government subsidies.  I already gave up driving and many other things that would require me to pledge loyalty to a government monopoly.  You really have no basis for accusing me of benefiting from the state in any conceivable way!

I'm glad to hear this. I am not accusing you personally of benefiting the state. I am accusing you of making arguments that are not logically consistent with what you support (free markets)

3
General / Re: To Welfare Haters
« on: December 06, 2009, 02:42:18 PM »

Your argument could be improved by making it more clear that you're in favor of entrepreneurial efforts.

It doesn't sound like you're against all capitalism, just businesspeople who use the state to force profits for them.

Precisely

Quote
Finally, it sounds like you've been talking to Republicans who think that they're libertarian.  If someone says that s/he is a libertarian but supports "corporate welfare" then that person isn't really a libertarian at all.  Argue with or persuade them at your own discretion.  :D

I'm afraid too many so called libertarians, while probably not supporting corporate welfare, have a general attitude that corporate welfare is "kinda, sorta bad", but that normal population welfare is "horrible and must be eliminated immediately" when in fact, if you look at both, the first is far more destructive than the second.

4
General / Re: To Welfare Haters
« on: December 06, 2009, 01:41:17 PM »
Quote from: Alex Libman 2.0

It isn't.  It happens because of people like you, who defend the state based on whatever false advertising it finds most effective, and it is inevitable that you later find that "the wrong kinds of socialists" are in power.

If you had actually read my post you'd have realized that I don't defend the State whatsoever, but that you do (by defending corporations, which are legal fictions created by the State).

Quote
Same repetitive socialist bullshit that has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over again - in the 19th century no less, and early 20th century proved the debunkers right!

No, it's not been debunked, and I am beginning to think you conflate Carson as being a  state socialist, just like commies conflate free market capitalists into being state capitalists.

Quote
"Socialists should stop trying to invent terms like 'left-libertarian' to steal the legitimacy of real libertarians, who are invariably free market capitalists.  Human beings exist in a material universe, and thus liberty without owning one's self and the consequences of one's actions (i.e. capital) is a logical impossibility!")

Oh good. Have you found enough strength and will to answer my points in the other thread we were debating? (The "What would you add to your anarcho-capitalist flag" thread). Because we've been through this shit before.

Quote
Um, what do you base that on?  I favour the eventual abolishment of the state.

Not really. You just said corporations should remain as they are, because they made "rational" choices, even though most of their profits have come due to unfair statist privilege granted to them through regulation and legislation.

Quote
How is it "theft" exactly?  If I sit down and study organic chemistry tonight, will somebody forget some organic chemistry as the result of my efforts?  If I use that knowledge to invent a device that reduces the cost of a certain medical procedure by 40%, thereby making billions for myself, who exactly am I "stealing" from?

You, the corporation, are stealing from the taxpayers, who fund the state, which then uses its resources to grant you legal privileges (limited liability and corporate personhood) and subsidize many of your actions (Wal-mart is a perfect example of this), artificially increasing your profits (when all the competition has been wiped out through state regulation) at the expense of the taxpayers.

5
General / Re: To Welfare Haters
« on: December 05, 2009, 05:30:48 PM »
Big business doesn't create "disparities", it creates wealth through rational actions that bring value to its stakeholders (i.e. customers, employees, and stock-owners).  The fact that someone who beats his head against a tree all day instead of doing something rational doesn't have wealth magically rain on him from the sky is not their problem.

Bullshit

How is it rational for people (taxpayers) to be forced to subsidize trucking, shipping, infrastructure, aviation, etc? If such corporations had to cover their own costs in these areas, they would not be able to compete with local alternatives.(read "Iron Fist", by Carson)

Quote
Over time, wealth flows from the less rational to the more rational.  It has been demonstrated time and time again that it is possible to make (or lose) a great fortune in just one generation, and it is possible for even the slightly-below-average people to work their way out of a cave and into a decent lifestyle in 2-3 generations.  The fact that some people have more wealth only helps the poor, because it creates employment opportunities and other trickle-down benefits that we call "civilization"!

You are making a piss poor arguments in favor of free-markets by defending the current status quo of mixed economies.

Quote
The freer an economy, the more successful it becomes over time.  It has been shown over and over again that stealing from the productive only causes the flight of brains and capital out of a socialist economy into a freer one, and/or concentration camps to keep the socialist economy on life-support and the socialist scum-bags in power as long as possible.  Most concentration camp workers can hardly compete with mechanical robots in terms of their productive value, and it is difficult to create great scientists and other "men of mind" who are rational enough to be of use but irrational enough to fall for your propaganda - there will always be individual exceptions (like my parents), but those are rare and a socialist society will always be at a competitive disadvantage.  In simpler terms, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of competent people to take advantage of!

Stealing from EVERYONE to create privilege for the wealthy and keep such privilege is the source of all the power of the State and the big business that colludes with it. Again, you seem to be a corporate-apologetic by implying that the crutches handed out by the government are somehow more dangerous than the leg-breaking engaged by the State and the big business which collides with it.

6
General / To Welfare Haters
« on: December 05, 2009, 11:02:23 AM »
I've been traditionally opposed to state welfare, but it just struck me that it's not the most important of things.

Liberal welfare-statism is a pretty natural--if misguided--reaction to a society in which the ruling class (government + big business lobbyists), through privilege, creates great disparities in income. Privilege creates massive distortions, made cumulative through the process of feedback, that must be dealt with somehow. One way of dealing with the consequences is through a Rube Goldberg device like redistributive welfare policy, another layer of policy to counteract the first layer, to prevent underconsumption from becoming too destabilizing and the underclass from becoming too radicalized. The other way is to eliminate the privilege itself--a lot simpler.

But I don't kid myself now. If the privilege remains, statist "corrective" action will be the inevitable result. That's why I don't get too bent out of shape now about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws--in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It's another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is "kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess", but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels.

Libertarians need to stop admiring the emperor's clothes and pretending that disparities in income reflect the triumph of industrious ants over lazy grasshoppers. Liberals might be a lot easier to talk to then.

Thoughts?

7
General / Re: Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 20, 2009, 04:48:45 AM »

For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.

Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.

Not at all. You have an agenda and that is cool. I don't share that agenda. It was a failure in communications.

What is an "agenda" ?

8
General / Re: Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 19, 2009, 06:08:19 PM »

For the second one, I think I first pointed out to you that these were my opinions. But what ever. This is okay with me also. That said, not all communication is a debate.

Sounds fair. Sorry if i seemed edgy.

9
General / Re: Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 19, 2009, 05:02:04 PM »

No, I addressed your arguments before. I don't care the sheeple are confused on word deffinitions. Thier misconceptions mean very little to me. It is not my job to educate them. Fuck 'em.

Well then don't complain when not enough people become interested in the ideas of liberty so projects such as Free State Project start to fall apart due to lack of support.

Quote from: davann
This board has an over use of the correct way to debate. "No ad homs!".  You write in such as a way as to make me wary of your true intentions. I'm not debating. I am stating my opinion.

Whatever. You can stay all your opinion all you want. I'm just point out that there's opinions, true affirmations, false affirmations and logical fallacies. Not everything in the world is an opinion.

10
General / Re: Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 19, 2009, 03:49:59 PM »
I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.

This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.

Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?


No, I can do better. Give me a minute.

Right, so now you're going to waste your time ignoring my arguments and find more ad homs so as to pretend my arguments are false simply because you decided to ignore them?

11
General / Re: Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 19, 2009, 03:39:56 PM »
I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.

This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.

Lol, a commie? Is that the best ad hom you can do?

I just use capitalism as it has been used throughout the ages - to describe actually existing capitalism. No matter if it were Marxists who used it mostly like that, or socialists, or some other ideology, the thing is there's no point in create meaningless discussion by messing up semantics when people should be debating the ideas first.

12
General / Re: Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 19, 2009, 05:59:26 AM »
... exactly, and why should we let socialists define what capitalism is and isn't? 

Ayn Rand did a much better job.

It's not about letting anybody use whatever terms they like, its about using definitions as they are REALISTICALLY used instead of romanticized ideas.

Better to explain a free market by concepts instead of attaching it to the word capitalism or even laissez-faire capitalism, as it has anti-market connotations, which derives from the existence of a State still in some areas of the economy

13
General / Re: Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 19, 2009, 05:53:29 AM »
hayenmill:  No.

(See also my thread on this issue.)

Communists can twist terms like "free enterprise" to fit within their political system.

Capitalism is the only term that explicitly recognizes individual rights (aka one's "capital").


It's not about communists twisting terms, its about using the terms as they have been used throughout history by most people. In that sense, capitalism never fully recognized property or individual rights because it always had a State, whether to regulate or to enforce the monopoly law on property rights

14
General / Drop the term Capitalism
« on: November 18, 2009, 06:55:57 PM »
I'm sure this matter has been mentioned plenty of times before, but given that I believe to have new and refreshing arguments, here they are.

I was hoping most of you were familiar with Zhwazi's post (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/05/actually-existing-capitalism.html) over at his blog. It basically addresses some of the communication problems between libertarians and "revolutionary" socialists.

Anyway,

To some, capitalism might mean individual ownership of capital is allowed, or even encouraged, but on a larger scale capitalism is synonymous with mercantilist practice. You're not going to win the hearts and minds of any potential anarchists by positing capitalism as part of it. Capitalism is functionally a state enforced system and is quite contrary to anarchism. This also makes capitalism incompatible with free enterprise.

There is no reason to romanticize capitalism, especially if you're an anarchist.

The real point is, why should one want to insist on their idealized and romanticized definition of a term when the majority of its usage is attached to other meanings?

Also, there seems to be a common "apologetic" fringe on both libertarians and socialists. While some libertarians are usually corporate apologetics, some socialists are state apologetics.

The truth is, as we already know, corporations are entities whose privilege derives from the State. There is no point giving examples of early corporations in the early 19th century, for example, as a proof of free market benefits because the root of the argument - its logical extreme - is flawed.

That is not to say that corporations haven't brought benefits to the market and the world, but to believe that they would be the predominant (or even existent) shape of market entities in a free market is an overstatement.

Likewise, there isn't any doubt that in some instances the State brought some benefits, but that does not justify its existence, its expropriation of value and the title it gives to itself as a regulator and overseer of all personal and economic activity.

So as Zhwazi points out, "Every usage of the word "Capitalism" can be replaced by "Free market", "Mixed economy", "Fascism", or something else." If you want to see more liberty-minded people and and "spread the message", clearing up semantics is a very important part, since it increases the efficiency of the argumentation.

And if you think that you or a family member might be a "corporate apologetic", fear not! Read this enlightening review of Kevin Carson's The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand to broaden your free market ideas.

http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/

(Keep in mind that link was intended for a more socialist, communist audience, and therefore some terms use might appear too extreme. Nonetheless, it proves an excellent source of arguments when debating them)


15
General / Re: Funniest vid I've seen all year! HAHAHAHA!!!!
« on: November 10, 2009, 04:43:06 PM »
ROFL of the donkey chasing the guy whose pants are falling off.   So WTF were his pants around his ankles anyways?

probably taking a shit before the donkey spotted him and became horny

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 44 queries.