Ableton Forum

yes, if Cogency was a woman...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NirePqhiOQ ... irePqhiOQ4

Machinesworking wrote:Yet you have used ethics in this debate when it fits your needs, hence asking for the consideration of the theft of property in the redistribution of wealth, or bringing up the violence and murder inherent in regime change. It would be wise to keep that in mind when trying to paint others as fluffy ethics types. Your'e very clearly subscribing to the "ethics only count if I say so." logic of debate.

Like I said, my argument "has thus far been primarily concerned with the economic question", however I always enjoy throwing in a little insult to injury when I feel like it.

My point is that I don't answer economic questions with ethics and vice-versa. This is not a subtle distinction.

Machinesworking wrote:With that in mind it's a useless debate to argue without ethics at all isn't it?

Hardly. Science, for example, to be science proper must be completely void of ethics.

Machinesworking wrote:The most fluid economic system in terms of pure mobility and gearing up power would have to have been Nazi Germany right before WWII and Stalin's USSR one year into Operation Barbarossa.

Only if you don't understand the term "artificial boom".

Machinesworking wrote: You can't have it both ways. You can't attempt to use the morality of revolution and wealth redistribution in a debate on economic systems then turn around and claim that people are bringing ethics into the debate when they mention the Capitalist/Libertarian lack of concern for the infirm and poor. Throughout this debate it's been an easily demonstrable common thread that you're concerned with the violence that would occur with wealth redistribution and funken is concerned with the everyday violence that occurs when a few have accumulated most of the wealth.

Well, as you admit to not even having read the entirely of this debate, I'm not sure what you're basing this on. I have mentioned it once or twice (in this thread), but mostly I've been quoting either Marx, Trotsky or McFunk and then logically dismantling their arguments. The term "violence" has been used only 3 times over these 25 pages (7 times if you include quotes). I invite you to verify this.

That said, it is absolutely obvious that I am concerned with ethics. I'm simply stating that it is fallacious to answer logic with ethics or vice versa.

Unlike you, I'm also of the opinion that ethics don't mean a damn if you don't have food.

Machinesworking wrote:So with that in mind, please explain to me how your favorite economic model, a small government and little or no rules on doing business, could possibly prevent an even more obvious example of corporatism than what we see today in the west? Exactly how does a government without a tax base to speak of, rise up against new private militaries that would inevitably be hired to protect large companies in the vein of the Dutch East India Trading Company? It reeks of idealism to me to expect that businesses would somehow be more law abiding than they are now when given even more freedom and less restrictions.

Given that I already have you on record conceding that corporations are products of the state, this has already been dealt with. The Dutch East India Company was created by government charter and granted a 21 year monopoly in addition to the ability to raise armies, coin money and so forth. It presents a very good example of what happens when a government intervenes in the marketplace, not the contrary.

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:So with that in mind, please explain to me how your favorite economic model, a small government and little or no rules on doing business, could possibly prevent an even more obvious example of corporatism than what we see today in the west? Exactly how does a government without a tax base to speak of, rise up against new private militaries that would inevitably be hired to protect large companies in the vein of the Dutch East India Trading Company? It reeks of idealism to me to expect that businesses would somehow be more law abiding than they are now when given even more freedom and less restrictions.

Given that I already have you on record conceding that corporations are products of the state, this has already been dealt with. The Dutch East India Company was created by government charter and granted a 21 year monopoly in addition to the ability to raise armies, coin money and so forth. It presents a very good example of what happens when a government intervenes in the marketplace, not the contrary.

OK now you're using any excuse to avoid the question. Please explain how a company with less legislation than now will be more likely to obey laws that are not funded well enough to be enforced? In no way do I believe that in the magical fairy land of de-regulation envisioned by you and others that corporations/companies etc. will magically obey the laws, not invest in politicians whether legally or otherwise, skew the laws by buying votes to fit their needs etc. The simple fact is you cannot have a free market and not have large corporations, your belief that corporations are products of the state is beyond silly, yes corporations use the state, (that, is all I said) no, corporations won't just disappear or become little angels if they aren't regulated by a powerful government. That's one of the oddest and most openly flawed parts of Libertarian philosophy in my opinion, as well as countless others.

Machinesworking wrote:OK now you're using any excuse to avoid the question.

You're just hurting because the example you picked supports my position rather than yours. This tickles me.

Machinesworking wrote:Please explain how a company with less legislation than now will be more likely to obey laws that are not funded well enough to be enforced? In no way do I believe that in the magical fairy land of de-regulation envisioned by you and others that corporations/companies etc. will magically obey the laws, not invest in politicians whether legally or otherwise, skew the laws by buying votes to fit their needs etc. The simple fact is you cannot have a free market and not have large corporations, your belief that corporations are products of the state is beyond silly, yes corporations use the state, (that, is all I said) no, corporations won't just disappear or become little angels if they aren't regulated by a powerful government. That's one of the oddest and most openly flawed parts of Libertarian philosophy in my opinion, as well as countless others.

You're trying to bake a cake without eggs. Without the state, you simply don't have all the ingredients necessary to create a corporation. Not convinced? Let's see how this works:

Take one part private company, add it to one part state, sprinkle it with a dash of ass-invasive paperwork and—voilà—your very own corporation.

There is no vegan-friendly egg-replacer, ya tree-loving hippy. Without the state, there are no corporations. What you're really fearing here is the development of new tyrannical states. Which ironically enough, actually makes you a libertarian. Welcome... brother.

Funk N. Furter wrote:Complete bullshit. There is no point in producing a bit more if inequality is infinitely greater, is there? How about if we produced twice as much, but one person had it all? How good would that be?

But it's impossible anyway, because inequality is the cause of recessions, and recessions lead to state intervention, on behalf of the capitalists. If one person owned all the wealth, who would buy his wares? Nobody. The rest of the population would have died of hunger anyway.

There was more capitalism in the last 30 years, and it led to more inequality, and that led to the current economic crisis.

Now, answer me this question. If your theories were feasible, why have the governments of the last 30 years not adopted them?

We had more capitalism after 1979 and the result is a global crisis. But you say that there wasn't enough capitalism. You want more of the poison that made us ill.

And you want less intervention, but the capitalists laugh at you because you are just a fool, sorry tool, who serves a function. You are the hot air that fuels the smokescreen which camouflages the fact that the government intervention has been on behalf of the capitalists.

If you would include an argument in this spiel, I'd be happy to address it.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:Complete bullshit. There is no point in producing a bit more if inequality is infinitely greater, is there? How about if we produced twice as much, but one person had it all? How good would that be?

But it's impossible anyway, because inequality is the cause of recessions, and recessions lead to state intervention, on behalf of the capitalists. If one person owned all the wealth, who would buy his wares? Nobody. The rest of the population would have died of hunger anyway.

There was more capitalism in the last 30 years, and it led to more inequality, and that led to the current economic crisis.

Now, answer me this question. If your theories were feasible, why have the governments of the last 30 years not adopted them?

We had more capitalism after 1979 and the result is a global crisis. But you say that there wasn't enough capitalism. You want more of the poison that made us ill.

And you want less intervention, but the capitalists laugh at you because you are just a fool, sorry tool, who serves a function. You are the hot air that fuels the smokescreen which camouflages the fact that the government intervention has been on behalf of the capitalists.

If you would include an argument in this spiel, I'd be happy to address it.

People with no money cannot buy things.

And socialism seeks to abolish money.

Funk N. Furter wrote:The problem is, Steve thinks we are still in the feudal era of the early 1600s. Those big companies were created by the state.

You should read more.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:
People with no money cannot buy things.

And socialism seeks to abolish money.

And give people what they need for free. So they don't need money. To buy things. Because it's all free. Costing no money. Which doesn't exist. Because it's no longer needed. Because.

I'd ask you to explain how, but I already have. Your two point economic plan consisted of the confiscation of limited wealth and "being more productive".

Steve Ballmer wrote: You're trying to bake a cake without eggs. Without the state, you simply don't have all the ingredients necessary to create a corporation. Not convinced? Let's see how this works:

Take one part private company, add it to one part state, sprinkle it with a dash of ass-invasive paperwork and—voilà—your very own corporation.

There is no vegan-friendly egg-replacer, ya tree-loving hippy. Without the state, there are no corporations. What you're really fearing here is the development of new tyrannical states. Which ironically enough, actually makes you a libertarian. Welcome... brother.

Wow? Do you really believe that there would be no Exxon, BP, Apple, Microsoft, Bank of America etc? if there was no state?
The basic problem is this, a company/corporation etc. is beholden to it's investors, period. They're not beholden to the people who live in Peru etc. So with that in mind they have ZERO interest in the livelihood and health of the people near the raw material they want. Cancer, pollution, hazardous work conditions, none of that matters a bit if the company is large enough to provide it's own muscle in the form of $$$ or actual thugs. So say Peru has a Libertarian extremely tiny government with a meager tax base to support it's police. What in the hell is going to prevent said company from buying off the local government and continuing to ass rape the local population? I see NOTHING in your philosophy that prevents the kind of corruption we saw in Africa and South America where large companies could literally do whatever the fuck they wanted, and in some cases still do. Absolutely nothing. You have this idea that corporations will somehow just become 'private companies' and this transition somehow prevents said companies from only caring about making money, or gives them foresight enough to know not to cause mayhem in one region in order to make mass cash in another? Either that or you're missing huge chunks of information on human nature and the logic of crowds.

Machinesworking wrote:Wow? Do you really believe that there would be no Exxon, BP, Apple, Microsoft, Bank of America etc? if there was no state?

To deny that they wouldn't is to fail to understand the word "corporation".

Machinesworking wrote:The basic problem is this, a company/corporation etc. is beholden to it's investors, period. They're not beholden to the people who live in Peru etc. So with that in mind they have ZERO interest in the livelihood and health of the people near the raw material they want. Cancer, pollution, hazardous work conditions, none of that matters a bit if the company is large enough to provide it's own muscle in the form of $$$ or actual thugs. So say Peru has a Libertarian extremely tiny government with a meager tax base to support it's police. What in the hell is going to prevent said company from buying off the local government and continuing to ass rape the local population?

Apple currently has 40x the military budget of Peru in cash reserves, even 3x the military budget of the UK. If it wanted to take over a country, it would.

But I am a huge fan of how you seem to believe that the current system somehow protects small countries. Like Afghanistan, for example.

Steve Ballmer wrote: But I am a huge fan of how you seem to believe that the current system somehow protects small countries. Like Afghanistan, for example.

I do not at all think the current system does, it's plainly obvious though that there are no constraints inherent in the alternatives either, and that they offer in fact less protection against tyranny and exploitation. The current system plots all us "little" people as both voters and consumers, which drives at least a tiny wedge between the interests of business and government. I'm distinctly not an idealist. After all governments and corporations are made up of people, not some nebulous "other".

corporation- a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Yes I get what you're hammering away on this about, I realize and completely agree that this is a shit situation, but I do not think for a second that the elimination of this legal status immediately or permanently solves the problem of collective company/organizational interests and collective crime. Companies would IMO without this exemption, still exploit anything they could if for a second they thought they could get away with it. <- As in, if there were less laws and less government organizations set up to "protect" the citizens, this would happen even more.

Groovy, far out, rad, def, neato, and ain't. <--- In case you needed to take cheap shots.

Machinesworking wrote:I do not at all think the current system does, it's plainly obvious though that there are no constraints inherent in the alternatives either

"Lol!"

So, we here we have the following:

Steve: "The less state intervention, the more productive a society".
Machines: "But less state would mean less protection!".
Steve: "People are protected now?"
Machines: "No!"

Congrats, you have just rendered your critique of libertarianism invalid. By side-stepping the economic question and focusing only on the ethical question, you've (a) missed the point of my critique and (b) failed to distinguish "my" system from any other, slavery not withstanding. Hence, by your logic:

Libertarianism = Modern democracy = Marxism = Sponge cake

Now I don't even need to broach the question of private protection firms and insurance companies, at this point. Oh well, we can save that discussion for another day.

Incidentally, while I do enjoy pointing out your poor understanding of grammar, I have nothing against the use of the word "groovy". Could it be... could it be ... that you are confusing grammar and vocabulary?

Priceless.

––––––

Seriously Random Trotsky quote:

"There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens."

Mentioned? Yes. Explained? No.

But please, do show is how you can achieve 10x productivity.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote: Seriously Random Trotsky quote:

"There is a limit to the application of democratic methods. You can inquire of all the passengers as to what type of car they like to ride in, but it is impossible to question them as to whether to apply the brakes when the train is at full speed and accident threatens."

So you are saying that if you were a train driver and the train was steaming at full speed towards an obstacle on the track, you would go and ask all the passengers if you should apply the brakes?

Do you understand what the analogy is about? Do you know what an analogy is? Do you know what a train is?

No, I'm just randomly quoting Trotsky. Or did you not understand what I meant by "seriously random quote"?

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:The problem is, Steve thinks we are still in the feudal era of the early 1600s. Those big companies were created by the state.

You should read more.

They were given their chartered status by the king or whatever, were they not?

By "whatever", yes.