Dave Scotese - 17 May 2009 07:17 AM

They will freely choose to purge the hyenas and vultures and predators from among themselves.  Well, actually not the vultures because they just clean up what has already passed away.  Maybe you fail to make subtle distinctions such as that one and that is the source of our frustration with each other.  I don’t know.

I purposely chose “vultures”. I think that’s what ultraliberalism adepts are, today, “vultures”. Even I may have called them “predators” before (maybe) but not now.  I’m sure most of them already know (deep inside of them) that their system is dead. They are getting the last bones, the last profits they can. They know their system is dead because they can see, like anybody else can, that the planet does not resist with such a system.  They know their children will not be able to continue doing what they are doing now. Well, unless they are particularly dumb, and maybe then they don’t see a thing.  Consumerism (la société de consommation) is dead. It simply has not yet been DECLARED dead, but it is.  The whole system of these ultraliberalism adepts is based on consumerism (la consommation). It cannot be a long-term vision. It can only be a selfish one - one that serves one’s interests, today. A system that can make you very rich, but that can only make you rich on the backs of weaker, poorer than you. But this system pollutes the planet so much that even the rich end up by suffering from their own actions, their own politics.  The planet is small, and we must all live on it.  You said in previous posts: “we would not have resisted if mankind could not to be trusted”.  Sure, I agree with that, but we are simply not seeing things the same way.  You think ultraliberalism is the solution, I think it is the problem. But yes, I think that we can trust mankind to find other solutions than the ones you are proposing right now.  Or else we will not survive, this time. 

How many more wars for profit can our planet endure?  How many more industrial disasters can we take? Will we fix a limit before it is too late?

Blur - 17 May 2009 08:34 AM

Okay, so you trust companies that are out for profit, you encourage that, but you don’t trust democratically elected governments.  What is your solution for something like Bhopal, then? A pretty good example of what ultralibéralisme and free-markets can bring, eh? Do you think there should be laws to prevent that something like happens again or not?  Without governments, (your aim) how do you fix something like that? Who will be responsible and who will see to it that the ones who are responsible are punished?

I don’t trust companies.  Where did you get that?

Let’s suppose I have no solution to Bhopal.  Does this mean governments should take my efforts from me in order to create one?  Yes, but only if I am willing to provide them with it.  Do you advocate forcing people to pay for solutions?  I think you do, but I’m not sure.  We simply disagree about that.  I think that forcing people to provide effort for anything they do not with to provide for is slavery.  This brings us back to my questions, which you are continuing to avoid.

Your assumption that it’s wrong is based on a superficial but heavily repeated lie.

And your assumption that you are right is based on what? Based on the trust you have in your fellow adepts of “free-market and maximum profit”, that they are actually out there to better the lives of people? Based on the assumptions, that a guy like Gatto has, that schools are bad for the people and should be banned?

Specifically, I assume I am right that “Forcing people to pay for government solutions to these problems only exacerbates them” because I understand the mechanism through which it happens, and I’ve see empirical evidence of it happening.  It’s spread through this thread too, if you care to look.  To put it simply, if the choice to refuse a purchase is unavailable, the product sold will be crap - and the price will go up.

Gee, you are not lacking self-esteem, that’s for sure! 

Nope, they didn’t get that from me yet.  Keep trying, though.  But I must warn you, it’ll look like you got it long before you actually get it.

Oh, and since you trust ultralibelization, how do you think this ultralibelization is going to affect ecology? Who will be responsible when disasters happen?  How are you going to organize rescue if they do happen? Now suppose there is a great flood or fire where you are living, are you going to have to call and pay a private company to help you out, since there will be no government in your “ideal world” and therefore no tax money for your rescue?  In that case, those who have no money to pay for rescue will just have to stay there and burn, or drown, eh? Is that okay?

When you use “ultraliberlization,” I’ll assume you are asking about the free market…
If the government allowa private ownership of lands containing resources before removing the laws restricting how they are used, the effect will be very positive.  If they remove restrictive laws first, it will be very bad.
God is responsible when disasters happen - or the owners of the system that caused the disaster if it is private property.
If a fire or flood happens, I will cooperate with my neighbors and our insurance companies to get help.  I have long considered how damaging it is to be dependent on tax money, so I’ve thought this one through quite a lot.  History provides some good clues how free people handle these problems.  Colonial America is a good example, if you want to research.
Those who have no money to pay for rescue and no insurance, etc., will be at the mercy of the charitable people around them.  Yes, that is okay.  You may like to examine the proportions of cost that tax revenue covered in the Katrina flood and the fires in Southern California and the speed and efficiency with which those two disasters were cleaned up.

While I don’t mind answering your questions even though you have not addressed the slavery/starvation issues regarding corporate delocation, you should know my theory:  You recognize that I made a valid point about allowing a company to employ who it wants and about how such a decision can provide better opportunities to those in third world countries, but you do not wish to admit it.  You did mention that you were talking about companies whose owners promised to keep the jobs in France, but when I pointed out that voiding their ownership for failure to keep that promise would be better than making up more rules, you wouldn’t admit that was a good point either.

Perhaps you or someone you love has a job which you feel would quickly disappear if people were not forced to pay taxes, and so you are compelled by something beyond reason to defend such force.  If that’s the case, consider that there may be citizens willing to continue paying for the service that person provides even when they are not forced to.  Shouldn’t that be the case?  Shouldn’t everyone who is getting paid for something be providing something of value to those paying for it?

My younger sister is a school teacher.  I sent her a link to one of Gatto’s books:  http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/bookstore/dumbingdown.htm

Dave Scotese - 18 May 2009 02:15 AM

I don’t trust companies.  Where did you get that?

It’s always fun to discuss a subject, but one must have the same logic from beginning to end of the discussion, or there is no point in discussing.  You said you were for no laws, no government, free-markets didn’t you? Is that not ultraliberalism? With that sytem, if one has an ounce of morality, one must trust that companies will act with humanity. Hey, no laws, remember?  If you don’t trust these companies, as you are saying now, then “en toute logique”,  you don’t give a heck about these workers to start off with. 

Let’s suppose I have no solution to Bhopal.  Does this mean governments should take my efforts from me in order to create one?  Yes, but only if I am willing to provide them with it.

Hmmm… this remarks says a lot about you.

Do you advocate forcing people to pay for solutions?  I think you do, but I’m not sure.  We simply disagree about that.  I think that forcing people to provide effort for anything they do not with to provide for is slavery.  This brings us back to my questions, which you are continuing to avoid.

My position is clear. I think that companies who delocate to pay workers 69 euros/month are in fact looking for slaves to do the work. They would not delocate if americans were willing to become these slaves and accept a such salary.

“Specifically, I assume I am right that “Forcing people to pay for government solutions to these problems only exacerbates them” because I understand the mechanism through which it happens, and I’ve see empirical evidence of it happening.

Sure, a government, even democratically elected,  can want money to pay for a war that the people do not want, for example. Sure, a democratically elected government can become the puppet of powerful lobbies who govern above it. That does not mean that democracy is bad, it simply means that democracy is never to be taken for granted - the people must constatly fight for it.  Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. 

    (Blur: Gee, you are not lacking self-esteem, that’s for sure!  )
Nope, they didn’t get that from me yet.  Keep trying, though.  But I must warn you, it’ll look like you got it long before you actually get it.

Sorry, I can make no sense at all of this comment. Self-esteem is something you have or not, in excess or not, and nobody can take it away from you, except yourself (if ever one day you feel that you have overestimated your own self, that you decide yourself that a bit of humility won’t harm you…)

If the government allowa private ownership of lands containing resources before removing the laws restricting how they are used, the effect will be very positive.  If they remove restrictive laws first, it will be very bad.

Hey, what’s going on here? Thought you said you were against laws in your previous posts. Changed your mind???

God is responsible when disasters happen

Nature may be responsible for some disasters, but mankind is responsible for most of them.

- or the owners of the system that caused the disaster if it is private property.

And who is responsible when a dam breaks? The builders? The people who wanted the dam?

If a fire or flood happens, I will cooperate with my neighbors and our insurance companies to get help.

Sure, everybody will cooperate! No problem there. Are you equipped with helicopters and such to evacuate your neighbours? Do you have airplanes to spread water over the fire? Oh, your insurance company has all that equipment and rushes to save you, right? Great!

I have long considered how damaging it is to be dependent on tax money, so I’ve thought this one through quite a lot.  History provides some good clues how free people handle these problems.  Colonial America is a good example, if you want to research.

The difference between tax money (public money) for insurance and money for private insurance, is simple. All private companies are out for profit. When it’s a government insurance, profit is not a goal. With private insurance, you need to be rich enough to pay for it. With government insurance, you pay only what you can for it.  That means that people who are poor can benefit from it as much as you, who are rich.  It is solidarity between a people.  You need to have some humanity to accept to pay for some who can’t though.  Is that too hard? Guess so, for you…

Those who have no money to pay for rescue and no insurance, etc., will be at the mercy of the charitable people around them.  Yes, that is okay.  You may like to examine the proportions of cost that tax revenue covered in the Katrina flood and the fires in Southern California and the speed and efficiency with which those two disasters were cleaned up.

Indeed, that was most shocking. It is not how things should work out in a democracy. As I said beforehand,  the peole’s fight for democracy must be constant. Nothing can ever be taken for granted. And no, I do not think that people should depend on charity, I think all people should have rights. Like they all have obligations.

you have not addressed the slavery/starvation issues regarding corporate delocation, you should know my theory:  You recognize that I made a valid point about allowing a company to employ who it wants and about how such a decision can provide better opportunities to those in third world countries, but you do not wish to admit it.

I think I was clear. I believe that companies who are making tremendous profit and are out to pay ridicuous wages to their workers are looking for slaves, to make even more profit. These companies would not delocate if americans were accepting these low wages. Americans are not accepting to become slaves, so the company needs to find slaves elsewhere.  I said also that I find all of this immoral. You don’t, apparently. You prefer to find arguments that justify what these companies are doing. Your choice!
You have never answered many of my questions also.  Example: Do you think that our system is a model that 3rd world countries should copy?

Perhaps you or someone you love has a job which you feel would quickly disappear if people were not forced to pay taxes, and so you are compelled by something beyond reason to defend such force.

No, I am very fortunate. I have absolutely nobody close to me who is (or risks) in a critical situation.  But that does not stop me from seeing that other people are in a critical situation, and that does not stop me from being “solidaire” with those people. Is this something you can understand or not? Do you think I must be personnally concerned? Do you think I need to be poor myself to defend the poor? Do I need to be oppressed to defend the oppressed?  Strange… Especially from someone who claims that human life is so precious. 

If that’s the case, consider that there may be citizens willing to continue paying for the service that person provides even when they are not forced to. (etc.)

Are you talking about charity here? (Un peu brouillon, dans ce paragraphe)  If so, I believe that humans should have RIGHTS - I prefer rights over charity.

Oh, this slipped out somehow:

Colonial America is a good example, if you want to research.

haha! Yes, a great example of how we europeans stole a country from the people who lived there, massacred those people, called THEM savages, and then we lived with “the law of the strongest” for a while…  We even made heros out of assholes such as Buffalo Bill!  Come on, be serious! Let’s not brag about such things. Let’s talk only about the good things we did, okay? Let’s not talk about colonialism - not to put on the list of our honourable doings.

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

Hey, what’s going on here? Thought you said you were against laws in your previous posts. Changed your mind???

Actually, I changed it a long time ago, but the insinuation that no taxes = no government (and hence no laws) is constantly infecting my mind.  What I am against is a very specific kind of law, and you nailed it on the head below…

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

And who is responsible when a dam breaks? The builders? The people who wanted the dam?

Yes, both.  Like when you pay an assassin to kill someone, both you and the assassin are culpable.

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

Are you equipped with helicopters and such to evacuate your neighbours? Do you have airplanes to spread water over the fire? Oh, your insurance company has all that equipment and rushes to save you, right? Great!

I don’t personally own this equipment.  I’d be happy to pay two or three times as much for fire insurance (but not flood) if the government got out of the way and stopped taking so much from me.
http://www.waterbomber.org/news-esp.htm

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

It is solidarity between a people.  You need to have some humanity to accept to pay for some who can’t though.  Is that too hard? Guess so, for you…

No, not too hard.  In fact, that’s the crux of the issue.  I do have that humanity, and so do most other people.  When I argue that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things, it is because such force degrades that humanity.  See:

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

...And no, I do not think that people should depend on charity, I think all people should have rights. Like they all have obligations.

I agree that they shouldn’t depend on charity, but even moreso, they shouldn’t demand resources from those whose charity they would depend on when they really needed to.  The first priority should be living below your means so that rather than needing charity, you can provide it.  Second is to respect the property of others (which is pretty easy when you keep the first one) - meaning let them keep and decide how to spend everything they earn.  Lastly, when you find someone in need, you give them a hand.  More below…

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

You have never answered many of my questions also.  Example: Do you think that our system is a model that 3rd world countries should copy?

Absolutely not.  There are parts of “our system” that are good that they should copy, but most of it is bad because it has been built with resources taken from the citizens by force.  Is it all-or-nothing for you, or can you see good parts and bad parts?  List the others, and I will answer.

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

Perhaps you or someone you love has a job which you feel would quickly disappear if people were not forced to pay taxes, and so you are compelled by something beyond reason to defend such force.

...that does not stop me from being “solidaire” with those people. Is this something you can understand or not? Do you think I must be personnally concerned? Do you think I need to be poor myself to defend the poor? Do I need to be oppressed to defend the oppressed?  Strange… Especially from someone who claims that human life is so precious.

I understand your solidarity.  I feel it too.  I just can’t justify forcing people to pretend that they also have the feeling (if they don’t) by forcing them to pay taxes.  Yes, I thought you must be personally concerned.  No, I think you still have enough humanity to defend the poor even if you are not poor.  Likewise, the oppressed.  But when you put that ahead of respect for property, it suggests you have personal interest.

Blur - 18 May 2009 07:58 AM

If that’s the case, consider that there may be citizens willing to continue paying for the service that person provides even when they are not forced to. (etc.)

Are you talking about charity here? (Un peu brouillon, dans ce paragraphe)  If so, I believe that humans should have RIGHTS - I prefer rights over charity.

Actually, willingly paying for a service without being forced to is not charity - it’s normal business.  If you think that when you buy a poor person some food, that is charity without business, then think about the seller of the food and whether you’re a better person than that seller.

In any case, rights vs charity is the crux of our disagreement.  Taxation is coercive.  You can’t coerce someone into solidaire.  You can only make it look like they have solidarity.  Above, I listed three priorities:
* Live below your means.
* Respect the property of others - do not force them to pay for anything (except to fix/replace what they break)
* Help those in need.

What you call “rights” requires taxation to provide, which puts the third priority above the second.  I think the difference in the order of these three priorities between you and me is a result of your buried fear of not paying taxes, and your fear of public censure (like what you’ve been doing to me) if you speak out against them.  You have successfully buried all the bitterness and frustration with your government for how it spends your money by switching those last two priorities so that you now feel solidarity instead of anger.  This is what I mean when I say the coercion degrades humanity.

Respect for property will have all the best outcomes if everyone has it all the time.
Helping those in need will have all the best outcomes even if only a small (but significant) portion of the population does it.

Which do you think is more important, respect for property, or helping those in need?

Which do you think is more important, respect for property, or helping those in need?

Your question is an impossible one - it’s similar to asking a mother, for example, which of her two children is the most important.

I did the following thought experiment:

If one person is starving and another has food, would you steal the food to feed the starving one?  I think this is a personal decision.  Do you think we should institutionalize the answer?  Even if we decided one way or the other - so that there’s a law to control whether you steal the food and feed the starving person - I would frown on anyone enforcing the law.  The decision at that point should be left for you to decide on your own.  What do you think?

The problem is that you might have enough food already, and therefore you could share your own food - maintaining both the respect for property and the imperative of helping others.  However, this is just a convenient way to avoid the issue.  We’ll have to assume that you are starving along with the other person.  In that case, you throw out respect for property in order to stay alive.  If you help the other fellow by stealing food for him as well, I suppose you haven’t really gone any further.  Should there be a law that requires you to steal food for him?  I don’t think so.  If you’re honorable, you’ll probably steal food for both of you, and then work on earning enough to pay back the victim from whom you stole the food.

So, after considering this, I think I have to disagree with you.  It’s not an impossible question like the mother with two children, because as long as you are alive you are able to do both things:  It is always possible to help the needy without (permanently) violating respect for property.  Do you agree with that?

Let’s take it one step further, do you shoot one child (an Iraqi or a Pakistami) to make another (pick your Western nation) more comfortable, so their Daddy has enough gas to get to work to pay for more video games? Let us call a spade a spade.

Well, respect for the life of another person isn’t one of the priorities we’re discussing.  I’d put it above all three, and I think Blur would too. 

France has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  We might not agree on why, but we all know they are there.  Does Blur defend France’s participation on the grounds that France is thus “helping the needy” or “protecting developed countries from terrorists”?  In both cases, I would argue that such actions on the part of France (or any country) should only be undertaken using funds provided by people interested enough in those goals to pay for them.  Does this mean we would abandon the needy in Iraq and Afghanistan?  As countries, it might, but individual citizens and charities would send help if they felt it was warranted (and safe) - and may even cover the cost of national military participation to create the safety required to send that help.  Like I said, it’s always possible to help the needy without (permanently) violating respect for property.

I have been arguing more against Socialist principles here, if anyone is interested in joining the battle on either side.  I like these discussions because people on the fence about Socialism will learn more from them, and I think that generally pulls them over to the side of freedom.  Here’s the other discussion: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=730209#post730209

I think you are absolutely right, “bigger, more powerful and political government” is not a long term solution.

Regards

Caine

_____
[URL=http://dossierdesurendettement.net/dossier-de-surendettement/dossier-de-surendettement]dossier surendettement[/URL]