What we have is 'corporate state capitalism' run on the backs of working people who are subjected to a polyarchy of a one (big money) party system that accepts violence and authoritative means of control to be necessary in keeping the slave/wage-laborers under control and in there pocket. The more my wife and I have learned the more we feel we can't have a peaceful outlook (don't go psycho on me these are real things here) its like we need more black block, more solidarity. We need to understand that it is each other we are hurting to help walmart profit, don't get angry at teachers and say, oh well there retirement is way to much so I think I should take it away, no say fuck you walmart we are not letting our tax dollars go to build another 3.5 million store where you will create 200 jobs where people need to still live off of foodstamps in order to survive. Funny thing walmart totes around how many jobs they create and how good they are for the american people but did you know walmart employees are the largest single group in the country that receives state and federal help (foodstamps, wellfare, section 8) I think it is bullshit our tax dollars build there fucking store then our tax dollars go to feed (foodstamps) and pay (wellfare) the employees so they can continue to work, that is fucked! srry... I don't mind helping people at all I just don't like helping walmart keep my family down, thats all of you by the way!
Aside from not being true, why is that a bad thing? Wal Mart's philosophy is low wages, and people who can't find work elsewhere are grateful for that.
Hmmm.... there are socioeconomic conditions like this at walmart that do keep us down, and how is this not true? We do get grateful like a puppy thrown shreds of meat from the table, but there is a huge problem when that 2% of the population controls 90% of the wealth. Your way of thinking here is a huge problem, what we are witnessing in this time is dialectical materialism and the decay of this non-static socioeconomic system in place hopefully giving rise to the next system we will use to manage production and dispersion of goods. How is what I said not truth, you do know that we will pay (certain cities, states, and the federal gov) walmart tax dollars to build a store its called subsidizing, it happens all the time like right down the street from me! Walmart claims to create a bunch of jobs so yeah it doesn't matter if we throw a million or two at em cause they create so many wonderful jobs for people to sustain themselves, I am sorry I think you have no clue what you are talking about, you go ahead and think people are grateful for getting remedial jobs and keep helping build these social and economical institutions that will keep them down and there kids, are you kidding me people may be grateful because of lack of knowledge but if you look at the big picture it is fucked and there is no way around it!
Wal Mart employees are not the largest group of welfare recipients, that's what I don't believe is true. Wal Mart should not be receiving any subsidies from the state. It's not Wal Mart's fault that their employees take advantage of the welfare state, it is the state's fault for distorting the market. If there weren't welfare options available to them they would work harder and find better jobs. Most of Wal Mart's employees are part time I believe, so that would explain that statistic any way. Wal Mart is a benefit to both consumers and laborers, but they hurt local businesses and anger labor unions that can't steal money from them. Wal Mart is a symptom of our economy and they do not deserve to be villified.
The more socialist approach works pretty well in the European countries. I think it would be a horrible idea for the US though, unless it can be localized enough. I'm not exactly sure what your stance on capitalism is, but what do you think about this: If companies are allowed unlimited growth and are allowed monopolies over certain industries, that takes away from other people's chances to successfully become capitalists with their own business. So effectively, unlimited capitalism can actually limit capitalism.
A company that is so good at serving consumer demand that nobody can compete... how is that a bad thing? The aspiring entrepeneur will have a tough time competing with the giants, so either they innovate and attract an untapped consumer segment or they go into a different industry. But capitalism doesn't mean being an entpreneur, it means voluntary exchange. Lets say Microsoft owned 100% of the computer electronics market share... that just means if you want to get into computers you work for Microsoft. That's still capitalism. This scenario is highly unlikely though, your chances of seeing a natural monopoly is about as high as seeing good government.
Thank you for replying, you offer some great points. I pretty much agree with everything you said, except for one thing. You say in the case where Microsoft would own 100% of the computer industry, if you wanted to get into computers, you work for Microsoft. In that case, Microsoft would decide how much money you make and what your position is within that company. If yo had a great idea, and Microsoft didn't agree it was a great idea, it wouldn't go anywhere. You can't really advertise your idea effectively by yourself because Microsoft is able to put down 10 thousand for a billboard ad, and you, with your great (unrecognised) idea couldn't invest on the same scale.
In his sense, he would leave microsoft and start his own business. If he sees a great idea that could change our lives for better, then he will pursuit it based on his ideal. If it does become popular, then Microsoft should of took his consideration but it would been too late. By then, his business could rise to 10 percent of share in computer marketing. Thus, Microsoft loses the natural monopoly. The action by Microsoft would been regretful but that was their reaction at the first place. Again, why would you popose unregionized idea with so much money at the first place. I wouldn't do that. Firstly, I would inform people about my ideal then if it does succeed, then I would post on the billboard knowing that I will gain some profit from it.
Sure you could. If you saved up enough money to invest in a new business you can do it alone, or you can find wealthy investors that appreciate your idea. If a company doesn't treat their employees well then they will defect and seek other means for personal success. If they have a strong competitive advantage it will work.
There's a word for this - tripe. The main conflict is between the haves and the have nots, not some airy-fairy argument about rights, choices, liberty etc etc. If the haves won't give it away it will be taken from them - easy as that.
Ok good argument. I didn't really consider saving up. I do however distrust extremely wealthy people. I find it great that we can become rich through personal achievements, but I don't like it when 90% of a country's wealth is held by 10% of the population. How do you feel about this? I know you don't like income tax, but what about extra tax for people who couldn't possibly spend their fortune in their lifetime?
There's no taxes in Anarchy.... Firstly of all, you don't have to have 'money' to start a business. You can volunteer exchange for the products or people that you need to improvised upon. If you found a person that could benefit you and your business in long run, you can mutually agree with him through terms and try convince him to be part of your business. Under Anarchy, money is just money through medium exchange. It's not like where the state uses money as a 'big deal' and can only money can buy or start a business like we're witnessing today's world.
I forgot we were talking about anarchy here. I find this a very promising concept, but I haven't explored it enough yet. If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there is no government in the concept of anarchy. Then who would fight crime? I'm not talking about a bureacratic type of laws, I'm talking about true crimes against humanity, like rape, torture or serial killings. Do you envision private organizations to be set up, like neighbourhood watches?
I don't like disparities like that, obviously, and I believe it would be a lot more equal in a society where the elite didn't receive special privileges from the government like bailouts, and where the poor didn't receive perverse incentives like welfare. I don't support a progressive tax, I think if we are going to be taxed it should all be the same rate. My belief is that the private sector allocates wealth better than the state ever could. So those rich people will spend their money on goods and services that stimulate the economy in a more meaningful and beneficial way than if the government were to spend their money on welfare/warfare and encouraging stupid stuff like a housing bubble. People who hoard their money without investing it or spending it are weird, but they have every right to do so and are not negatively affecting anybody else by doing so. Wealth isn't finite.
I do think the (very) progressive tax system works well in my country because I think it is allocated fairly well. Education for instance is completely funded. How do you feel about collective funding for education of poor children so that they can break away from their parents' poverty easier? Or welfare programs for those truly unable to fend for themselves, for instance blind people who are also missing both hands? I believe once a system without a government is effectively up and running, with people having enough excess, programs like these would spring up privately. But what if they don't? Excuse me asking your point of view so many times, I just feel like you have something to teach me about this subject.
Ultimately, it is the fate in their own hands. It is up to themselves to protect from violence. Remember that everybody has a gun, knife or some form of weapon to protect from others. If a person who goes on killing for fun of it, there will be information everywhere talking about this man thus this man will have harder time to live in most areas because of free information. He will have to go under cover most of the times, thus he'll loses potential of self being to social interaction of others. Which will deprive him from society, no man wouldn't do that, tbh. Unless he is mentally sane. There will be private police which only can thrive by reputation, loyalty and money from the community or people. You know the most basic rule, more competition, the better it is for customers. Example of Ryan, his criminal act against companies online and how the people dealt with him and told the companies about his schemes. The companies are now aware of the situation. Ryan schemes was about the servers for competitive online gaming, he will gather money by people who is willing to help him out for the cause. Then when the tournament comes, he'll simply just leave with all the money he collected. Thus, no tournament and no money for the competition players. He also did with the other website about designing and many things. His schemes is just about taking power and money and simply walk it off with all the money he earned. Ryan 'Vievi' fraud Vievi getting destroyed Neva Digital LTD Info Forum / Legitimate Questions/Doubts About Neva Digital LTD Senshimedia Ryan "Vievi" is a Fraud! Remember that Internet is anarchy since 94 when internet was introduced. The gov starting take over the webs in last 5 years, thus we lose the potential of Anarchy and it's easier to lose business because of the taxes and force from gov.