Capitalism- Inherently bad or grossly misunderstood? - Page 27

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2012, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Are you in favour of unchecked capitalism ?

Depends. What are my options?

Belz... · 3rd October 2012, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Depends. What are my options?

Eh ?

PixyMisa · 3rd October 2012, 03:46 AM

Unchecked capitalism vs. what?

Belz... · 3rd October 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Unchecked capitalism vs. what?

Checked capitalism. You know, the one with government regulations that try to prevent abuse and monopoly ?

NewtonTrino · 3rd October 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Checked capitalism. You know, the one with government regulations that try to prevent abuse and monopoly ?

I don't think anyone is against having rules (except anarchists I suppose).

But it's very easy to over regulate. For example what we have now.

Again, I propose we limit the power of government so their is less to hijack. No human society has shown itself to be immune from corruption.

Belz... · 3rd October 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

But it's very easy to over regulate. For example what we have now.

It's possible to have both too much regulation and not enough, when the regulations you have are ineffective or ill-devised.

Maybe you need better regulations instead of less or more.

theprestige · 3rd October 2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

It's possible to have both too much regulation and not enough, when the regulations you have are ineffective or ill-devised.

Maybe you need better regulations instead of less or more.

Maybe so.

Bringing it back around to the topic and trend of this thread, what we probably don't need is to decide capitalism is "inherently bad", and replace it with something like Communism or Socialism. Only someone who "grossly misunderstood" capitalism (and the proposed alternatives) would think that was a good idea.

I'd say that regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and not even remotely close to communism or socialism.

John Albert · 3rd October 2012, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'd say that regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and not even remotely close to communism or socialism.

Agreed.

Well-regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and extreme socialism/communism has already proven to be a bust (at least on any large national scale), but that's not to say that all socialist initiatives are bad or that capitalism is entirely incompatible with some socialist initiatives.

Socialist initiatives have actually brought about some of the most important social progress in this country, reducing poverty and illness on a general scale and granting equal human rights to a greater percentage of our populace.

theprestige · 3rd October 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

Well-regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and extreme socialism/communism has already proven to be a bust, but that's not to say that all socialist initiatives are bad or that capitalism is entirely incompatible with some socialist initiatives.

Socialist initiatives have actually given us some of our greatest social progress in this country...

Agreed. A state can do quite well for itself by enforcing contracts and skimming a little off the top of its citizens' productivity for social safety nets.

theprestige · 3rd October 2012, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

Socialist initiatives have actually brought about some of the most important social progress in this country, reducing poverty and illness on a general scale and granting equal human rights to a greater percentage of our populace.

I'm curious to know what initiatives you attribute these outcomes to, and by what criteria you judge those initiatives as "socialist".

John Albert · 3rd October 2012, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm curious to know what initiatives you attribute these outcomes to, and by what criteria you judge those initiatives as "socialist".

Oh you know, the little things that make life easier, like collective bargaining rights, the 7-day 40-hour work week, worker safety legislation, abolition of child labor, abolition of Jim Crow laws, women's suffrage, worker collectives, nationalized healthcare insurance, the civil rights movement... those kinds of things were spearheaded by grassroots socialist movements in the US, and by Democratic Socialist governments in Europe.

theprestige · 3rd October 2012, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

Oh you know, the little things that make life easier, like collective bargaining rights, the 7-day 40-hour work week, worker safety legislation, abolition of child labor, abolition of Jim Crow laws, women's suffrage, worker collectives, nationalized healthcare insurance, the civil rights movement... those kinds of things were spearheaded by grassroots socialist movements in the US, and by Democratic Socialist governments in Europe.

Thanks, but I was hoping for something more specific. Take women's suffrage in the US, for example: What specific "grassroots socialist movements" spearheaded that specific initiative, and what specific qualities made them "socialist" in your view?

From your list, I fear your definition of "socialist" might be too broad to be much use for anything other than rhetoric.

John Albert · 3rd October 2012, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thanks, but I was hoping for something more specific.

Originally Posted by theprestige

what specific qualities made them "socialist" in your view?

Originally Posted by theprestige

From your list, I fear your definition of "socialist" might be too broad to be much use for anything other than rhetoric.

The qualities that made those movements "socialist" was their direct political involvement with socialist political parties in both Europe and the US.

My use of "socialist" in describing the political alignment of those movements is historical, not rhetorical. If you look into the history of those civil rights movements, you'll see the names of prominent socialists or socialist organizations at the center of almost every one.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Take women's suffrage in the US, for example: What specific "grassroots socialist movements" spearheaded that specific initiative

Heh. Of course you'd pick the single weakest example out of all the movements I mentioned!

The American womens suffrage movement is the one example on that list that had relatively little socialist involvement. It was actually the European Socialist parties that spawned womens' rights groups who championed universal suffrage, and eventually won equal voting rights in several countries.

International socialist movements in Europe became involved in the Women's Rights Movement from as early as the 1850's. The Spanish Basque Region (under socialist government) allowed women to vote as early as the 1860s. A female leader of the German Social Democratic Party named Klara Zetkin was the prominent leader of the women's suffrage movement in that country, which ended up granting voting rights to women in 1900. In the UK, the Workers' Socialist Federation was instrumental in winning voting rights for women in 1918.

The main women's suffrage movement in the US grew directly out of the abolitionist movement. Although socialist parties worldwide supported womens' voting rights by 1907, most American socialists were more concerned with labor issues and eschewed the women's vote issue for fear of splitting their message and losing broad-base support. "Mother Jones," for example, is one of the more famous holdouts in the socialist labor movement who stood against suffrage for women. By the 1910s, a number of female socialist activists like Emma Goldman, Lea Roback, Rose Pesotta, Margaret Sanger joined the fight for women's sexual freedom and birth control rights. Many of those women were Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe, so being foreigners they wouldn't have been able to vote anyway so it was sort of a non-issue. Despite those conflicts of interest, some liaisons were formed in various states between female labor leaders and the women's rights organizations, and these groups became successful in winning women the right to vote in several state elections during the 1890s. Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, universal womens' suffrage in the US was finally passed by Congress in 1920.

So yeah. Socialists were very active in achieving the right to vote for women in Europe, but not so much in the US.

PixyMisa · 4th October 2012, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Checked capitalism. You know, the one with government regulations that try to prevent abuse and monopoly ?

Problem is that misguided regulations do more harm than good. Overall, yes, I think regulation is necessary. But I also think that a significant proportion of the regulation we already have is unnecessary or actively harmful.

Originally Posted by Belz...

It's possible to have both too much regulation and not enough, when the regulations you have are ineffective or ill-devised.

Maybe you need better regulations instead of less or more.

Precisely.

Belz... · 4th October 2012, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Maybe so.

Bringing it back around to the topic and trend of this thread, what we probably don't need is to decide capitalism is "inherently bad", and replace it with something like Communism or Socialism. Only someone who "grossly misunderstood" capitalism (and the proposed alternatives) would think that was a good idea.

I'd say that regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and not even remotely close to communism or socialism.

I'd shake your hand on that but I can't transmit my arm through the internet.

John Albert · 4th October 2012, 07:29 AM

Well, there's always the possibility of a 3rd form of economy, neither socialist nor capitalist, that might work better than both. That we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it cannot exist. Until somebody works it out, though, perhaps the best solution would be some "sweet spot" in the combination of the two.

The Scandinavian-type economies sure seem to have worked out a Premium Blend that works quite well for them.

Merton · 4th October 2012, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I don't think anyone is against having rules (except anarchists I suppose).

Just wanted to clear up this misconception real quick-like: anarchists don't want lawlessness. In fact, most of us anarchists are leftists and believe that freedom comes with responsibility. It's only the egoist anarchists who think might makes right.

NewtonTrino · 4th October 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Merton

Just wanted to clear up this misconception real quick-like: anarchists don't want lawlessness. In fact, most of us anarchists are leftists and believe that freedom comes with responsibility. It's only the egoist anarchists who think might makes right.

Ok, then there is nobody against rules. I wasn't trying to make any particular point about anarchists.

My point is that only a loon would say that we have no rules whatsoever. But the amount of rules we have now is drastically more than we should and it causes problems. The more rules you add the more time and money it takes to comply and the more your actions are limited.

Merton · 4th October 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Ok, then there is nobody against rules. I wasn't trying to make any particular point about anarchists.

My point is that only a loon would say that we have no rules whatsoever. But the amount of rules we have now is drastically more than we should and it causes problems. The more rules you add the more time and money it takes to comply and the more your actions are limited.

* Merton is in violent agreement

derchin · 18th October 2012, 08:27 AM

Anything more to add?

theprestige · 18th October 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

Anything more to add?

It's your thread, but you haven't actually said anything since the first post. Why don't you tell us where you're at with this topic?

ETA: I mean, there's been a lot of enthusiastic debate, but you haven't participated in any of it. Have you reached any conclusions? Reexamined any of your premises? Rejected any claims?

derchin · 19th October 2012, 10:25 AM

I haven't come to any conclusions really. I was was just reading over all the posts.

stevea · 16th November 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by JJM 777

In a minority of cases only, labour unions do sometimes over-achieve, so to say. For example when the Finnish labour union of doctors went on national strike to demand higher salaries -- people who already earn twice more than the average person -- it seemed a bit odd to use their monopoly on medical expertise for such quest of personal gain.

A natonal bakery, 'Hostess' just went out of business here in the US.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...857_story.html

The company was n bad financial straights, and they asked for renegotiated union contract. Some unions did, but the bakers union refused. As a direct result the company could not continue seeking refinance and reorganization and will liquidate.

I think the bakers union has every right to reject an offer and walk out - - that is collective bargaining. . I also believe they have zero right to complain when the company hires someone else to do the job - I don't support monopolies, ever.

To address you now-old point, the Hostess company was forced by unions to adopt all sorts of fiscal inefficiency like ....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...304399110.html

Quote:

Hostess has a trove of complex labor rules that the company deems inefficient, the people said. In some instances, work rules mandate that separate trucks must deliver bread and cake products, these people said. Sometimes separate workers must load the trucks and additional workers must make final deliveries once a truck arrives at a supermarket, they said.

Yes the inefficiency or monopolies of any sort are legion - not anomalies.

Thank you unions - we needed more unemployment.

2nd October 2012, 10:32 PM	#1041
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Originally Posted by Belz... Are you in favour of unchecked capitalism ? Depends. What are my options?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

3rd October 2012, 03:13 AM	#1042
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,397	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Depends. What are my options? Eh ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd October 2012, 03:46 AM	#1043
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Unchecked capitalism vs. what?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

3rd October 2012, 04:42 AM	#1044
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,397	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Unchecked capitalism vs. what? Checked capitalism. You know, the one with government regulations that try to prevent abuse and monopoly ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd October 2012, 10:16 AM	#1046
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,397	Originally Posted by NewtonTrino But it's very easy to over regulate. For example what we have now. It's possible to have both too much regulation and not enough, when the regulations you have are ineffective or ill-devised. Maybe you need better regulations instead of less or more.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd October 2012, 09:38 AM	#1045
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,782	Originally Posted by Belz... Checked capitalism. You know, the one with government regulations that try to prevent abuse and monopoly ? I don't think anyone is against having rules (except anarchists I suppose). But it's very easy to over regulate. For example what we have now. Again, I propose we limit the power of government so their is less to hijack. No human society has shown itself to be immune from corruption.

3rd October 2012, 12:23 PM	#1047
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by Belz... It's possible to have both too much regulation and not enough, when the regulations you have are ineffective or ill-devised. Maybe you need better regulations instead of less or more. Maybe so. Bringing it back around to the topic and trend of this thread, what we probably don't need is to decide capitalism is "inherently bad", and replace it with something like Communism or Socialism. Only someone who "grossly misunderstood" capitalism (and the proposed alternatives) would think that was a good idea. I'd say that regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and not even remotely close to communism or socialism.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

3rd October 2012, 02:03 PM	#1048
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by theprestige I'd say that regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and not even remotely close to communism or socialism. Agreed. Well-regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and extreme socialism/communism has already proven to be a bust (at least on any large national scale), but that's not to say that all socialist initiatives are bad or that capitalism is entirely incompatible with some socialist initiatives. Socialist initiatives have actually brought about some of the most important social progress in this country, reducing poverty and illness on a general scale and granting equal human rights to a greater percentage of our populace.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 3rd October 2012 at 02:11 PM.

3rd October 2012, 02:14 PM	#1049
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by John Albert Well-regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and extreme socialism/communism has already proven to be a bust, but that's not to say that all socialist initiatives are bad or that capitalism is entirely incompatible with some socialist initiatives. Socialist initiatives have actually given us some of our greatest social progress in this country... Agreed. A state can do quite well for itself by enforcing contracts and skimming a little off the top of its citizens' productivity for social safety nets.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

3rd October 2012, 02:16 PM	#1050
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by John Albert Socialist initiatives have actually brought about some of the most important social progress in this country, reducing poverty and illness on a general scale and granting equal human rights to a greater percentage of our populace. I'm curious to know what initiatives you attribute these outcomes to, and by what criteria you judge those initiatives as "socialist".
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

3rd October 2012, 06:08 PM	#1051
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by theprestige I'm curious to know what initiatives you attribute these outcomes to, and by what criteria you judge those initiatives as "socialist". Oh you know, the little things that make life easier, like collective bargaining rights, the 7-day 40-hour work week, worker safety legislation, abolition of child labor, abolition of Jim Crow laws, women's suffrage, worker collectives, nationalized healthcare insurance, the civil rights movement... those kinds of things were spearheaded by grassroots socialist movements in the US, and by Democratic Socialist governments in Europe.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 3rd October 2012 at 06:11 PM.

3rd October 2012, 06:54 PM	#1052
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by John Albert Oh you know, the little things that make life easier, like collective bargaining rights, the 7-day 40-hour work week, worker safety legislation, abolition of child labor, abolition of Jim Crow laws, women's suffrage, worker collectives, nationalized healthcare insurance, the civil rights movement... those kinds of things were spearheaded by grassroots socialist movements in the US, and by Democratic Socialist governments in Europe. Thanks, but I was hoping for something more specific. Take women's suffrage in the US, for example: What specific "grassroots socialist movements" spearheaded that specific initiative, and what specific qualities made them "socialist" in your view? From your list, I fear your definition of "socialist" might be too broad to be much use for anything other than rhetoric.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568

3rd October 2012, 09:04 PM	#1053
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by theprestige Thanks, but I was hoping for something more specific. Originally Posted by theprestige what specific qualities made them "socialist" in your view? Originally Posted by theprestige From your list, I fear your definition of "socialist" might be too broad to be much use for anything other than rhetoric. The qualities that made those movements "socialist" was their direct political involvement with socialist political parties in both Europe and the US. My use of "socialist" in describing the political alignment of those movements is historical, not rhetorical. If you look into the history of those civil rights movements, you'll see the names of prominent socialists or socialist organizations at the center of almost every one. Originally Posted by theprestige Take women's suffrage in the US, for example: What specific "grassroots socialist movements" spearheaded that specific initiative Heh. Of course you'd pick the single weakest example out of all the movements I mentioned! The American womens suffrage movement is the one example on that list that had relatively little socialist involvement. It was actually the European Socialist parties that spawned womens' rights groups who championed universal suffrage, and eventually won equal voting rights in several countries. International socialist movements in Europe became involved in the Women's Rights Movement from as early as the 1850's. The Spanish Basque Region (under socialist government) allowed women to vote as early as the 1860s. A female leader of the German Social Democratic Party named Klara Zetkin was the prominent leader of the women's suffrage movement in that country, which ended up granting voting rights to women in 1900. In the UK, the Workers' Socialist Federation was instrumental in winning voting rights for women in 1918. The main women's suffrage movement in the US grew directly out of the abolitionist movement. Although socialist parties worldwide supported womens' voting rights by 1907, most American socialists were more concerned with labor issues and eschewed the women's vote issue for fear of splitting their message and losing broad-base support. "Mother Jones," for example, is one of the more famous holdouts in the socialist labor movement who stood against suffrage for women. By the 1910s, a number of female socialist activists like Emma Goldman, Lea Roback, Rose Pesotta, Margaret Sanger joined the fight for women's sexual freedom and birth control rights. Many of those women were Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe, so being foreigners they wouldn't have been able to vote anyway so it was sort of a non-issue. Despite those conflicts of interest, some liaisons were formed in various states between female labor leaders and the women's rights organizations, and these groups became successful in winning women the right to vote in several state elections during the 1890s. Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, universal womens' suffrage in the US was finally passed by Congress in 1920. So yeah. Socialists were very active in achieving the right to vote for women in Europe, but not so much in the US.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 3rd October 2012 at 09:07 PM.

4th October 2012, 12:05 AM	#1054
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Originally Posted by Belz... Checked capitalism. You know, the one with government regulations that try to prevent abuse and monopoly ? Problem is that misguided regulations do more harm than good. Overall, yes, I think regulation is necessary. But I also think that a significant proportion of the regulation we already have is unnecessary or actively harmful. Originally Posted by Belz... It's possible to have both too much regulation and not enough, when the regulations you have are ineffective or ill-devised. Maybe you need better regulations instead of less or more. Precisely.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

4th October 2012, 03:50 AM	#1055
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,397	Originally Posted by theprestige Maybe so. Bringing it back around to the topic and trend of this thread, what we probably don't need is to decide capitalism is "inherently bad", and replace it with something like Communism or Socialism. Only someone who "grossly misunderstood" capitalism (and the proposed alternatives) would think that was a good idea. I'd say that regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and not even remotely close to communism or socialism. I'd shake your hand on that but I can't transmit my arm through the internet.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

4th October 2012, 07:29 AM	#1056
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Well, there's always the possibility of a 3rd form of economy, neither socialist nor capitalist, that might work better than both. That we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it cannot exist. Until somebody works it out, though, perhaps the best solution would be some "sweet spot" in the combination of the two. The Scandinavian-type economies sure seem to have worked out a Premium Blend that works quite well for them.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain

4th October 2012, 07:38 AM	#1057
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Montana, USA Posts: 576	Originally Posted by NewtonTrino I don't think anyone is against having rules (except anarchists I suppose). Just wanted to clear up this misconception real quick-like: anarchists don't want lawlessness. In fact, most of us anarchists are leftists and believe that freedom comes with responsibility. It's only the egoist anarchists who think might makes right.
	__________________ "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

4th October 2012, 08:53 AM	#1058
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,782	Originally Posted by Merton Just wanted to clear up this misconception real quick-like: anarchists don't want lawlessness. In fact, most of us anarchists are leftists and believe that freedom comes with responsibility. It's only the egoist anarchists who think might makes right. Ok, then there is nobody against rules. I wasn't trying to make any particular point about anarchists. My point is that only a loon would say that we have no rules whatsoever. But the amount of rules we have now is drastically more than we should and it causes problems. The more rules you add the more time and money it takes to comply and the more your actions are limited.

4th October 2012, 08:56 AM	#1059
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Montana, USA Posts: 576	Originally Posted by NewtonTrino Ok, then there is nobody against rules. I wasn't trying to make any particular point about anarchists. My point is that only a loon would say that we have no rules whatsoever. But the amount of rules we have now is drastically more than we should and it causes problems. The more rules you add the more time and money it takes to comply and the more your actions are limited. * Merton is in violent agreement
	__________________ "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

18th October 2012, 08:27 AM	#1060
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 324	Anything more to add?
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

18th October 2012, 09:38 AM	#1061
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Originally Posted by derchin Anything more to add? It's your thread, but you haven't actually said anything since the first post. Why don't you tell us where you're at with this topic? ETA: I mean, there's been a lot of enthusiastic debate, but you haven't participated in any of it. Have you reached any conclusions? Reexamined any of your premises? Rejected any claims?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,568	Last edited by theprestige; 18th October 2012 at 09:40 AM.

19th October 2012, 10:25 AM	#1062
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 324	I haven't come to any conclusions really. I was was just reading over all the posts.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

16th November 2012, 04:01 PM	#1063
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by JJM 777 In a minority of cases only, labour unions do sometimes over-achieve, so to say. For example when the Finnish labour union of doctors went on national strike to demand higher salaries -- people who already earn twice more than the average person -- it seemed a bit odd to use their monopoly on medical expertise for such quest of personal gain. A natonal bakery, 'Hostess' just went out of business here in the US. http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...857_story.html The company was n bad financial straights, and they asked for renegotiated union contract. Some unions did, but the bakers union refused. As a direct result the company could not continue seeking refinance and reorganization and will liquidate. I think the bakers union has every right to reject an offer and walk out - - that is collective bargaining. . I also believe they have zero right to complain when the company hires someone else to do the job - I don't support monopolies, ever. To address you now-old point, the Hostess company was forced by unions to adopt all sorts of fiscal inefficiency like .... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...304399110.html Quote: Hostess has a trove of complex labor rules that the company deems inefficient, the people said. In some instances, work rules mandate that separate trucks must deliver bread and cake products, these people said. Sometimes separate workers must load the trucks and additional workers must make final deliveries once a truck arrives at a supermarket, they said. Yes the inefficiency or monopolies of any sort are legion - not anomalies. Thank you unions - we needed more unemployment.
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117