|
|
#91
02-20-2007, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If your idea really was as good as you claim, investors would be lining up at your door. [/ QUOTE ] Don't I have to know an investor or a VC in order to express the idea to them? Further, I don't think I've actually explained the idea to anyone because I don't know of a single person that would find it interesting. For them, talk of ASM and route management would be appallingly boring. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, you would actually have to talk to potential investors because they can't read your mind. This is true of anything and so is useless as a criticism of the free market. This is why people were earlier asking what your point was. [/ QUOTE ] These indispensable "investors" are exactly the wealthy gatekeepers of the so-called "free market" who would, in fact, be its de facto controllers. 
|
|
#92
02-20-2007, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If your idea really was as good as you claim, investors would be lining up at your door. [/ QUOTE ] Don't I have to know an investor or a VC in order to express the idea to them? Further, I don't think I've actually explained the idea to anyone because I don't know of a single person that would find it interesting. For them, talk of ASM and route management would be appallingly boring. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, you would actually have to talk to potential investors because they can't read your mind. This is true of anything and so is useless as a criticism of the free market. This is why people were earlier asking what your point was. [/ QUOTE ] These indispensable "investors" would be exactly the wealthy gatekeepers of the so-called "free market" who would, in fact, be its de facto controllers. [/ QUOTE ] I'd love to hear your "libertarian" alternative where this wouldn't happen. Lay it on us!
|
|
#93
02-20-2007, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon. As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time. [/ QUOTE ] In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others? [/ QUOTE ] Do you realize how relatively poor the 10 richest people are? Do you realize how easy it would be to defend against them?
|
|
#94
02-20-2007, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon. As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time. [/ QUOTE ] In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others? [/ QUOTE ] In democracy whats stop the richest 60% from aniquilating the poorest 40%?
|
|
#95
02-20-2007, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I view our current government as corporatist (something that I don't think the masses of the populace believe just yet). [/ QUOTE ] Probably because the word "corporatist" is used by some to describe (perceived) insufficient economic restrictions and taxes on corporations by government. In this case the word "corporatist" essentially means "libertarian", in which case I'd say that the US gov't should be more "corporatist" than it is. Of course the US government is not "corporatist" in the strict meaning of the word. Maybe you could be more specific about what you mean by the word "corporatist".
|
|
#96
02-20-2007, 12:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon. As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time. [/ QUOTE ] In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others? [/ QUOTE ] An ACist should answer this, but I'll give it a shot. In AC land, oppressing others would reduce profits. Of course these ten people may have priorities more important to them than profit, but then how did they get so rich? This is not a guarantee against oppression, but nothing is.
|
|
#97
02-20-2007, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] FWIW, I view our current government as corporatist (something that I don't think the masses of the populace believe just yet). [/ QUOTE ] Probably because the word "corporatist" is used by some to describe (perceived) insufficient economic restrictions and taxes on corporations by government. In this case the word "corporatist" essentially means "libertarian", in which case I'd say that the US gov't should be more "corporatist" than it is. Of course the US government is not "corporatist" in the strict meaning of the word. Maybe you could be more specific about what you mean by the word "corporatist". [/ QUOTE ] What I mean by corporatist is that corporations dictate government policy even if it undermines the best interests of the masses. Most is pretty much consolidated. There is a market for unbiased media, surely enough of a market to garner more ratings than say, MTV9, and yet we don't have it. There's a demand and there's not a supply. No, we get Anna Nicole Smith in this country. Corporations don't want honest media coverage. Otherwise, they'd be having a debate on something like SPP, the Fed, or taxation right now on television. Where is the free market?
|
|
#98
02-20-2007, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon. As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time. [/ QUOTE ] In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others? [/ QUOTE ] In democracy whats stop the richest 60% from aniquilating the poorest 40%? [/ QUOTE ] Big Macs
|
|
#99
02-20-2007, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] These indispensable "investors" would be exactly the wealthy gatekeepers of the so-called "free market" who would, in fact, be its de facto controllers. [/ QUOTE ] I'd love to hear your "libertarian" alternative where this wouldn't happen. Lay it on us! [/ QUOTE ] I don't remember Skidoo ever claiming to be a libertarian. He does seem to be confusing someone "controlling" his own money with "controlling" the market as a whole.
|
|
#100
02-20-2007, 01:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not sure of your point here. My point was that laws restricting the "accumulation of chips" reduce economic freedom and reduce the standard of living for everyone. And I have no interest in "giving" anyone any freedom whatsoever. The freedom people are already endowed with is enough as long as its not infringed upon. As an interesting note, the US government was sort of envisioned by the framers like a "private" form of government, in that it had no power other than the power delegated to it, and could not legally ever expand its own power. This is why they chose the title "President" like of a company, instead of a title that implied that the government had the same kind of power as other "governments" that existed at the time. [/ QUOTE ] In AC, what stops the ten richest people in the United States from buying up all of the law enforcement and all of the military and using it for the oppression of others? [/ QUOTE ] An ACist should answer this, but I'll give it a shot. In AC land, oppressing others would reduce profits. Of course these ten people may have priorities more important to them than profit, but then how did they get so rich? This is not a guarantee against oppression, but nothing is. [/ QUOTE ] I see what is being said here. I really do. The simple answer is that, since you have the best hand, are unlikely to get drawn out on, and you don't want to lose any customers, so you slowplay until it's too late. People that make billions of dollars are typically very smart. Don't box them in as a typical sucker. They know exactly how to play the game.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
