Where’s the state there?

genocide, war, and empire. — NOS4A2

There's gold in them thar hills.


How does it feel to draw a line between violations of human rights you care about and violations of human rights you don't care about? It's a recipe for self-corruption, and now you're a monster. NOS4A2 indeed.

You’d compare a list of workplace accidents to genocide, war, and empire. — NOS4A2

I made no comparison.*

The accumulated crimes of state and big business can't be teased apart and rubricized. State and big business - those are nearly synonyms.**





*You see a comparison because you want to win an argument. Not because you care about the truth.

**You'd see that if you took some time to read about it - but you won't read about it because the facts would compel you to recant a philosophical position that justifies a grotesque egocentric pleasure.

You’d compare a list of workplace accidents to genocide, war, and empire. — NOS4A2

Here you belittle the sufferings of the common laborer. That's what monsters do.

Here you whitewash the cultural significance of the dehumanization of the common laborer. That's what monsters do.

If corporations are so powerful then you ought to start one, — NOS4A2

:roll:

I’m talking about multinational corporations — what is often called “big business.” Apologists love to be disingenuous about this— as if we’re talking about mom and pop stores.

Anything to distract from the fact that corporations are the way capitalists currently organize, that they’re run undemocratically, and that they currently own and run the government (i.e., PEOPLE in positions of power).

But yes, I’ll automatically be catapulted to power by filing articles of incorporation.

I don't know if you have access to jstor, but there's a good article on there called The Post-Modern State, by James Kurth

First it’s The Wealthy, then corporations, now it’s multinational corporations. Now it’s IKEA, Johnny Walker, and Starbucks who are our overlords.

Will you compile all the accidents that occur on state-built roads and shift the blame accordingly? You monster!

First it’s The Wealthy, then corporations, now it’s multinational corporations. — NOS4A2

There’s no difference— the capitalist class, the “owners,” are the “wealthy” class that own the corporations. It’s fairly obvious — provided one wants to face reality rather than defend plutocracy as you do. In the latter case, I’m sure it’s all very perplexing. “Corporations” now become any small business, any incorporated co-op, etc. — so confusing! How can they be a problem!

You can run for President or Senator if you wish. In the same way as one can “start a corporation.” The difference is that one is democratic and the other undemocratic in its function. Since you’re unwittingly pro-plutocracy and anti-democracy, I can see why you want to minimize the power and tyranny of the one while highlighting the problems of the other (which no doubt exist).

Synopsis of this odd thread:

Abolish the state. Replace it with individuals freely cooperating in trade. Privatize everything. The only laws should be establishing and protecting private property.

This is actually considered the goal to strive for, and has been thrust upon working and middle class Americans as an ideal by intellectuals working in service of capitalist plutocrats.

NOS is one such brainwashed advocate, and a poor one at that.

Perhaps my ignorance is a result of my experience and tastes. I have had no relationship with a corporation that was not voluntary and premised on mutual agreement. If I were to come across arraignments that were not to my liking, I’d not sign any contract. If I don’t like their product or service I don’t buy it. If I wanted a raise or some privilege I’d much rather retain a space of negotiation than to let some majority decide how I ought to associate with others,

I just don’t see where the tyranny is.

I just don’t see where the tyranny is. — NOS4A2

Corporations are not run democratically. Elections (which is how officials, who make up the “state”, obtain their positions) are democratic.

Thus people have some say in the latter decisions. Workers have no say in the decisions of the board of directors.

Avoiding corporations is nearly impossible. In terms of employment, it’s nice to know you stick with the age-old “just quit and work somewhere else” mantra, despite it being explained to you numerous times just how mindless it is. Way to justify an anti-democratic, plutocratically-run institution while railing against “exploitation” of the state!

Let me give the equivalent response to your whines about state power: move to an island somewhere. No one is forcing you to interact with a state. It’s totally voluntary.

Corporations are not governments, though. If a group of people start a corporation it makes no sense to me that others, by virtue of them accepting a job there, should have control over it. It makes no sense to me that the people who conceive of, fund, build, accept the risk, and who are responsible for its operation from its conception until its demise should not get to decide how it should operate. You haven’t offered a single reason why this should be so.

I would say “just quit” because it is a far better course of action than attempting to force others to give up control of their creations so that Xtrix might feel better.

Corporations are not governments, though. — NOS4A2

True. They're stilled governed, and governed by people. People who make decisions which many others have to live with. True, you could argue workers, the community, the planet, etc. don't really "have to" live with them -- but again, if that explanation satisfies you - so be it.

If a group of people start a corporation it makes no sense to me that others, by virtue of them accepting a job there, should have control over it. — NOS4A2

Notice I didn't mention worker control. That's another discussion worth having. All I mentioned was the fact that most multinational corporations (the fortune 500, etc.), are not governed as co-ops -- they're top-down structures. The decisions are made by a board of directors -- a handful of people -- and the CEO/top executives, also a handful of people. The thousands (or millions) of workers get no say. The workers are certainly included in generating profit, yes? Yet it's a handful of people who decide what to do with those profits. If that's not exploiting the "fruits of one's labor" I don't know what is.

If one wants to argue that this is somehow the result of the state, there is of course a shred of truth in it -- e.g., corporations couldn't exist in their current form without the law, without legal personhood; owners couldn't get away with abuse if it wasn't allowed by the state, etc. But in my view that's a shallow analysis. And here I'm being as generous as I can.

It makes no sense to me that the people who conceive of, fund, build, accept the risk, and who are responsible for its operation from its conception until its demise should not get to decide how it should operate. — NOS4A2

Walmart could exist just fine without the Waltons. It's the workers that keep Walmart running, not the owners. The owners don't manage, run, stock, and maintain any of the Walmart buildings. That someone starts a business doesn't grant them the right to exploit people. Our economy shouldn't be structured in this way. Private ownership is not grounds "anything goes" -- otherwise slavery could still be around (and, in some forms, still is).

Good luck "building, accepting risk, and operating" a business alone. If others have a crucial role in generating profits (as workers at Walmart do), they should at minimum have some input into how those profits are allocated. As it stands now -- unsurprisingly -- 90% go back to shareholders. I seriously doubt workers would vote for this, if given the opportunity. But since it's an anti-democratic institution, that's off the table. And thanks in part to apologists like you, it'll stick around for a long time yet I'm sure.

This is why your railing against the state's "injustices" is such a joke. You're able to see injustice on the state level...yet ignore or minimize injustice at the heart of our economy. What would be respectable, or at least consistent, would be to condemn the fundamentally illegitimate system of corporate governance. That you can't bring yourself to do so -- or simply aren't capable of recognizing it -- is telling.

I would say “just quit” because it is a far better course of action than attempting to force others to give up control of their creations so that Xtrix might feel better. — NOS4A2

No one said anything about giving up their creations.

Also, I would say "just leave" rather than subject others to a ridiculous "laissez faire" system to make NOS feel better. An island awaits you.

Your reasoning and snark have not convinced me that workers should “get a say” in a venture that is not theirs, nor that this relationship is anything like a state and subject, which has the monopoly on violence, systems of taxation, and armed control and jurisdiction.

If I want to risk starting a business, funding it, operating it, I should not have to give you a say just because I hired you to pour lattes. If you want to negotiate the terms of your employment you’ll just have to put on your big boy pants and learn to negotiate.

You really don’t deserve a “say” in the government, in that case. You can always leave the country if you don’t like paying taxes. You shouldn’t get a vote just because you happen to be born here.

So Walmart workers should get no say in what happens to the “fruits of their labor” — to the profits which they generate. Got it. Seems perfectly fair. Fuck those people. Also fuck the Starbucks employees, those “latte pouring” peons.

This coming from a guy who whines endlessly about the injustices of the state. Magnificent.

Anarcho-capitalists: defending corporate tyranny while denouncing state tyranny.

What would be respectable, or at least consistent, would be to condemn the fundamentally illegitimate system of corporate governance. That you can't bring yourself to do so -- or simply aren't capable of recognizing it -- is telling. — Xtrix

That someone starts a business doesn't grant them the right to exploit people. Our economy shouldn't be structured in this way. Private ownership is not grounds "anything goes" -- otherwise slavery could still be around (and, in some forms, still is).

Good luck "building, accepting risk, and operating" a business alone. If others have a crucial role in generating profits (as workers at Walmart do), they should at minimum have some input into how those profits are allocated. As it stands now -- unsurprisingly -- 90% go back to shareholders. I seriously doubt workers would vote for this, if given the opportunity. But since it's an anti-democratic institution, that's off the table. And thanks in part to apologists like you, it'll stick around for a long time yet I'm sure. — Xtrix

:love:

Fuck those people. — Xtrix

NOS4A2's view in a nutshell. Compassionless. Classic Randianism. Fuck the looters and moochers.

"I made a company. It's mine. If you don't like your starvation wage, go find another company."

All well and good - until you accept that nearly 50% of jobs are unskilled, and a comparable proportion of laborers are unskilled - interchangeable - and have zero negotiating power.

NOS and his ilk will come back with: So go get some skills!

Fine. I can do that. But can the entirety of unskilled labor just "go get some skills" and secure a skilled position with a living wage? The notion is absurd.

There will always be millions of unskilled jobs. And suppose every unskilled laborer went out and got some skills - would that magically eliminate all unskilled jobs? Of course not. Millions of laborers, skilled or unskilled, would be compelled by necessity (food, shelter) to serve as unskilled laborers with zero negotiating power.

The only human response to this tragedy is a compassionate wage for unskilled labor.

I just don’t see where the tyranny is. — NOS4A2

A starvation wage for unskilled labor across the market - that's the tyranny.

Where’s the state there? — NOS4A2

It isn't. The objections to Laissez-faire are ethical, not economic. My guess, in answer to your puzzlement, is that you have not considered Laissez-faire from an ethical point of view.

Now I might be wrong about that, you may have some ethical structure that justifies non-intervention. For the rest of us the state remains as a muddled, cumbersome attempt to come to terms with our dealings, one with the other. Leaving things to take their own course is tantamount to ignoring the issue. Perhaps you are right, and that is what one ought to do. Can you defend that?

I posit that the communal resources can be managed sustainably because it is in their self-interest to do so. I believe it because I’ve seen it first hand in a local anarchist community. No rules, no management, no authority, no mechanism, just a community of people engaging in common enterprise on the land they loved. Their economy consisted of fishing and foraging, tourism, trading trinkets with other communities, and believe it or not, professional surfing. All of this occurred out of the prying eyes of state interference…or so they thought. As soon as the state caught wind of their dealings they were forced to leave and their dwellings were burned to the ground. — NOS4A2

I’m curious about this community. Some island, I assume, but where???

Btw, states have always had a tendency to take over.

"I made a company. It's mine. If you don't like your starvation wage, go find another company." — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right.

You have the choice. Don’t want to work for someone else for meager wages? You have the right to quit. Because life is that simple.

These are the same people who cry endlessly about unemployment benefits and who despise social security and Medicaid— or social welfare programs generally.

So it’s not as if they say “hey, you can quit— I’m in favor of strong social safety nets so that people can choose to leave shitty job conditions more easily and increase competition.” That would at least be SOMETHING. Maybe that would warrant some serious attention. But no … they want to abolish all of that.

Reminds me of these “pro lifers.” They’re pro life until the baby comes out, then you’re on your own. As George Carlin put it: “pre-born you’re fine; pre-school, you’re fucked.”

When it comes to jobs, it’s even worse— you’re fucked either way. The subtext: shut up and do your job, you lazy, freeloading welfare queen.

That’s all it boils down to— behind all of the talk about liberty and laissez faire and “fruits of one’s labor,” etc: utter contempt for working people, for democracy, for majority vote, for unions, for social programs, for worker participation. Basically for anything “social” altogether. What’s left? The individual; namely, “me.”

It’s an anti-social and even sociopathic view. Which is evident by how NOS and his cadre can be counted on to arrive at the worst possible conclusions time and again. Literally if you knew nothing else about a topic, just read what he says and you’ll know that thinking the opposite is the correct move.

If only I could find someone like this in the world of gambling - I’d be a billionaire.

Maybe explain bargaining power (which individual employees don't have) and that profit maximisation leads to minimising consumer choices through anti-competitive actions. It's not as if we've not seen laissez faire at work in history.

Workers didn't "just go elsewhere", they revolted, went on strike, started unions and broke machinery to enforce fairness.

Wu wei! The state should interfere but only by not doing so!

:joke:

Corporations are not run democratically. Elections (which is how officials, who make up the “state”, obtain their positions) are democratic.

Thus people have some say in the latter decisions. Workers have no say in the decisions of the board of directors.

Avoiding corporations is nearly impossible. — Xtrix

Corporations are not governments, though. If a group of people start a corporation it makes no sense to me that others, by virtue of them accepting a job there, should have control over it. It makes no sense to me that the people who conceive of, fund, build, accept the risk, and who are responsible for its operation from its conception until its demise should not get to decide how it should operate. You haven’t offered a single reason why this should be so. — NOS4A2

I'd urge both of you not to think purely of companies as an abstraction.

Cooperatives can be quite effective. Some of the largest companies that dominate the retail market in my country are cooperatives. They're not at all somehow weaker than other corporations. Furthermore, a lot of the issues here, like how much say do workers have in the company, come for other institutional factors: what is the role of labour unions? How are the labour laws in country? Corporations adapt easily to this environment and you can notice easily the difference of their actions let's say in Nordic countries compared to some exclusive zones in Third World countries.

The objections to Laissez-faire are ethical, not economic. — Banno

They're also economic. Anti-competitive practises as a direct result of deregulation lead to less efficient use of resources and more expensive goods. Efficient free markets only exist where buyers and sellers have equal bargaining power, information is freely available and the market is mature and unlikely to be disrupted by new entrants. Those markets you can leave alone.

You are wrong because I’ve criticized the ethics of state intervention, questioning how passively paying a tax or promoting this or that government service could be considered ethical. Delegating ethical conduct to others is not itself ethical conduct. It’s self-serving conduct.

I said poverty, wealth inequality, overconsumption, and so on, is apparent in all present systems. And I suggested that state interventions only serve to provide mechanisms by which the statist gets to relieve himself from the sordid necessity of living for others, as Oscar Wilde admitted. From this I reason that an interventionist might fear laissez-faire because it would expose his conscience and morality for what it really amounts to.

Laissez-Faire does not entail leaving things to their own course or ignoring anything. It is a fairly simple notion that unlike mercantilism, fascism, communism, modern liberalism, the state should probably mind its own business.

They're also economic. Anti-competitive practises as a direct result of deregulation lead to less efficient use of resources and more expensive goods. Efficient free markets only exist where buyers and sellers have equal bargaining power, information is freely available and the market is mature and unlikely to be disrupted by new entrants. Those markets you can leave alone. — Benkei

:100: :up:

Free markets need a lot of institutions to remain free.

Any hand-wave that excuses the appropriation of wealth through taxation is incredibly obsequious. — NOS4A2

I'm not excusing it. I've just given a perfectly clear argument justifying it using foundational principles you and I have just agreed on. We agreed on the need to manage common resources and we agreed that the current crop of humanity (for whatever reason) cannot be trusted to manage those resources voluntarily.

If you want to go back and dispute one of those points then do so.

questioning how passively paying a tax or promoting this or that government service could be considered ethical. — NOS4A2

It's not passive. As has pointed out. Just as you can change corporations if you don't like their service, you can change countries if you don't like their deal. The government of the country are the legal owners of the legal entity and they offer a deal to anyone born into (or moving into) their country. If you don't like the deal, move out of their country.