Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
You cannot force people to be charitable
Narland, Miami Jai-Alai 3, Nordhessir
Volksleben HELP the bourgeoise bigots are at it again! 😭😭😭
*sighs deeply*
Yes, honey...
Tell just at least one (not even fundamental) difference between the liberal free-market capitalist policies of the Democrats and the liberal free-market capitalist policies of the Republicans.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Yet you can force people to pay taxes. :trollge:
And even more - should the state work efficiently enough in the public welfare sectors for the people to understand the importance of taxation for the national economy and public stability, they will pay their taxes happily - be them 35% (Sweden) or 13% (USSR).
Wow, a new one. Innovative.
Laissez-faire capitalism is supposed to incentivize innovation. In theory.
In practice, research that is not even slightly profitable will not attract any funding or attention under the current system - unless special attention is driven to this sector by the PR efforts. Which are, of course, cannot and will not be done without any lubrication from the state to decrease the risks. And the risks are always significant - innovation is not "$$$ + Time = $$$$$", it rather looks like "$$$$$ + Time = Thin Air + Some Useful Stuff" that would give money only after prolonged funding, planned introduction of this innovation into production.
Because of this, the private allocations to the RnD aren't even slightly compatible to the state allocations. And given the fact that the latter are REALLY SMOLL, the private funds are even more miser.
This leads to consequences like overburdening and high wear of the current productive forces and low reinvestment into the renovation of the enterprise. Consequently, the decrease in demand leads to a decrease in supply - who needs a lot of 20 kW high-tech laser cutters when the enterprise's okay with the 30 y.o. 2 kW ones, for example? Who cares about general production efficiency, we should care about cost efficiency. We don't need any vague experiments - we've got a demand to supply NOW! Etc.
Introduction of the market mechanisms and the replacement of the production volume quotas with profit ones were the main reasons for the fall of the USSR, btw. The old working system that encouraged the introduction of newer stuff and finding ways to cheapen production - to innovate, in short, - was replaced by "bigger wages - bigger 'effort' - bigger prices - bigger profit - bigger wages - ...".
In the end, the supreme innovator and risk taker is not the Big Entrepreneur Atlas That Holds Everything, but the State that subsidizes both his protein diet and the Ayn Rand Society he is a member of.
The era of early capitalism, with the workers' strikes being the main incentive to innovate, is long in the past. The only innovation laissez-faire can produce today on its own is how to turn a 10-egg box into a 6-egg one while maintaining the same price. Or how to lobby the liberalization of state regulations enough to put more soylent into the sausages.
Read Mazzucato, idk. Or at least Keynes.
Or go actually work for at least a couple of months, smh.
Southern Cone
Given some of your comments I've see you're the bigot
Volkslebenian Archives, Nordhessir
how cowardy of you! You see youre loosing the argument so you resort to ad hominem attacks. Laughable!
Volkslebenian Archives
Loosing
Anti individualistic quotes of the day:
"A family that completely replaces the collective public school model represents a toxic model: what education model can in fact ever be produced in the children of overprotective mothers and fathers that homeschool them?"
"Without gentle coercion, a society can't have social justice. It is more captivating for Libertarians to talk about freedom, the NAP, individual autonomy, but in doing so we must bear in mind that this is simply too easy and what is easy has no future and that the function of government is not about pleasing libertarians, but to take care of people's needs, to transform injustices into hope. Liberty has an extraordinary range of pathological social transgressions, opposing any form of constrain, and this leads to a society with less and less socially adept people."
Volkslebenian Archives, Southern Cone
what?
The first one reminds me of Makarenko, ngl.
Makarenko, my beloved ☺️
The second one has some problems, but omg based! 😍
Southern Cone
NO VOLKS BAD VOLKS YOURE SUPPOSED TO DESPISE THESE TATEMITE BIGOTS NOT SYMPATHISE!!!
Socialism is very "charitable" with other people's hard earned money. In the same manner that syndicate loan sharks and back-alley muggers are.
"That's a pretty nice health care system you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. You had better let Uncle Fauci run it for you. You know... for your own good."
Sounds like it could have come from a 1930s Reichstag book, or a 1910s Bolshevik Literature. Eerily similar. Just replace Libertarian and their antecedents with Jews and their Old Testament God of the 10 Commandments and their "diseased" family life --they don't participate in National Socialist society like they should (for the former), and Orthodox Christians / White Russians and its corresponding antecedents "sexually repressed" family life -- they don't participate in International Socialist social life like they should (for the latter). Some gentle persuasion is required usually means death camps and gulags.
You misspelled losing
[quote=mirina;53288121]Anti individualistic quotes of the day:
"A family that completely replaces the collective public school model represents a toxic model: what education model can in fact ever be produced in the children of overprotective mothers and fathers that homeschool them?"
It's funny that people assume homeschool kids just stay at home all day everyday, most of them have other friends who homeschool or go to homeschool collectives a few times a week
Its also funny, because the public school system proceeded from the parents, and it did not precede them.
Narland
I think that is because too many people still confuse getting schooled at a state run delinquency center as the equivalent of an excellent education. LIke my grandfather used to always say, "Never let schooling interfere with your education. Every opportunity is a learning experience." and "Get out of my pasture you dang hippies." -- but that is a different topic.
Home school is like home in home free Not that you get a free home, but the most difficult part has been accomplished and success is all the more likely. Home school, not that you are schooled solely from home but the most difficult part has been accomplished by one's home family, and success is all the more likely.
When we were homeschooling, 2 1/2 schooldays were spent book learning and 21/2 days per week were spent going places and doing things with other people (learning how to be socialized, civilized, human beings who know how to interact with each other as a productive and caring adults-in-training in a free society. They were treated like young men and women and transitioned to adulthood well. Homeschool kids have better opportunities to engage in social skills on average than children who go to public school and can think and function 2 to 4 years ahead of their public school peers on any given subject or given most situations.
Suzi Island, Nordhessir
I heard that one of the brightest minds of this age is going to get schooled by some of the worst "educated beyond their intelligence" despots to recently rise to power in a free country. I wonder how that is going to turn out. Will they be too morally stupid to realize they are the ones being schooled, or will they just be plain evil and destroy his life just because he can out-think them and can articulate their insidious acts against humanity?
Southern Cone, Nordhessir
"State run delinquency center" is a good descriptor of public schools today
Miencraft, Narland, Nordhessir
Volkslebenian Archives, HONEY HELP ME! The United States Of Patriots does not agree communism means freedom! He equates it to be enslaved to work!
Mirina
Because he's right.
Narland, Auxorii, Highway Eighty-Eight, Nordhessir
Slavery: A person forced to surrender his personhood to others in order to produce goods and services for a taskmaster who provides food, medical care, education, and shelter.
Communism: Food, medical care, education, and shelter provided by a stateless state to produce goods and services wherein one has been forced to surrendered his personhood to others.
There is a slight difference -- syntax.
Nordhessir
Bureaucratic Socialism (Government defrauded markets through authoritarian statutes de jure) and Corporatist Socialism (government extorted markets through authoritarian directives de facto) have the same problems. The first is that neither are free enterprise capitalism and they have more in common with each other (they both interfere in the free market) than they actual serve the free markets. A second (among many) is that they stifle spontaneity and people (people in this instance means more than one individual, not a political fiction based on aggregates of perception), are not free to leave the system and implement their own voluntary transactions next door. In the end it is the individual risk taker (in free association with other individual risk takers) who have the most to offer with the least damage to the economy should the venture fail than when a stateless state or creature of the state are in bed with the state -- and either deemed "too big to fail" with the later or "it cannot fail, it can only be failed" with the former.
Mazzucato's understanding is flawed. For example, the Internet happened because the State got out of the way and let innovators innovate. To listen to Al Gore, he thinks he created the Internet because he authorized the bill that got "government" (the state actually) out of the way. The Internet failed (the first time -- with the Yahoo disaster) because government got involved in the wrong way. Mazzacuato makes the mistake of confusing Rhodes/Keynes/Albright crony crapitalism with free and open markets in a free and open society (which the Idaho hasn't had since LBJ and Nixon forced their Great Society (and Federal Great Society -- federal meaning each State was forced to implement portions of the Great Society or be denied federal funds). The government is force, and can direct markets, yes, but that creates dead markets somewhere else that cannot be compensated for (and in the US since FDR, the destruction of 10s of thousands of family owned (that is small) businesses easily hidden by a pervasive state that is inconvenienced by it.)
Suzi Island
The true cost of 9/11, beyond the deaths, was the eroding of freedoms which started with the patriot act and continued with other emergencies including covid
Miencraft, Narland, Auxorii, Nordhessir
It's been two years since my favorite comedian Norm Macdonald, died.
Narland, Auxorii
Yep, we will legally forbid people to have names and will give them numbers instead, for names are too individualistic.
We also will ban all of Marx-Engels-Lenin for propagating such silly thing as "the free development of each" for they viewed it as the BASE for the "free development of all". Imagine placing individuals before the society, smh.
Also, we will ban all of Stalin for opposing full equalization and promoting individualist Stakhanovite movement. Then we are going to ban all Soviet philosophers for the same individualism - imagine advocating for the universal education and denouncing the capitalist mode of production reducing personality to mere cogs in the system. That's just silly and idealistic.
We also will ban all Soviet psychologists and sociologists, including Lev Vygotsky. Albeit he scientifically proved that personhood is 100% social, he's still too individualistic - "free will", lmao. The same goes about Ewald Ilyenkov - "democratic, harmonious development of personality". Sigh...
We also will put shackles on each, just will change a bit the naming - we will call them the "productive relations", and the serfs "freely associated individuals" will be guaranteed a freedom of choice - choice to pick a color for their shackles "productive relations". That's quite libertarian already, I agree, that's why we are still considering this one.
Southern Cone
> Communism and fascism have more in common than they have with the early laissez-faire capitalism
Yeah, seems about roight. You've missed everything that is actually essential in both, and also misdefined them, but nonetheless.
Bureucratic Socialism (Communism/Revolutionary Socialism) aims to build communism - to get rid of the private property, markets, division of labor, and currency as such.
Corporatist Socialism (Fascism/Reactionary Socialism) has a purpose of protecting the aforementioned institutions no matter what - and some streams even actively praising the good-old days of "heroic capitalism".
Also, the age of the laissez-free capitalism ended back in the second half of the XIX century. Monopolization and stuff, y'know.
And don't even try blaming the government for "causing" monopolization. I've met this dogma for too many times now. The only moment where governments can be held accountable for monopolization - is in not cracking down on it and embracing it instead, not only because of lobbyism and stuff, but also because of the factors like market power and influence - sometimes, it is better to give in and let it grow instead of hacking it to death, harming yourself in the process. That's the logic behind such an embrace, at least.
As such, monopolization is a natural process for the market economy - and economy at large: competiton in some spheres is not only meaningless, but wasteful and harmful even - for example, in the fundamental ones: such as the electricity/water supply, railroads and infrastructure in general, etc.
Also, competition itself naturally leads to monopolization - there always will be those who win and those who lose, and those who win inevitably get the potetial of those who lost in the race within one industry, the space of operations is freed - and the fresh enterprises are too insignificant to immediately compenaste for that fall.
Survival of the fittest - the weak die, and the strong continue fighting. So it is only a question of time before a sole enterprise secures dominance within one or numerous industries and spheres via all means necessary - and, as the empiric evidence shows, the enterprises are ready to employ political connections, hostile takeover, and even the organized crime with assassinations of the competitors to secure their growth plan. And after securing their domination, they now will enter the new phase of the fight - now between the giants. And to secure their stable position, the enterprises might lobby the government again - now to ease the conditions for the large enterprises (optionally - at the expense of the SMEs); or simply apply dumping. Yes, it is officialy illegal in some countries - "to support the national production". Tax evasion is illegal too, and so what? Creating trusts and cartels also is illegal, yet nobody can do [REDACTED] about the Microsoft-Apple partnership without dealing devastating damage to both and imploding the economy as a consequence, for example - aka "too big to fail". Btw, nobody cares about anti-trust laws anymore, as it seems. Lobbyism is great, ain't it?
Again. The government becomes a tool used by the enterpreneurs. Not vice versa. The government is not some scary machine that was created on Mars and sent to the Earth to control - it was created by the people to control and direct people.
Even when some petty private corporation gets kick-started by the government, it is not the government bending the market to its will. Some government members will think like this, yes. But in fact, they are just accelerating the process that would naturally take dozens of years. Very soon the enterprise will get too big to fail - and look how the tables have turned now! Now the government bends to the will of the noveau-riche oligarch or the board of those, accepting their conditions, demands, and funding even the silliest schemes with the tax-payer money without any questions.
And all that shady market stuff is greatly noticeable, ngl, if you are not living in a shell and 've been watching news. Especially in the countries of the perifery (the so-called "third-world"), where the actual freedoms of the monopolies usually surpass all common sense - up to the private armies massacring the workers that dare to protest such order of things.
Exactly because of spontaneity and general anarchy of production we still have crises and other problems of capitlaist development, such as the unequal exchange and prioritization of profits over the social and scientific investments. Crappy logistics-centered urban planning is exactly the result of profit-oriented approach, for example. Also, exactly because of spontaneity we have slowed down scientific and technical development, with the promising stuff just getting left behind for crap that is promoted by the corporate PR agents.
And I can't get that "are not free to leave the system", ngl. As soon as you are born into a human family and don't get thrown to the woods, you are tied to the system. Language, behavior, patterns of thinking, etc. - all that makes us human is inherently social. And you won't be free to leave the system - for humans are literally everywhere. Unabomber tried "leaving" the system by escaping to the woods, yet even there the damn society got him with the cut-forests-build-more-highways stuff. There's nothing more totalitarian than the humanity itself, if to get it deeper - and more absurd at this point.
But if you weren't that broad when saying about "leaving the system", then just a little fyi - nobody banned enterprise-to-enterprise voluntary transactions under socialism, and nobody even banned the possible inter-republican transactions. Just make sure you will manage to fit in the quotas and send everything the state expects you to by the end of the quarter. Nothing more. Ofc, this has created a gap for corrupt deals - but hey, capitalism's no better here.
This is so confusing I am just losing braincells at an even accelerated rate now. Let's first try decipher that one. Let's split it to points first.
> In the end it is the individual risk taker (in free association with other individual risk takers) who have the most to offer with the least damage to the economy
Nope, they are not. Individual risk takers have the limited amount of funds and have first and foremost the profit incentive. I mean, I surely know that people can and do work even without profit incentive, yet to keep being an entrepreneur, one MUST find money while making more money. Otherwise, they will fail and lose.
So the RnD is most efficient when it is up to the state or a really large corporation. But, as the empriric evidence shows, the latter are likely to abandon development for the sake of either not destabilizing the market too much or having a possibility to fully reap revenues from the investments - for there are always competitors - and the state that wants its share for providing relative public security and utilities. So, in the end, the state can be the only proper risk-taker.
> should the venture fail[,] thEn [, --] when a stateless state (???, do you mean the corporates? Fyi, no enterprise on its own does not mimic the mechanism of market in its work. To work, every enterprise needs central allocation of money and goods, as well as the accounting of those and tight control of their flow. The idea of the communist centrally-planned economy took its birth in the first monopolies, btw, with the intention to turn the national economy into one large corporation) or creature of the state are in bed with the state -- and either deemed "too big to fail" with the lat[t]er or "it cannot fail, it can only be failed" with the former.
I don't get it. What are you even trying to say?
If you mean that the venture enterprises get stratified, then I see no problem, ngl. The only problem is with the latter - no private enterprise should have the ability to grow so large gets "too large to fall", basically forcing the government into its bad. Not vice versa, again.
And science should not face such utilitarian obstacles as profitability and stuff. I thought that would be a naturally-understandable fact.
She says literally this though. That the state was the prime risk taker that only kickstarted the development of the certain private enterprises.
For example: In sum, finding what you love and doing it while also being foolish is much easier in a country in which the State plays the pivotal serious role of taking on the development of highrisk technologies, making the early, large and highrisk investments, and then sustaining them until such time that the later-stage private actors can appear to play around and have fun. Thus, while free market pundits continue to warn of the danger of government picking winners, it can be said that various US government policies laid the foundation that provided Apple with the tools to become a major industry player in one of the most dynamic hightech industries of the twentyfirst century so far. Without the frequent targeted investment and intervention of the US government it is likely that most would-be Apples would be losers in the global race to dominate the computing and communications age. The companys organizational success in integrating complex technologies into user-friendly and attractive devices supplemented with powerful software mediums should not be marginalized, however it is indisputable that most of Apples best technologies exist because of the prior collective and cumulative efforts driven by the State; which were made in the face of uncertainty and often in the name of, if not national security, then economic competitiveness.
The Dot-com crash happened exactly because of the sporadic and chaotic growth of the Internet-oriented enterprises. You may try arguing that this same sporadic and chaotic growth has happened because the government started showing off with the new WWW brik-brak and giving tax reliefs aiming to stimulize the growth, distabilizing the market as a result, yet this shows us once again that capitalism is highly unstable and inefficient.
Aw nah-nah-nah, dude. Yahoo survived the DCC and could, just as all other corporations that did as well, get positive growth swiftly - they did grow, after all. Yet they didn't grow fast enough, eventually losing the competition. Survival of the fittest. Enterpreneural mismanagement is what actually doomed them.
She does not. She reviews exactly modern ("crony") capitalism that emerged back during the first decade of the XX century from the already monopolized environment of the second half of the XIX century. Why would she confuse the present with the past? The laws of it didn't change and don't differ too much from all other stages of capitalism though, also.
Tbh, can't find any information about the denial of funding. Yet if that's so, then it is just the application of the market logic to get towards the topic though - you either contribute enough or suffer and adapt. Just throwing the money to develop these programs no matter what would be socialist and create unneccessary burden on the budget the market economy cannot easily manage.
Idk what dead markets is, tbh - I guess that means the disparity in supply in demand. Fyi, this situation is created and compensated with each second that passes. The market is the people, and its current state is determined by consumption. Nevertheless, the situation actually CAN be compensated for - and the market does that. Market is a self-managing system indeed, yet it is unstable af, and the stabilization can take decades to finalize - and the less restriction it faces, the worse the crises get because of the incompatibility of the libertarian approach with the current monopolized reality of constantly-bickering profit-hungry rival entrepreneurs who take the saying of "turn crisis into an opportunity" too close to the heart.
This can be remedied and even mediated more efficiently by removing the anarchy of production with the private property altogether and let the economy finally serve the individual - be rationally, algorithmically guided with the usage of the latest computing technology, making the goods exchange more clear and accessible for an average producer/consumer.
Southern Cone
Did chatgpt write this?
Narland, Volkslebenian Archives, Southern Cone
:trollge:
Southern Cone
Trust me, Ive know him for 1-2 years and it is all his fanatical doing, this is nothing compared to the shid he has posted in the past. Hes a human typing machine, a beast of letters, a menace!
Volkslebenian Archives
I love words!
Narland, Southern Cone
Post self-deleted by Narland.
I wake up with insomnia ot a wall of text. I thought I was bad with walls of text. You sir (or madam), have won the prixze. Congrats.
You probably know that I speak in traditional American standard English from a Conservative vocabulary, radical republican (small r) perspective and Evangelical Classical Liberal frame as an Objective Realist. I am no longer inclined to translate the English of my colleagues into the Fabian leftspeak of the ruling class elitists, nor dumb it down into a politically correct narrative for illiberal consumption -- but especially so when typing to overcome insomnia which I am doing now. I also use NS as a sounding board to bring things into focus. That may save you some grief and quite a few brain cells. :)
It looks like the tome of text was written in good faith. Please let me know now if this is you as a person and not AI generated, so I can give you an honest reply. but it will take a while as I have a full plate. I love good conversation and dialogue with fellow human beings.
Volkslebenian Archives, Southern Cone
Who is this "we" of which you are writing -- are you an actual Communist (someone willing to riot, burn, pillage, betray, kill and subjugate others for the Revolution and Party, or even gladly surrender oneself to the killing fields if the vanguard deems it so) or are you just someone who is enamored with the idea of Communism from a detached state like watching a movie with some buttered popcorn on the set of Blazing Saddles when the cast erupts from the screen and pours into the streets?
Re: Point One. That would be counterproductive. Communists rely on names as assets for psychological, sociological, and ethnic control in their plans and planning. Exchanging names for mere numbers would strip the Party of a key ability of dialectical subversion. Totalitarians (as morally stupid as they are) know that numbers assigned to the name of an actual person, are best used for control, collation, and data collection, as the Stasi Museum in Berlin is happy to show. Communists in particular need their workers to be just cognizant enough of their personhood to work (or be able to do a good enough job of pretending to work) for them, but not be so self-aware that they start working well enough to make the Party superfluous and redundant and thus throw of their restraints and start governing their personhood for themselves.
Point 2. Marx and Engels are self-refuting enough that the only way one can actual fall for it in the 21st Century is to be indoctrinated into it. It fails every time it is tried. Perhaps it isn't because "communism cannot fail but only be failed," but rather the human condition (there's that pesky personhood again) is such that Communism cannot not be failed. I posit that Marx was smart enough to know that he was trolling German / Anglo Society, and took wicked delight in causing untold misery upon countless others who were ensnared by it. It is those whom he hoodwinked that are the dangerous true believers. Like Dianetics and Scientology only with guns and death camps.
Point 3. It is at this point where you have gone way of the beam on a tangent. Not to mix metaphors midstream, but that dog don't walk a mile off the beaten path. The Science of Communism (Scientific Atheism) is just a social construct, and is as bankrupt as Eugenics, Social Darwinism, Aryan Phylogeny, and Phrenology. They deserve to be on the ash heap of history and left there. At least phrenology has some parlor entertainment value. In Western Culture, more narrowly the Norther European nations, and in the Anglosphere in particular, a person is what you are as a legal representative of yourself with all your rights and responsibilities intact (including your liberties unhindered or unmolested by force, fraud, or coercion from without) as a free person in a free society. It is the dividing line between where your rights end and another's begins. Personhood is that quality or state of being when practicing such. I would recommend the reading the the first chapters of the First Part of Blackstone;s Commentaries, and how it has been adjudicated in the Law up till now -- especially those cases still standing. Don't rely on a labcoat technicians to tell you what you are or you are likely to get Faucied but good. Also, there is no Communist country where the person is not violated in some manner -- as he is told what to think, do and say for the greater good, not told to think for oneself, do for oneself, and speak for oneself, so as to be capable of greater good. If it is not volitional Liberty for the individual (Freedom) , is it involuntary servitude of the masses (Slavery). Communism promises utopia if one surrenders his life, liberty, and property to a vanguard for a stateless state that delivers a dystopic life of bondage, destitution, people fleeing for their lives, and a wake of dead corpses wherever plied.
Personally, I do not care what Communists do to get their jollies in the privacy of their own home, as long as it is in the privacy of their own home. Like Vegas, and 50 Shades of Gray, what goes on in that home (no matter how decadent the Communism), stays in that home. You can even be your own benevolent dictator of the communal remote, be middle management, Comrade Disburser 2nd Class of Allowance Allotment, or a subservient prole to the Great Leader of the Pantry. The problem is that Communists cannot leave the rest of us be to live our lives as we see fit without foisting their whips and chains, and plans, their God forsaken plans on the rest of us.
I think i know how the Bablyon Bee feels. It's back to to sleep. Have a good night.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.