Hi, I made a T-Shirt featuring Adam Smith and a damn good quote. It's available in men's, women's and kid's styles, and in different colors, all for around $20. http://beta.mysoti.com/mysoti/product/20275 Just doing the rounds, promoting it where people may be interested.
Wear it to a Bob Barr speech and you'll likely be met with ignorant comments like "lezzies and fairies, are you some kind of HO-MO FAGGOT?"
Naw, we don't usually get imbeciles at libertarian conventions; they're too busy bowing down to Messiah Obama. Anyways, great t-shirt. I love it.
That doesn't even make any sense. How is a laissez-faire economic system fair to people who are being exploited by it? How does a bellcurve know the meaning of social equality?
Likewise how is it fair to use economic strength to coerce people out of their fair share of a venture's profits? One form of exploitation breeds the other. Exploitation through taxes cannot feasibly ended until exploitation through economic coercion is also ended. I know plenty of people that rely on council assisted housing, because their jobs do not pay them enough to afford even a rented home in their area. No one is going to choose to go homeless because they think it is "fair" on their rich taskmasters. A free market is one where both parties can truly set their own value, not one where people are forced to sell themselves short in order to avoid starvation. You also assume that all socialist alterntatives to laissez-faire capitalism entail involuntary tax systems, they don't.
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms." -Alan Greenspan I about choked when I heard him say that. Obviously there's quite a snowstorm occurring in hell right now, and all four Beatles are planning a reunion tour.
The free market is exploitative? You might want to put down the Chomsky and walk back into the light of reality. The slogan makes perfect sense as the free market affords everyone the opportunity to advance. It is the best system ever imagined from both a moral and utilitarian standpoint. In fact, we should try it here in the U.S.
I think, in common with communist ideas, a free-market is a great idea in theory, but in practice it tends to lead very quickly into a plutocracy, where there really isn't any opportunity or meritocracy. Very quickly, the arse-kissers and the sycophants rise to the top, accompanied by the wielders of inherited capital and privilege, while the genuinely talented and productive are mired and languish. A free-market without an aware and politically active populace is crippled.
Your assessment is beyond absurd. Firstly, "communist ideas" are not "great in theory," nor are they even remotely sensible in theory. Communism is a theory only applicable to robots, or lobotomized humans. Ideas damning excellence, failing to reward innovation or hard work, and destroying the most remote hope of an improved lot are completely at odds with human nature, and thus unworkable, whether on paper or in practice. Capitalism, often confused by the ignorant with corporatism, is nothing but production with the use of capital, be that money, ideas, or the labor of one's hands. The above assessment claims the exact opposite of reality as surely as a diatribe explaining the the sun inveriably sets in the east. The free market is the only system that always provides opportunity and is wholly based on mertiocracy. Opportunity abounds in laissez-faire, and that's the point. Monopolies are impossible without government intervention, and the little guy can always find a way to make a profit in a free market. It is the twin jackboots of regulation and taxation that make it difficult for the start up, creating an unfair advantage for big business. Opponents of capitalism always point to the greed of the rich as problematic, when in reality it is the desire for more wealth that drives productivity and creates endless opportunity. Critics cannot have it both ways. There is plenty of greed, and with many people, the more they have the more they want. It is also true that many business owners don't care about their employees and only concern themselves with profit, etc. But so what? In their quest for wealth they start businesses, or expand existing ones. Businesses require a staff, from laborers to management, and sales people to accounting. Expansion provides jobs, growth provides employees with the opportunity to advance. Those doing a good job and contributing to the companies profitability are promoted, make more money, learn more skills, and end up with a better resume. Many go on to start their own company, or manage new locations being build to satisfy the ambition of their current employers. It is folly to assume that the average business person promotes "arse-kissers and sycophants" above skilled workers who perform the best. We have all had experiences with the fart suckers of the world, but for every ill-conceived promotion of a sycophant there are several well-deserved executions of upward mobility. If the "arse-kissers" ran the average business nothing would work, and no one would profit. This sweeping generalization is is clearly not based in reality. Finally, the last glaring untruth is the idea that "the genuinely talented and productive are mired and languish." The only genuinely talented people who languish are those suffering from some defect of personality, be it an abundance of meekness that prevents leadership, or a negative attitude resulting in personal dislike. This idea that the business world leaves the talented and productive behind in favor of kiss asses is ridiculous, and counters the point of greed. The greedy are assisted in being profitable by having the best business people around them, not by filling supervisory positions solely with those who compliment their neck ties. This assessment of the market cannot possibly explain the staggering innovations, inventions, advancements, and improvements that have been realized in countless industries. Such meliorations are the work of the genuinely talented and most productive the market has to offer, and their successes were certainly not realized because they languished at entry level positions.
Actually, I agree to an extent, allow me to rephrase, "great in theory" was meant to mean "they may appear on face value, in consideration of general human moral priorities, to represent the best interests of man". I did not mean to suggest that the communist ideal was actually a good one, only that it is perceived as such by people in general in view of its overal vision, but that in practice it can never achieve that vision because of inherent flaws that you rightly highlight above. Quite right, allow me to be more clear. What we practice in the west is not a free-market (as understood by thinkers like Lysander Spooner) it is a corruption of that ideal. My comparison to communism was to highlight the similarity of a beautiful theory ruined by an ugly truth. When man has attempted to bring forth the dream of capitalism, it has always created corporatism. Just so, when mankind has tried to create an egalitarian hardworking society, it has created the corrupt state-monopoly mercantilism that is called "communism" In the hypothetical instance of a "perfect free market" I agree with you. My point was that a perfect free-market, is a very distant dream, when laid aside imperfect human beings. Here, I disagree. Love of hardwork and productivity and craftsmanship create progress and luxury. The drive to merely make money leads people to do bad business, to cut corners for profit, to promote the social over the skillful. It is a simple fact. I've worked in multiple factories where I've been asked by my bosses to "not notice" quality control problems on our products because it costs too much money to produce perfect items. A society of skilled labourers would achieve all this far better than one based primarily on the massive wielding of unskilled labour. In a true free-market, every man is an entrepreneur. Here in the west, every man is nothing but a potential cog, unless he learns to flatter and backstab his way to the top. I have a degree in drama, practically no experience in business, and know from first hand experience that I can rise in company by using my charisma, but that I go nowhere using my skills and education. When I've outperformed others in low-wage factory jobs, all that happens is I get given more work for the same money. If I flatter the bosses, I get given supervisor roles. Fact of life my friend. A folly that pays many peoples paycheques I'm afraid, because it is a fact. ... Far be it from me to point to the current state of the economy, and say that maybe the people running the show weren't competent to govern their businesses I.E: Those with no social skills. The ones that fail at arse-kissing Of course it can, to take computers an example, the people like Bill Gates, stole the software off more talented programmers, and exploited their connections to make a fortune from it. Your view of capitalism is well-intended but naive. It would be true if this world had ever truly seen a laissez-faire society, but it never has.
Anyone who feels like the free market is exploiting them is lazy. In a free market, you don't have to work where you feel exploited. Go work for your boss's competitor. Work somewhere else. In another industry. Or start your own business if you don't feel like 'workin for the man'. The glory of the free market is that it lets you get off your ass and do whatever you want and make yourself whatever you want to be. Or you could wallow in your laziness and bitch and moan about being exploited. The 'bell-curve' that results is reality. There will always be someone to flip the burgers. There is no such thing as social equality. Never was, never will be. Impossible. The free market does not make social equality. Socialism, communism--any other 'ism's--do not make social equality. Socialists try for it, but will never reach it because it can never be. There is only equal opportunity. In a free market. You can have a free market, or the hell of being your brother's keeper elsewhere. And socialism is only possible by ignoring reality. It really boggles the mind the mental gymnastics socialists and leftists have to perform to 'understand' the world. BTW, America is not a free market. It once tried to be, but has fallen to the attempts of tyrannical men.
Ghost The problem with libertarian ideas is that they inevitably tend toward plutocratic oligarchy. Because the idea of the ‘true and perfect free market’ is impossible, a fantasy encouraged by wealth to hid the true outcome of any move toward that factious holy grail. Free market = plutocratic tyranny. http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36 The problem is that a libertarian system is often sold as a meritocratical system, were a persons position is based in their ability and talent. The only problem is that for such a system to work within a money based economy (which gives advantage to wealth) everyone would have to start at an economic equal position. Otherwise wealth under a libertarian system would have such a huge advantage that it would inevitably result in a plutocratic oligarchy. How can people whose advantages are hugely different be said to have equality of opportunity, they simply don’t. But the thing is that right wing libertarians don’t mention such a sharing of wealth before bringing in their system, in fact they scream against any move toward a more equal society, so basically it’s a con game, they’re just promoting the interests of wealth. That’s presumably why there are a number of wealth funded think tanks out there (like the Cato institute) helping to promote these deeply flawed ideas. * Please expand and explain. I mean you need to explain what you see as a ‘true’ free market and how it is meant to work and then give you reasons for believing that model was comparable to this time in US history.
There is no free market. It's a pipe dream. Under a crony capitalist system, yes, people are exploited. The left cannot tell the difference between the free market system and what we have today, which is not free market at all.
*rolls eyes* Ah, another Modernization Theorist. How grand. Every person working subsistent wages in a sweat shop is just plain lazy to you. Each child that is picking tea leaves for Tetley, is just lazy. That is a repulsive way to view human beings as mere obstacles in the greater good that of a system designed for plundering and profit. Not to mention it totally undermines true human dignity and value. Shame on you. There wasn't always someone flipping burgers. There certainly isn't any in India today.
Your socialist ideas are fine. Just don't steal from the productive members of society to realise them. Use your own resources. Since you are intelligent and articulate, wouldn't you do most good by living out the capitalist dream for 20 years, making loads of money, then giving it to poor folk? Of course you would damage their motivation and self-esteem, but hey, you'd feel good about yourself. Do you work at the moment? If you do, do you live in a hovel and eat cheap food everyday, so that you are able to improve social equality by giving 70% of your net income to those less fortunate that you? If you don't work, you could always take direct action, and go and work in the fields with the exploited folk in India, or go and protest outside their employer's headquarters. Or are you just another armchair socialist who prefers being a bit edgy and revolutionary on the internet than getting their hands dirty?
