Monument to Greed

[G. Adams]

Quote by: LookToTheFuture I presently live and work in India and i'm afraid to say what your stating isn't strictly true. The gutter you are talking about is actually village living. The majority of indians who seek work come from small communities that are pretty much self sustaining. They still have the town elder and all that. When you say their economy is 'Booming" i have found that to be a bit of a misnomer. I also used to beleive as you did and on coming here it would apear that the foundations of there economy are a lot shakier than we are led to believe. I mean the place is just a wasteland really.

A similar situation would have been found in the uk 250 years ago, to into account cultural differences of course. London was full of squalor as well as wealthy homes, as were other large towns and proto-cities. In the countryside people were poor and dependant upon a good harvest to keep them going. Look at what happened in Ireland as soon as the potato harvest was devestated.

What matters is the potential. A very large population, large cities that include many, many well educated people who speak English, and a thriving technology industry. It is by no means perfect, but perfection doesn't come overnight or in 20 years. By the time I die in say 50-60 years India will be an economic powerhouse if it stays on course.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Well, if there is a revolution to overthrow state-capitalist tyranny, I'm sure I'll see you on the other side. In reality, people working for corporations are subordinate and when you say "India's economy is booming" you really mean profits are booming. I'm sure many are still "in the gutter," especially when the only reason coprorations flock to such countries is to exploit their cheap labor pool. Furthermore, in a free and rational society, one who was poor and was unemployed would not be "in the gutter," but the massive banking institutions and investors have instituted a system of global economic tyranny and they aim to keep it that way. If you care to look, practically every place going through these so-called "economic miracles" has seen economic riots of some kind. That's rather telling. And not long ago I posted a link on how the Gap was using genuine child slave labor. There is nothing to be too cheerful about, unless we're extremely cynical and self-defeating. To look at a billionaire having a bunch of servants as something positive is incredibly insulting. If the majority in every society was employed in such a way, they would essentially be destroyed as a race and as a culture within a remarkably short time. And this is being approximated in the States as well. It's not even that hard to notice. I could give some personal examples. Grandpa h.

No, if there is a tyranny I'll be there fighting it. Of course if by revolution you mean the leeches and looters are attempting to bring down the system that supports them, then sure. Lucky I'm a good shot.

People who choose to work for corporations choose to exchange their labour for someone elses wealth in conditions they both agree to, When a corporation begins press ganging people to work for them you'll have a point, but untill then it's just envy filled whining.

Of course corps want to use the cheap labour of India, whats your point?

A person who has no wealth and is not working has to rely on charity. That is fine. If they cannot find charity they do no have a right to force others to support them, either by stealing or getting the government to steal for them.

So what if these places went through rioting? Their ways of life are changing. When in the UK the same happened, we had the Luddites and others. People fear change so protest it, that's fine. But that shouldn't stop someone who wants to earn some money working for a corporation willing to employ them.

What is wrong with a being a servant for someone else? One person has a job cleaning a factory, one person has a job cleaning a large home. Why one is one different to another? They are both jobs that need doing, and both pay, supporting someones life. Your a damned snob if you think there is something wrong with being a servant.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa But you're talking to a capitalist ideologue, someone who thinks billionaires -- the same people stealing vast portions of wealth in the world -- are at all interested in "lifting everyone from the gutter." Of course, we're just supposed to assume the assertion is correct and be done with discussion. Grandpa h.

A) If they are stealing then they are not following basic liberal principles of respecting someones property and I do not support them. However, if they are simply gaining wealth through free trade - both party's exhanging goods voluntarily - then they are not stealing.

B) Where did I assume any billionaire was interested in lifting people from the gutter? They are interested in profit first and foremost. However, as a result of this drive for profit, poor people do gain, and in the long term emerge from poverty.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Earlier I addressed the argument that someone or something is great for providing jobs and I mentioned Nazi Germany. Well, here's an interesting piece of German propaganda regarding this: There's more, but I'm sure you get it. Here's the source: We Owe it to the Führer Grandpa h.

And what is your point? This has nothing to do with my own points. I, nor anyine else here, have claimed that job creation was inherently good. I have been supporting individuals expending their own wealth, either in pursuit of more wealth, neccesary goods or luxuries. As a result of their doing so, other people become employed. In the case of Nazi Germany, their socialised economics led them to stealing from individuals to pay for goods and create jobs. This is nowhere near what I have been supporting.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams No, if there is a tyranny I'll be there fighting it. Of course if by revolution you mean the leeches and looters are attempting to bring down the system that supports them, then sure.

So now those with revolutionary ideals are "leeches?" I'd consider those attempting to mislead the country and Parliament as "leeches," personally. Furthermore, it is the masses of voters, workers and consumers who do the most to support authority -- not the other way around. As misguided as these people ultimately are, that's just how it is.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams A) If they are stealing then they are not following basic liberal principles of respecting someones property and I do not support them. However, if they are simply gaining wealth through free trade - both party's exhanging goods voluntarily - then they are not stealing.

Having billions of dollars and hiring a bunch of servants is not "free trade." It's subordination. Free trade would be liberatory. What we're discussing here is hardly more "freeing" than an American plantation owner hiring house-slaves in the 1800s.

In a state-capitalist system, free economies do not truly exist. People may trade their services for land, but they are still subordinate -- in the age-old spirit of serfdom.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams And what is your point? This has nothing to do with my own points.

Yes it does. You indeed suggested job creation was its own positive reward for society. I argued otherwise, using obvious logic.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

the gaudy-ness of the new rich...

Guys, you have got to read the Great Gatsby if you already haven't.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa So now those with revolutionary ideals are "leeches?" I'd consider those attempting to mislead the country and Parliament as "leeches," personally. Furthermore, it is the masses of voters, workers and consumers who do the most to support authority -- not the other way around. As misguided as these people ultimately are, that's just how it is. Grandpa h.

Again, your putting words in my mouth. Those with revolutionary ideas arn't neccesarily leeches. In fact, today I would suggest those with mainstream social democrat, technocratic ideas are far bigger leeches than most radicals. But those who believe and act to strip others of their efforts to make their own lives easier are leeching. If you survive by taking, with the others explicit consent, the wealth of others you are a parasite.

Those who mislead Parliament arn't inherently, but can be, leeches. But as your no doubt attempting to throw that at capitalists, please explain what you mean.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Having billions of dollars and hiring a bunch of servants is not "free trade." It's subordination. Free trade would be liberatory. What we're discussing here is hardly more "freeing" than an American plantation owner hiring house-slaves in the 1800s. In a state-capitalist system, free economies do not truly exist. People may trade their services for land, but they are still subordinate -- in the age-old spirit of serfdom. Grandpa h.

How is it not free trade? How is it subordination?

This is nothing like slavery. People who choose to work for a corporation or choose to work as house hold staff are free. They can leave when they want for alternative employment. They cannot be sold by their employers to others. They are not slaves. You insult those who have been trapped in slavery by claiming such bullshit.

How are people not free in a capitalist economy? I have a good, my labour. I want some food. I trade my labour with someone who has money for a portion of money we both agree to. He uses my labour as we have agreed, he pays me. I buy my food. Whoa look, no one has been forced. A free economy.

No, in serfdom serfs are tied to their Lords, tied to their land. Capitalism has freed people from such a position. No one is now tied against their will to a Lord or his land. Under socialism of course you are tied to your state and the work they give you. Under communism proper (stateless) you are tied to everyone else like some Borg in the collective. Your life and your work are not your own but the property of others. That is not a free economy.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Yes it does. You indeed suggested job creation was its own positive reward for society. I argued otherwise, using obvious logic. Grandpa h.

Where did I suggest job creation was a positive end in itself? Where did I suggest that the means to job creation was not important? Seeing as I am a libertarian capitalism, it should be fairly frigging obvious I don't support government creating jobs outside of its very narrow remit. So please, show exactly where.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Again, your putting words in my mouth. Those with revolutionary ideas arn't neccesarily leeches.

How else was I supposed to interpret that comment? As for why I lump statists and capitalists together, there should be no mystery there. The two would be lumped together even if I didn't noticed. They are peas in a pod.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams How is it not free trade? How is it subordination?

Because we have elite classes who dominate resources and decision making. That's not freedom, and it indeed involves subordination. The biggest clue here is how workplaces themselves refer to "insubordination." And this is not benign. It creates many problems, and not just for India.

People can improve their lives if they organize, free of government and free of elite corporate/banking system domination. Of course, some will point to the danger of "workers states" developing in reply, but peopel needn't necessarily walk down that path. But I will say the wage system is just another way to legally subordinate people, as is unpaid labor. Either way, you're converting plenty of people into near-automatons.

This isn't a new theory, nor is it exclusive to anarchists, communists and state socialists.

In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith noted:
"The man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding...and generally
becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be....But in every improved and civilized society this is the
state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes pains to prevent it."

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Where did I suggest job creation was a positive end in itself? Where did I suggest that the means to job creation was not important?

You suggested it in your original comment:

A massive number of jobs have been created in the building of this project. A massive number of people will be needed for all the maintenance and repairs. There will be 600 servants working the building. No doubt with a building this size, he will run some of his business here too. This drive for greed has put $1billion dollars back into useful circulation and will continue to provide jobs for decades. Oh woe is the world.

How else was I supposed to interpret this statement? The obvious implication is that job creation is inherently positive.

I pointed out that all kinds of systems can put billions of dollars into circulation, including despotic ones. What else was I supposed to say?

Quite simply, there is nothing "libertarian" about having 600 servants, or about being under any kind of economic yoke. But you, like so many others, throw the term "libertarian" around without an understanding of what it actually means politically.
Obviously, if a job is not going to pay me a lot of money it's not "liberating" me. But also, a job that pays me a lot is not truly liberating. I'm still subordinate to the wage, to banking systems, to the boss, to land speculators, etc., and all of these agents are backed by law. I wouldn't consider any of this "libertarian," which is why I personally advocate libertarian communism. And this makes sense because the first use of the term "libertarian" was apparently by an anarcho-communist.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa How else was I supposed to interpret that comment? As for why I lump statists and capitalists together, there should be no mystery there. The two would be lumped together even if I didn't noticed. They are peas in a pod. Grandpa h.

The statement, which looks fairly clear to me, meant thus. That I would support a movement whose goal is to end a tyrannical government. I would never support a movement whose goal is to replace either a tyranny or the status quo with their own economic tyranny that attempts to steal the efforts and ideas of the wealthy.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa Because we have elite classes who dominate resources and decision making. That's not freedom, and it indeed involves subordination. The biggest clue here is how workplaces themselves refer to "insubordination." And this is not benign. It creates many problems, and not just for India. People can improve their lives if they organize, free of government and free of elite corporate/banking system domination. Of course, some will point to the danger of "workers states" developing in reply, but peopel needn't necessarily walk down that path. But I will say the wage system is just another way to legally subordinate people, as is unpaid labor. Either way, you're converting plenty of people into near-automatons. This isn't a new theory, nor is it exclusive to anarchists, communists and state socialists. In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith noted: "The man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding...and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be....But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes pains to prevent it." Grandpa h.

Why is the state of freedom inherently abrogated by a minority possessing a vast amount of wealth? If they have aquired it by free trade then they are entitled to it.

There is subordination within the workplace and there is society wide subordination. A person on the bottom rung of the company ladder is obviously subordinate to someone higher up. But outside of the office, that worker is not subordinate to the guy further up. If you are referring to the first example of subordination, please explain why that is actually wrong.

Yes, of course they can improve their lives free of either state or banks. I would encourage them to do so, governments are corrupt and do as elite banking tells them. But this situation can be prevented by taking away a governments power to enact the kind of laws banks use to their own ends.

Personally, I would like to see a system where everyone is classed as self-employed. You are paid for the work you agree to do, making a contract, just as a home owner makes a contract between him and a builder putting an extension on his house. If someone fails to do the work agreed, or provide the compensation agreed, they are free to a) terminate the services of the other party, and b) seek compensation in court. Then you are not getting a wage, you are getting paid for a job, like any tradesman. You might not see it as much of a difference, but I think it would improve the quality of a persons work. It works for me to think I am a professional providing an agreed upon service, regardless of the employment I'm in.

Is every working class person doomed to remain in that position? No, they can rise out of it through effort or good fortune. Just as any businessman may fall through bad luck or incompetance. Right now, I'm looking at only minimum wage jobs really. However, I'm reading my way through a self-study book to become an IT technician. Any poor person, from the UK to India, can do the same where they have libraries. From there, they can earn a better income. A better income means they can train further, leading to an even better income, and so on and so forth. Being a person engaged in mind numbing repetative labour does not mean it will last forever. Personally I have found it to be a good motivating catalyst to seek improvement, not languish in stagnatiion.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa You suggested it in your original comment: How else was I supposed to interpret this statement? The obvious implication is that job creation is inherently positive. I pointed out that all kinds of systems can put billions of dollars into circulation, including despotic ones. What else was I supposed to say? Quite simply, there is nothing "libertarian" about having 600 servants, or about being under any kind of economic yoke. But you, like so many others, throw the term "libertarian" around without an understanding of what it actually means politically. Obviously, if a job is not going to pay me a lot of money it's not "liberating" me. But also, a job that pays me a lot is not truly liberating. I'm still subordinate to the wage, to banking systems, to the boss, to land speculators, etc., and all of these agents are backed by law. I wouldn't consider any of this "libertarian," which is why I personally advocate libertarian communism. And this makes sense because the first use of the term "libertarian" was apparently by an anarcho-communist. Grandpa h.

It's called context grandpa. I'm a libertarian, or is that not clear? Being that I'm a libertarian, a philosophy which espouses a minimal government, with minimal employees to provide their limited function of protecting individual rights from internal and external threat, could you not discover that I would be against all forms of job creation, namely government job creation?

Oh, you were just saying that despotic regimes can put money into the economy. Well, I'm just saying the sky is blue, grass is green and 2+2=4, but that's not really a counter argument to you is it?

How is employing servants anti-libertarian?

in what way do I not understand the term libertarian? As someone who has spent a lot of time reading libertarian texts - Nozick, Hayek, Rand, Popper - I would be interested where my knowledge is so clearly lacking.

What is clear to me is that you can't differentiate between having liberty and having power. I have the liberty, the freedom, to seek employment from anyone and at any level. That they will reject me does not mean I have no liberty, it means I don't have the power to acquire that job. Just as my lack of power to flap my arms and fly like a bird is not an infringement upon liberty, but just a lack of power.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams The statement, which looks fairly clear to me, meant thus. That I would support a movement whose goal is to end a tyrannical government.

...while dismissing revolutionaries as "parasites." So not only is your premise a bit off, but you also sort of contradicted yourself.

But this brings up obvious questions: how would you define "a tyrannical government?" And how would you tell such a government is on its death bed?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Why is the state of freedom inherently abrogated by a minority possessing a vast amount of wealth? If they have aquired it by free trade then they are entitled to it.

Why? Because freedom is not only a negative, or the "freedom to do without." The more elite and centralized a project is, the less free it is. Obviously, to deny people a voice in their own work and lives is an abrogation. A corporate setting is essentially totalitarian, so a great deal of freedom is typically denied. And the imposed need to be profitable limits freedom further. While the freedom to do without is grown, freedom to participate in important decisions is indeed shrunk. This may include freedom of association, access to information and freedom to work as one chooses, when one chooses. In a capitalist setting, all these various aspects of freedom are placed largely into the hands of elite bureaucracies. In other words, true freedom cannot be those green things with the dead presidents on
them. It finds true expression directly from social organization. If greater tendencies in this direction will happen soon, I do not know. But I do know there is always the potential for the masses to determine their own entitlements without elites calling the shots.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams It's called context grandpa. I'm a libertarian, or is that not clear?

No, that is not clear. Throughout history, "libertarianism" has not meant to accept dictatorial property fascism (which is ultimately what this billionaire is engaging in). Only in America is the word "libertarian" thrown around to describe all kinds of elite and authoritarian systems. Americans use it very much outside of its proper historical context. Apparently some Brits may be guilty of this also.

Grandpa h.