A debate/discussion with bbeljefe

[Revenant77x]

(03-04-2013 07:09 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:43 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Why go to that much trouble? Might as well just take the direct approach and just decriminalize theft and blackmail for everyone. After all, if it's a good thing for the state to do, it's a good thing for everyone to do.

I'd go to the trouble to set a precedent. Mutlinational companies will make they're money regardless how it wrecks this countries', or that countries' economies, or the people who'll go hungry now that their job has been moved to China, or where ever. It'd require a Government filled with elected officials who took their oath to the people seriously, which I don't know for sure exists anywhere, but I'd like to see laws passed (and the one I mentioned above might be a bad one for all I know, which is why I asked if it might work), and descisions made with us low-born folk in mind.
""That's right [cell phone company of your choosing] we've done the math. You'll still make a profit manufacturing here and selling here, just not as much as you would manufacturing There and selling here. If you don't care to employ our citizens not only can you sell to those you employ in your manufacturing plants, but one of your competitors will be glad to provide the service you once did.""
Having laws protecting the citizenry from getting fucked out of money that could be used to buy baby formula isn't a bad idea. I simply lack the wit to articulate a better idea

Good luck with this Gul. Jeffe is , I believe, a good guy but he will not budge on Anarchy. But I enjoy bashing my head against brick walls and so far neither of us has gotten too upset with each other.

[bbeljefe]

(03-04-2013 07:09 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:43 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Why go to that much trouble? Might as well just take the direct approach and just decriminalize theft and blackmail for everyone. After all, if it's a good thing for the state to do, it's a good thing for everyone to do.

I'd go to the trouble to set a precedent. Mutlinational companies will make they're money regardless how it wrecks this countries', or that countries' economies, or the people who'll go hungry now that their job has been moved to China, or where ever. It'd require a Government filled with elected officials who took their oath to the people seriously, which I don't know for sure exists anywhere, but I'd like to see laws passed (and the one I mentioned above might be a bad one for all I know, which is why I asked if it might work), and descisions made with us low-born folk in mind.
""That's right [cell phone company of your choosing] we've done the math. You'll still make a profit manufacturing here and selling here, just not as much as you would manufacturing There and selling here. If you don't care to employ our citizens not only can you sell to those you employ in your manufacturing plants, but one of your competitors will be glad to provide the service you once did.""
Having laws protecting the citizenry from getting fucked out of money that could be used to buy baby formula isn't a bad idea. I simply lack the wit to articulate a better idea

The act of not trading with someone is not fucking them out of anything. I choose not to trade with hundreds of thousands of businesses every day. Am I fucking them out of money? If I choose Burger King, am I taking money away from McDonalds? If I choose Joe's lawn service to cut my grass am I taking money from Bill's lawn service?

Do you trade with every business every day in order that you don't take money from anyone? If not, why not?

[bbeljefe]

(03-04-2013 07:12 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:09 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I'd go to the trouble to set a precedent. Mutlinational companies will make they're money regardless how it wrecks this countries', or that countries' economies, or the people who'll go hungry now that their job has been moved to China, or where ever. It'd require a Government filled with elected officials who took their oath to the people seriously, which I don't know for sure exists anywhere, but I'd like to see laws passed (and the one I mentioned above might be a bad one for all I know, which is why I asked if it might work), and descisions made with us low-born folk in mind.
""That's right [cell phone company of your choosing] we've done the math. You'll still make a profit manufacturing here and selling here, just not as much as you would manufacturing There and selling here. If you don't care to employ our citizens not only can you sell to those you employ in your manufacturing plants, but one of your competitors will be glad to provide the service you once did.""
Having laws protecting the citizenry from getting fucked out of money that could be used to buy baby formula isn't a bad idea. I simply lack the wit to articulate a better idea

Good luck with this Gul. Jeffe is , I believe, a good guy but he will not budge on Anarchy. But I enjoy bashing my head against brick walls and so far neither of us has gotten too upset with each other.

Thank you for the kind words. Consider them sent back your way.

And it's not anarchy that I'm wed to. It's just a word for a concept. What I am wed to is voluntary, peaceful interaction between people. If there were such a thing as a peaceful, voluntary state, I'd be fine with statism.

[Revenant77x]

(03-04-2013 07:33 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:12 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Good luck with this Gul. Jeffe is , I believe, a good guy but he will not budge on Anarchy. But I enjoy bashing my head against brick walls and so far neither of us has gotten too upset with each other.

Thank you for the kind words. Consider them sent back your way.

And it's not anarchy that I'm wed to. It's just a word for a concept. What I am wed to is voluntary, peaceful interaction between people. If there were such a thing as a peaceful, voluntary state, I'd be fine with statism.

I like a good debate with a spirited opponent and I respect your view I just don't believe that it is acheivable without working with the current system.

[bbeljefe]

(03-04-2013 07:37 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:33 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Thank you for the kind words. Consider them sent back your way.

And it's not anarchy that I'm wed to. It's just a word for a concept. What I am wed to is voluntary, peaceful interaction between people. If there were such a thing as a peaceful, voluntary state, I'd be fine with statism.

I like a good debate with a spirited opponent and I respect your view I just don't believe that it is acheivable without working with the current system.

Well that's the nice thing about peaceful movements.... not everyone has to believe they will work in order for them to grow.

For instance, the abolitionists didn't have to own slaves in order to demonstrate that slavery is immoral. All they had to do was consistently point out the immorality of slavery while at the same time demonstrating that people could prosper without owning other people by living the values they preached.

It took them about 150 years but they succeeded.

[TheGulegon]

(03-04-2013 07:24 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:09 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I'd go to the trouble to set a precedent. Mutlinational companies will make they're money regardless how it wrecks this countries', or that countries' economies, or the people who'll go hungry now that their job has been moved to China, or where ever. It'd require a Government filled with elected officials who took their oath to the people seriously, which I don't know for sure exists anywhere, but I'd like to see laws passed (and the one I mentioned above might be a bad one for all I know, which is why I asked if it might work), and descisions made with us low-born folk in mind.
""That's right [cell phone company of your choosing] we've done the math. You'll still make a profit manufacturing here and selling here, just not as much as you would manufacturing There and selling here. If you don't care to employ our citizens not only can you sell to those you employ in your manufacturing plants, but one of your competitors will be glad to provide the service you once did.""
Having laws protecting the citizenry from getting fucked out of money that could be used to buy baby formula isn't a bad idea. I simply lack the wit to articulate a better idea

The act of not trading with someone is not fucking them out of anything. I choose not to trade with hundreds of thousands of businesses every day. Am I fucking them out of money? If I choose Burger King, am I taking money away from McDonalds? If I choose Joe's lawn service to cut my grass am I taking money from Bill's lawn service?

Do you trade with every business every day in order that you don't take money from anyone? If not, why not?

If you cross the border and buy a burger king sandwich in Canada and bring it back here to eat, your removing your money from this economy possibly never to be seen here again with nothing to give back to this system other than a turd. Your fecal matter probably wont fuck us over unless you decided to follow up your burger with Taco Bell, or a HotPocket, but if you were a CEO, you could take a metric butt-ton of money out never to replace it again. And that IS fucking people over! And the method with which the CEO does it (unless someone makes it illegal for him to do so) is anything but chaotic. Highly thought out, & systematically precise, in fact (unless we do something about it)! With psycologists who can predict what the "chaotic" consumer will do at 3PM Tuesday mornings. I wish it was chaotic. Sign the "mandatory chaos in corporate dealings law"

[TheGulegon]

I wrote 3 PM Tuesday mornings? Captain Morgan you devil you!!

[bbeljefe]

(03-04-2013 07:56 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:24 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  The act of not trading with someone is not fucking them out of anything. I choose not to trade with hundreds of thousands of businesses every day. Am I fucking them out of money? If I choose Burger King, am I taking money away from McDonalds? If I choose Joe's lawn service to cut my grass am I taking money from Bill's lawn service?

Do you trade with every business every day in order that you don't take money from anyone? If not, why not?

If you cross the border and buy a burger king sandwich in Canada and bring it back here to eat, your removing your money from this economy possibly never to be seen here again with nothing to give back to this system other than a turd. Your fecal matter probably wont fuck us over unless you decided to follow up your burger with Taco Bell, or a HotPocket, but if you were a CEO, you could take a metric butt-ton of money out never to replace it again. And that IS fucking people over! And the method with which the CEO does it (unless someone makes it illegal for him to do so) is anything but chaotic. Highly thought out, & systematically precise, in fact (unless we do something about it)! With psycologists who can predict what the "chaotic" consumer will do at 3PM Tuesday mornings. I wish it was chaotic. Sign the "mandatory chaos in corporate dealings law"

The problem with your argument is that US dollars don't leave the country never to return. US dollars will always return to the US, because the store of value they represent can only be harvested in the US. For instance, when a US investor trades in foreign currencies, he does not do so in order to secure the currency he is trading. He does so in order to secure more US dollars through the transaction. Likewise with Chinese or Mexican or German traders... they buy US dollars so they can sell them at a profit for more of their own currency. The myth that money leaves a country and doesn't return is just that... a myth.

That said, there are certainly a lot of US dollars that go into the bank accounts of the super rich, never to be spent in day to day trade. But that's the right of the individual. No one should be able to force you to spend your money and no one should be able to force them to spend theirs.

The way to go about keeping those super rich from stacking up all that money is not to point guns at them. It's to take away the state, which is the vehicle they use to become so filthy rich. No one could amass the kind of fortunes that we see today in an environment where there are no state guns to leverage against one's competition.

[TheGulegon]

If I'm wishing for a state to make laws that benefit all it's citizens, I guess I'm advocating it's need to exist. The State, that is. I don't think a complete lack of government is a very good idea. A bad idea, in fact, for as many people as I have to put down to keep them from taking the food I planned on eating through the winter until they get me. We're not as far removed from our savannah-brain's instincts as we'd like to think. But to the point of disappearing money, "money / jobs" can be considered our hunting tools. A job goes elswhere, then a new one must be made, or you must use (take?) someone elses, like the spear we once used to bring home the mastadon burgers. But a job that provides money for food isn't like a spear you could fashion for yourself should your previous one break! (its illegal to hunt buffalo and rightly so, but they look pretty juicy to a starving man) And I feel a state that compels its citizen to obey its laws might want to side with those masses, and not with the people who (greedily stingy) hold the tools for our survival! And, ofcourse, the angry and disinfranchised could attempt to TAKE the state away from the robber barons, but that never lasts more than a 100 years before going corrupt again. But I digress. I guess I'm trying to say that laws (don't ask me to expound on any of them) could be made that would asure the public's safety/wellfare, fix the economy, and all with ruffling only the feathers of those allready wealthy enough to provide for their great-great-great-grandkids!