[ExI] Be nice to leftists

[Omar Rahman]

> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:43:21 -0700
> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Be nice to leftists
> Message-ID: <53909E29.7080202 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> 
> On 05/31/2014 01:40 PM, Omar Rahman wrote:
>> 
>>> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:49:08 -0700
>>> From: "tokenpike" <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net>>
>>> To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Be nice to leftists
>>> Message-ID: <041b01cf7c27$1465ac10$3d310430$@att.net
>>> <mailto:041b01cf7c27$1465ac10$3d310430$@att.net>>
>>> 
>>>> . On Behalf Of Omar Rahman
>>> 
>>>> .I can see the positive potential in well regulated capitalism, can
>>>> you see
>>> this negative potential in unregulated capitalism?
> 
> There is no "regulation" necessary to a free market except against fraud
> and other initiations of force.  Regulation beyond this is the
> destruction of a free market, that is of human freedom to follow what
> they believe in their own interest in making economic decisions, to
> voluntarily reach agreements, to seek win-win in economic transactions. 
> 
> In a truly free country there should be a quite strong separation
> between State and Economy.

There has to be a very strong connection between State and Economy or there will be no taxation and nothing to build a country with. 



> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ja.  The real problem is that the term regulation assumes government
>>> intervention, and all governments are for sale.  Humans have never
>>> invented
>>> a form of government that was anything other than Plutocracies in various
>>> disguises, completely without exception.  Marx theorized a hypothetical
>>> alternative.  Humanity experimented with his notions at enormous cost in
>>> human suffering.  We should go ahead and rip away the masks;
>>> recognize that
>>> all governments everywhere run on gold, at every level everywhere and
>>> everywhen.  It's the most universal truth of human behavior.  All
>>> efforts to
>>> defeat that observation have merely reinforced it.
>>> 
>> 
>> "All governments run on gold, at every level everywhere and
>> everywhen." - Spike 
>> 
> 
> Governments are filled with human beings, just like the governed.  They
> are in no wise better - not smarter or more ethical or wiser.    So a
> government sets up some humans to make relatively arbitrary decisions
> and gives them the power to impose them by force on everyone else.  That
> is what it is.  If you are going to be honest about government then you
> need to start with deep understanding of that.  It is why we should seek
> the very least amount of something so dangerous and as well controlled
> as possible.  It is far far more dangerous than business of any sort and
> size.  Business cannot jail or kill you for refusing to purchase or use
> its "services" or telling it to go efly a kite if it tries to dictate
> terms to you - or else.
> 
> - samantha

I'll say it again. Business can, has, and will again jail you for not buying their product. This is not ancient history, Mahatma Gandhi was fighting against this sort of stuff. Business will, for example, capture people from Africa and sell them all over the world because it is more competitive to have slaves than pay free people a living wage. This is not just a historical fact but is also a present day reality; the demand for prostitutes far exceeds the supply of those so inclined to offer that service, so there are mafias specialising in kidnapping and human trafficking. Another example: try driving your car without buying private insurance. It's set up to guarantee customers for private companies; why isn't there a government or not-for-profit option available? Mathematically speaking a universal pool would spread the risk most efficiently, and removing the advertising for new clients and the sales commissions and profits for shareholders should be more efficient. (If you're inclined to make the 'governments are inherently inefficient' argument, why are you so worried about their force if they are so inefficient/weak?) Another example: look at what the car dealers are trying to do to the Tesla car company; they are trying to force them to operate through dealers because one of the disruptive effects of Tesla is its direct sales model.

Governments impose force on you, yes but so do companies. With a government, at least in a democracy, you are a stakeholder. 

Best regards,

Omar Rahman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140606/22c7ff2b/attachment.html>