[ExI] Be nice to leftists

[Omar Rahman]

> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:51:11 -0700
> From: Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Be nice to leftists
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> Nope. You are mistaken. All of these examples, with the exception of pre-modern slavery, are because of state interference.

I agree...sort of. The states are interfering at the behest of the businesses. For example, the annexation of Hawaii was to protect American business interests. Look at indigenous groups in the Amazon who face intimidation and attacks if they don't sell their land for logging/plantations. 

> 
>> 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. 
> 
> 
> Slavery (as practiced in and before the nineteenth century) is the exception. 
> 
> The state is needed to protect individual rights including the right not to be a slave. Other rights are the right to free speech, free religion, etc. I don't think anyone is arguing that these rights shouldn't be protected. These rights need to be protected -- by force -- by force that is monopolized by the a state democratically controlled by the people. That's clear -- to think otherwise is to be an anarchist.
> 
> But slavery is different than all your other examples because it is an issue of "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose." In a secular society, there is a separation of Religion and State. That still allows the state to stop a Muslim from killing his daughter for her dating habits. He might argue he is just practicing his religion, but the state can and must say that his right to practice his religion ends where it endangers his daughter's freedom (and life). 
> 
> Modern slavery, however, is supported and caused by the policies where it is practiced. For instance, in Islamist countries, women are enslaved to male members of their families. This is the STATE law, not because of business.
> 
> For millennia around the world, charging interest was illegal but slavery was legal. Slavery, it should be noted, is incompatible with capitalism. It is the inevitable competing system -- the very antithesis of capitalism. That's because the only alternative to Free Trade (consensual exchange of goods and labor), is the use of force (goods and labor taken under threat of force).

You might be talking about 'free tradeism' but you certainly aren't talking about capitalism. Capitalism is the accumulation of money for the purpose of accumulating more money. The people who had the slaves in the South almost certainly would have described themselves as capitalists.

> It was slavery that stopped the South from industrializing in the capitalist manner of the North prior to the Civil War, and which therefore delayed their economic development. Fascist Germany, Leninist and Stalinist Russia, and  Maoist China all rejected capitalism and ended up instituting mass slave camps instead -- an amazing resurgence of slavery in the 20th Century, showing what happens when capitalism is rejected in favor of state control. In the 21st Century as in the 20th, the only places slavery still operates is where economic and political freedom are absent. 
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> 
> Mafias go into prostitution, drug trafficking and other areas, like organ sales, where the state has outlawed legal commercial transactions. By rejecting free trade between consenting adults, a black market is created. In North Korea, mafias now run the country because there are NO legal commercial markets, so EVERYTHING is black market. Of course, this is also how the current Eastern European, Russian, and other cartels came to power. Legalizing prostitution and organ donation and drugs as much as possible would shrink the market that the mafia could dominant. Of course they would still prevail in things that simply cannot be legalized, like child or forced prostitution (and it's important to note the difference between prostitution that is a consensual transaction between adults and sex slavery) or auto theft, etc. But shrinking the market would limit where criminals could compete. 
> 
> Criminals are not businesses. If you can't see the difference,  your entire argument is based on a gross misunderstanding.


We agree that the bad people are bad. What is criminal though? Generally it is what a government says it is. The government could criminalise coding or research or anything. If you don't believe me please try to practice medicine, law, or engineering without the 'guild' approval. 

So, today growing marijuana is illegal in most places. But lots of people grow and sell it. These people aren't operating businesses in your mind? But they would be if the law changed?

If you are trying to only talk about morally indefensible things as 'not businesses' then I must refer you to: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Those morally reprehensible businesses are businesses.

> 
> 
>> Another example: try driving your car without buying private insurance.
> 
> That's state law. If the state stayed out of it, you could drive uninsured if you were stupid enough to do so. Insurance companies were original civil society organizations that were independent of government and entirely voluntary.
> 
> 
>> It's set up to guarantee customers for private companies; why isn't there a government or not-for-profit option available?
> 
> Nothing is stopping you from setting up a non-profit car insurance. Maybe some already exist. There are already non-profits that provide housing, school, food, bicycles, glasses, medical assistance, birth control and education?.
> 
>> 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?)
> 
> The value of a universal pool is outweighed, however, by the increased difficulty that the public would have in making sure that the system was not corrupt and inefficient. The state would have a monopoly on the insurance, and the consumer would not be able to compare multiple companies to compare performance. That would reduce the incentive of the government-run company to improve their services and be efficient. That is the usual reason "governments are inherently inefficient." Not size.

Political parties are supposed to provide the competitive management styles to improve services and make things more efficient. I know this seems farcical from within the Coke vs. Pepsi duopoly system of the US, but other countries actually have more than two parties.

> 
> There are other ways that insurance companies could spread risk besides being controlled by the government. 
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> But how can the rival car companies force Tesla out of the state without getting the State Government to pass laws? If the State would just keep their nose out of it, those rival companies would be powerless to stop Tesla from appealing directly to consumers.

> Can't you see you are exactly proving why it is so vicious to allow the government to be captured by special interests?

I'll take this as agreement between us. What we probably won't agree on is the fact that the capitalist doctrine of maximising profits motivates companies to capture governments.

> If the Constitution or state law forbid the government to take sides or make laws favoring any individual companies, the same way the government is not allowed to pass laws favoring religion, these sneaky, underhanded tricks by companies wouldn't work. 
> 
> 

Please draft the text of this Amendment. Basically, we need amendments to say that 'money is not speech' (anti-Citizen's United) and an amendment that 'corporations are not people'. (As they say, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.")


>> Governments impose force on you, yes but so do companies. With a government, at least in a democracy, you are a stakeholder. 
> 
> You are simply mistaken. It is a critical mistake. You have missed the entire wonder of capitalism--it is economic exchange without force.

Please refer to: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

I firmly believe that I have presented multiple examples of businesses that apply force.

> 
> Companies must entice employees to freely exchange labor for money. This is the opposite of slavery. Slavery is only possible where free trade of labor is made illegal.

Slavery has existed in some form, (indentured servitude, serfs, slaves, untouchables, coolies, and many more), in many different societies and economic structures. One of those societies is: ours under capitalism. (ex. forced prostitution)

> 
> Companies must entice consumers to freely exchange money for goods. This is the opposite of theft.

Except when companies have monopolies on staple items; then every transaction would be theft.

> Theft is only possible through the use of force, and the greatest theft comes from the most monopolized force, i.e. from governments.

A person may be deprived of their goods by a multitude of methods. Confidence swindlers, lawyer's clauses, force, social pressure, ...even 'reading, remembering, and writing down later' for copyrighted works. The person so deprived would feel that these are thefts.

> 
> Companies CAN NOT IMPOSE FORCE ON YOU.

I too SOMETIMES use caps so I cannot fault you for this. I TRY to keep it to one word as a way to EMPHASISE that word.

You are ignoring the examples of companies that have imposed force on people. Please refer to: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

> Criminals can, and companies who capture the power of the state can; the first situation is why the state exists, the second is why the state, though it is needed, must never be allowed to interfere with free trade of goods and labor.
> 

Companies can use force all by themselves. They have used the full gamut from corporate espionage, price fixing, dumping, monopoly formation, slavery, assassinations, etc. etc.

> Governments exist to ensure that the free and consensual exchange of ideas, labor and goods is possible, and if they overstep their bounds they become slave masters and thieves instead of our protectors.

Total agreement. This is, almost, too happy a note to close on, so I will point out that your above sentence is one of the most socialist things I've heard in a while. ;)

> 
> Tara Maya


Regards,

Omar Rahman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140608/7684bba1/attachment.html>