The Big Media Boogyman

[solomon]

This is from the ever-wise libertarianesque think tank, The Cato Institute. I thought you folks here at the 97x forum in particular would be interested in reading/discussing it.

--------------------------------------
The Big Media Boogyman
by Adam Thierer and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.

Adam Thierer is the director of telecommunications studies and Clyde Wayne Crews is the director of technology studies at the Cato Institute and the authors of What's Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism (Cato Institute, 2003).

A heated debate over the relaxation of media ownership rules that artificially restrict media business activities is set to culminate in a June 2 ruling by the Federal Communications Commission. Consumer groups already decry what they see as growing media concentration or even monopolization, and caution that our democracy is somehow at risk of being dictated to by a handful of media barons. How real are these fears?

In reality, the media are less concentrated and more competitive today than they were 30 years ago. And consumers are unambiguously better off. Consider two families, circa 1973 versus 2003, and the media and entertainment options available to them. The 1973 family could flip through three major network television stations, or tune in to a PBS station or a UHF channel or two. By comparison, today's families can take advantage of a 500-plus channel universe of cable and satellite-delivered options, order movies on demand, and check out a variety of specialized news, sports, or entertainment programming -- in addition to those same three networks.

Or, these hypothetical families could just listen to the radio together. Seven thousand stations existed in 1970 nationwide to choose from. Today more than 13,000 stations exist and subscription-based music services are delivered nationwide and uninterrupted via digital satellite.

And then, of course, there's the Internet and the astonishing cornucopia of communications, information, and entertainment services the World Wide Web offers today's families. In the media Dark Ages of 1973, it would have taken a great deal of time and money to publish your own newsletter. Today, the Internet gives every man, woman, and child the ability to be a one-person publishing house or broadcasting station, and communicate with the entire planet. Instead of going to the library to retrieve information, as our hypothetical 1973 family might have done, today the library comes to us as the Net puts a world of information at our fingertips. While the 1973 family could read the local newspaper together, today's families can view thousands of newspapers from communities across the planet.

And the list goes on: video recorders, DVD players, interactive TVs and cell phones, MP3 players, and a seemingly endless array of other portable/wireless computing and communications devices are available to us today that the families of 1973 only dreamed of, or saw in a "Star Trek" episode.

But while America's mass media marketplace is evolving rapidly, the same cannot be said for the regime of rules that govern it, which are stuck in regulatory time warp. Federal regulations that limit how much of the national market can be served by broadcast and cable companies, or prevent a company from owning a newspaper and television station in the same market, or prohibit a television network from buying another network, should be abolished. Why should media companies be forced to play by a distinct set of random ownership rules that we impose on no other industry?

These rules have become historic anachronisms that ignore new market conditions and the intense competition for our eyes and ears. Indeed, far from living in a world of "information scarcity" that some fear, we now live in a world of information overload. The number of information and entertainment options at our disposal has almost become overwhelming and most of us struggle to figure out ways to filter and manage all the information we can choose from in an average day. It is important to keep such facts in mind when debating changes to the archaic media ownership rules that the FCC is considering revising. Even as the underlying business structures and relationships in this industry continue to change, the one undeniable reality of our modern media marketplace is that information and entertainment are commodities that cannot be monopolized. Accordingly, the FCC should relegate these outdated media ownership rules to the dustbin of telecom history.
-----------------------------------

Sol

[classicgrrl]

oh yes, here in Cincinnati we have sooooooooo many radio stations of a wide variety to choose from...and of course our diverse tv stations are studied nationally...

give me a break!

[Duemellon]

oh yes, here in Cincinnati we have sooooooooo many radio stations of a wide variety to choose from...and of course our diverse tv stations are studied nationally... dont forget the definition of a monopoly:

domination of the entire market.

Yes, those few media sources here dominate this market, but have no influence over those outside of our area. Therefore they do not technically fall under being an oppressive, monopolizing, etc, entity.

Yeah, they really aren't getting geniune competition either, so it's kinda like each marketplace agreeing to let everyone else have their turf, and leave the local battles up to just a few local entities.

Fox came on the scene rather impressively, whereas they used to be simply XIX, they are now easily recognized as a viable contender (albiet, markedly in 4th place). I dont believe their ability to grab a sustainable market share demonstrates a system of checks and balances that makes competition fair, but it is possible.

Basically...
There is a place for competition, but they dont really compete. They simply stay away from each other's terriroty and let the few local entities duke it out. In a truly competitive market we'd have stations constantly offering compelling programming from any entity.

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Yes, those few media sources here dominate this market, but have no influence over those outside of our area. Therefore they do not technically fall under being an oppressive, monopolizing, etc, entity.


Clear Channel owns 60% of the radio market across the US. So, I guess those are outside of our area?

I have no clue about TV. I shouldve just left them out of my first post. Hell, I dont even watch the stupid thing.

[mattsledge]

Originally posted by classicgrrl

Clear Channel owns 60% of the radio market across the US. So, I guess those are outside of our area?

I have no clue about TV. I shouldve just left them out of my first post. Hell, I dont even watch the stupid thing.

Um. classicgirl?

CC owns 1200 stations. There are 12,000+ radio stations in the USA alone. They also own 12 TV stations.

Of the Top 50 markets, they own nowhere near 60%.

[SteelTown Boy]

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030530clearchannelnat2.asp

check out the protest here...i am going to fire off a letter to the editor on this

[yvette7ica]

It isn't possible for Clear Channel to own 60%. What the FCC is trying to decide is to raise the max a company can own from 35% (which is what it is currently) to 45%.

I did not agree with some of what the article said. It may seem like the poor mass media conglomerates aren't able to obtain more stations so they can remain "competitive". But all that raising the percent a company can own will do is eliminate some of the more independent stations. They have to get there stations from somewhere/someone.

Right now with radio, television, and print (specifically newspapers) there are five main conglomerates: Disney, Clear Channels, News Corp., Viacom, and Aol/Time Warner. When I was watching the debate on C-Span it made my head spin with how many channels and information venues these companies own. How will it be helpful to citizens who are wanting information to only have a few easily accessible sources that are all run by the same few companies?

[matt]

Sinclair Broadcasting owns Channel 22 and Fox 45 in Dayton (at least they did a couple of years ago). When they told us we were going to be owned by the same company, it was such a hard concept to grasp: Two competing major affilliates whose transmitters and broadcast facilities were literally neighbors, running separate newscasts and daily operations out of the same office? The 10 O'clock Fox news airs, then the camera's are literally turned around to and reset to do the 11 O'Clock 22 NBC news. That was at the beginning of deregulation and it was difficult to understand then. Looking back now, it seems to be so much worse. It's like the proverbial oroboros, eating it's own tail. Or like a black hole, imploding upon itself. When will it stop?

[mattsledge]

Ted Turner has an EXCELLENT editorial right here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56132-2003May29.html

[solomon]

How will it be helpful to citizens who are wanting information to only have a few easily accessible sources that are all run by the same few companies?

The way I look at it, the market serves the consumer. As painful as it is for many here to grasp, a lot fo people like britney spears. They like matchbox 20. They like The Calling. They don't care if it's prepackaged. Not one bit. This is your average music listener. They don't want to do research to see what bands they like. They want another band that "sounds like" third eye blind. We are a rather small minority. We dont' have the right to keep more "independent" stations around with laws and regulations. There will be as many around as will make a profit. And that will tell you how big "our" market is.

Sol

[Duemellon]

for the most part I agree with Sol. However, I have a problem with how difficult it is to create a competitive entity. The introduction of 'net radio/news really makes this more accessible, and until the big media creates more laws and regulations to limit their capacity, it is a great opportunity.

But that also shows another ill...
The fact that you and me, and everyone, pretty much knows that big media has the power to influence regulations in such a manner to inhibit such things enventually.

[SteelTown Boy]

Originally posted by matt
Sinclair Broadcasting owns Channel 22 and Fox 45 in Dayton (at least they did a couple of years ago). When they told us we were going to be owned by the same company, it was such a hard concept to grasp: Two competing major affilliates whose transmitters and broadcast facilities were literally neighbors, running separate newscasts and daily operations out of the same office? The 10 O'clock Fox news airs, then the camera's are literally turned around to and reset to do the 11 O'Clock 22 NBC news. That was at the beginning of deregulation and it was difficult to understand then. Looking back now, it seems to be so much worse. It's like the proverbial oroboros, eating it's own tail. Or like a black hole, imploding upon itself. When will it stop?

I went to college with the weekend sportsguy at 22/45-btw
but what else can be said that hasn't been said.

[Iwasmerkaba]

centralizing of everythnig,saw it coming,those damn reptiles are not gonna win..its time for left and right to be afraid.....very afraid...

www.commoncause.org (http://www.commoncause.org)
www.per.com (http://www.moveon.org)

SIGN THE DAYUM PETITIONS AND WRITE YOU CONGRESS(wo)MAN OR SENATOR(s) a lil circle of power freaks and some family members in the top branches of the tree want control. say good bye to you own thoughts kiddies. pulling a fast one over our eyes i see...anyway....im gonna go turn on my tv ,choke some caffiene, light up a cancer stick and open (insert Utopian book).
Back to from mars.......I love woxy...I love having people working at a radiostation in a small town who are intelligent folk...I want THEM running my fav radio station no so greed power freak.
Dont let them back door you on anything and be very cautious cause its not going to stop. "gee wiz pawl money is the worst"

[Iwasmerkaba]

MY Apologies...www.per.com ... i have NO IDEA how that came through my fingers.....

here is the intended site www (http://www.moveon.org)

[DudeMan]

I think we all instinctively react against any consolidation of power, myself included. And the mind-numbing, dumbed-down swill that Clear Channel serves up makes me concerned about what happens when a single entity controls the radio dial or any other medium. That said, I don't think that keeping antiquated regulations in place is the answer either. I have way more information, opinions and entertainment at my fingertips than ever before, and it's only increased over the last few years even though there is a media company conglomeration going on at the same time.

Ted Turner's op-ed makes a lot of interesting points too, but he seems stuck in the past. He twice cites the inability under these rules to buy a television station today, as he did 25 years ago. Maybe he missed it, but you don't have to buy a television station today to have your voice be heard. Look at The Onion. They entered a respected place in our popular culture because they were smart and funny, and published it over the web. We are fortunate to live in a vibrant culture that produces cool and smart ideas and creativity. I haven't studied these rules in detail, but I don't believe their adoption will kill or even hurt that.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by solomon
The way I look at it, the market serves the consumer. As painful as it is for many here to grasp, a lot fo people like britney spears. They like matchbox 20. They like The Calling. They don't care if it's prepackaged. Not one bit. This is your average music listener. They don't want to do research to see what bands they like. They want another band that "sounds like" third eye blind. We are a rather small minority. We dont' have the right to keep more "independent" stations around with laws and regulations. There will be as many around as will make a profit. And that will tell you how big "our" market is.

Sol

Spoken like the capitalist pig you are! :p

I agree with you to a large extent, but the problem here is that the government is involved whether they want to be or not. There's only a limited bandwidth for each market because otherwise every station would be on every frequency and you wouldn't be able to hear anything at all. That's why the government assigns frequencies.

I suppose you could make the point that if that happens then people will just stop listening to the radio and turn to another medium like the internet where you don't have that concern. But so long as we have radio, the government will be in the market and it's very difficult for the gov. to be "neutral." CC's dominance in the market is less a factor of the music they play than their ability to schmooze legislators.

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

They entered a respected place in our popular culture because they were smart and funny, and published it over the web.

the problem with this argument is that for the majority of the population, the web is not where news is gathered. many still do not have easy access to the web or are not able/willing to dig deep enough to find the alternative content. the vast majority of folks still rely on television and radio. the republicans are hoping that deregulation will help them snuggle up with those conglomerates who own the biggest peices of the media pie.

"Conservatives hope, with some reason, that the major media will be their friends. That's what Dwight Eisenhower was talking about when he warned against the military-industrial complex in his last speech before leaving office. If Dwight Eisenhower were alive today he'd be warning us about the dangers of the military-industrial-media complex. "

Reed Hundt, former FCC chairman
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/31/fcc/index.html

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by mattsledge


Um. classicgirl?

CC owns 1200 stations. There are 12,000+ radio stations in the USA alone. They also own 12 TV stations.

Of the Top 50 markets, they own nowhere near 60%.

Sledge would you stop doing that! Then I'll have to write to Wired cause thats where I quoted that from...

sorry. this is why I have only posted about these things twice and why I never will again...

[mattsledge]

Don't worry, kiddo. It's all good.

At least, until June 2nd.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Docta

the problem with this argument is that for the majority of the population, the web is not where news is gathered. many still do not have easy access to the web or are not able/willing to dig deep enough to find the alternative content. the vast majority of folks still rely on television and radio. the republicans are hoping that deregulation will help them snuggle up with those conglomerates who own the biggest peices of the media pie.

"Conservatives hope, with some reason, that the major media will be their friends. That's what Dwight Eisenhower was talking about when he warned against the military-industrial complex in his last speech before leaving office. If Dwight Eisenhower were alive today he'd be warning us about the dangers of the military-industrial-media complex. "

Reed Hundt, former FCC chairman
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/31/fcc/index.html
Thank you Docta for taking some time from your grassy knoll to remind me why I have been spending less time in the current events / poly area here. No, of course there couldn't be a legitimate philosophy difference to debate -- we could never acknowledge that possibility when instead we can exercise the opportunity to heap opprobrium upon our adversaries. This is yet another clever ruse by the Republicans to shield themselves from the divine light of the truth. I guess I forgot that.

By the way, you are standing with the National Rifle Association against this proposal, proof positive that politics makes for strange bedfellows.

And as for those who can't afford subscriptions to newspapers or an ISP, can they not go to a public library like millions of others do, for access to both of those things? That's for the 'able'. For those who are not 'willing', no law or federal agency can force someone to read a newspaper.

As for me, I haven't really committed one way or the other on this issue, because I can see merits on both sides.

[doctort13]

http://www.indymedia.org/


I am with Classic, and could give a rat's ass about tv. As long as 97x is here my radio needs are covered. I use the net for news.:)

[solomon]

I have a problem with how difficult it is to create a competitive entity.

If it's good enough, people will go there. By word of mouth. In my opinion, "competition" isn't the end all be all. We don't need to have 12 companies doing the same thing, if two of them are doing it well. That's my problem with anti-trust laws. As long as the conglomerate/company whatever has achieved it's status through the free interactions of the market, I have no problem with it. If the profit/loss signals have trickled their way through and this is how it ends up, then this must be the most valuable way of using the resources or organizing production.But a lot of times, they achieve this status through government help. In other words, I don't think we need government to maintain a "competitive" environment just for the sake of it, if the market has led to an industry with maybe 2 big companies.

Sol

[solomon]

Spoken like the capitalist pig you are!

Yeah that's me...resident capitalist pig-dog :)

but the problem here is that the government is involved whether they want to be or not. There's only a limited bandwidth for each market because otherwise every station would be on every frequency and you wouldn't be able to hear anything at all. That's why the government assigns frequencies.

This seems like another case of : without government, there would be chaos. I believe the market is the epitome of order. If allowed to work, it leads to a harmonious balance between production and consumption, and guides resources to the most urgent demands.

If every station was on every frequency, then NO radio businesses would be able to make money at all. It only seems logical that it's in their own self interest to work out ownership/usage contracts or territorial rules set up through contract to take care of this. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Sol

[Duemellon]

I don't think we need government to maintain a "competitive" environment just for the sake of it, if the market has led to an industry with maybe 2 big companies. The theory behind a free-market structure is that competition is open and easy to achieve. No, not necessarily success, but being able to produce a product that COULD attract some of the market's consumers.

When you have a limited amount of competitors due to existing companies putting obstacles in the way, it is an unfair practice. Limiting competition discourages the advancement of efficiency and features because the incentive is less (in the model) to produce these advances.

I mean, there are a few examples where the companies know we're going to buy whatever they make, regardless of the quality, so were unconcerned about advancement until someone else came along and said: "Hey, we have THIS now." and lo' and behold a race began.

Without the ability for the aspiring entreprenuer's to introduce a novel approach, we'd still be using MS-DOS, Beta Players, Laser Discs, and such.

[Phreon]

I guess I'm just a radical who still believes the airwaves are a natural resource that belong to the people, just like air and sunlight. We let the FCC organize/manage the RF spectrum and lend slices of it to companies/entities who promise us a worthwhile product.

All radio stations must renew their license every couple of years; the verbiage of said license clearly states that the station must "serve the community". How is a station that has no local human presence serving the community? How can a canned DJ in Texas know what's going on in my neighborhood?

When a station applies for renewal of it's license, there is a period for the public to comment to the FCC about it's performance. Perhaps it's time for people to actively follow the renewal process and comment on Clear Channel stations?

As an amateur radio operator, I'm supposed to "advance the art of radio". Why are corporate entities any different?

With the Low Power FM debacle (the FCC stonewalled it then passed rules that excluded almost everyone), it's clear to me now that the FCC has forgotten it's original purpose and must be held accountable.


Take back the airwaves,

Phreon

[SteelTown Boy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60348-2003May30.html

The Post takes a view on this

[yoshomon]

The consumerist spectacle of Capitalism forces a lot of choices on us.

Under Capitalism, we're all objectified. We all become commodities instead of people. In the workplace we are commodities and in our 'free' time we are passive observers of the spectacle that Capitalist society has evolved into. Our lives are really never our lives.

The fight against Capitalism is a fight to be human. Wealth should not be an abundance of capital and objects - it should be an abundance of human relationships and situations.

Now we could start talking about why Capitalism is not a 'natural' system...

[yoshomon]

To quote Adorno:

"The most intimate reactions of human beings have been so thoroughly reified that the idea of anything specific to themselves now persists only as an utterly abstract notion: personality scarcely signifies anything more than shining white teeth and freedom from body odour and emotions. The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them."

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Phreon
I guess I'm just a radical who still believes the airwaves are a natural resource that belong to the people, just like air and sunlight. We let the FCC organize/manage the RF spectrum and lend slices of it to companies/entities who promise us a worthwhile product.

All radio stations must renew their license every couple of years; the verbiage of said license clearly states that the station must "serve the community". How is a station that has no local human presence serving the community? How can a canned DJ in Texas know what's going on in my neighborhood?

When a station applies for renewal of it's license, there is a period for the public to comment to the FCC about it's performance. Perhaps it's time for people to actively follow the renewal process and comment on Clear Channel stations?

As an amateur radio operator, I'm supposed to "advance the art of radio". Why are corporate entities any different?

With the Low Power FM debacle (the FCC stonewalled it then passed rules that excluded almost everyone), it's clear to me now that the FCC has forgotten it's original purpose and must be held accountable.


Take back the airwaves,

Phreon

what he said.

[solomon]

The theory behind a free-market structure is that competition is open and easy to achieve.

Who's free-market theory? Competition is always open, but not always easy to achieve. You can't just jump into competition with Intel. So it seems to me that to say a theory rests on an assumption of ease of competition shows a misguided theory. Reality shows that it isn't easy in some industries.

putting obstacles in the way

What kind of obstacles?

is an unfair practice.

If they're using government/law then yes it's unfair.

Limiting competition discourages the advancement of efficiency and features because the incentive is less (in the model) to produce these advances.

What I'm saying is that competition WILL COME if businessmen spot inefficiency or lack of innovation. Entrepreneurs are seeking this every day. If the competition DOESN'T show up, it's a sign that the company/companies are doing a good job of keeping their eye on the ball, even if there are only a few.

I mean, there are a few examples where the companies know we're going to buy whatever they make, regardless of the quality, so were unconcerned about advancement until someone else came along and said: "Hey, we have THIS now." and lo' and behold a race began.

Exactly. That's why I think it's baseless to fear an industry with just a few companies. If they fail to innovate or change or be efficient, someone else WILL come along.

Without the ability for the aspiring entreprenuer's to introduce a novel approach, we'd still be using MS-DOS, Beta Players, Laser Discs, and such.

Definitely, I'm just saying I don't think we need laws to do it. If there's room for an entrepreneur, then there's room for an entrepreneur. It's not like we wouldn't have dvd players and windows if it weren't for government.

Sol

[solomon]

I guess I'm just a radical who still believes the airwaves are a natural resource that belong to the people, just like air and sunlight.

Air and sunlight, for all intents and purposes, aren't scarce. Radio frequencies are, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for anyone to manage their use or allotment. Anything scarce is managed better by market participants than by government officials.

Wealth should not be an abundance of capital and objects - it should be an abundance of human relationships and situations.

Says who exactly? You? What if I do think wealth is about objects and am happy to not deal with anyone and just amass wealth? How can you show I am wrong?

Sol

[SteelTown Boy]

it's a done deal....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1424-2003Jun1.html?nav=hptop_ts

[The Sheck]

We are on a bullet train to hell.

(I found it interesting that there was no coverage of this reported on television or in most major newspapers excluding the NY Times.)

[Docta]

Originally posted by The Sheck
We are on a bullet train to hell.

(I found it interesting that there was no coverage of this reported on television or in most major newspapers excluding the NY Times.)

imagine that! it's started already....

[DudeMan]

Hmmm... I saw coverage on both CNN and Fox News that gave opinions on both sides. And This Week on ABC interviewed Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, on Sunday morning and then asked two senators about the bill and discussed in the round-table of the same program.

I have since read up on this issue, and I think that the relaxing of the rules is fine. Yes, there are some legitimate concerns against doing this. But, on the whole many of the concerns are over-wrought. Michael Powell's interview iced it for me -- this is a modest modernization of regulations that were put into place back in the days when 3 networks were all there were and things like cable tv and the internet weren't even thought of yet. And by the way, for those who believe this is a republican conspiracy, the FCC did nothing more than vote on the roadmap put into place in 1996 by the media de-regulation bill signed into law by President Clinton.

In the long run, the segmentation, allocation and selling of the airwaves will be viewed as archaic. Digital spread-signal technology will render the airwaves akin to shipping over the ocean -- vast enough for anyone to use, and only in need of some modest protocols to keep order.

[The Sheck]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Michael Powell's interview iced it for me -- this is a modest modernization of regulations that were put into place back in the days when 3 networks were all there were and things like cable tv and the internet weren't even thought of yet.


(Taken from the Washington Post article.)

Bob Edwards, anchor of NPR's "Morning Edition," talked about the myth of media diversity in a lecture last month at his alma mater, the University of Kentucky.

"It's kind of a cruel, ironic joke," Edwards said. "The rise of cable TV and the Internet were supposed to democratize the media and give us many voices and numerous points of view. Instead, market forces and deregulation have clobbered diversity. The networks and cable channels have the same owners -- Hollywood studios, mainly -- and the most popular Web sites for news are those of organizations firmly established before the Web was spun."

In a May 22 column in the New York Times, William Safire wrote, "The concentration of power -- political, corporate, media, cultural -- should be anathema to conservatives . . . Why do we have more channels but fewer real choices today? Because the ownership of our means of communication is shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals than they realize resent the loss of local control and community identity."

In the long run, the segmentation, allocation and selling of the airwaves will be viewed as archaic. Digital spread-signal technology will render the airwaves akin to shipping over the ocean -- vast enough for anyone to use, and only in need of some modest protocols to keep order.

Who do you think wll own said DSS technology? The public, or the media moguls? I've been following this a while, too and I don't see this getting better. Media ownership will get further and further concentrated, IMHO, with the public being the ones hurt the most.

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

I have since read up on this issue, and I think that the relaxing of the rules is fine.

eh, i think you just didn't want to be seen on the same side of an issue as myself dude......

[Phreon]

Originally posted by solomon


Air and sunlight, for all intents and purposes, aren't scarce. Radio frequencies are, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for anyone to manage their use or allotment. Anything scarce is managed better by market participants than by government officials.


Though I'm a capitalist, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. The problem with letting the market run free is that everything on the damn planet doesn't have a simple, monetary face value.

Besides, what you're saying is that finite resources should be alloted to whoever has the most money. I suppose we should have a totally free market that allows me to buy up all the water reserves in Arizona?

If there was no government intervention, there would be no frequency bands set aside for amateur radio use. Who give's a rat's ass about those geeky Ham radio nerds? The weather service cares when they need spotters and you'll care the next time there's a disaster and all the phone lines and cell towers are down/clogged.

What market force would preserve the amateur radio bands? Especially since the American Radio Relay League (the ARRL is to Hams what the NRA is to gun owners) has been fighting hard to get the FCC to preserve bandwidth for hams though there's intense pressure from corporate America to raid it.

Sometimes the market hasn't a clue what it needs. Companies focus group themselves to death trying to figure out what the public wants when it really should be trying to figure out what it needs.

A great example is Chrysler in the 80's; while the other auto makers were falling over themselves trying to figure out how to sell their station wagons, they invented the mini-van. A clear case of "build a better product and they will come".

The music/radio industry is the same; it gives people exactly what they think want. The sad truth is that people don't know what the hell they want or need. If people always got what they asked for, there'd be almost no innovation...no new music.

I suppose I'm for a free market with safeguards and sanity checks,


Phreon

[tobedawg]

Where's Happy Hairy Hardon When you need him?:D

[yoshomon]

Under the free-market globalization of the past 2 decades the disparity between rich and poor has widened and third world debt has increased. I'm sorry, the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer. Free-market capitalism will never be good for workers (but I guess that's the point).

...and it's real easy to 'move up the ladder' when your parents were working class, you went to a run-down school and couldn't afford to go to a nice college. Libertarian capitalists don't understand that we don't all start fresh at the beginning of our lives - the vast majority of children growing up in poor families don't have any chance to advance.

[solomon]

The problem with letting the market run free is that everything on the damn planet doesn't have a simple, monetary face value.

I sense a tone implying that there's something WRONG with something having a monetary value. It just allows the resource to be used in the best way. If a scarce resource has multiple methods of being used, and/or there are multiple people vying for it's use, how do you make these decisions? That's what the price does, and that's why all scarce resources have a free market value formed by the supply of, and demand for, the resource.

Besides, what you're saying is that finite resources should be alloted to whoever has the most money.

Yes, in a way, because how does one GET the most money? By consistently being able to use resources in a way that satisfies consumers best. They have a proven track record.

I suppose we should have a totally free market that allows me to buy up all the water reserves in Arizona?

Well, it depends, how did the water reserves get there? Who owns them now? When the government owns something, or creates a new service, the contracts that would be made under the free market don't exist. Sure you could buy them up, but you'd probably be put under contract not to unilaterally withhold service etc..

If there was no government intervention, there would be no frequency bands set aside for amateur radio use. Who give's a rat's ass about those geeky Ham radio nerds?

Look, I'm not a radio expert, but i'll do my best here...

So we should basically subsidize ham radio enthusiasts? If the market wipes out radio frequencies assigned for amateur radio use and uses them for something else, then they've found a better way of using the frequencies than just as a play area for "ham radio nerds".

The weather service cares when they need spotters and you'll care the next time there's a disaster and all the phone lines and cell towers are down/clogged.

Well then what's to stop weather services from hiring ham radio users for this very purpose, and allotting the needed frequencies to them? Under the free market the frequencies will be used to satisfy the most urgent demands satisfied by those frequences, whether that's weather emergencies or anything else.

What market force would preserve the amateur radio bands?

You act as if it's just a given that they SHOULD BE preserved in the first place. If the market won't preserve them, then why should they be preserved, if there is a better use for them?

Sometimes the market hasn't a clue what it needs.

Come on now Phreon. Who DOES know what the people need then? You? government bureaucrats? Give me a break.

Companies focus group themselves to death trying to figure out what the public wants when it really should be trying to figure out what it needs.

You really think the public is so stupid that they can't figure out the difference between what they want and need? And what is the difference exactly?

The music/radio industry is the same; it gives people exactly what they think want.

Who else is supposed to decide what someone SHOULD want? How do you know what "they think they want" isn't what they want or need? These are all subjective valuations that you or anyone else is in absolutely no position to make for others. If I say I want to listen to britney spears, what basis do you, or anyone else, have for saying " no..you just THINK you want britney spears. You actually want Postal Service"?

If people always got what they asked for, there'd be almost no innovation...no new music.

If people aren't asking for new music, if there's no demand for it, then why on earth should resources be wasted providing it? I want new music. Do you? Surely others do. There is a demand for it, and so it will be satisfied to that extent. People DEMAND innovation all the time, otherwise businesses wouldn't do it. And they do.

Sol

[solomon]

the disparity between rich and poor has widened and third world debt has increased.

Third world debt is mainly a government issue: Central banks, world bank, IMF. etc. They wouldn't exist in a free market.

And the entire world, even the so-called capitalist countries, are suffering the consequences of central banking, fiat money, and the resulting constant inflation that prevents increasing standards of living.

Also a lot of third world countries don't provide conditions for improvement: recognition of property rights and stability.

Free-market capitalism will never be good for workers (but I guess that's the point).

Free market capitalism is good for everyone when it's allowed to work. And even when it's not allowed to work fully, it still is much better than any other system out there.

and it's real easy to 'move up the ladder' when your parents were working class, you went to a run-down school and couldn't afford to go to a nice college. Libertarian capitalists don't understand that we don't all start fresh at the beginning of our lives - the vast majority of children growing up in poor families don't have any chance to advance.

Again, it seems you imagine the current situation without government, when the current situation has FORMED around government. Children in poor families would have a much better chance of advancing if they could take advantage of the wide variety and falling prices of a free education system. They'd do better if the value of their money wasn't constantly being robbed by government. Etc etc. THeir opportunities for advancement have been severely restricted by laws, regulations, programs, and red tape.

SOl

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by solomon
I sense a tone implying that there's something WRONG with something having a monetary value. It just allows the resource to be used in the best way. If a scarce resource has multiple methods of being used, and/or there are multiple people vying for it's use, how do you make these decisions? That's what the price does, and that's why all scarce resources have a free market value formed by the supply of, and demand for, the resource.

Market value and use value are too very different things. For example, the use value for aids vaccines vs. the market value of aids vaccines.

I find it hard that one could argue for no government in a class based system like Capitalism. Without public schools, why would someone with money build cheap private schools for poor kids? Kids in poor families wouldn't have schools to go to.

The market doesn't provide a lot of things to working class people because working class people don't have much money to spend. The market does not give them what they want or need. Empowered corporations have no more of a right to decide what people should get than a state does. Only the people themselves have the ability to really know what they want and need. In any Capitalist system, people aren't able to control their communities, workplaces, and cities.

There will be no freedom until workers take control of the means of production. blah blah, it's a marxist cliché, but it's true. Of course, Anarchism works to achieve this stateless communism along the most libertarian lines possible.

I don't think it's possible to do well on these boards... but a debate on what is the government? who does it empower? how did it arise? on what principles is it based? what does it do? etc would be interesting.

[solomon]

Market value and use value are too very different things. For example, the use value for aids vaccines vs. the market value of aids vaccines.

Do you mean use value vs exchange value? Sure, these are different. I don't see the point you are trying to make with your example though.

I find it hard that one could argue for no government in a class based system like Capitalism.

Government relations are coercive/involuntary and capitalist relations are voluntary. There surely is no sharper class distinction than would be present between government and non government citizens in a communist country. In capitalism, it's relatively easy to move between classes. All you have to do to become a capitalist is forgo some of your consumption and invest it into capital goods and production. Boom, you are a capitalist. How correct your decisions are is another story however.

Without public schools, why would someone with money build cheap private schools for poor kids?

Why does white castle provide cheap burgers? There's a demand there. A more expensive private school would probably have fancier desks and gadgets, but these things are hardly necessary to attaining a good education and competitive pressure would assure that cheap schools would make best use of resources and constantly try to improve themselves. As it stands, public schools don't face competitive pressure and so have little incentive to change or get better, and they actually get more money through having problems rather than providing superior services.

The market doesn't provide a lot of things to working class people because working class people don't have much money to spend.

They have enough discretionary income to make a difference. They buy cokes and cheeseburgers and watch TV like everyone else. No one's every want gets satisifed. I'd like my own plane but it's not a failure of the market that I don't have one.

Only the people themselves have the ability to really know what they want and need.

Right, but it's impossible to weigh all the different wants and needs vs supply without a market and prices. You are in the dark without them. And the people direct business towards these ends with their buying patterns.

In any Capitalist system, people aren't able to control their communities, workplaces, and cities.

Sure they are, they are in total control through their voluntary interactions - where they choose to work- and buying patterns. THe skyline in town will disappear from the community if no one goes and eats there. Can the same be said if the state puts one there? How would they decide when to shut it down? How would they know the spot was better used as a Skyline over a dry cleaners?

There will be no freedom until workers take control of the means of production. blah blah, it's a marxist cliché, but it's true. Of course, Anarchism works to achieve this stateless communism along the most libertarian lines possible.

But they can do this now. There are no laws against syndicalism. But it's an inferior structure, that's why you never see it. And there are logistical problems I see in this type of system.

I don't believe stateless communism is possible. For one, there is the number one problem of economic calculation, which I find to be insurmountable in any socialist or communist system. Also, if I agree to trade my apple's for Laura's oranges,....or Joe agrees to help me work my fields in exchange for some of the crop, who steps in to stop these capitalist transactions? Why? On what authority?

don't think it's possible to do well on these boards... but a debate on what is the government? who does it empower? how did it arise? on what principles is it based? what does it do? etc would be interesting.

Sure I think we can do it. You can start one up if you want, or I can, I think it would be interesting as well.

Sol

[Duemellon]

my dearest god, i think we found him...
the purest capitalist EVER.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
my dearest god, i think we found him...
the purest capitalist EVER.

word.

and any argument is impossible because I don't see decisions arising in Capitalism as voluntary or natural. and quite honestly, any debate about that cannot be done in the format of message boards.

Book suggestions:
Society of the Spectacle - Guy Debord
History and Class Consciousness - Georg Lukács
any of the available collection of Situationist essays (I have a few online @ www.geocities.com/yoshomon, more at www.nothingness.org or www.notbored.org)

Lukács is hard to read because he's really really Marxist, but he's worthwhile to really read and work through.

Not that any of you will check those books out, but there is a chance that you may look at the Situationists online.

[solomon]

Oh come on now don't bail like that. Discussion is not impossible here. Answer the questions I asked. Why do you see capitalist decisions, like someone agreeing to work someone's fields for a cut of the crop as involuntary, or unnatural, on either part?

Argument is not impossible. I've done it here. Give me the gist of what you think.

Sol

[yoshomon]

Well lets see...

1) Wage slavery vs. being homeless isn't exactly a free choice.

2) How is domination by corporations any better than domination by the State?

3) The State and big business are in bed a lot - why would corporations or the state allow anyone to get rid of state power? I hope you're not so idealistic that you think you can vote away the government...

Wouldn't such a broad and sweeping change require a revolution? And during a revolution, why would people not take control of the places they work? And if they do take control of the places they work, why would they give power back to the bosses? Or why would people living in shitty apartments turn a blind eye to people living in mansions during a revolution?

[solomon]

I know you don't seem too keen on discussing all this, but I'm going to reply anyway.

1) Wage slavery vs. being homeless isn't exactly a free choice.

Wages aren't slavery. In slavery, you work under terms you have no control over, and work under threat of aggression. With wages you can choose who to work for, and what kind of work you want to do.

People say that this isn't a choice but it IS a choice. What is the "free" choice you would like to see? You are basically saying, work vs being homeless isn't a choice. Well, I'd like if no one had to work and could all have homes but reality just isn't like that. Work has to be done.

2) How is domination by corporations any better than domination by the State?

McDonalds doesn't make you eat big macs. Pepsi doesn't send armed agents to your door and extract money from you under threat of force. The state does each of these. The state faces no competition. You must use their services, and you MUST pay them on their conditions, whether you use them or not. Domination under the State is BASED on outright aggression and coercion. Corporations achieve their position based on profit/loss and voluntary transactions under no threat of aggression. (And of course a heap of help from the State. As I've said, I think the corporate scene would be different without state help.)

3) The State and big business are in bed a lot - why would corporations or the state allow anyone to get rid of state power? I hope you're not so idealistic that you think you can vote away the government...

No, of course I understand you can't vote government away. That's why I just toy with the libertarian "party" kind of as a timekiller, I know it's a dead end. Voting and parties only adds legitimacy to politics and the State itself.
They likely would not let someone rid themselves of the state. We all know what happened the LAST time someone had secession on their minds. But I think the problem there was that the secessionist group was too big, and there was a large economic interest in seeing that secession did not happen.

Wouldn't such a broad and sweeping change require a revolution? And during a revolution, why would people not take control of the places they work? And if they do take control of the places they work, why would they give power back to the bosses? Or why would people living in shitty apartments turn a blind eye to people living in mansions during a revolution?

Well, I can't say for certain but I don't think that during the American revolution people killed their bosses and raided mansions etc. I think it depends on the nature of the revolution.

And I don't really support violent revolution in this case. You'd just get another State. I think the only hope is in an increasing delegitimacy of the state in the eyes of the people (And I think increasing lack of voter turn-out is a good sign of this) and secession of small groups or states that don't initially appear to pose a serious threat, economic or otherwise, to the state their breaking from. I'd love to see what would happen if one of the states, just one, tried to secede from the US today. I actually think there's a chance California might try it sometime in the future. We'll see. The Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.com/) is kind of along those lines, although these people are still statist. I think something like this is promising.

Sol

[yoshomon]

solomon, I think it's telling that you never mention everyday life - how capitalism is like taking a bath in your clothes, devoid of the sensual, bubble-free: boring.

We live in a SPECTACLE and perhaps living in a spectacle is not living at all. I reject the objectification of all things, you applaud it. I reject the accumulation of commodities and capital in favor of the accumulation of situations and real human relationships. I reject work and the seperation it implies and instead aim at creating a society based on play. Passively observing life is not living.

cheers.

[classicgrrl]

This is out of Comsumer Reports under Viewpoint: The Consumers Union Perspective, page 65 of the July 2003 issue:

"*Five conglomerates dominate television news: AOL Time Warner, Disney (ABC), GE (NBC), News Corp (FOX), and Viacom (CBS and UPN). They own TV, radio, and cable stations; networks; program production companies; and affiliated Web sites. Together, the conglomerates control an estimated two-thirds or more of the programming that appears on prime-time television, including most major news channels and programs.

*Most metropolitan areas have one major newspaper, often owned by a chain.

*Two cable systems, Comcast and TimeWarner, serve nearly half of all cable subscribers. Some 95 percent of households have access to only one cable company.

Weakening the rules could have a dramatic and dangerous effect. Eocnsider an indepedently owned newspaper such as the Washington Post. Last year, the Post reported questionable accounting practices by America Online, which is based in the Washington area. The story prompted the federal government to launch criminal and civil investigations, leading America Online to restate it's earnings. (sic) Would the Post have investigated the story about America Online's questionable accounting if AOL TimeWarner owned the newspaper?

To learn more, visit the Consumers Union public-policy Web site at www.consumersunion.org."

I LOVE Consumer Reports...

[Duemellon]

1) Wage slavery vs. being homeless isn't exactly a free choice.

vs.

People say that this isn't a choice but it IS a choice. Having NO choice is the SAME as having to chose between options you don't want.

I don't want to spend a single $ downtown. I have no choice because the CAC is down there & specialty canvases are down there, and etc. etc. Well, i do have a choice, to conform or be ostracized as a non-participant.

Wage slavery, to me, invokes thoughts of a state of working to maintain a semblence of comfort while being incapable of advancing your comfort level or eliminating indebtedness.

In our current economy, I see this. In previous economic states I see it, but in isolated situations. I believe pure capitalism will create a caste-system, and wage-slaves will be a class of people stuck in an unbreakable system disguised as benevolently opportunitistic.

[solomon]

Having NO choice is the SAME as having to chose between options you don't want.

Come on now Due you can do better than this ;)

I may not like the options of taking a car or a bus to get from A to B, I may prefer the option of a jet, but just because I can't take the jet, doesn't mean that I therefore have no choice. There is always a list of options ..things and ways of doing things, that one finds preferable. But just because you don't have access doesn't mean there is suddenly no choice.

I don't want to spend a single $ downtown. I have no choice because the CAC is down there & specialty canvases are down there, and etc. etc. Well, i do have a choice, to conform or be ostracized as a non-participant.

Ok, I'm glad this is settled then.

Wage slavery, to me, invokes thoughts of a state of working to maintain a semblence of comfort while being incapable of advancing your comfort level or eliminating indebtedness.

But this is a baseless accusation of capitalism. Good workers move up through companies to better jobs as new workers move in. People can start their own businesses easily. Savings don't lose value like they do now, they gain value because of a slow steady deflationary environment. Consumerism and consumption probably wouldn't be as high either since in todays inflationary environment, there is an incentive to spend money, rather than save it. Also, a part of increasing future comfort level is to forgo some consumption in the present by investing. But most people just don't want to do this. They want to spend more NOW. Right now. Which is fine. But then they whine when they have nothing later, like it's someone else's fault besides their own. A LARGE amount of people have horrible irresponsible spending habits.

In our current economy, I see this.

Our current economy is a heavily mutated thing. But I see even more groups of people that made horrible decisions in their lives and are being held responsible for lack of discipline and planning.

believe pure capitalism will create a caste-system

Why?

and wage-slaves will be a class of people stuck in an unbreakable system

Why stuck? Stuck having to WORK yes. If you want to consume, you must produce. The money system is just an extension of the barter system where you trade what YOU make or labor you provide. You must work.

sol

[Duemellon]

I may not like the options of taking a car or a bus to get from A to B, I may prefer the option of a jet, but just because I can't take the jet, doesn't mean that I therefore have no choice. that is correct, you do not have a REAL decision to make that empowers you. If my choice is either to take the windows, or the stairs, I want the choice of "I'd rather leave here upright and under my own powers." Not much of a choice, "window or the stairs" (see: IGGYS). Obviously I have the choice to remain and be brutalized for it. But neither choice has a benefit to them, my "power" of freedom is pointless.But this is a baseless accusation of capitalism. Good workers move up through companies to better jobs as new workers move in. someone explain to me why I would want to promote the guy who makes 150% average production to a position where he no longer produces at that level? Yeah, sure, the THOUGHT is they could find ways to get others to increase performance, but there's a chance he's a terrible leader, teacher, team-participant, etc, and by forcing the promotion I lose that extra production.

If I am a business owner, and I have developed a close-to-foolproof method of proprietorship (ie: outsource all decisions to more knowledgeable ppl) but I still personally collect 10% of ALL profits for my pocket, I can easily hand the reigns of the company over to my inept benefactors under the condition they make no decisions whatsoever regarding the direction of the business. Voila! I have the means to continue to secure income for generations.

If I am a working-class hero and I put all my effort into trying to advance in a corporation and achieve lower management level, or high-line-worker status, my income still limits the educational, cultural, and networking, opportunities for my benefactors. It is possible through happenstance and hard work they opportunities are greater than mine by a marginal amount, but it's highly likely that they will not have the same contacts, good-family-name, and influence as my wealthy counterpart.

IN a pure capitalist society, just as every other social structure so far, there are flaws. That flaw is the individual human being who lives in the society.

In the utopian capitalist society workers are rewarded for effort, the rich are only rich temporarily as they must continue to fund their supporters, and people base rewards and restrictions on bottom-line factors, not race, location, nation, wealth, familiarity, and other factors.

Add that damned human being into the mix and you have a mess.

[yoshomon]

word (to due).

look solomon, the ONLY time a pure capitalist system would make sense is if everyone began life on a totally even playing field (so that whoever worked the hardest would do the best). unfortunately, that's just not how life is.

Not to mention that in this post-scarcity stage of capitalism, the entire concept of 'hard work' is becoming more and more irrational. when the accumulated wealth and technology of the world are used for the common good of all, we won't have to work all the time. It's not hopelessly idealistic to picture a world where the entire concept of work is replaced by that of play - as was written about and lived by the Situationists.

you want efficiency, hard-work, and profit
I want freedom, passion, and community

[solomon]

that is correct, you do not have a REAL decision to make that empowers you.

Ok, how do we know when a decision is empowering? How do we define this? A decision that makes you better off? Well, taking the stairs makes you better off over the windows, unless you're trying to commit suicide. "Empowering" is completely subjective.
So back to my example, I should somehow magically be provided access to a jet to get from cincy to cleveland, because I find that THIS decision, between a bus and jet is empowering? What if I feel like only the Concorde is empowering, because it gives me self-esteem to fly in such prestige?

You do not have a right to an "empowering" choice and it's totally impossible for that to be guaranteed, or even objectively defined really.

someone explain to me why I would want to promote the guy who makes 150% average production to a position where he no longer produces at that level? Yeah, sure, the THOUGHT is they could find ways to get others to increase performance, but there's a chance he's a terrible leader, teacher, team-participant, etc, and by forcing the promotion I lose that extra production.

Ok Due, guess what you do then? You give this amazing worker a RAISE instead.

If I am a business owner, and I have developed a close-to-foolproof method of proprietorship (ie: outsource all decisions to more knowledgeable ppl) but I still personally collect 10% of ALL profits for my pocket, I can easily hand the reigns of the company over to my inept benefactors under the condition they make no decisions whatsoever regarding the direction of the business. Voila! I have the means to continue to secure income for generations.

I'm not quite getting it, who are the benefactors here? His children you mean? Anyway, ok so what is wrong with your example? He has offered a venue for these "knowledgeable people" to use their skills and make money. In return, he gets 10%. After all, the venue wouldn't exist if it wasn't for him. Why hand the reigns over to anyone if no work needs to be done? He will still want the reigns most likely, because he's still making a profit, and so will want to decide which knowledgeable people stay and which go. He'll have to do negotiations with new people. This will all be affecting his profit. He dies and the son gets it. Who says the son has the skills to maintain this situation? That's not guaranteed. He might make poor decisions, or anger the best people working for him, etc.

If I am a working-class hero and I put all my effort into trying to advance in a corporation and achieve lower management level, or high-line-worker status, my income still limits the educational, cultural, and networking, opportunities for my benefactors.

Of course your income is a limiting factor. It is for 99% of us.

IN a pure capitalist society, just as every other social structure so far, there are flaws. That flaw is the individual human being who lives in the society.

Due, that's like saying the "flaw" of chemistry is that it's dealing with chemicals. These systems are ABOUT dealing with humans. It's a given factor in all, it's the x that can be crossed out of the numerator and denominator. It's irrelevant in comparing different social and economic systems.

In the utopian capitalist society workers are rewarded for effort

No, workers are rewarded according to how much value they produce, not how hard they try.

the rich are only rich temporarily as they must continue to fund their supporters

I don't get this statement.

Yosh

solomon, the ONLY time a pure capitalist system would make sense is if everyone began life on a totally even playing field (so that whoever worked the hardest would do the best). unfortunately, that's just not how life is.

Exactly, that's impossible. That's why it's useless to make it a prerequisite. People are not born on level playing fields. They have different skills, vices, talents, dreams, fears, etc. There's no rectifying this situation of the unlevel playing field.

Not to mention that in this post-scarcity stage of capitalism, the entire concept of 'hard work' is becoming more and more irrational.

I don't believe we are post-scarcity yet. There are only so many computers, only so many bricks, etc. This may happen in the future though.

It's not hopelessly idealistic to picture a world where the entire concept of work is replaced by that of play - as was written about and lived by the Situationists.

I do think it's hopelessly idealistic to think this could be achieved right now. In the future, it's very possible I think, and I will love it. Work as we know it may someday be a thing of the past. But it will be capitalism that got us there.

you want efficiency, hard-work, and profit
I want freedom, passion, and community

First, these are not mutually exclusive whatsoever. I think capitalism is the only avenue for freedom from aggression and coercion. I am a passionate person and I love my fellow man and society. But if you're going to use resources, I say use them efficiently. If you want to consume the fruit of someone else's labor, you must be willing to offer some fruit in return (work). And the profit/loss signal guides the whole process.

Sol

[Duemellon]

A decision that makes you better off? Well, taking the stairs makes you better off over the windows, unless you're trying to commit suicide. In IGGYS the stairs were as bad as the window. <sidenote>

Ok, fine, let's talk about another decision which is a non-decision.

2st illusion of choice, the "artificial hardships inflicted for non-complicity"
Taxation.

You have the choice to not pay, you have the choice to deceive, you also have the choice to comply. It doesn't take much to realize that it's not REALLY a choice because non-complicity has nothing but artificially created detremintal effects associated with it. The only people who would chose non-complicity are those who believe they can get away with it or want to have their lives adversely effected by audits & investigations. (the REAL cost of non-complicity is the govn't doesn't get paid and you will effect a decrease in public services and other govn't services, the govn't CREATED the law and enforce it and create hardships for you that would not have existed if you didn't comply, therefore it is an artificial hardship).

That goes for contra-social ideas (I'll not behave according to my stereotypes, I'll not concern myself with personal grooming, I'll not buy a car/house/home/recent clothes). Those are choices, but non-complicity leads to artificial hardships.

2nd illusion of choice, the "same thing, different name":
You're running from the cops for whatever reason. They yell "stop". You have a choice, turn left, turn right, stay straight, or comply.

Which are the real choices? Turning left, right, or staying straight, is the illusory choice because it's really between complicity or rebellion, but the choice between left/right/straight is proposed to you to make it appear as if you have some further freedoms.

[solomon]

2st illusion of choice, the "artificial hardships inflicted for non-complicity" Taxation.

There still IS a choice here though. Comply or else. The difference is that this choice is made under threat of aggression. This is the very definition of coercion. So the choice of paying taxes or not is not the same type of choice as working or not.

You're running from the cops for whatever reason. They yell "stop". You have a choice, turn left, turn right, stay straight, or comply.
Which are the real choices? Turning left, right, or staying straight, is the illusory choice because it's really between complicity or rebellion, but the choice between left/right/straight is proposed to you to make it appear as if you have some further freedoms.

I don't think you're looking at it properly. Those are all choices, but "left, right, or staying straight" is a SUBSET of choices after the choice to comply or not is made. There isn't an illusion. It's just an order of choices.

Sol

[yoshomon]

I'm in a concentration camp.

I have the choice to:
a) go into the gas chamber and die there
b) get shot for resisting going into the chamber

oh the choices!

[Duemellon]

I don't think you're looking at it properly. Those are all choices, but "left, right, or staying straight" is a SUBSET of choices after the choice to comply or not is made. There isn't an illusion. It's just an order of choices. that's my point. People will throw up "many choices" which are really subsets of a greater choice, when looked at properly really means you many less options than previously thought. Many will argue the person being chased has 4 options, but me and you can see with a lil' more thought, they really only have 2.

I think you got my point. Many of these choices is really an illusion or are artificially made desireable/undesireable in this current freedom we have.

True freedom would mean the only thing we have to live with are the natural consequences of our actions, and we could chose any consequence, whether or not we thought our action out.

[solomon]

I'm in a concentration camp.

I have the choice to:
a) go into the gas chamber and die there
b) get shot for resisting going into the chamber

oh the choices!

Oh the patience I have.

Ok I will say this again. That is COERCION. It is making a decision under the threat of aggression if you don't make the "right" decision. Starving because you choose not to work is not coercion on anyone's part.

Sol

[solomon]

I think you got my point. Many of these choices is really an illusion or are artificially made desireable/undesireable in this current freedom we have.

I don't really see your point though. I don't see how this fits in with what we were talking about. Work or don't work is not an "illusory" choice. Work for $5 or work for $8 is not an "illusory" choice simply because you'd LIKE to work for $2000. You don't have the freedom to have everything you want. You have the freedom to DESIRE all kinds of things, but you can only obtain them through either self-sufficiency or trade.

True freedom would mean the only thing we have to live with are the natural consequences of our actions, and we could chose any consequence, whether or not we thought our action out.

But once again it doesn't seem to me that you are living in reality here. You can't choose any consequence regardless of the action, if that's what you mean. You can't choose the consequence "I own one million dollars" without acting towards that goal. People BASE their actions around estimated consequences, and sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong. I don't see what you mean by "natural" either. Consequences are consequences. I don't agree with someone who refuses to serve taoists, but I wouldn't call this decision "unnatural". The only thing we need to watch out for is coercion.

Sol

[Duemellon]

True freedom would mean the only thing we have to live with are the natural consequences of our actions, and we could chose any consequence, whether or not we thought our action out.ok, let me clarify this sentence...

True freedom would mean th eonly thing we have to live with are the effects of our actions.

True freedome means we can chose whatever goal we want to pursue, whether or not we planned how to get there yet.
==

The real effect caused by me not paying my taxes is the govn't does have ALL the money to run. The coersion comes in when they threaten me with jail time for non-compliance.

The REAL effect created by me robbing the liquor store is that someone's hard-earned cash is taken from them and people can no longer trust me to behave respectively. The artificial is the additional hardships in jail & post-release stigmas.

There are artificial (unneccessary) effects individuals feel by not consuming the popular culture. Things that don't effect performance, intelligence, or other critical factors. If I don't drink at a bar, I get teased. If I don't agree with GWII I'm ostracized.

If our decisions & actions only brought about their natural consequences, that'd be true freedom.

[solomon]

Ok. I see no difference in your distinction however.

Sol

[Duemellon]

I'm all for laws and artificial hardships on those who break them. I'm not an anti-law anarchist. But I recognize that when we have methods of punishment which dont' have anything to do with the unadulterated consequences of the action, we are adding an unnatural incentive/coersive.

The distinction is that every law we create is to punish those who did something we deemed as wrong. It doesn't just make them live with their consequences, it adds to it.

That's coersion.

Back to THIS topic.

That is to demonstrate that coersion isn't always about putting a gun to someone's head, it's can also be about limiting options, creating artificial hardships/difficulties, and misleading through falsification or limited information.

That's how & why the corporate world scares me. They do these things and we watch them do it, and consider ourselves FREE to do what we want.

[yoshomon]

Capitalism gives the following choice to most people:

Get a job that you will most likely not enjoy, won't pay that much, will take a lot of my time, and that will objectify me.

OR

Be homeless, starving, what have you.


This economic situation is objectively forced upon us by Capitalism. I don't want to live in a society that does this. If we refuse to play by the rules, there IS threat of aggression. Not only the threat of police but economic aggression as well.

No matter how much you want to live outside the system, Capitalism forces you to buy into it (because it's a totalitarian socioeconomic system).

[tobedawg]

This economic situation is objectively forced upon us by Capitalism. I don't want to live in a society that does this. If we refuse to play by the rules, there IS threat of aggression. Not only the threat of police but economic aggression as well.

Very true point!! It seems that alot of these "Compassionate conservatives" feel that Homeless people are homeless by choice, therefore should be swept off of city streets where they don't create a nuisance.

I even had a woman try to tell me that homeless people make about $70,000 a year panhandling.. She was a Bush supporter who got back into her SUV after trying to argue with me.

I've actually gone out and talked to homeless people rather than scoff my nose at them and the ones that I've talked to have told me that it was their only desperate option. They didn't want to bother family or didn't have family to turn to which led them into their situation. Some of them were addicted to drugs which they had started using AFTER becoming homeless as a means to an end. A way of escaping. Others I've talked to have been entire families thrown on the street with nowhere else to go, And almost ALL of them want to find a job but won't get hired because they wear ratty clothes.

"Maybe they could turn to a government program?"

There are very few government programs that actually have the resources to help. Our homeless shelter here in town is only open during the winter. During the summer the homeless are back out onto the streets. The clothes that they can get through government programs are leftovers from places like St Vincent De Paul. And those leftovers are usually ratty or look like 1960's rag bag garb. How can they find a job in clothes like that?

It just sickens me that some of these conservatives who call themselves "Christians" can just scoff their nose at people who really need help but yet have the resources and time to go out and hold up signs outside of concerts to tell people they are "going to hell" or go out and harrass the children of doctors who perform abortions, or fight to take away the rights to gays or reverse affirmative action.

[solomon]

But I recognize that when we have methods of punishment which dont' have anything to do with the unadulterated consequences of the action, we are adding an unnatural incentive/coersive.

Ok, so that's what I'm wondering. Laws, jail time, restitution, are what YOU would call "unnatural" disincentives. So you are against this? It seems any consequence brought about by a human acting is unnatural. Well this distinction is useless I think. When you interact with humans you are going to get human reactions. There's nothing unnatural about them. You end up in an endless chain of unnatural consequences looking at it how you do. What about the robber's very action of robbing? Is this an "unnatural" consequence of some previous cause? And what about that cause's cause? It's useless. There are only consequences.

That's coersion.

No, that's JUSTICE. There's a difference. Putting a gun to someone's head and saying "Don't kill innocent people" is not the same as putting a gun to his head and saying "Give me your wallet". See the property right distinction here?

That is to demonstrate that coersion isn't always about putting a gun to someone's head, it's can also be about limiting options, creating artificial hardships/difficulties, and misleading through falsification or limited information.

It all depends on how these options are limited and the hardships created. Falsification is of course wrong. But people can use their property however they want and you have to look at it through property rights. If they set up "hardships" by forcibly blocking someone's driveway, yes that is wrong. If it's because this bar owner doesn't want this person as a bartender at his establishment for religious reasons, he has every right to do that.

Get a job that you will most likely not enjoy, won't pay that much, will take a lot of my time, and that will objectify me.

OR

Be homeless, starving, what have you.


Yes that's exactly right. Work or starve. Or find a way to get charity. Food, clothes, medicine, homes do not come out of thin air. They are the product of people's LABOR. And no one has a right to someone else's labor. If you want none of these things then fine, capitalism gives you the opportunity to not work, but you will suffer the consequences. You have no right to have people out working to make things for you while you just sit back and relax not having to give anything in return.

This economic situation is objectively forced upon us by Capitalism. I don't want to live in a society that does this. If we refuse to play by the rules, there IS threat of aggression. Not only the threat of police but economic aggression as well.

No, this is the economic situation of REALITY. You don't have to participate, go with your communist friends and form a commune. Or see what happens when you decide not to work and have to spend every minute worrying about survival. The "economic aggression" you speak of isn't aggression by any person it's the "aggression", if you want to call it that, of the reality of scarce resources and that work must be done to turn resources into useful things. Complaining about it is as useless as complaining about gravity.

Sol

[solomon]

It seems that alot of these "Compassionate conservatives" feel that Homeless people are homeless by choice, therefore should be swept off of city streets where they don't create a nuisance.

First of all I am not a "compassionate conservative". However, it's not that they are homeless by choice, but that they are homeless as a result of their choices. And of course, it goes without saying, that government policies have severely added to the problem.

They didn't want to bother family

Then it wasn't their only option. They had two options, and chose one.

Some of them were addicted to drugs which they had started using AFTER becoming homeless as a means to an end.

What end? Staying homeless forever or dying? Escape? Again, this person made a bad decision (with the assumption that he WANTS to leave his homeless situation) and the responsibility for it cannot be laid at ANYONE'S feet except his own. How does this person EVER expect to leave his situation of he gets addicted to drugs?

There are very few government programs that actually have the resources to help.

Government programs are the LAST thing you want. You get more of whatever you subsidize.

It just sickens me that some of these conservatives who call themselves "Christians" can just scoff their nose at people who really need help but yet have the resources and time to go out and hold up signs outside of concerts to tell people they are "going to hell" or go out and harrass the children of doctors who perform abortions, or fight to take away the rights to gays or reverse affirmative action.

Yeah, you are free to make that judgment. I kind of agree. But the answer is NOT government socialization and stealing money from people to achieve your goals.

Sol

[chicodaman]

I even had a woman try to tell me that homeless people make about $70,000 a year panhandling.. She was a Bush supporter who got back into her SUV after trying to argue with me.

How dare she have an opinion, earn a living, and then reward herself by buying a nice vehicle. Maybe she should quit her job so others will feel better about their situations.

Get a job that you will most likely not enjoy, won't pay that much, will take a lot of my time, and that will objectify me.

Hello!?! I don't think there are many people who truly "love" what they do completely. I would bet most people have issues with some aspect of their jobs. If not they can always find another one. That's the beauty of the system. I hate to sound like a fogey, but if go in figuring every day is going to be shitty, they all will be. I am thankful every day for everything I have. Sometimes the powers that be test this theory. I suck it up because it can always be worse. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.

[Duemellon]

Okay Sol, i see a distinction or two you're missing...

Unnatural consequences are any and ALL consequences that are not a direct derivative of the intial action without mankind's intervention.

Holding a rubber ball 4' over the ground and letting it go will lead to the natural consequence of it falling.

Dropping it onto your foot changes the consequence.

You seem to have this overwhelming urge to include laws, fines, and such, as something "natural". It's not. The natural consequences for armed robbery are depriving someone of their hard-earned cash, becoming a threat to society, and having money that wasn't yours.

The unnatural consequences are jail, investigation, vigilantiism, unclaimed income, etc, etc.

Anytime mankind includes incentives, deturrants, or whatever, that go beyond the natural consequences, you have man's attempt to manipulate behavior by altering the natural consequences.

When anything attempts to psychologically manipulate anything else, that is coersion.

Therefore, laws that alter the reward & punishment for behaviors are a form of coersion.

AND FUTHERMORE
Social standards which are artificial and have nothing to do with natural consequences are an attempt at manipulating behavior...
thus coersion.

Society says:
Thin women are more attractive.

They really aren't more attractive. They're only more attractive because society made us think so. Society manipulates our naturally occurring sense of attractiveness by rewarding/punishing our behavior.

Same applies for pop-culture, counter-culture, available products, etc...
Ok, so that's what I'm wondering. Laws, jail time, restitution, are what YOU would call "unnatural" disincentives. So you are against this?

vs.

I'm all for laws and artificial hardships on those who break them. I'm not an anti-law anarchist.'nuff said about that.No, that's JUSTICE.Justice is a code of behaviors & artificial consequences based on emotions and protocol that fluctuate dependent on the judge.

Justice is Santa Claus, we made it up. It's not REAL. We just chose to believe it so we can sleep at night.

The actual consequences of an action can be, and are almost ALWAYS unrelated to our imagined "justice".

In the natural world wtf does jail have to do the snake robbing eggs from a robin's nest? Does the owl make it a point to get THAT snake above all else? Does the older, wiser, snake send the other snake to it's corner for a time-out? Does the robin file a civil-suit? or report it to the po-po? The REAL natural consequences are apparent and unadulterated. We, however, have developed artificial means of en/disccouraging behavoir through added incentives/deturrants.

coersion.

As for the concept of no work = no food, that's an interesting and palatable concept. I do believe, Yosh, you'll need to develop your definition of "no work" a bit better.

For me, I find myself feeling uncomfortable in a society that bases a person's worth on their money (external perception, not internal). I'd just as soon date a rich person as I would a poor one. Heh, but for some reason they all look at my "class" as a determinant to whether or not we'd be a good match. Doesn't that strike you as odd? We don't call it "income" we apply this "class" to mean some form of expected behaviors & capabilities?... oh man, starting to deviate...

The point of that mental junket was to bring it back the point of non-compliance with mainstream society causing undue rewards/hardships which are unnatural consequences in an attempt to coerse specific behavior.

[chicodaman]

The point of that mental junket was to bring it back the point of non-compliance with mainstream society causing undue rewards/hardships which are unnatural consequences in an attempt to coerse specific behavior

Are you saying armed robbery is a non-compliance of the mainstream? Do you think it should be belittled like that? You obviously haven't been robbed with a gun aimed at your face. That's quite a naive comparison.

Social standards which are artificial and have nothing to do with natural consequences are an attempt at manipulating behavior...

Should we just let every action, whether for the better or worse of society, go without any kind of guidelines. There would be total chaos. We wouldn't need to worry about coercion, we wouldn't live long enough to deal with it.

BTW, I don' think thin women are more attractive.

[Duemellon]

Should we just let every action, whether for the better or worse of society, go without any kind of guidelines. There would be total chaos. We wouldn't need to worry about coercion, we wouldn't live long enough to deal with it.

vs.

I'm all for laws and artificial hardships on those who break them. I'm not an anti-law anarchist. that's the 3rd time i've said it in the last 3 posts.

I want recognition that popular society uses coersion to get compliance. Society, justice, fairness, are all things we made up. There really is no true "justice". There is no real "social model" that is great & wonderful. Fairness is an emotional response using hard and soft data.

Laws, the deturrants & rewards they promise, are a form of coersion. It is not the natural state of things. That's my point.Are you saying armed robbery is a non-compliance of the mainstream? Do you think it should be belittled like that? You obviously haven't been robbed with a gun aimed at your face. That's quite a naive comparison. yes, it is a deviation from the mainstream. I don't see how it's any different in that categorization than jaywalking, or swearing at your parents, or even staying abstinent until marriage. Yes, there are degrees of danger, threat, and such, but they all still fall in the category of non-compliance to society.

That includes killing your parents and eating their genitals all the way to piercing your eyebrow. The same category I'm talkin about.BTW, I don' think thin women are more attractive. what's your interpretation of "thin" for a 5'6" woman? 100? 90? 80? 120? 130? Do you think the majority of society would turn up their nose at your interpretation of "thin"? or would they consider your choice of women to be "generous"?

Social deviant... down right HERETIC!

[chicodaman]

Society, justice, fairness, are all things we made up.
If society is just something WE ( you, I, et al ) made up, how can we coerce ourselves into compliance. You don't have to follow the societal standards, you just may have to deal with the backlash of those who choose to.

[Duemellon]

You don't have to follow the societal standards, you just may have to deal with the backlash of those who choose to. if the only backlash for non-participation was no longer being a participant, that's one thing...

But being a non-participant in THIS country means additional hardships beyond the natural consquences of isolation, are coming your way.*

Society is a self-fulfilling/perpetuating state of being. It doesn't personally need my or your help to continue, but all it needs is someone to claim a standard of behavior and it lives for ALL of us.

*You chose to speak Swahili instead of english. People don't just simply misunderstand you, they ostracize you, or treat you like an alternate-human-being.

You're a man wearing women's clothes all day, everyday. You miss job opportunities, you are harassed for non-compliance, and you have to constantly identify yourself as a particular gender. Of course, wearing women's clothes only REALLY affects how much they cost, the color available, and if you have a lil' more breeze down below.

You're a woman in a man's job. The only real consquence is... well... none, unless your physically incapable of performing the task due to your gender.

You never seen any Star Wars movie, read a book, or even bought a SW comic. The real consequence is that you miss 1% of our society's jokes & referrences. The artificial consequences may vary, but they're there.

[chicodaman]

Dare I say we agree ... sorta
You're a man wearing women's clothes all day, everyday. You miss job opportunities, you are harassed for non-compliance
That was kind of mine ( and I think Sol's, but I don't want to wrongly speak for him ) point in that if you reap what you sow.
It may not be kind, but if you sway far from societal standards, certain groups will probably ostracize you. But you know what, that's okay because other groups will accept you . One persons junk is another ones treasure. True for people, too.
This board is living proof of that. We agree that we disagree. Probably numerous people here who were shunned by "click's" for a lack of better words. You know what though, fuck everyone of them and everyone who looks like them. If we find our niche and can stay content with who we are and what we have it's nobody else's concern.

[Duemellon]

That was kind of mine ( and I think Sol's, but I don't want to wrongly speak for him ) point in that if you reap what you sow. the part we disagree on is the validity, or necessity, of having some of these rules.

There honestly is no difference between gender clothes types that hinder performance at most any job. The bulk of the negative consequences to this deviation are artificial. There are many more examples when a deviation is treated as a major crime against society when it's actual consequences are minor/trivial/exaggerated.

How can selling drugs to someone seeking drugs be a greater crime than rape? Or killing an abusive husband get you 20-life yet if the same husband kills you while abusing you he gets 3-5? Or possession of a gun gets you less time than giving a minor a cigarette when death rates due to smoking is higher?

Normally we justify the artificial consequences by giving the deviation greater weight. Sometimes our personal morality convinces us the contrary. However, generally speaking, we think that armed robbery is a worse crime than securities fraud, yet securities fraud costs more dollars per incident.

[Phreon]

Originally posted by yoshomon
Capitalism gives the following choice to most people:

Get a job that you will most likely not enjoy, won't pay that much, will take a lot of my time, and that will objectify me.

OR

Be homeless, starving, what have you.


This economic situation is objectively forced upon us by Capitalism.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that life is not a free trip do Diznee Land? The two options listed above that Capitalism supposedly gives you seem to me to be the closest to nature.


If you were naked in the middle of the rain forest, you could either:

A) Work to build shelter and find food

or

B) Don't work because you don't feel like it and DIE

This same principal drives Capitalism; If you don't feel like working, why should you reap any benefit? Aside from the truely disabled, those who don't feel like working can suffer the concequences of their actions. In all fairness, they can piss off; I worked my ass off for the meager pay I make; why the fuck should anyone have the audacity to feel they're entitled to a slice of my pie?

Besides, there are more than two options. You could start your own company. Or leave the country. Just remember that in this world, you are owed nothing; you have to work for it.

Capitalism may be harsh, but it mirrors real life, unlike Socialism, a system that short circuits the action/reward link and leads to economic malaise. Why work when you can get leech of other people? Most folks aren't altruistic enough for Socialism/Communism to work.


Phreon

Phreon

[tobedawg]

Besides, there are more than two options. You could start your own company. Or leave the country.

uh oh.. here we go again.. Capitalism.. Love it or Leave it!!

Just remember that in this world, you are owed nothing; you have to work for it.

What about people born into wealth?? or people born into poverty? Did the people born into wealth Work their way in the womb? and the people born into poverty just leached off the womb?

People born into Wealth have a very unfair advantage over those born into poverty. People born into Wealth are set for life while people born into poverty will possibly never have the same opportunities as those born into wealth have had. They will have to work 10 times more than those born into wealth to keep food on the table and a roof over their head. How is this a fair and just system? Should parents who can't feed their kids at night tell them, that they are "owed nothing. That they will have to work for it". I guess that's why there's sweatshops and child prostitution.

[Duemellon]

Besides, there are more than two options. You could start your own company. Or leave the country. having multiple choices is an illusion. The first and only choice is participation or non-participation.Capitalism may be harsh, but it mirrors real life, no, real life is a world without social structure, laws, or non-survival pressures.

Real life wouldn't have money, businesses, policemen, or marriage.

Capitalism's faults are glaring and numerous. It is not the epitome of human social evolution, it is yet another step.

If it REALLY was all the great everyone would want to live here. Oh, that's right, you're fed that bullshit that everyone WANTS to be here, "America is great! It's free!" Go ahead, give me personal testimony about those who are over here and love it here...

just remember, they're the ones who came over here. Ask about the friends and family they left behind who said "never in a million years bucko"

[yoshomon]

The most intimate reactions of human beings have been so thoroughly reified that the idea of anything specific to themselves now persists only as an utterly abstract notion: personality scarcely signifies anything more than shining white teeth and freedom from body odour and emotions. The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them.

culture:
The reflection and prefiguration at any given historical moment, of the possible organization of daily life; the complex of mores, aesthetic, and feelings by which a collective reacts to a life which is objectively given to it by its economy.

"Mirrors real life". What bullshit. Your view of reality, your culture, everything about you is influenced and molded by the society that you live in. Capitalism doesn't mirror life, life is forced to mirror capitalism. Personally, I have a problem with that.

[yoshomon]

found this article for solomon:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/loot9401-free-market.html

[solomon]

Due

I completely see the distinction you are making, but I think it's useless. This world of "true freedom" is a world devoid of all human action. What's the point? We're talking about DEALING with humans here. Ok call it unnatural. I don't care. I don't see how that changes anything. People act and make choices and interact with others. And you yourself aren't a proponent of this "ideal" since you said you agree with justice etc.

There is a distinction YOU aren't making though. Social pressures and marketing etc are PERSUASION. You call it coercion and it is not, it is persuasion. Coercion is choices under threat of violence. Nike doesn't say "wear our new shoes or we will come over and break your legs." Instead they tell you how cool you will be and everyone will like you etc etc which you can accept or ignore. The state operates on coercion. You do what they say or they WILL come make you.

You seem to have this overwhelming urge to include laws, fines, and such, as something "natural". It's not. The natural consequences for armed robbery are depriving someone of their hard-earned cash, becoming a threat to society, and having money that wasn't yours.

Okay so those are the "natural" effects but what about his action, the cause? Is that natural? See, you are framing all human action as unnatural. I see no purpose in this.

Justice is a defense to a previous act of aggression. Again, the distinction is aggression and violence. Holding someone up and demanding they do a cartwheel is different than holding someone up because they just murdered someone.

Justice is a code of behaviors & artificial consequences based on emotions and protocol that fluctuate dependent on the judge.

That's how it is now, in our legistlation-happy society. But not how it always was in the common law era. Law (justice) was an immutable body of concepts, based on nonaggression.

In the natural world wtf does jail have to do the snake robbing eggs from a robin's nest? Does the owl make it a point to get THAT snake above all else? Does the older, wiser, snake send the other snake to it's corner for a time-out? Does the robin file a civil-suit? or report it to the po-po? The REAL natural consequences are apparent and unadulterated. We, however, have developed artificial means of en/disccouraging behavoir through added incentives/deturrants.

The owl isn't smart enough. Animals aren't smart enough to comprehend things like justice. That doesn't mean justice is invalid because an owl doesn't understand it. Pluto exists, even though ants are unaware of it.

Let me clarify something. Even though I am anti-state, I see what the state's INTENDED purpose is. States are formed, in the usually accepted theory, to protect people from property-rights violations. The reason I don't see laws preventing murder rape theft etc as coercion is because these are basically "the people" delegating their right to self defense to the State. And I don't see self-defense as coercion. If someone comes up and says they are going punch me out, and I say look man, I"m going to swing back, that's not coercion. Coercion is if I tell him I will punch him if he doesn't "choose" to give me his tools.

For me, I find myself feeling uncomfortable in a society that bases a person's worth on their money (external perception, not internal). I'd just as soon date a rich person as I would a poor one.

Me too. As I've said, just because I think people should be free to make their own values and do what they want nonaggresively with their property, doesn't mean I ADVOCATE certain decisions they might make or values they might have.

Heh, but for some reason they all look at my "class" as a determinant to whether or not we'd be a good match. Doesn't that strike you as odd? We don't call it "income" we apply this "class" to mean some form of expected behaviors & capabilities?... oh man, starting to deviate...

It doesn't really strike me as odd. I believe males and females are biologically programmed to seek certain traits in mates, and women tend to seek good providers with lots of resources, and someone belonging to the "upper class" is usually a good signal of this. Also someone who got themselves into the "upper class" in a free market society likely does possess positive traits such as discipline, diligence, intelligence and ambition.

The point of that mental junket was to bring it back the point of non-compliance with mainstream society causing undue rewards/hardships which are unnatural consequences in an attempt to coerse specific behavior.

I think you are failing to make a vital distinction between persuasion and coercion.

Sol

[solomon]

Society, justice, fairness, are all things we made up. There really is no true "justice". There is no real "social model" that is great & wonderful. Fairness is an emotional response using hard and soft data.

Yes we did make these things up, or they were programmed into us through evolution, but that's because they serve a PURPOSE. They help us survive and increase our standards of living. Sure, Dictatorship is a better model if you are the dictator, but if you value the END of freedom, civilization, technological advancement, and increasing standards of living and comfort, there IS a social/economic model that is the "best".

having multiple choices is an illusion. The first and only choice is participation or non-participation.

No, these aren't illusions, they are the NEXT choices. You're right, you choose to participate or not participate first. I could say your choice of participation or non participation is an illusion since the first choice is whether you want be alive or dead. But that's ridiculous. They are all choices, and some are made after others.

Capitalism's faults are glaring and numerous. It is not the epitome of human social evolution, it is yet another step.

What are these numerous faults? What could be the next step of human evolution that would be BETTER than voluntary interaction based on nonaggression?

If it REALLY was all the great everyone would want to live here. Oh, that's right, you're fed that bullshit that everyone WANTS to be here, "America is great! It's free!" Go ahead, give me personal testimony about those who are over here and love it here...

Well, for many of these people the value of staying with their families and friends and a familiar environment supercedes the value of any material gain they might receive from moving here. That doesn't mean they would reject an american system or american wealth if it suddenly descended upon them.

Sol

[solomon]

Why work when you can get leech of other people? Most folks aren't altruistic enough for Socialism/Communism to work.

It couldn't work even if they WERE that altruistic.

People born into Wealth have a very unfair advantage over those born into poverty. People born into Wealth are set for life while people born into poverty will possibly never have the same opportunities as those born into wealth have had. They will have to work 10 times more than those born into wealth to keep food on the table and a roof over their head. How is this a fair and just system? Should parents who can't feed their kids at night tell them, that they are "owed nothing. That they will have to work for it". I guess that's why there's sweatshops and child prostitution.

Yes, and some people are born into life blind. It's not fair. What are you going to do about it? Sure, some kids luck out and are born into extremely rich families. But you don't have a right to go around with your guns confiscating people's property to satisfy YOUR desire to help other people out. Help them out with your property and persuade me to help. The fact that I am, hypothetically, a very productive person doesn't mean I'm guilty for someone being born to unproductive parents.

The most intimate reactions of human beings have been so thoroughly reified that the idea of anything specific to themselves now persists only as an utterly abstract notion: personality scarcely signifies anything more than shining white teeth and freedom from body odour and emotions.

Where do you get this stuff? Capitalism has nothing to do with the fact that people prefer healthy teeth to unhealthy teeth, and pleasant odors to foul ones. People have been trying to sell themselves as mates and trading partners forever, or as good informants or potentials to government agents in other systems.

The triumph of advertising in the culture industry is that consumers feel compelled to buy and use its products even though they see through them.

Huh? This is a baseless assertion.

Sol

[Duemellon]

call it persuasion, call it coersion, call it mufuto-ab-kijina, i think you understand my point.

Voluntary action based on non-aggression? Interesting choice of words. I'd say it's a participant-rewarding system based on arbitrary determination of financial value.

It uses social pressures around the framework of legal codes to indoctrinate and encourage participation in a light that makes non-participation appear a personal choice, not a circumstancial occurance.

Disenfranchised people are that way because they're slow, lazy, or don't take opportunities. Those that are born into disenfranchisement should hold their forebears responsible for their condition. Even though the choice was made by the previous generation, it effects are logically applicable to their heirs.

Those born into a position of freedom have the right to use their circumstantial advantage to retain the advantage while those in a disadvantaged state must put all their efforts into attaining the level of freedom given to those who benefit from society.

Basically, the rich are free & equal. The poor are not.

Or, maybe the rich are just more free & equal?

[Duemellon]

and pleasant odors to foul ones. as most anyone would attest, the idea that human body-odor is a foul smell is a cultural concept, not an instinctual reaction.

Like, for real, I will become particularly infatuated with any woman who has this "particular" scent in her sweat. Yeah, most women don't have that scent, but I just thought i'd debunk that with personal testimony.Yes, and some people are born into life blind. It's not fair. What are you going to do about it? what is the biggest issue you have with socialism/communism? The threat of violence for non-compliance? If a socialist society which ensures every person born has the same opportunities to succeed without violence, or threat of, would you be in favor of that?

[solomon]

call it persuasion, call it coersion, call it mufuto-ab-kijina, i think you understand my point.

No there is a BIG difference and it's kind of the crux of this discussion because it seemed to me your point was that free market capitalism is coercive just like the State or something. But it's persuasive and there is a critical difference between the two.

I'd say it's a participant-rewarding system based on arbitrary determination of financial value.

Yeah, workers get rewarded if you want to put it like that. But not by some big body handing out rewards, rather though trade with other workers. Determination of price happens as the result of the supply and demand process, it's not arbitrary.

Those born into a position of freedom have the right to use their circumstantial advantage to retain the advantage while those in a disadvantaged state must put all their efforts into attaining the level of freedom given to those who benefit from society.

Ok don't really follow here. I don't see what you mean by position of freedom, or "those who benefit from society".

sol

[solomon]

as most anyone would attest, the idea that human body-odor is a foul smell is a cultural concept, not an instinctual reaction.

Ok. My point was that people probably preferred nice smells in communist societies and dictatorships as well and it's not just a consequence of living in a free capitalist society.

what is the biggest issue you have with socialism/communism? The threat of violence for non-compliance? If a socialist society which ensures every person born has the same opportunities to succeed without violence, or threat of, would you be in favor of that?

Well, like I've said, my biggest problem with communism and socialism is economic calculation. I don't believe socialism/communism can exist at all, let alone exist without state enforcement.

Next is the problem of state coercion. A socialist society that could provide opportunities for everyone without violence or theft would be better theoretically but that's impossible. This would REQUIRE some kind of wealth transfer or state coercion of property owners. Central planners don't produce anything, so they have no funds. And they must get their funds somehow in order to do their planning, see that funds go to the right places, and provide for themselves. This all necessitates theft from producers.

Sol

[Duemellon]

Ok don't really follow here. I don't see what you mean by position of freedom, or "those who benefit from society". I use "more free" to denote a status of greater personal power to do what you will. In capitalism, it's someone born with either wealth, or some other characteristic in high demand.

Basically it's to explain that those with greater discresionary funds are more free to do whatever they want according to capitalism. No, it's not one of it's main points, but it's an undeniable result of the setting.Determination of price happens as the result of the supply and demand process, it's not arbitrary. every day the value fluctuates, not just based on the technical side of supply & demand, but the emotional side of it too. I couldn't walk three feet in a store without seeing a pokemon card set a few years ago, now they're way in the back. Why? Is it because the actual necessity for the commodity is less? or has the emotional clamour for them abated? If something's value is based on an emotional response, and emotional response isn't something directly controlled, then it makes the value arbitrary.No there is a BIG difference and it's kind of the crux of this discussion because it seemed to me your point was that free market capitalism is coercive just like the State or something. then i still disagree with your definition of coersion. In free-market capitalism there is a threat, not only of violence, but excommunication, withholding, and overlooking. Non-compliance doesn't just breed the inability to achieve, there are artificial rewards and deturrants in place to encourage participation.

Do you have a propostion where everyone is born with the same capabilities to succeed?

[yoshomon]

solomon, read the article I posted a link to.

[solomon]

every day the value fluctuates, not just based on the technical side of supply & demand, but the emotional side of it too. I couldn't walk three feet in a store without seeing a pokemon card set a few years ago, now they're way in the back. Why? Is it because the actual necessity for the commodity is less? or has the emotional clamour for them abated? If something's value is based on an emotional response, and emotional response isn't something directly controlled, then it makes the value arbitrary.

I meant it's not arbitrary like someone declares with no market process "This object will cost 10 dollars". Prices are formed through a process.

Every second prices fluctuate. Supply and demand takes into account all factors affecting supply and demand, including emotions. There is less of a demand for pokemon cards, it doesn't matter why, and it doesn't matter why the demand was there in the first place. Demand was there, cards were supplied, demand is gone, cards aren't supplied anymore. Works like a charm.

By the way I think it is helpful to use the word "price" instead of "value" because, although it's repeated ad nauseum, price is not a 'measure of value' in actuality, because interpersonal values cannot be measured in any exact way.

then i still disagree with your definition of coersion.

This IS the definition of coercion.

In free-market capitalism there is a threat, not only of violence, but excommunication, withholding, and overlooking.

But the people bringing on these consequences are not the people who were a party in the transaction in question. For instance, if I try to sell you a baseball hat, you refuse, and you get beaten up for not wearing it, there is no coercion here on my part - in the transaction process of the free market. It's a totally separate incident from our transaction.

And again, you aren't making the distinction between coercion and persuasion. Coercion is an act or threat of AGGRESSION, it's an act of commission, not omission. If people refuse to deal with you, or threaten to refuse to deal with you, this is not an act of aggression on their part, since acts of aggression are property rights violations, and someone refusing to do business with you is not invading your property in any way.

Do you have a propostion where everyone is born with the same capabilities to succeed?

No of course not, because that's impossible. Genetic engineering maybe? Then maybe everyone can be equally attractive, equally intelligent, equally strong, and have the same capabilities to succeed. What a world. Everyone the same.

solomon, read the article I posted a link to.

I will. I browsed the beginning and it seemed to be discussing how bad it is what the government and business does. I have no disagreements there. But the corruptive and violent element is government. I will read the whole thing and get back to you.

Sol