But but but billionaires! waaahhhhhhhh

[Squarechoke]

Is the implication here that you think they were more of a free-market than a socialist country?

No. Is the implication of your post that you don't know what fascism is?

 

[helltoupee]

There was public (state) owned means of production.

I'd like to read more about what this means exactly. Do you have some sources?

Lastly, I'm honestly having trouble reconciling your position itt. When we were having a conversation about the 2ndA, you made some good points about people being inherently selfish and greedy, therefore the need to have firearms. It seems as though now you are trusting that billionaires won't use their leverage to obtain more power, which we have seen throughout history. Honestly confused.

 

[HomerThompson]

It's not about kneeling, and there's no "them." And, no, property rights don't exist without gov't. I've used the example of enclosures before (and @Limbo Pete could add to this, using some earlier examples). You have peasants farming on common land, and the gov't closes it off and gives or sells it to individuals. Now the peasants have no way to survive except by working for someone who owns property (and helping that along, vagrancy is made a crime-- punishable by death in some cases). That's how we get wage workers (and the Industrial Revolution) and property. The mechanisms aren't always the same, but something like that is where property comes from. You bring up Locke in support of your own position, but he recognized the issue:



Basically, as long as others have access to land of equal value, there's no issue with enclosing some of it. But in modern societies, it's all enclosed. That is a gov't-imposed restriction on the freedom of people. On the other hand, the system that enclosures led to produced great wealth continues to. So we don't necessarily want to go back. But it's small consolation to the masses if the system (that entails forcibly keeping them from using land) produces great wealth that doesn't benefit them. The only moral solutions from that perspective are either stop maintaining property rights or redistribute the benefits of the system. And the first of those, while morally defensible, is terrible from a practical standpoint.



Note that "ownership" of a business in that sense is a gov't-granted ability to take the product of the labor of others. As with land ownership, it can be defended on the grounds that it leads to more wealth creation, but that defense only matters if the benefits of that additional wealth creation are broadly enjoyed.



If you don't value human freedom, then, yes, labor is irrelevant. Just an "input" into a mechanical process that deserves no more consideration than a rock. But if you see human well-being (with freedom an essential part of that) as the object of policy, labor (the activity of humans) is fundamentally different.

 

[hillelslovak87]

They're, by necessary consequence, successful at giving people what they want. What makes them pieces of shit for doing that?

Jamie Dimon is not giving anyone what they want, and people like The Waltons have created companies too big to fail, quite like big banks. They siphon billions from the treasury by limiting employee hours while not offering their employees adequate benefits, keeping them on taxpayer funded services, and choking out smaller businesses wherever they go.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Or, it’s a picture of the president enjoying a sweet treat, asking how with all the available flavors, including the sweet one he’s enjoying, you choose salty.


Now, if you’d like me to explain anything else, fuck off

Sometimes a chocolate ice cream bar is a chocolate ice cream bar........

 

[Jack V Savage]

How would you describe the allocation of the means of production in the USSR then?

Obviously, there was a sham democracy. So there was a pretense of it being publicly owned.

 

[HunterAcosta]

Those workers are employed only because the billionaire found a way to give people something they wanted with the capital they had on hand.

Instead of throwing a temper tantrum about people that have wealth because they created wealth, why don't you try to start a business for yourself and see how easy it is to "exploit" workers.

What a fucking great idea. Thanks for the advice. Will do. And commenting on something isnt a temper tantrum. Glad life is great for you and everybody you know. And the capital was made again, off peoples backs. And im okay with that. The point is the game is rigged in a lot of places, thats all. And this country is starting to turn into that. Yeah ill start a mom and pop shop. Oh wait....amazon and wal mart have a monopoly on whatever the fuck im selling most likely. I hear what you are saying and yes, People can make it. Its just getting harder and harder for folks. If you cant see that, than we agree to disagree.

 

[Gandhi]

Oooooohh please save some of that salt for later I'm having fish n chips fa dinner. And how does this billionaire oligarch conspiracy affect you? In America it makes you rich, even if you're one of the poorest people in the country.

No it does not.

Policy has resulted in the top making massive gains historically while everyone else in the USA has basically stayed still.

The west has always been better of than the rest of the world, that would be true without the massive gains for the top only.

 

[HomerThompson]

The distinction that makes them conventionally "right" was their nationalism. They were socialist, however, like every other governance that committed mass genocide.

No, what makes them right is their Fascism.

 

[djacobox372]

Typical rent = 12k a year
Typical health insurance cost = 14k a year
Typical car payment = 6k a year

I'm already at 32k a year for just those three things.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Typical rent = 12k a year
Typical health insurance cost = 14k a year
Typical car payment = 6k a year

I'm already at 32k a year for just those three things.

The prevailing argument from the MAGtards seems to be "Just pull yourself up by your boot straps, and jump into a dumpster for your food!!"

 

[Falsedawn]

The distinction that makes them conventionally "right" was their nationalism. They were socialist, however, like every other governance that committed mass genocide.

Here we go with the "Nazis were socialists" dipshittery again.

Tell me greoric, how were the Nazis socialist without espousing the tenet of social ownership? You know, the baseline of socialist economic theory?

I mean, it's like you guys haven't thought about this in any kind of detail beyond "well, it's in the name"! Private property and social ownership don't vibe together, at least not in any tangible way that looks like socialism.

 

[Higus]

 

[sub_thug]

It's not about kneeling, and there's no "them." And, no, property rights don't exist without gov't. I've used the example of enclosures before (and @Limbo Pete could add to this, using some earlier examples). You have peasants farming on common land, and the gov't closes it off and gives or sells it to individuals. Now the peasants have no way to survive except by working for someone who owns property (and helping that along, vagrancy is made a crime-- punishable by death in some cases). That's how we get wage workers (and the Industrial Revolution) and property. The mechanisms aren't always the same, but something like that is where property comes from. You bring up Locke in support of your own position, but he recognized the issue:

Property rights absolutely exist without the government. It's a natural right, just as life and liberty. I will not budge on this, and there is no exception to be made.

Basically, as long as others have access to land of equal value, there's no issue with enclosing some of it. But in modern societies, it's all enclosed. That is a gov't-imposed restriction on the freedom of people. On the other hand, the system that enclosures led to produced great wealth continues to. So we don't necessarily want to go back. But it's small consolation to the masses if the system (that entails forcibly keeping them from using land) produces great wealth that doesn't benefit them. The only moral solutions from that perspective are either stop maintaining property rights or redistribute the benefits of the system. And the first of those, while morally defensible, is terrible from a practical standpoint.

Huh? Each individual is free to purchase land from another in order to build wealth. It's also worth noting that skills, ideas, and capabilities are capable of generating wealth without the need for owning land and without the need to act as a wage worker. It is the duty of the government to protect individual property rights, but that is very different than granting those rights.

Note that "ownership" of a business in that sense is a gov't-granted ability to take the product of the labor of others. As with land ownership, it can be defended on the grounds that it leads to more wealth creation, but that defense only matters if the benefits of that additional wealth creation are broadly enjoyed.

That's not true. You can absolutely sell goods and services without the permission of the government. Independent contractors do it all the time.

If you don't value human freedom, then, yes, labor is irrelevant. Just an "input" into a mechanical process that deserves no more consideration than a rock. But if you see human well-being (with freedom an essential part of that) as the object of policy, labor (the activity of humans) is fundamentally different.

That runs totally counter to the views of Locke. Locke said that input of value or labor consisted in the natural rights of ownership. How can you say that input deserves no more consider than a rock?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here we go with the "Nazis were socialists" dipshittery again.

Tell me greoric, how were the Nazis socialist without espousing the tenet of social ownership? You know, the baseline of socialist economic theory?

I mean, it's like you guys haven't thought about this in any kind of detail beyond "well, it's in the name"! Private property and social ownership don't vibe together, at least not in any tangible way that looks like socialism.

It's an absurd argument. Nazis considered themselves on the right, their allies were on the right, their opponents were on the left, their modern defenders are on the right, etc., by any definition they're on the right.

To dishonest cheerleaders like Farmer and Greoric, the real thinking doesn't go beyond, "the right is good, the left is bad; Nazis were bad; therefore Nazis were on the left." What's weird is that you often have the same far-right nutters defending Nazis and insisting that they were actually on the left.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Billionaires do literally nothing to effect the average person

there's not some set finite pool of money, that they get more of as we get less of....

the economy grows ffs
Right now, the average middle class person, shit even lower class person in the Western World has a better life than Absolute Monarchs in the 19th Century.....

 

[sub_thug]

It's an absurd argument. Nazis considered themselves on the right, their allies were on the right, their opponents were on the left, their modern defenders are on the right, etc., by any definition they're on the right, etc.

To dishonest cheerleaders like Farmer and Greoric, the real thinking doesn't go beyond, "the right is good, the left is bad; Nazis were bad; therefore Nazis were on the left." What's weird is that you often have the same far-right nutters defending Nazis and insisting that they were actually on the left.

The same thing happens with the USSR and Communism on the left. It's not a unique problem.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Property rights absolutely exist without the government. It's a natural right, just as life and liberty. I will not budge on this, and there is no exception to be made.

You're making a factual statement that you can check (just look up enclosures). You're simply mistaken here. It's not a matter of opinion.

Huh? Each individual is free to purchase land from another in order to build wealth.

Not sure what you're not understanding. You cited Locke, and I pointed out that he didn't agree with you. He recognized the value of the gov't creating private property but also the downside. If it can be done without harm to anyone else, it's good; otherwise, it's more problematic.

It's also worth noting that skills, ideas, and capabilities are capable of generating wealth without the need for owning land and without the need to act as a wage worker. It is the duty of the government to protect individual property rights, but that is very different than granting those rights.

It's further worth noting that gov't force is behind the value of ideas, at least. Again, that policy decision is defensible, but it has to actually be defended, and the pros and cons should be weighed. To claim that we have no right to do it otherwise is just an argument from ungrounded authority.

That's not true. You can absolutely sell goods and services without the permission of the government. Independent contractors do it all the time.

That's not what I said. If I buy shares in a company (or own it full on), that means the gov't is insisting that a portion (or all) of what the workers in that company produce goes to me.

That runs totally counter to the views of Locke. Locke said that input of value or labor consisted in the natural rights of ownership. How can you say that input deserves no more consider than a rock?

Read what I wrote again.

 

[HomerThompson]

there's not some set finite pool of money, that they get more of as we get less of....

There is a set amount of wealth created in a given year. The distribution of that wealth in society in that given year is also a set amount.

Right now, the average middle class person, shit even lower class person in the Western World has a better life than Absolute Monarchs in the 19th Century.....

Everyone calm down, we have it better than people living under an Absolute Monarchy. No need to try to improve society any further.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Billionaires do literally nothing to effect the average person

there's not some set finite pool of money, that they get more of as we get less of....

the economy grows ffs
Right now, the average middle class person, shit even lower class person in the Western World has a better life than Absolute Monarchs in the 19th Century.....

LOL! Of course there's a finite pool of money (and all other resources, like land). We don't live in some magical fairyland.

The same thing happens with the USSR and Communism on the left. It's not a unique problem.

OK. We're admitting that it's a problem, then? This dishonest attempt by Farmer and Greoric to rewrite history (and ignore the present)?