26 Feb 19
@whodey saidYou forgot "OBAMA AND HILARY! You feeling okay?
I see, so the economy is booming because of increased taxes along with building infrastructure and taxing the wealthy.
Gee, you would think a state like Illinois would be doing just as well.
It would not have to do with anything...............say............like all the corporate giants in California like in Silicon Valley or anything, right?
26 Feb 19
@averagejoe1 saidEver hear of Thomas Jefferson?
Natural Rights? What in the world?...............................
He was highly influenced by Locke.
26 Feb 19
@averagejoe1 saidI don't believe there should be "private property":
“Divvying up of the world into private property “. You say that like it is ‘not ‘good’. Is it? Good? Or is it not good? Private property rights, that is. What say you??
We simply don’t want a world without personal property — the things meant for individual consumption. Instead, socialists strive for a society without private property — the things that give the people who own them power over those who don’t.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the socialist vision: abolishing private ownership of the things we all need and use — factories, banks, offices, natural resources, utilities, communication and transportation infrastructure — and replacing it with social ownership, thereby undercutting the power of elites to hoard wealth and power. And that’s also the ethical appeal of socialism: a world where people don’t try to control others for personal gain, but instead cooperate so that everyone can flourish.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/socialism-marxism-private-property-person-lennon-imagine-kenny-loggins/
26 Feb 19
@averagejoe1 saidI meant exactly what I said.
Let me get this straight. A deli should be owned by the people who work there?????????????????. I have no idea what you are saying. It should be owned by my Cousin Vinny, who pays people mjnimum wage, or more, depending on their value. NOT owned by the people who work there. What do you mean?
Cousin Vinny doesn't pay the workers their value; he pays them as little as he can get away with and keeps the rest of the value of their work as profit. Workers are obliged to work for some Cousin Vinny or another at less than their value because the practical alternative is starvation as all the world's resources have already been divvied up:
Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary" undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest) plus the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. As Immanuel Wallerstein points out in The Capitalist World System (vol. 1), capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists using inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally to conquest and forcible seizure. Thus denial of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the principle of "might makes right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, "the means of life must be taken for what they literally are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to people is more than 'theft'... it is outright homicide." [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 187]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore the existence of the labour market depends on the worker being separated from the means of production. The natural basis of capitalism is wage labour, wherein the majority have little option but to sell their skills, labour and time to those who do own the means of production. In advanced capitalist countries, less than 10% of the working population are self-employed (in 1990, 7.6% in the UK, 8% in the USA and Canada - however, this figure includes employers as well, meaning that the number of self-employed workers is even smaller!). Hence for the vast majority, the labour market is their only option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general, you have to work for someone. This is because of past "initiation of force" by the capitalist class and the state which have created the objective conditions within which we make our employment decisions. Before any specific labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from the means of production is an established fact (and the resulting "labour" market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class). So while we can usually pick which capitalist to work for, we, in general, cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the economy is tiny, which indicates well how spurious capitalist liberty actually is).
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB4.html#secb43
26 Feb 19
@whodey saidIllinois seems to be doing pretty well: The economy of Illinois is the fifth largest by GDP in the United States and one of the most diversified economies in the world.[9] The Chicago metropolitan area is home to many of the United States' largest companies, including Allstate, Boeing, Caterpillar, Kraft Heinz, McDonald's, Motorola, United Airlines, Walgreens, and more. The Chicago area headquarters a wide variety of financial institutions, and is home to the largest futures exchange in the world, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
I see, so the economy is booming because of increased taxes along with building infrastructure and taxing the wealthy.
Gee, you would think a state like Illinois would be doing just as well.
It would not have to do with anything...............say............like all the corporate giants in California like in Silicon Valley or anything, right?
The 2018 total gross state product for Illinois was $857 billion, placing it fifth in the nation. The 2015 median household income was $59,588.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Illinois#cite_note-10
Why do those corporate giants stay in such a socialist hellhole as California?
26 Feb 19
@averagejoe1 saidLiberty is not "freedom from government", whatever that is.
I am with you. But you are not about liberty. Freedom from govt. That is tantamount to Socialism!!!!!!
Liberty is freedom from tyranny.
You really should give our founding documents a read sometime.
26 Feb 19
@averagejoe1 saidIf your view of democratic socialism is based only on a few notes in Wikipedia,
I am no expert, but I did just check Wikipedia and I think it confirms what I just wrote, considering it advocates political democracy alongside Social Ownership of the means of production. This is so unbelievable to me,,... that some here are leaning that way, that I cannot even begin to be glib or clever to write about it. The article goes further to say that DemSocialilsts find Capitalism to be incompatible with their values. I assume this is a correct assessment.
I suggest you go back to school and spend a little more time studying and not
continue boring us with your misleading tripe.
26 Feb 19
@no1marauder saidParagraph 1,,,,’pays as little as he can get away with’ Common sense to keep costs down, maybe? The JOB is an $11/hr job. Whew. The worker can choose to stay or go. Whew. Is this kindergarten? And Starvation? Does Vinny owe some duty to a worker other than the wage the job is worth? Maybe he should include their meals and maybe their med insurance? Paint their house? Why, please?
I meant exactly what I said.
Cousin Vinny doesn't pay the workers their value; he pays them as little as he can get away with and keeps the rest of the value of their work as profit. Workers are obliged to work for some Cousin Vinny or another at less than their value because the practical alternative is starvation as all the world's resources have already been divvied ...[text shortened]... apitalist liberty actually is).
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB4.html#secb43
Paragraph 2; Conquest? This is 2019. Whew. The handful that own a lot of stuff? You gonna lose sleep over that? Go get your own stuff for you and your family. Or preach to your kids to hate rich people, who have the stuff you buy everyday. Do you want the producing rich, or not? Whew.
Para 3; When and where are people deprived access to the means of life? To deny means of life is theft? Are u speaking of another country, one with no opportunity? Yeah, of course, what else could it be?
4. The worker SELLS his skills, labor, time, talent, brains, experience to those who own (by risk and investment) the means of production. Car company, Amazon, Taco Bell. ...Walmart employs 2.3 million people. Yeah, those 12 family owners are REAL rich. Truly, shouldn’t the workers send them flowers. Don’t you get it? Cortez will do those 13 rich people in!!! By God!, Kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Marauder, the more I think of it...this parable...This really IS kindergarten isn’t it...
Man I love you but you are a socialist. Downer. Tell me, how why and when does a person just by his existence incur some debt to another person. Esp if he is a little busy working, paying taxes, making choices, feeding his own family, buying med insurance, tithing to church....... Should some govt guy come to his door and knock him off balance? Take his liberty?
@averagejoe1 saidWhat do you think the purpose of society is, Joe?
Paragraph 1,,,,’pays as little as he can get away with’ Common sense to keep costs down, maybe? The JOB is an $11/hr job. Whew. The worker can choose to stay or go. Whew. Is this kindergarten? And Starvation? Does Vinny owe some duty to a worker other than the wage the job is worth? Maybe he should include their meals and maybe their med insurance? Paint their house? Why, ...[text shortened]... o church....... Should some govt guy come to his door and knock him off balance? Take his liberty?
Why did people form it?
What "liberty" is afforded someone who must sell himself to another so the other can profit from his labor?
These are questions you don't ever seem to have asked yourself.
EDIT: AOC's policies are quite modest compared to real socialism; they are little more than updated versions of FDR's New Deal. If enacted, the wealthy would almost certainly substantially benefit from the degree of public investment in human capital and infrastructure that she envisions. Sure they might have to pay more in taxes, but rates right now are at historically unsustainable lows esp. given the vast increases in income and wealth the top 10% and esp. the top 1% have amassed in the last four decades.
26 Feb 19
@no1marauder saidThat's one of the great things about the voluntary exchange of value for value, being able to sell ones labor, I sincerely hope my labor is of value to my employer and that he can sell it at a fat profit, to someone else who also values it
What do you think the purpose of society is, Joe?
Why did people form it?
What "liberty" is afforded someone who must sell himself to another so the other can profit from his labor?
These are questions you don't ever seem to have asked yourself.
Jeezus, what a sad sack you are, cheer up No.1 these are good things.
26 Feb 19
@HandyAndy
I guess you are saying you have a view different than mine, from wherever I got it, so please ‘close’ your point by giving us YOUR paragraph on DemSocialism. That is, please wrap up your point. Thanks in Advance. And try to be clear, please. Suzianne is trying to make a distinction between Govt Control and Tyranny. Enough to give me a headache,,,,,Sue is difficult to understand enough to even answer. Do her one better.
26 Feb 19
@wajoma saidThere's not much that is "voluntary" when one owns the means of production and the other must sell his labor at whatever the owner wishes to pay or the worker and his family starve.
That's one of the great things about the voluntary exchange of value for value, being able to sell ones labor, I sincerely hope my labor is of value to my employer and that he can sell it at a fat profit, to someone else who also values it
Jeezus, what a sad sack you are, cheer up No.1 these are good things.
26 Feb 19
@no1marauder saidDon't like the terms, go and be your own means of production then.
There's not much that is "voluntary" when one owns the means of production and the other must sell his labor at whatever the owner wishes to pay or the worker and his family starve.
I'm really concerned for your demeanor, is it a result of your philosophy? Look what it's done to zahlooney. There are millions of opportunities out there.
26 Feb 19
@averagejoe1 saidIf you're talking about the "democratic socialism" that AOC and Bernie talk about, it is fairly minor reforms of the capitalist system such as are widely practiced in Western and Northern Europe. If implemented, they would make society a lot more efficient and pleasant while increasing freedom (people who are sick but can't afford a doctor aren't that "free" for example). And they would be in keeping with the basic principles of why societies are formed i.e. for the mutual protection and benefit of all not to establish a plutocracy to dominate the rest.
@HandyAndy
I guess you are saying you have a view different than mine, from wherever I got it, so please ‘close’ your point by giving us YOUR paragraph on DemSocialism. That is, please wrap up your point. Thanks in Advance. And try to be clear, please. Suzianne is trying to make a distinction between Govt Control and Tyranny. Enough to give me a headache,,,,,Sue is difficult to understand enough to even answer. Do her one better.
26 Feb 19
@wajoma saidThat doesn't even make sense.
Don't like the terms, go and be your own means of production then.
I'm really concerned for your demeanor, is it a result of your philosophy? Look what it's done to zahlooney. There are millions of opportunities out there.
The opportunities present in advanced economic systems today would not exist if your philosophy had been adopted. Reformist movements have made capitalism a lot more bearable than the laissez faire hellhole that you scream for.