If man is intrinsically evil, then the last thing you’d want is for a bunch of men to get together and try to control you.
For once, I agree with you.
edit- couldn’t that apply to capitalism as well?
yeah i couildnt agree more. but then again, capitalism i think is much better then government (as much as im sure alot of you dudes would htink that is just anouther kind of goverment). at least in capitalism tho, its more about an individual taking control of his own destiny, rather then in government where its a bunch of people who think they are trying to allow people to take control of their own destiny, when in reality, they are just allowing a certain segment of the population to take control of their desinty, while believing they have an intrinsic right to do so.
Capitalism can work out that way. That’s certainly the ideal. But unrestrained Capitalism too often prohibits individuals from taking charge of their own destiny. For instance, no matter how hard they work, non-college educated individuals can only get so far before the corporate system slaps them back into their “place” at the bottom of the food chain. The free market is not free for everyone and is thus not inherently fair. You have to have certain qualifications before you can be a contender in the market game, and many people simply don’t have those qualifications. They often lose before they’re even born.
well if you ask me, if that is what the corporate system wants, why should they not be able to do it? i think its more unfair for some schmoe right out of school to say “hey i deserve more of what you have worked to create”. then for the corporate to say “hey this is my stuff i will do what i want with it”.
Exactly.
Your circumstance may not be your fault (although it generally it is), but chances are it’s not my fault, either. So why should I be punished for it?
— Most wo/men are fundamentally good. Groups of wo/men, however, now that’s a different story. Government may well be a necessary evil.
I would say the different story applies only to hierarchical and authoritarian groups. It’s always advantageous for person A at the top of the hierarchy to exploit person B at the bottom. Whereas a non-hierachical relationship is inherently co-operative and ergo it is disadvantageous for both individuals if onw exploits the other. Anyone that is incredulous should take a look at the American government and corporations and then compare it to the IWW.
i think if what you want is a world with order then government is a nessicary evil. not anyone is going to ever be totally happy no matter what happens.
— Pardon my ignorance, Metavoid, what’s the IWW?
— There are disadvantages and advantages to a hierarchially oriented government. I think you would give up too many advantages if you were to eliminate that hierarchy but that does not mean that it’s negative effects could not be ameliorated to some extent.
What do you mean?
Wo/man might be evil but its the hierarchially system that gives the person the greatest sense of power and achievement, in that they have the illusion of been higher up and better then someone else.
In capitalism a minority try to control the majority. Isn’t that the main theme of Atlas Shrugged?
Marshell McDaniel wrote:
I would say that would go the wrong way and make things even more superficial then they are today. Been ruled is knowing theres system in place above you and in a way looking after, like a parent to a child. Capitalism on its own would exploit people more than now, if there was no system of taxation implemented against them also; it would just lead to monopolization, in which they would in-effect become the government.
Are you referring to business leaders? They don’t try to “control” anyone. They cannot use force to bend individuals to their will. They must convince individuals that it is in their own best interest to go along with them, either by paying them wages acceptable to the employee or making a product that customers find is worth what they’re paying for it.
Yes, I am
On empirical grounds, this creates an opulate minority.
To elaborate, an elite that control the means of production and hence deprive others of that production. People have to offer themselves on the labour market if they want to stay alive. And no, self-employment is hardly an option;
But, the rich did just that. Capitalism came from feudalism which came from the seizure of land from community (or public if you will) by the strong towards their own private interest
Source:Anarchist FAQ
people do not have to do such a thing at all. and no you dont have to be self employed to do it either. a person can easily sustain themselves living on their own if they chose to. without a labor market, the corporations themselves will fail. sure you dont get to own a tv, or have a car. but you can survive.
sure corporations aint that good. but at the same time without them you wouldnt be talkin to me right now. if you want to be part of that world, go for it. but accept that they are then letting themselves be controlled. but it is not the case that you have to do that.
I think it is absolutley rediculous how people want to just attack corporate america like it is adolf hitler himself behind the reins of it all. If you hate them so much, then just leave the world that corporations have put together for us. go out into the forest and live on your own. it IS possible. it just a little harder.
Wait a second. Some people might be able to do this because they know where to look for berries and how to hunt a deer with…well I don’t know what you would hunt a deer with if you didn’t have money to buy a weapon. Fact is, most people grow up so dependent on society that survival without it is, if you seriously look at it, impossible.
Or a house. Or a steady food supply. Or health care. Or protection from wild animals and the elements. Or even a way of getting far enough out there so that you can actually live in the wild without trespassing on someone’s property.
Yeah. Just a little.
Of course, homeless people do survive, but they do so with the aid of government-funded programs like shelters and emergency medical care. In any case, it’s an intolerable lifestyle–I think everyone (except those forced there in one way or another) can agree on that.
Besides, the discussion is about choices between jobs. And for too many people that choice is between minimum wage and minimum wage. And that is not a choice at all.
lazy. anyone can. all you have to do is go out and learn.
thats reality. look at places where corporations dont exist in places like africa, or indonesia, south america. they dont have a steady food supply, they dont have health care, they have to find their own protection from wild elements. Also, they get on fine without having many problems with trespassing on somones property.
the homeless also do survive. i dont know why alot of them choose to live on the streets of a city, when they can be out in the woods or something where you got more stuff you can work with.
also it is nobodys responsibility to provide jobs to anyone at any paticular salary.
thats reality. if you cant find what you want. you either have to find some way to do what you want anyway. or dont do it. to complain that corporations are not bending to your or anyone elses will is arrogant.
in my humble opinion.
Exactly. No one is responsible for your life but you. If I don’t get to decide whether or not you continue living, then don’t expect me to take care of you.