- Capitalism and Alternatives -

not really

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on October 01, 1999 at 10:55:28:

In Reply to: You mean the non-competition principle. posted by Lark on September 30, 1999 at 11:43:42:

: No Gee, I think you do and that's probably because of the debates in here, they don't or if they do they don't show it. Can you honestly say that you or any AC you know has posted messages here or elsewhere to the effect of "damn that McDonalds denying freedom of speech" no it's "damn that state it wants to take away our rifles" or something to that extent.

I must admit I'm not knowledgable as to the McDonalds case, the site updates on it occasionally but it isnt something that interests a great many people. If McD's is lying and trying to coerce/ threaten with violence the people criticising it then to hell with them. If they have a case (that the criticism is false in some way) then there is the lengthy case.

"damn that state it wants to take away our rifles" - thats funny.

By the way - whats worse? McDonalds lying about itself to a largely disinterestd public (sadly or whatever you may feel about the apathy), or a government that systematically seeks to deny the right to self defence, and to place all other rights at the provisional behest of the state?

: The non-aggression principle? You mean the non-competition principle. The ability of one set of people to defeat another in a fight etc. or kill them is competition like any other. Facist competitiveness is nothing more than the philosophy of capitalism taken to a fanatical extreme.

Killing eachother is an anathema to any kind of libertarianism and a real profit killer to any kind of capitalist. it is the foodstuff of warring tribes and nation states thogh.

: Sounds a bit rehtorical, what about the captured loot that Microsoft etc. has acquired?

Who did they steal what from? Did they engage in industrial espionage and break other intellectual rights?

: So what kind of organisation would you suggest? strikes are about preventing work, if scabs get in then the whole exercise is pointless,

What you call scabs are normal people. If the 1000 employees go on strike and find that another 1000 are eagerly waiting at the door the enxt morning then it would be useful to rethink their demands in the light of the other 1000 finding conditions good enough to work in. In other words, when it comes to work, if you dont like it you odnt have the right to stop others from doing it.

: My thought exactly they arent ken on tax evasion like the rest though and they have used tactical exchanges of shares etc. to try and sabotage some bastard businesses etc. so I'm not as hard on them as all that. Again socialism isnt voluntary poverty.

The so called 'ethical trusts' tend to perform less well than the usual ones. Thats ok if you want to perform worse and destroy potential wealth, but if someone wants a nice retirement and is forced to have 'ethical funds' managed by self appointed high horses of the market then their basically being robbed to the extent they could have invested elsewhere.

Hence you can choose to have it or not have it.

: Demand equals power no? They shouldnt be allowed to use this to their advantage, for instance, the police are in demand because they give the illusion of order when as the socialist Tom Paine suggested the vast majority of order exists not because of the state, maybe even in spite of it.

I would agree there. People are not avoiding murder and mayhem because they might get arrested, the police cannot stop a crime from happening in any meaningful way, people simply dont do it anway, in general

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup