: Qx: Really? I always was of the opinion that the public good was a stronger point of emphasis amongst “leftwing whatevers”
G: The underlying philosophy is, of necessity, a view of societies as creator of individuals, of man a society not as individual.
Qx:: What about individuation? Isn’t that an issue?
G: It is, when individuation means the development of the individual from the universal or the process by which individuals in society become differentiated from one another.
Qx: You really dodged the Jung quote and the implications of it. Not bad Gee.
: Qx: Yeah and you don’t even know about the Multilateral Agreement on Investments, don’t really question corporate governance, accept neo-classical economics as the be-all and end-all of economics (and dismally at that),
G:Why the rush of presumptiousness about what I know and do?
Qx: There's no rush Gee. After all, the date on this posting says it all to counter your bit of a snit about my critiques of your attitude. The evidence is all in your postings so get used to it.
Qx: view profits without realizing that it is a cultivated (and polite) code word for theft
G: Value being created by the result of organising the means to create it is not theft. Value wich did not exist prior to such organisation of the means to create it belongs more to the organisor than the elements organised. Unless ofcourse you deny that the organising is a value adding act.
Qx: Well, that's an articulate (and amusingly elitist) way of stating it and what that requires is a bit of false consciousness and a string dose of amorality.
G: Let those 'rip off artists' as you call them cease to organise and see how much value is created.
Qx: Well, that would be great wouldn't it. This statment of yours seems to be a bit desperate also. Why the defence of inefficient state-capitalists like Carnegie, etc?
Qx: highly suspect when there’s more than enough evidence to shoot it down in flames a million times over.
G:Except there isnt really, however 'clear' in your mind the evidence is not empirical, its theoretical, and dubious at that.
Qx: I know you would try to chop suey this one Gee but that doesn't work either. There's noting "theoretical" about the sufferings of millions and you know it. It only becomes abstract if you wrap yourself up in a corporate coccoon and sing the praises of corporations, eulogize Carnegie, and type a reply during your lunch or coffee breaks.
Qx: You may be consistent but you’ll always be contradictory in your
G: I have no doubt it will appear so to you.
Qx: Actually, me and millions. Anarcho-capitalism is as oxymoronic as anything can get Gee. If you think it'll work it'll be revolution time against those kind of ideas.
G: The starting point in questioning our current society would be to ask "why would people 'require' guidance and the force of laws from others?" not "why should people claim the right to their individual life and the means to live it as such"
: Qx: Hmmm...interesting if one is so wrapped up in an ego game centering on rightwing Libertarianism
G: It has nothing to do with wings,
Qx: Oh, yes it does Gee so get used to it. You're not too great when it comes to political philosophy and by denying this you've left yourself wide open.
G: the proposition is simply that we would do better to ask why people need "guidance and the force of laws from others" prior to any discussion about how to go about it, or any criticism of free association and pvte property.
Qx: It's also very hypocritical because the people who usually claim such loyalty to that proposition usually do it from a corporate angle. Corporations (as you well know) are legal persons and immortal at that. Why propertarians claim this proposition as their own is in order to counter any public enquiry or outcry about their actions. They can claim that their rights were encroached upon but what rights are we talking about? Rights such as the right to exploit workers, the right to pollute the environment without limits and so on and so forth.