[PAX] 42 Congressman Unwittingly Give the Same (Lobbyist-Provided) Speech

[BenW]

Your tax dollars at work.
...Buying these folks lobster dinners and Dom P

 

[Billy]

Are you sure you are not a libertarian socialist?!

I am getting hung up on your terming of socialist, maybe I am not getting what you mean, please explain.

 

[muir]

I am getting hung up on your terming of socialist, maybe I am not getting what you mean, please explain.

I mean that the workers should own and control the means of production. They should each have a say in how their work is run and get the rewards for their labour.

Also government should be minimised as much as possible or got rid of altogether.

 

[Billy]

I mean that the workers should own and control the means of production. They should each have a say in how their work is run and get the rewards for their labour.

Also government should be minimised as much as possible or got rid of altogether.

I don't agree with the socialist aspect then. Workers IMO do not own or control the means of production, the person who owns it, owns it. Unless a group of workers all come together and pool their assets to create a company and work it, then that's completely fine. But if someone puts up the $ to start a company then the workers are just employees and have no control except over whether or not they wish to work there so long as thier employer is willing to employ them.

I do think workers should be protected from malicious employers though and I agree with things like OSHA and Safe Standards set forth by the community and a minimum wage as long as the minimum wage isnt over priced out of the work. A company exists 1st and foremost to provide a service to its consumer base and to provide income to its owners. Employment of others is another benefit but not always required.

 

[muir]

I don't agree with the socialist aspect then. Workers IMO do not own or control the means of production, the person who owns it, owns it. Unless a group of workers all come together and pool their assets to create a company and work it, then that's completely fine. But if someone puts up the $ to start a company then the workers are just employees and have no control except over whether or not they wish to work there so long as thier employer is willing to employ them.

I do think workers should be protected from malicious employers though and I agree with things like OSHA and Safe Standards set forth by the community and a minimum wage as long as the minimum wage isnt over priced out of the work. A company exists 1st and foremost to provide a service to its consumer base and to provide income to its owners. Employment of others is another benefit but not always required.

The problem seems to be that if profit is the main aim of an organisation, the welfare of its workers cannot also be the main aim. The two are incompatible.

I think a lot of problems in society can be traced to the fact that under enterprise capitalism, competition is the main ideal. Under this economic system a dog eat dog culture is created. There is no room in this culture for kindness, generosity and fair play. If competition is everything then it is also a short leap to criminality as why should rules get in the way of getting ahead of the opposition? This competitive system then poisons society itself.

Human nature is a mix of good and bad. I am worried that we have created a lop sided society that is all about the bad side of human nature. In a society that is all about the individual setting out to get everything they can even at the expense of others, why should we expect anyone, including politicians to do anything but act in their own self interests?

We have created a monster! The means of production are held by an extremely small number of people. This means they set the terms of employment. This will basically mean that to maximise their profits they will make people work more hours for less pay. The worker does not get the fruits of their labour, they just get their 'pay'.

The worker will also lose a lot of this pay through taxes to a government which pretends to act in the workers favour, but is actually being paid large sums of money by the few owners of the means of production to act in their interests.

 

[Solar Empath]

Of course there are serious problems the way the government is run, the federal government is utterly out of control from where its "supposed" to be. I am so pessimistic about it ever being fixed though that I just try not to get too involved with it any more. Now I just want people to leave me alone, don't tell me what I can think, stay out of my wallet, don't touch my assets, don't tell me what I can or cannot smoke, don't deny my brother the ability to marry his boyfriend, just stay the hell out of our lives!

This is pretty much how I feel any more. Anyone of any party that is capable of getting a federal level political position is corrupted on the way up if they weren't corrupt to start. Shrink the government, clearly outline what they can do, and otherwise keep them out of the way.

 

[Billy]

The problem seems to be that if profit is the main aim of an organisation, the welfare of its workers cannot also be the main aim. The two are incompatible.

I would say that they cannot both be equal, but they aren't always opposing. I know a lot of business owners who truly love their workers and who bend over backwards to give them as much as they reasonably can while not sinking the lifeboat (the company). That is how I look at business personally, the bottom line will always be the bottom line, but the people I hire and employ I reward generously because its thier hard work that I am profiting off of, but they also understand that I am the boss and that they have no real power in the company because legally it is my company. They are free to start thier own business and compete against me if they wish.

I think a lot of problems in society can be traced to the fact that under enterprise capitalism, competition is the main ideal. Under this economic system a dog eat dog culture is created.

Yes its not ideal or in line with my natural tendencies to want to help people and not like to see people suffer, but I also believe in personal responsibility.

There is no room in this culture for kindness, generosity and fair play.

I disagree. Its not the top priority, but its defintely not non-existent.

If competition is everything then it is also a short leap to criminality as why should rules get in the way of getting ahead of the opposition? This competitive system then poisons society itself.

Thats not logic though, if thats the case take it away from business, its easier for me to sell drugs then it is for me to work a 9 to 5 job, why follow the rules? Because there are consequences for not following the rules.

Human nature is a mix of good and bad. I am worried that we have created a lop sided society that is all about the bad side of human nature. In a society that is all about the individual setting out to get everything they can even at the expense of others, why should we expect anyone,

I dont look at capitalism that way, its not always about getting what you can at the expense of others, capitalism is more about making connections and mutually beneficial arrangements then it is about stepping on people. Ask all the guys who Steve Jobs took out of the garage when he started Apple Computer and turned them all into millionaires over night. Yes he was "exploiting" thier work, but they were also GREATLY rewarded.

including politicians to do anything but act in their own self interests?

The difference is that politicians dont really produce anything useful in society, they agitate things and they actually use people (the voters/Taxpayers) to fun thier habits.

We have created a monster! The means of production are held by an extremely small number of people. This means they set the terms of employment.

You say monster, I say golden goose. And no one is stopping you from creating your own means of production.

This will basically mean that to maximise their profits they will make people work more hours for less pay. The worker does not get the fruits of their labour, they just get their 'pay'.

The pay is the fruit. They provide labor, the employer provides wages. And maximizing your profit is the right of the employer who assumes all the risks. If a business goes belly up the workers find new jobs, the boss looses his house and goes bankrupt.

The worker will also lose a lot of this pay through taxes to a government which pretends to act in the workers favour, but is actually being paid large sums of money by the few owners of the means of production to act in their interests.

Yes politicians will be courted by companies with monetary funding for thier campaigns, but the politician is still responsibile to the voters if he wants to keep his job.

Take for example in my state, our Senator Joe Liberman, people assume that he is against the health care reform because he gets money from Aetna a large insurance company based here. The fact of the matter is that Joe gets less money from Aetna then Chris Dodd does who actually supports the healthcare reform. Joe knows though that if Aetna goes under 10,000 people in Connecticut lose thier job, and we are already hurting bad enough with so many people being unemployed as it is. Joe is being responsible to the voters.

 

[Billy]

This is pretty much how I feel any more. Anyone of any party that is capable of getting a federal level political position is corrupted on the way up if they weren't corrupt to start. Shrink the government, clearly outline what they can do, and otherwise keep them out of the way.

At this point I am just praying for some sort of government collapse so we can all go off on our own and press the reset button on society. I don't need cars, tv, electricity, I would totally love to live off the land with my friends and family. But if society is going to be based on a federal government and $$$ then I am going to work that system... but I would prefer it to all just collapse so we can be left to our own devices. I will just raise animals and grow huge marijuana fields and ya know... enjoy my life without living in a rat race.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Just goes to show you; congress is connected to puppet strings. Luckily however, the marionette is usually rather stupid

 

[Solar Empath]

At this point I am just praying for some sort of government collapse so we can all go off on our own and press the reset button on society. I don't need cars, tv, electricity, I would totally love to live off the land with my friends and family. But if society is going to be based on a federal government and $$$ then I am going to work that system... but I would prefer it to all just collapse so we can be left to our own devices. I will just raise animals and grow huge marijuana fields and ya know... enjoy my life without living in a rat race.

I know what you mean. And I don't know what to do either. I do want to say though, that I really feel you on this one.

 

[muir]

Sorry for delay i am crap at typing!

I understand why you admire individual enterprise. There is room for that in libertarian socialism. As long as no one is exploited people would be free to pursue their own avenues. If you wanted to start your own carpentry business with several fellow workers you could do it. The difference is you wouldn't pay tax to a corrupt government.

Yes there will always be employers who look after their workers, but what if enterprise capitalism always means that monopolies will be created as wealth is consolidated into smaller and smaller numbers of hands? As the big companies start to squeeze the smaller companies who are maybe looking after their employees the companies profit margins will be squeezed more and more, allowing less room for beneficial behaviour towards the employees.

Also the bankers lend out lots of loans. This encourges people to start up businesses, buy shares and buy property. The markets flourish, the economy booms and the property market booms. Then the bankers quietly start selling their shares and stop giving out loans. The markets panic and everyone dumps their shares. The bankers buy up these shares cheaply. There are no more loans so businesses start failing, leading to unemployment. This leaves a larger market share for the big businesses which increase the monopoly. People can no longer pay for their mortgages so the banks, having made money on the houses, then reposses them. This boom and bust cycle keeps repeating. The long and short of this system is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The honest hard working small businesses you admire are often ripped off.

Under Libertarian socialism there is a BIG emphasis on personal responsibility, because everyone is responsible for the business they work in. Under capitalism the employer pays the worker just enough that they won't quit and the worker will do just enough work that they aren't fired; that is not efficient! If they get the rewards of their labour they will work harder, improving efficiency!

The leap to criminality in capitalism can be seen by the corrupting effect of money. I love the way the godfather films show the bluring of the boundaries between business, politics, crime and organised religion under a capitalist system. 'We will make them an offer they can't refuse'....that pretty much sums up the foreign policy of capitalist countries which is give us what we want or we will invade you. You see this is all poison that affects every area of life?

 

[Billy]

Sorry for delay i am crap at typing!

I understand why you admire individual enterprise. There is room for that in libertarian socialism. As long as no one is exploited people would be free to pursue their own avenues. If you wanted to start your own carpentry business with several fellow workers you could do it. The difference is you wouldn't pay tax to a corrupt government.

Yes there will always be employers who look after their workers, but what if enterprise capitalism always means that monopolies will be created as wealth is consolidated into smaller and smaller numbers of hands? As the big companies start to squeeze the smaller companies who are maybe looking after their employees the companies profit margins will be squeezed more and more, allowing less room for beneficial behaviour towards the employees.

Also the bankers lend out lots of loans. This encourges people to start up businesses, buy shares and buy property. The markets flourish, the economy booms and the property market booms. Then the bankers quietly start selling their shares and stop giving out loans. The markets panic and everyone dumps their shares. The bankers buy up these shares cheaply. There are no more loans so businesses start failing, leading to unemployment. This leaves a larger market share for the big businesses which increase the monopoly. People can no longer pay for their mortgagaes so the banks, having made money on the houses, then reposses them. The long and short of this system is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The honest hard working small businesses you admire are often ripped off.

Under Libertarian socialism there is a BIG emphasis on personal responsibility, because everyone is responsible for the business they work in. Under capitalism the employer pays the worker just enough that they won't quit and the worker will do just enough work that they aren't fired; that is not efficient! If they get the rewards of their labour they will work harder, improving efficiency!

The leap to criminality in capitalism can be seen by the corrupting effect of money. I love the way the godfather films show the bluring of the boundaries between business, politics, crime and organised religion under a capitalist system. 'We will make them an offer they can't refuse'....that pretty much sums up the foreign policy of capitalist countries which is give us what we want or we will invade you. You see this is all poison that affects every area of life?

Except socialist states also invade and conquer too, the USSR was notorious for it. So were the Nazis.

 

[muir]

Except socialist states also invade and conquer too, the USSR was notorious for it. So were the Nazis.

They had centralised governments.

Libertarian socialists do not believe in centralised governments. They believe whenever power is focused it causes exploitation and corruption, so the power is simply pushed down to the people.

I'm only saying all this to you because i have found myself agreeing with some of your ideals.

Under libertarian socialism you could grow your fields of marijuana and smoke it. It believes in personal freedoms as long as you are not hurting anyone else. I like your vision of living off the land by the way, i could totally handle that. A day of good honest work, followed by a nice joint of home grown!

Capitalism has waged a war on marijuana in the US though. The hearst news empire owned paper producers, making paper from wood pulp. They did not want competitors making cheaper paper from hemp so they paid PR companies to demonise marijuana and paid politicians to legislate against it hence, comical films such as the propaganda film 'reefer madness'!

 

[Billy]

They had centralised governments.

Libertarian socialists do not believe in centralised governments. They believe whenever power is focused it causes exploitation and corruption, so the power is simply pushed down to the people.

I'm only saying all this to you because i have found myself agreeing with some of your ideals.

Under libertarian socialism you could grow your fields of marijuana and smoke it. It believes in personal freedoms as long as you are not hurting anyone else. I like your vision off living of the land by the way, i could totally handle that. A day of good honest work, followed by a nice joint of home grown!

Capitalism has waged a war on marijuana in the US though. The hearst news empire owned paper producers, making paper from wood pulp. They did not want competitors making cheaper poaper from hemp so they paid PR companies to demonise marijuana and paid politicians to legislate it hence, comical films such as the propaganda film 'reefer madness'!

The thing though is that capitalism is not monolithic, pot growers/sellers are insanely capitalistic. People against hemp of course would be against it...

I dont think its capitalism thats the problem is corruption of human motivations and that happens under socialism too. Its a human condition.

I just want to be left alone, as a species it seems that we are living so far beyond our means that sustaining our growth is kind of crazy. I dont have any real answers and I am sure if we could get everyone to agree to live in a socialist libertarian utopia that would be great, but someone will find a way to use that system to gain power over others eventually. Humans kind of just suck in that way which is why I see the best ideal as being one that says "leave me the fuck alone I dont want to be involved!"

 

[muir]

Yeah sadly i don't see a libertarian socialist utopia around the corner either.

 

[TheLastMohican]

This thread was not supposed to turn into an argument over socialism or other political issues, only a dose of cynical amusement. I've added the new "PAX" prefix to signify this. There is already a temporary ban on new threads pertaining to American politics, and if this one continues to get heated, then even such borderline ones will have to be restricted.


A side note: don't bash types, directly or indirectly.

 

[Billy]

Who is arguing? I thought it was a pretty civil discussion. Well political part anyway.

 

[muir]

Who is arguing? I thought it was a pretty civil discussion. Well political part anyway.

Yeah me to man i thought we had found some common ground.

I'm glad you posted, i was worried i had upset you and not realised it. I wasn't out to offend you. I might have got a bit preachy about libertarian socialism, but only because i think it would be good for everyone.

The reality of it happening?....i don't know!

 

[Satya]

Debates on economics are rather pointless. If there is any degree of democracy, then a capitalistic system will automatically decay towards socialism as the "haves" aquire considerably more of the resources than the "have nots". Capitalism is only sustainable under a strong centralized government. The larger the piece of pie that a select few own, the the more centralized the government has to become to enforce the distribution of resources. Capitalists like to pretend that the system could be maintained under the least amount of government, but the opposite is true. It's the government that keeps the money funneling upwards. Eventually the system collapses and becomes socialistic with a strongly centralized government. However, this then begins to decay towards capitalism as a result of the lack of incentives resulting from the resources funneling downwards. Eventually the government can no longer sustain itself and the system collapses. It's a virtual pendulum that swings back and forth.

 

[Solar Empath]

Debates on economics are rather pointless. If there is any degree of democracy, then a capitalistic system will automatically decay towards socialism as the "haves" aquire considerably more of the resources than the "have nots". Capitalism is only sustainable under a strong centralized government. The larger the piece of pie that a select few own, the the more centralized the government has to become to enforce the distribution of resources. Capitalists like to pretend that the system could be maintained under the least amount of government, but the opposite is true. It's the government that keeps the money funneling upwards. Eventually the system collapses and becomes socialistic with a strongly centralized government. However, this then begins to decay towards capitalism as a result of the lack of incentives resulting from the resources funneling downwards. Eventually the government can no longer sustain itself and the system collapses. It's a virtual pendulum that swings back and forth.

Hmm. I've never really thought along this line. Thanks.