Your boss is a dictator over your life, personal capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

The Rand vision is for corporations to control everything as they are run by her ideal supermen. Everything is for these supermen, these supermen are the Atlas that she mentions that holds up the world, she claims... and for this reason must be catered to totally. All policy must cater to these corporations run by these supermen. Everyone else exists to be used by the corporations.

Everyone else's job is to serve at the whims of the supermen, or even to be disposed by them - that is today with the technology of today, or in a hundred years with the technology of a hundred years from now. That new technology of that time won't change the facts of the relationship between the normal person and the supermen serving as overlords.

The past couple of decades has seen a marked redistribution away from labour to corporate profits. Clearly, it doesn't pay to work - it simply pays to be already wealthy.

GDP will not continue to grow exponentially forever, or for much longer for that matter. Those who choose to view otherwise are ignoring the realities of physics, which I think will prove to be more robust than superstitious folklore about marvelous mystical magical markets and their capacity to deliver infinite growth.

Who said anything about dying in the gutter. An energetic panhandler can make a pretty good living. Besides, we have shelters, breadlines and soup kitchens. One can die with a full stomach and a roof over his head.

I simply pointed out that one need not work for a wage to get along.

ruveyn

I believe this is covered in the second sentence of my post.

"Or is it that this freedom comes from taking the product of other peoples work, you just need to find an effective means of doing this?"

I think you havce a vastly unrealistic view of what it means to be a beggar. Is "a pretty good living" comparativley speaking? If so I think this says more about the living standards of the lowest paid than it does about the possibilities of panhandling.

Tell me, how does being moved on by the NYPD because you're an eyesore impact on business?

What happens when more people become beggars than can be catered for by the charity of the wealthy?
What kind of life is pleading for scraps from the tables of the fat and indolent?
What kind of life is being viewed as scum for having to subsist on welfare paid for by taxes levied on the working and lower middle class, who only just about pay their rent and bills as it is?
If it's no bad thing being a beggar why does the NYPD pretty much sweep them off the street? (I'm pretty sure you can throw in a few more of the police dept.'s of major US cities on that one)

pandd hit it right on the head, GDP will not grow forever, when profits go down the first thing to get the chop is wages, along with money to charity, both of which impact decisively on the provision of welfare. A capitalist economy does not meet the needs of the population in the high points, never mind recessions.

your position is....absurd.

Well, nothing lasts forever, technically. However, does physics say that new technological advances will cease, that innovations to better meet human desires will no longer be created, and that no further improvements will be made? I tend to doubt it, and the only issue in physics where I can see a potential future issue is an energy crisis, and assuming that mankind can solve this issue, then assuming that future improvement is possible does not seem absurd, but rather seems rational. This isn't even a matter of marvelous, mystical, magical markets but rather a statement that man's capacity to improve his situation does not have an apparent end in sight, which I do not see as a problematic assertion or even one that necessarily has anything to do with physics, as many improvements in man's state can simply be improvements in man's ability to amuse himself.

Yeah...it's a fallacy because there's one thing that's always true: there's always a replacement for you. And most likely one who can do it better than you.

Which indicates that business is always operating at less than its prime capability.

Obviously. Unfortunately, business doesn't actively act on this but rather waits until a critically significant decay in product quality before acting upon it. Which, if you follow the logic of such a decay, you see how this late change is doomed to fail eventually. Especially if effective salesmen come into power rather than actual executives.

Why do you assume an effective salesman cannot be an efficient executive?

I'm not, the problem is that an effective salesman can be a poor executive and maintain that status for longer due to their effective use of linguistics and manipulation.

Again with the extreme assumptions. No.

You need to break thinking in such simplistic dualisms.

Solution: move out of New York.

Or throw a brick through a window. One ends up in jail. That means he has food, shelter and a place to sleep. There is always a solution.

ruveyn

Insofar as right-libertarianism emphasizes private-property rights and the rights of for-profit corporations above all else, it will pursue neither freedom nor democracy. Libertarians advocate privilege for those with means because, if there is no public property left, there is no where for the common person to exercise rights of free speech and free association unhindered by moneyed interests.

so, your argument is as follows: one can avoid the position described by the OP, and exercise your freedom as enshrined by the bill of rights and constitution, by either becoming a beggar or going to jail?

thank you Ruyven.



such scientific advances surely can only be developed in the market if they are demonstably a profitable investment; if not we are left with gas, 'clean coal' and 'drill, baby, drill'. In terms of energy production alone projects such as ITER on nuclear fusion appear to be, well, absolutely outstanding. I understand that research done in Brussels states that with enough development the deuterium from sea water could provide enough energy for 150 billion years, which outlasts the sun by a long way. God knows what will have become of humanity. The question then is of money. R&D is going to cost tens of billions. the ITER reactor alone cost 10 billion euros. That's a massive outlay considering there is way more potential for very short term profit in oil and gas. However long to medium term survival will depend on the abondment of fossil fuels, especially considering the growth of china, in 1999 china consumed about 840 watts per capita anually and the US 11900 per capita annually (http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf). If China wants US levels of development, which it seems to, and America doesn't wish to give ground on its own usage which it seems to, we're royally f**ked using only fossil fuels. So where the hell do you get the money from? and can it compete with the profitability of oil, the price of which will likely rocket for the US and the west without the kind of colonial adventures the US is engaged with in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and the other emirates.

and i'm not sure how much amusment it takes to comfort the Congolese http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... o-war.html

There is no constitutional right to be fed, clothed and sheltered at anyone's expense against their will. The Welfare State is not and has never been ordained by the U.S. Constitution. If one is unable to support himself, he ought to rely on the goodness of others and if that does not suffice, then tough titty.

To say you have a Right to fed, means that someone has a Duty to feed you.

ruveyn