It's ok to be angry about capitalism

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,910
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
It's meaningless if those people continue existing, living, and can be seen in real life, outside of statistical charts.

Let me introduce the swiss method consisting in keeping the price of public transportations and any outside activity beyond their reach, forbidding begging in the streets, and maintaining a culture and social pressure shaming the poorer people out of sight and away of (as punishing and humiliating as possible) social services. It's not simply about making them invisible in the stats, it's also about keeping them locked inside their home (or off the streets if they don't have one). At least until their corpse's smell becomes too annoying for the neighbours.
Do they move any essential services out to places that're a pain to get to but conveniently far from where 'decent people' or 'tourists' might have to deal with them? If not they need to read up on what the NSW govt did for the 2000 Olympics (and every other time they want to pretend Sydney isn't a festering shithole).


Plus when Westerners are talking Global Poverty they're conveniently not including their own citizens living in poverty but, you know, *vague waving motion* foreigners in foreign places.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absent

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,597
930
118
Country
USA
Of course, Terminal Blue didn't say employment means you're not free.
And yet...
Free people wouldn't need to be compelled to do so under threat of material deprivation, would they. That's not how freedom works.
That's employment. You work to gain wealth, if you don't work you are deprived of that wealth. You're just describing employment in negative buzzwords
Leadership does not imply a hierarchy.
Elaborate on how one enacts leadership without de facto authority.
Private ownership existed for literally thousands of years before capitalism, but cool story I guess.
Private ownership existed for thousands of years (to a degree) before communists invented the word "capitalism", yes. I'm not sure what your point is, since acknowledging the existence of everything we call capitalism further back into history really undermines the idea that it's all an engineered system to effectively enslave the masses.
As if hierachical institutions weren't "explicitely designed" to "avoid falling out of hierarchies". And insanely violently bloodily so.
You think order is bloody and violent. Think on that.
I think you are however missing the point of the incompatibility of democracy and capitalism made. Even in a representative democracy, although people are bound by the decisions of the state, they have (at minimum theoretical) power over who is giving them orders, and can boot them out if they don't like them. But when was the last time you saw employees sack their CEO? The ability to determine one's leader - and thus the hierarchy - is a pretty fundamental form of freedom. Just check with your forebears who rebelled against their king for precisely that reason.
I mean, if you're saying capitalism isn't democracy, sure. That is true. But that's not "incompatible". Democratic systems are exactly the method of counteracting the power of those otherwise at the top that you're asking for. When CEOs get arrested for violating laws imposed by democratic governance, is that not precisely what you're describing? These are not incompatible systems, they are complimentary, which is why they've gone hand-in-hand. Without representative governance, capitalism becomes effectively feudalism. Without any private means of power, governments become the dictatorship. They are often oppositional systems, but that's not incompatibility, that's balance of power.
Voluntarily choosing to acknowledge another's experience, knowledge skill and allowing them to lead is not the same as a hierarchy. People pay me to coach them in the gym. They pay me for my knowledge and guidance. I am leading them. But they're paying me, they're the boss. How does that fit into a hierarchy?
You are above in that hierarchy. They aren't the boss, they are the customer, you can turn them away.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
You think order is bloody and violent. Think on that.
"Let them eat cake", right ?

So telling of who you are, of your whole background. Violence directed to the margins, exerted on deviants, on contestation, on minorities, on destitutes, on "superfluous populations", on anything that isn't your norm and your caste, violence that serves to enforce your structures and models and preserve your illusion of their natural universality, isn't violence. It's not seen, it's not aknowledged, it's not felt. In your perpetually self-defining little world, there is no coercion, everyone is a willing cog, everyone knows their place - and those who aren't, those who don't, are simply denied legitimacy and bludgeoned out of existence. Whatever happens to them takes place behind curtains painted as a clear horizon filled with happy faces and thumbs up from the whitest jesus.

Amnesty International exists in opposition to people like you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,913
1,780
118
Country
United Kingdom
That's employment. You work to gain wealth, if you don't work you are deprived of that wealth. You're just describing employment in negative buzzwords
Most people don't "gain wealth" by working. Most people never did.

People work because they have to work in order to survive, or to avoid a miserable existence in poverty. If people were actually "gaining wealth" by working, that would be a serious problem because eventually everyone would have enough wealth that noone would be forced to work anymore.

You can't have an entire society of investors and noone to create wealth for them, someone needs to be forced to do the work, and because the people who don't work will take most of the value of that work, it does require force. People work because they have to, not because working is actually rewarding.

Elaborate on how one enacts leadership without de facto authority.
A hierarchy implies more than a "de facto" authority. It implies an acknowledged power structure. I can defer to someone whom I know is more experienced or knowledgeable than me without placing that person in a formal position of authority.

I'm not sure what your point is, since acknowledging the existence of everything we call capitalism further back into history really undermines the idea that it's all an engineered system to effectively enslave the masses.
Capitalism originated around the 15th and 16th century, specifically in Western European agriculture and in particular in England.

Capitalism is not the same thing as private ownership. It is about the way private ownership is organized, particularly in regards to labor.

Reading "capitalism" beyond this point is kind of like claiming that medieval peasants were communists because they farmed common land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,597
930
118
Country
USA
In your perpetually self-defining little world, there is no coercion, everyone is a willing cog, everyone knows their place - and those who aren't, those who don't, are simply denied legitimacy and bludgeoned out of existence.
You misunderstand the argument. I believe none of that. Of course there is coercion. Of course people do things against their will. Of course people are in positions they'd rather not be, or not in the position they'd like to be. The world is not perfect, and people themselves are not great, this is a fallen world we live in. I do not suffer under the delusion that all things ordered are pure and perfect.

The problem here is that you believe the exact opposite of the view you impose on me. And funny enough, the opposite position from a falsehood isn't always truth, it's almost always falsehood. "All houses have 2 bedrooms" is false, "no houses have 2 bedrooms" is equally false. "Everyone is a willing cog" is certainly false, but "nobody is a willing cog" is at least as far from the truth, and you genuinely deny the humanity of everyone happy with the society they live in when you act that way. Are there hierarchies built on violence? Absolutely. Are all hierarchies built on violence, absolutely not. You are just as illogical as the viewpoint that you want to believe I have.
And they can fire me.
No, they can't. They can withdraw only themselves. Unless you are working for one individual privately, you haven't lost your job, and if you are a private instructor to one person, you left out some important details when you posed the question.
Most people don't "gain wealth" by working. Most people never did.

People work because they have to work in order to survive, or to avoid a miserable existence in poverty. If people were actually "gaining wealth" by working, that would be a serious problem because eventually everyone would have enough wealth that noone would be forced to work anymore.
The word you're looking for is "retirement".
I can defer to someone whom I know is more experienced or knowledgeable than me without placing that person in a formal position of authority.
If you have the authority to defer to them, you equally have the authority to not defer to them, you are in charge.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,283
5,907
118
Country
United Kingdom
And yet...

That's employment. You work to gain wealth, if you don't work you are deprived of that wealth. You're just describing employment in negative buzzwords
Of course I'm describing employment. I'm describing an aspect of it that you glossed over-- the fact that it's not truly voluntary.

You can argue that's all fine and good, if you want, or you can argue that it's just a fact of life and can't be changed. What you can't do is imply that the fact people become employed indicates that free people are freely choosing hierarchies. Because the example you're using, becoming employed, isn't a truly voluntary decision.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,597
930
118
Country
USA
Of course I'm describing employment. I'm describing an aspect of it that you glossed over-- the fact that it's not truly voluntary.

You can argue that's all fine and good, if you want, or you can argue that it's just a fact of life and can't be changed. What you can't do is imply that the fact people become employed indicates that free people are freely choosing hierarchies. Because the example you're using, becoming employed, isn't a truly voluntary decision.
Without even getting into the depths of it, do you know how many people who don't need to work choose to do so? People born into wealth choose to become employed. People who are wealthy enough to retire choose to be employed. People who qualify for full government support choose to work. And nearly all of them choose to work for someone. People who have the resources to make their own business choose to be employed by someone all the time. Not even considering those who are taking whatever job they can get because they need the money, those who are fully free from the coercion you all imagine in society still participate in the hierarchies voluntarily.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,283
5,907
118
Country
United Kingdom
Without even getting into the depths of it, do you know how many people who don't need to work choose to do so? People born into wealth choose to become employed. People who are wealthy enough to retire choose to be employed. People who qualify for full government support choose to work. And nearly all of them choose to work for someone. People who have the resources to make their own business choose to be employed by someone all the time. Not even considering those who are taking whatever job they can get because they need the money, those who are fully free from the coercion you all imagine in society still participate in the hierarchies voluntarily.
Uhrm, yeah, a few people do. The minority. Do you have any idea how many people work in jobs they hate because they have to pay the rent and bills?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,073
1,367
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
Forget adrenochrome. There's a very real network of private companies extracting blood plasma from financially precarious Americans and selling it (and its derivatives) for piles of money on the global market. They target parts of the country in economic decline and incentivize plasma sellers to become repeat visitors to their centers, despite the physical downsides of the process. Our guest this week is Kathleen McLaughlin, author of Blood Money: The Story of Life, Death and Profit Inside America's Blood Industry.

-

An evergreen subject, failed libertarian attempts at bioshock cities;




The future of a crypto-libertarian city project in Honduras called Próspera has been flung into doubt. Controversial legislation passed by the Honduran government in 2013 allowed corporations to set up special economic zones with their own laws, regulation, courts, police forces, and schools. Próspera’s founders seized the opportunity to set up a low-tax, fully privatized city-state focused on financial, technological, and medical innovation.

But on April 21, the newly-elected Honduran congress voted unanimously to repeal the law and the constitutional amendment undergirding it, leaving the existing zones — known as ZEDEs or Zones for Employment and Economic Development — in legal limbo.

Currently under development on the tropical island of Roatán, Próspera says it has raised more than $100 million from investors to date. Despite the repeal of the Organic Law of the Employment and Economic Development Zones (ZEDE), Próspera says it will plow ahead — setting the development on a potential collision course with the Honduran government.

President Xiomara Castro celebrated the repeal, saying Honduras was “recovering its sovereignty.” Castro won the presidential election in November 2021 on a manifesto that included shutting down ZEDEs in response to growing outrage over the jurisdictions. A second ratifying vote at the beginning of the legislative period in early 2023 will bring the change into force. Melvin Rosales, an attorney and a Roatán-based politician for the opposition National Party, said that he’s “100% sure that it will be ratified.”

ZEDEs were heavily pushed as a means of stimulating economic development by Castro’s predecessor, former president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was extradited to the U.S. on April 21 to face drug trafficking charges. But fears over sovereignty, land expropriation, and legality all undermined the legitimacy of the project.

Próspera pitched international investors visions of a beachside libertarian paradise replete with low taxes and crypto-friendly regulation. The zone recently made Bitcoin legal tender and passed legislation facilitating the issuance of Bitcoin bonds. Próspera’s investors include Silicon Valley heavyweights such as Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen through Pronomos Capital — a VC fund which invests in autonomous city projects.

Approved in 2017, Próspera broke ground in 2020. But early on, it entered into conflict with the neighboring village of Crawfish Rock, home to a historic Garifuna community. Rest of World reported that in the summer of 2019, after Crawfish Rock lost access to running water, Próspera connected the village to its water tank. Villagers said the company proposed unfair pricing, and although Próspera suspended fees during the Covid-19 crisis, it then turned off the taps once it heard the villagers were attempting to restore their old water system.

Venessa Cárdenas, one of the leaders of Crawfish Rock, said emotions were running high the night the ZEDE law was repealed, and that residents of the village were overjoyed with the decision. “I think I was up until almost 2 o’clock that morning, texting and calling my friends and family.” Luisa Connor, leader of the village council, said she can now “sleep freely,” thanks to the law’s repeal.

Cárdenas said she wouldn’t mind seeing Próspera turn into a more typical tourist area or site of economic development: “My advice would be: Go pay your tax like everybody else; go and get your permits like everybody else; and [abide by] Honduran law and regulation like everybody else.”

In addition to Próspera, two more ZEDEs, Ciudad Morazán and Orquídea, will be affected by the repeal.

The company behind Próspera has issued a strongly-worded blog in response to the repeal of the ZEDE law, claiming that its protected by numerous legal frameworks. made with the previous government. The legal assurances cited include constitutionally-protected acquired rights of ZEDE investors, a 50-year legal stability agreement guaranteeing the rights and privileges of investors, and international investment law protection, including the Central America Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-Honduras Bilateral Investment Treaty.

“For the state of Honduras to deny these rights would plainly violate its obligations under international and domestic law based on well-established legal principles,” the company argued. A February blog post stated that the Honduran government could face damages of more than $1.3 billion dollars if it tried to renege on these agreements.

“We respect and honor Honduran sovereignty, always have and will,” tweeted Próspera founder and CEO Erick Brimen. Próspera did not respond to a request for comment.

Others argue that the ZEDE legal framework was always illegitimate. Rosales, the politician from the National Party that previously supported the creation of ZEDEs, said he believes that the ZEDE arrangements were “legal, but not constitutional,” a position shared by the Honduran Bar Association and Honduras’ influential association of private enterprise, COHEP.

Many observers now agree that the reason the ZEDE law passed was through corruption: The legislation that brought ZEDEs into existence, called the RED law (Regiones Especiales de Desarrollo or special development regions law), was declared unconstitutional in 2012 by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that it violated the constitutional principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and governance. The judges who voted against this law were removed from their posts by Hernández. The Hernández-led congress rewrote and re-passed the newly-named ZEDE law, and in early 2014, the new Supreme Court approved it.

Co-chair of Crowell & Moring law firm’s international dispute resolution group, Ian Laird, said that the principle of continuity between governments in international law means that legislation enacted by a previous government can’t be rejected without cause. But if a case between Próspera and the Honduran government went to international arbitration, an argument focused on the potential illegality of how the ZEDE law was passed could perhaps hold weight.

Honduran government officials have said they will engage in dialogue with the ZEDEs. It’s expected that Próspera will be offered the option of converting into a “free zone” – a type of special economic zone which benefits from some tax breaks and fiscal incentives, but must abide by the country’s laws. The best option for Próspera would be converting to a ZOLITUR zone, a type of tourist free zone, Rosales said, “but the libertarian style they were looking for, they will never get.”


There are signs Próspera is willing to cooperate with the government to some extent. Executives met with the vice president of the National Congress of Honduras, Rasel Tomé. According to La Gaceta, the official newspaper of the Honduran government, Próspera said they wished to continue investing in Honduras while respecting the repeal of the ZEDE law. A Próspera press release published that same day, however, states that the company still “expects Honduras to respect its commitments under legal stability agreements and international treaties.”

“Nobody’s investing in Próspera because they seriously think they’re going to make money,” said Thibault Serlet, head of research at special economic zone consultancy Adrianople, who knows a number of Próspera investors. He said the main reason for investment is ideological — the investors are libertarians who would like to see a similar experiment in their own countries. He suspects that if the development lost its ZEDE status, it would sacrifice a certain type of investor, but gain another.

“They’re going to lose the libertarian, crypto-rich people, [but] they might actually make more money with it as a hotel [development], because there won’t be that uncertainty.”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,396
1,697
118
Hadn't heard of that strike attempt before, utterly hilarious!
It's a lot more complicated than banker = useless.

It only affected part of the bank operation and only affected some of the banks, people could still move money by various means and it didn't affect loan application or the central bank. The equivalent today would be if some of the commercial banks would shut down all of their ATM, an inconvenience, but not a very real problem. It's more interesting as a way of studying the disappearance of cash from an economy than banker. Banker don't make that much money from taking deposit from regular client, iirc goldman sach opened a regular consumer branch not too long ago and are starting to shut it down because its not worth the hassle for them.

True or not, the main "job" of banker is to select who get loan, they need to study the viability of project (mostly people starting business or buying home) and decide who get approved, when they do a good job everyone profit, the applicant can do a project they otherwise wouldn't have the ability to do, the bank gets a cut of future profit and society get the reward from w/e the project produced. Otherwise people who shouldn't have been approve get, and squander, money, if the bank is using its own money, it lose it or if its using client money they do and society lose out from a more worthwhile project not being finance instead. You can bemoan banker all you want, but I can't think of any alternative system, you either need some mechanism to decide who get approve (which require works and should therefore be paid) or infinite money, which cause all kind of problem with inflation, or you don't do loan at all, which is crushingly bad for poor people who are completely shut off from ever owning house or starting business.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,597
930
118
Country
USA
Uhrm, yeah, a few people do. The minority. Do you have any idea how many people work in jobs they hate because they have to pay the rent and bills?
Yes. It is also a minority. A large majority of people are happy with their jobs.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,374
6,890
118
Country
United States
Yes. It is also a minority. A large majority of people are happy with their jobs.
A30AF208-2A12-42A1-B70D-C2E48AC18A39.png


A large majority of workers (61%) also want a *new* job, so maybe that statistic isn't terribly useful or well defined