~ archived since 2018 ~

Google Surrenders

MichaelRahmani

August 29, 2017

20 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTIVtpLw1uk

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Google Surrenders
Author	MichaelRahmani
Upvotes	20
Comments	174
Date	August 29, 2017 3:57 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6wosfc/google_surrenders/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/google-surrenders.915153 https://theredarchive.com/post/915153

Comments

[–]MichaelRahmani[S] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ee4m -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (171 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (170 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (169 children) | Copy Link

I don't think they are immune to that, its a fact that public spaces in western countries are much freeer than corporate spaces.

Corporations are more tyrannical, testing urine, demanding strict dress and speech codes and so on because they please and there is little anyone can do about it. And freeing up the labour market has given them more and more power over us.

Google guy could be banned from pay to use roads, paths and parks in a free market economy and there would be nothing anyone could do about it because the people would have no collective agency and face starvation and ruin for speaking up.

You are naive if you argue against public ownership and democracy on behalf of corporations, you don't realize what sort of dystopia you are arguing for.

Men are not disposible productivity units, productivity for private tyrannies is not what humanity is about, therefore that is not how society should be run. All human cultures are a mixture of social and private activities and successful countries with happier population's governments reflect that. The disposible robot worker men and women of Hongkong and Singapore make the rich richer at great cost to themselves.

And property rights are theft and acquired by force in the first place.

The rallying call "taxation is theft" was appropriated from a left wing thinker who spoke about property rights, the origional idea is "property is theft".

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (168 children) | Copy Link

Corporations are more tyrannical, testing urine, demanding strict dress and speech codes and so on because they please and there is little anyone can do about it. And freeing up the labour market has given them more and more power over us.

Oh you think government employees aren't subject to that?

Why do you think corporations test for those things? Is it because if they're caught they go to jail, and the corporation loses out on an employee?

Google guy could be banned from pay to use roads, paths and parks in a free market economy and there would be nothing anyone could do about it because the people would have no collective agency and face starvation and ruin for speaking up.

Apparently you think people have zero bargaining power or ability to organize voluntarily.

You are naive if you argue against public ownership and democracy on behalf of corporations, you don't realize what sort of dystopia you are arguing for.

Public ownership is either an oxymoron or a falsehood.

Ownership is only meaningful if you can exclude non owners from use, but we see members of the public, who presumably own the space as well, being excluded. From parks to the fact city hall isn't open 24 hours a day. Excluding "owners" from use by other "owners" means you functionally don't own it.

Men are not disposible productivity units, productivity for private tyrannies is not what humanity is about, therefore that is not how society should be run

No one is claiming men are disposable productivity units here, and your conclusion is a non sequitur.

The disposible robot worker men and women of Hongkong and Singapore make the rich richer at great cost to themselves.

Based on?

The rallying call "taxation is theft" was appropriated from a left wing thinker who spoke about property rights, the origional idea is "property is theft".

Marx was very wrong about a lot of things.

Unjustified taking property using violence is theft.

Violence is only justified to the extent to which it is necessary. Sufficient=/=necessary, and most things the government does can be done in the market, so the government is not necessary for most things it does. For some things it remains debatable if it's necessary.

Efficiency, or even apparent efficiency is not morality. If tomorrow there was incontrovertible proof slavery was the most efficient way to organize an economy that does not make slavery okay let alone desirable.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (167 children) | Copy Link

Oh you think government employees aren't subject to that? Why do you think corporations test for those things? Is it because if they're caught they go to jail, and the corporation loses out on an employee?

No I don't think government workers aren't subject to that. I know a park owned by the people is potentially more free than a park owned by an individual because the people have more power over the park. Speakers corner is a place where anyone can say anything, google's recreational areas is not.

Apparently you think people have zero bargaining power or ability to organize voluntarily.

Not after they have done away with democracy and labour laws. In the robber baron era, they just sacked anyone who tried to organize and shipped in replacements.

No one is claiming men are disposable productivity units here, and your conclusion is a non sequitur.

In a free market economy, society is seen as a market. The people are just productivity units and consumers. In a social market people are seen as workers and humans.

Based on?

Hi levels of poverty and stress and no social safety nets.

Unjustified taking property using violence is theft.

Its all unjustified. Claims were made about ownership, rebellions were crushed, the land was then rented out or sold by the people that made the claim, who never really owned it in the first place.

Efficiency, or even apparent efficiency is not morality. If tomorrow there was incontrovertible proof slavery was the most efficient way to organize an economy that does not make slavery okay let alone desirable.

Free market ideology has its roots there.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (166 children) | Copy Link

I know a park owned by the people is potentially more free than a park owned by an individual because the people have more power over the park. Speakers corner is a place where anyone can say anything, google's recreational areas is not.

Anything seems worth it when you're spending someone else's money.

Not after they have done away with democracy and labour laws.

For one, you presume things can only be democratic with governments.

For two, wages were going up and hours down even before the FLSA, so again you presume the efficacy and necessity of things.

In the robber baron era, they just sacked anyone who tried to organize and shipped in replacements.

[citation needed]

Weird how we don't see that even in at will employment states.

In a free market economy, society is seen as a market. The people are just productivity units and consumers. In a social market people are seen as workers and humans.

Wrong. People's labor is a commodity, not the people themselves.

No amount of pretending otherwise will change either.

Hi levels of poverty and stress and no social safety nets.

Except they don't have the former and you're doing the assumption thing again.

I wanted an actual basis, not assuming the merit of something based on intentions.

Its all unjustified. Claims were made about ownership, rebellions were crushed, the land was then rented out or sold by the people that made the claim, who never really owned it in the first place.

Homesteading is a thing, which an also be the basis for who has a legitimate claim on original ownership.

Free market ideology has its roots there.

Or slavery was something that occurred in markets and in governments. Conscription is a long standing tradition in government.

But unlike the government, in the market people bear the consequences of being wrong, and long term economics bears out slavery isn't actually very efficient.

Of course your response here didn't address the actual point I made, you just latched onto the word slavery to attempt some more rhetorical barbs.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (165 children) | Copy Link

Long term slavery isnt efficiant.

US corps. moved their business overseas to us slave labour.

The privitized prison system in America - there is a long list of corporations the prisoners are rented out to for slave labour.

So these are two examples where freeing the market resulted in going back to slavery.

As well as that, keeping 60% of the population as the working poor with no means to save is a form of slavery in my eyes.

Same goes for the fake middle class - people up to their eyes in debt pretending that they arent a pay check or two away from poverty, they are kept as debt and wage slaves.

As for the parks - if they were privitized they would be turned into developments, but I guess thats not a bad thing in the free market ideology because humanity and community isnt a concern.

They are quietly selling the public spaces off in the UK. To avoid the mass demonstrations I persume.

Where are you getting this ideology from?

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (164 children) | Copy Link

Examples of slavery does not refute that long term slavery is not efficient.

So these are two examples where freeing the market resulted in going back to slavery.

Yeah prison systems enforcing government laws isn't the free market.

Regulating the cost of labor-and production in general- that shifts the margins to move production elsewhere isn't the free market.

As well as that, keeping 60% of the population as the working poor with no means to save is a form of slavery in my eyes.

How are you defining "working poor"?

As for the parks - if they were privitized they would be turned into developments, but I guess thats not a bad thing in the free market ideology because humanity and community isnt a concern.

Right, because developing property into something else must mean it's a bad thing.

People don't need places to live, work, or buy goods and services after all.

Where are you getting this ideology from?

Where are you getting your economic ignorance from? It smacks heavily of Marx.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (140 children) | Copy Link

Examples of slavery does not refute that long term slavery is not efficient.

You sound like a robot that doesn't understand that slavery is wrong regardless of whether its efficient for the rich or not. None the less, market liberalization since the 80s has resulted in slavery.

Yeah prison systems enforcing government laws isn't the free market.

There is no such thing as a free market. They people that pay for the propaganda you are repeating want corporate welfare as well as ending social safety nets and other protections from capitalism for men.

Freeer economies need a large prison system, or a dictatorship to control the revolution caused by leaving ordinary people with too little.

How are you defining "working poor"?

People that have to work, but cannot afford housing.

Right, because developing property into something else must mean it's a bad thing.

Thats not the logic. Its a bad thing if you lose public parks to apartments for the rich because you lose something that has real value to everyone in the city. Plus a lot of homeless men rely on public parks.

People don't need places to live, work, or buy goods and services after all.

Because people aren't humans, just consumer units? Its perfectly possible to have public parks and common areas, and live and go shopping.

Where are you getting your economic ignorance from? It smacks heavily of Marx.

The free market movement, in all its guises from tea partiers to Alex Jones, to ancaps and the institutes and so on - is based on targeting less affluent and less educated people and tricking them into advocating against their own economic interests. Its a pseudo scientific con job.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=dark+money&tag=googiehydra-21&index=aps&hvadid=195333826011&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=897319850350380433&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007850&hvtargid=kwd-4796916039&ref=pd_sl_42361ns450_e

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (139 children) | Copy Link

You sound like a robot that doesn't understand that slavery is wrong regardless of whether its efficient for the rich or not.

We're talking about its efficiency, not its morality. I never said slavery was okay.

None the less, market liberalization since the 80s has resulted in slavery.

Based on a definition of slavery that is essentially "I don't get all I want".

There is no such thing as a free market. They people that pay for the propaganda you are repeating want corporate welfare as well as ending social safety nets and other protections from capitalism for men.

There's no such thing as a real carnot engine either. It's a model.

Freeer economies need a large prison system, or a dictatorship to control the revolution caused by leaving ordinary people with too little.

Denmark says otherwise. It's freer than the US.

People that have to work, but cannot afford housing.

The percent of people that are homeless is very small.

Thats not the logic. Its a bad thing if you lose public parks to apartments for the rich because you lose something that has real value to everyone in the city. Plus a lot of homeless men rely on public parks.

Value is subjective. Further, what it replaces the park with also has value, so you're not even assessing what the net effect is realistically because you assume the new thing has little to no value.

Try again.

Because people aren't humans, just consumer units? Its perfectly possible to have public parks and common areas, and live and go shopping.

It's more that those things they consume improve their lives in different ways.

Still ignoring the actual point.

The free market movement, in all its guises from tea partiers to Alex Jones, to ancaps and the institutes and so on - is based on targeting less affluent and less educated people and tricking them into advocating against their own economic interests. Its a pseudo scientific con job.

You are not the arbiter for other's interests.

This is more narcissism on the part of thinking you know what is best for everyone, attempting to make an political argument masquerading as an economic one, all while ignoring the fundamental lynchpin of economics in that value is subjective.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Based on a definition of slavery that is essentially "I don't get all I want".

No, I based it on other factors. Please don't get into pretending im saying things I'm not. Let the strength of your ideology speak for itself.

Denmark says otherwise. It's freer than the US.

Id imagine your source is a biased one.

Denmark has a strong welfare state and income redistribution. Its a mixed economy. This is not n example of american style, cut throat, gut the welfare state free market.

The percent of people that are homeless is very small.

In singapore 60% of people need government assistance to have a home.

Value is subjective. Further, what it replaces the park with also has value, so you're not even assessing what the net effect is realistically because you assume the new thing has little to no value.

I assume a nice park that everyone can use and enjoy has much more value to humanity than replacing it with concrete towers for rich people to live and invest in.

Im not in favor of stripping humanity out of the economic equasion to benefit a small group of people.

It's more that those things they consume improve their lives in different ways.

Vast majority of consumerism is vapid and pointless.

Still ignoring the actual point.

Still ignoring the actual point.

Your point was that parks should be turned over to the super rich because people need places to live and shop. As if to imply that if we didn't people would have nowhere to live or shop if we don't.

You are not the arbiter for other's interests. This is more narcissism on the part of thinking you know what is best for everyone, attempting to make an political argument masquerading as an economic one, all while ignoring the fundamental lynchpin of economics in that value is subjective.

Im basing it on reality - making a small group much, much richer by taking away from the majority isn't best for men.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I based it on other factors. Please don't get into pretending im saying things I'm not. Let the strength of your ideology speak for itself.

Such as?

Id imagine your source is a biased one.

All sources are biased. That isn't a legitimate criticism. Bias doesn't make one wrong.

Denmark has a strong welfare state and income redistribution. Its a mixed economy. This is not n example of american style, cut throat, gut the welfare state free market.

Too bad. The market is less regulated. Denmark just takes more of what the market creates, since government is very bad at creating wealth.

In singapore 60% of people need government assistance to have a home.

Still waiting on the source for this, and also whether it's that or it's simply they are given assistance.

I assume a nice park that everyone can use and enjoy has much more value to humanity than replacing it with concrete towers for rich people to live and invest in.

Which is a bad assumption. You're projecting your own values onto the valuations of others.

Vast majority of consumerism is vapid and pointless.

Not your call to make. You aren't the arbiter for what others value.

Your point was that parks should be turned over to the super rich because people need places to live and shop. As if to imply that if we didn't people would have nowhere to live or shop if we don't.

You mean like you assuming if the government doesn't do X we won't have it?

Actually my point was that the land can be used for other useful things, so taking away a park and turning it into something else isn't inherently a bad thing.

Im basing it on reality - making a small group much, much richer by taking away from the majority isn't best for men.

Fixed pie fallacy? How boring.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All sources are biased. That isn't a legitimate criticism. Bias doesn't make one wrong.

Yes but a free market source is less credible than most, its like a feminist source.

Too bad. The market is less regulated. Denmark just takes more of what the market creates, since government is very bad at creating wealth.

A strong welfare state is good for the economy, and most people. It keeps more money circulating in the economy and provides diversity of investment.

Still waiting on the source for this, and also whether it's that or it's simply they are given assistance.

There are lots of sources on poverty in singapore. You won't hear about in free market sources because wide-spread poverty is one of the goals.

Which is a bad assumption. You're projecting your own values onto the valuations of others.

Yeah, I realize free market ideology puts profit over humanity. I just don't think its a good ideology. One of my arguments here with you is that your ideology treats people, particularly men as disposible work units for the very wealthy far more than over systems.

http://dollarsandsense.sg/3-hard-truths-about-poverty-in-singapore/

Not your call to make. You aren't the arbiter for what others value.

Its pretty obvious that buying disposible things as a means to happiness is a lie told through advertizing propaganda. Its an illusion.

Actually my point was that the land can be used for other useful things, so taking away a park and turning it into something else isn't inherently a bad thing.

Not necessarily, but the reason for privitizing public areas is to replace the common areas with privatly owed investment and business property. the context here is free market ideology/agenda.

Fixed pie fallacy? How boring.

Going back to the 1800s and having 80% working poor isn't best for men.

Nor is it best for men to argue for property rights and to have no state support for homeless men.

You can have the first one, but if you argue for the second one also, you're for mens rights. Thats just one example of how your ideology is against men, in favour of the super wealthy class.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes but a free market source is less credible than most, its like a feminist source.

Based on?

A strong welfare state is good for the economy, and most people. It keeps more money circulating in the economy and provides diversity of investment.

Ignoring that time preferences differ, and banking is a means of aligning different time preferences.

Add to that your conclusion is based on how GDP is calculated, which treats government spending as inherently good for the economy, suggesting it can't make bad investments, which is absurd.

Yeah, I realize free market ideology puts profit over humanity

You assume they are mutually exclusive. More fallacious reasoning.

One of my arguments here with you is that your ideology treats people, particularly men as disposible work units for the very wealthy far more than over systems.

Systems don't create wealth. You can't reduce or eliminate poverty without creating wealth.

http://dollarsandsense.sg/3-hard-truths-about-poverty-in-singapore/

Speaking of biased sources...Luckily I can address their arguments instead of dismissing them for being biased(since that would mean all arguments should be dismissed)

Let's add first they don't provide a source on 1250 being that minimum, or whether that is in Singaporean or US dollars.

$2500 – $3000 is what you need to avoid being socially excluded (i.e. be in relative poverty)

Based on?

The figure of $3000 resonates well with commonly accepted approach of how most countries calculate relative poverty. This is usually based on taking a percentage of the medium income of household in the country. For example, in Hong Kong, the level is set at 50% of what the medium income is. That works out to be S$2,343. Anything below that can be considered as a household living in relative poverty.

Oh, so not actually determining what would lead to social exclusion, but assuming?

People in the bottom 20 percentile spend more than they earn.

Credit is a thing. This is more superficially playing accountant than doing economics, and ignores that who occupies a particular income quantile differs year to year.

So it's using snapshot data failing to account for mobility to say there's a problem with mobility.

Shitty, shitty logic.

Its pretty obvious that buying disposible things as a means to happiness is a lie told through advertizing propaganda. Its an illusion.

"I know what people do and should think."

Not necessarily, but the reason for privitizing public areas is to replace the common areas with privatly owed investment and business property. the context here is free market ideology/agenda.

So your objection is based on literally not liking it being privatized, and you say I'm the ideologue?

Going back to the 1800s and having 80% working poor isn't best for men.

Ignoring that poverty was common before capitalism came to fore then. More snapshot thinking.

You can have the first one, but if you argue for the second one also, you're for mens rights. Thats just one example of how your ideology is against men, in favour of the super wealthy class.

You think men having property rights which would be a means to prosper themselves is anti-men?

No it seems more accurately you think the only way to be for men is to be for men in your preferred manner.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Add to that your conclusion is based on how GDP is calculated, which treats government spending as inherently good for the economy, suggesting it can't make bad investments, which is absurd.

Nah this is what was found after 2008, why various european mixed economies do better in the longer term. Its free market ideology that is based in fundamentalist assumptions.

You think men having property rights which would be a means to prosper themselves is anti-men?

A small handful of people own half the resources and all the best property, which was taken by force and violence.

This is why there is homelessnessm you also want to make sure no rich people have to share to help the homeless.

No it seems more accurately you think the only way to be for men is to be for men in your preferred manner.

Your ideology is weak, you wouldn't need to intentionally create absurd arguments to attack.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nah this is what was found after 2008, why various european mixed economies do better in the longer term. Its free market ideology that is based in fundamentalist assumptions.

Based on...GDP. Notice how you didn't actually address my point.

A small handful of people own half the resources and all the best property, which was taken by force and violence.

Wrong. You're confused again. You're referring to wealth inequality, and wealth includes debt.

Let's add being bad at math to the list.

Your ideology is weak, you wouldn't need to intentionally create absurd arguments to attack.

The fact you ignore the crowding effect of government action to private alternatives to helping means you either don't know how to critically analyze these situations or you simply prefer the government do it.

So are you an ideologue or incompetent?

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Based on?

The welfare state is a compromise, a social contract to give the poor just enough to stop them overthrowing the oppressors. Take it away, and there is serious social unrest. There has to be something to replace it, to control the population. If the welfare state was taken away, it would be good for the privitized prison system though, very rich people would make more profits, so I suppose that is a good thing through the lens of free market ideology.

Oh? Where's the data showing that?

The book 23 things they dont tell you about capitalism by Ha-Choon Chang. in Singapore the parents push the kids into medicine and law, because these are the only two that have security. Fear of being seen as "not taking personal responsibility" and lack of safety nets keeps entrepreneurialism low. The government there have started programs to help people start business now because the numbers were so bad.

Free market is an ideology that doesn't fare well against reality.

Instead it's the socialist aspect taking credit for the wealth produced by capitalism.

Mixed economies are not socialist, the economies that produce the most growth and stability are ones with large welfare states.

Not that infinite growth on a finite planet is a rational or healthy ideal in the first place, that's just a glaring contradiction of free market ideology that free market ideologues cannot answer to.

You have to take it, because you can't produce it yourself.

Again this inhuman assumption that humans don't share and no value whatsoever is placed on the most human aspect of economies.

If you take out state run rubbish collection and privitize it, eventually through competition its a monopoly or duopoly, that creates few to none well paid jobs, replaces the well paid working class men with poorly paid immigrants and stores the profits else where instead of the money circulating in the economy. The families that no longer have a good income often end up on social welfare, which you want them not have - fuck men, all in the name of making the already filthy rich richer.

People are just disposible production units.

Profit before all else.

Fuck the homeless men.

etc.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The welfare state is a compromise, a social contract to give the poor just enough to stop them overthrowing the oppressors.

"We need to use violence to take things from people and give it to others to avoid those others using violence to take things from people for themselves"

Take it away, and there is serious social unrest. There has to be something to replace it, to control the population.

Or we could acknowledge that progress takes time, and prosperity was increasing but some people realized they don't need to be patient or recognize economic reality when they can just be expedient and hire people to take from others.

If the welfare state was taken away, it would be good for the privitized prison system though, very rich people would make more profits, so I suppose that is a good thing through the lens of free market ideology.

Funny how public sector unions like the police are the biggest proponents of the wars on guns and drugs.

It's almost as if the problem is criminalizing things that shouldn't, and placing public in the front of it doesn't make it any less corrupt.

Mixed economies are not socialist, the economies that produce the most growth and stability are ones with large welfare states.

As long as you cherry pick data. Industrial revolution says otherwise.

in Singapore the parents push the kids into medicine and law, because these are the only two that have security. Fear of being seen as "not taking personal responsibility" and lack of safety nets keeps entrepreneurialism low.

You say being held responsible for your actions like it's a bad thing.

The government there have started programs to help people start business now because the numbers were so bad.

Then give me the numbers, and the numbers for other countries for context.

Not that infinite growth on a finite planet is a rational or healthy ideal in the first place, that's just a glaring contradiction of free market ideology that free market ideologues cannot answer to.

Wealth isn't immutable, so you're just railing against yet another strawman.

Again this inhuman assumption that humans don't share and no value whatsoever is placed on the most human aspect of economies.

That's not being assumed. Taxation isn't sharing. It's taking.

If you take out state run rubbish collection and privitize it, eventually through competition its a monopoly or duopoly, that creates few to none well paid jobs

Based on nothing but speculation and special pleading. "The state monopoly is good, but private monopolies are bad; plus state monopolies will necessary pay well while private monopolies never do"

replaces the well paid working class men with poorly paid immigrants and stores the profits else where instead of the money circulating in the economy.

More playing accountant. You completely ignore the economic value of obsolescence.

People are just disposible production units.

More strawmen.

Profit before all else.

Ignoring what profit represents.

Fuck the homeless men.

More converse error.

etc.

Wait you have more fallacies?

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So the origional definition is regulatory capture, but it was used before there were anti trust laws and regulations anyway.

No, because artificial barriers aren't limited to regulatory capture, and the free market includes restrictions on private fraud and violence.

Robber Baron was a term applied to a businessman in the 19th century who engaged in unethical and monopolistic practices, wielded widespread political influence, and amassed enormous wealth

Key term was, as in this is an assessment of history through a contemporary lens, i.e. not really historical examination. Further this was a metaphor for the rich corrupting the government. Vanderbuilt was one of the more infamous industrialists accused of being one, and by golly the railroads were given regulatory monopolies, got federal subsidies/grants, and freaking time zones for them. Further still the origin of the term comes from German feudal lords charging nominally illegal tolls, i.e. breaking the law.

Perhaps much more importantly is that it's completely irrelevant even if they were robbers. The common man's well being increased substantially in absolute and relative terms most during that time, which suggests people like you either don't know what you're talking about, or simply want the rich to have less money out of spite.

You and your sources are really bad at this.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You asked why its the homeopathy of economics. I told you why it is.

Its called "market fundamentalism" by some for a reason. You believe, without evidence, in spite of it never working and all the evidence that it doesn't.

The blame always comes back on the government devil and never on the free market god.

It has never worked. Chile was a failure and we were lied to about it. People all over the west, mainly men are anxious, disenfranchised and falling through the cracks because of it.

Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, 'cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch. Ron Bloom Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ronbloom412127.html

The Case for Regulation. The Failure of Free Market Economics

The economic mess in which the United States and Europe find themselves and which has been exported to much of the rest of the world is the direct consequence of too much economic freedom. The excess freedom is the direct consequence of financial deregulation.

Paul Craig Roberts was formerly Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan administration, and associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. He is author or coauthor of nine books and numerous articles in scholarly journals.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-case-for-regulation-the-failure-of-free-market-economics/27588

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Its like dealing with a feminist, you make up absurd postions and attack those. Your ideology is too weak for a critical eye.

Wrong. That is a conclusion drawn from your reasoning.

Unfortunately for you, conclusions drawn from your argument are not limited to what you intend to draw. That is a failure of critical examination on your part.

Its unwise to privitize everything. Take privitized electricity. After a bit of competition one or two electrical suppliers own all the compeition, and they might be owned by the same entity at another level.

For one, that didn't happen when it was privatized. For two, it didn't occur that way until the government carved out monopolies for the biggest whiners. For three, that is indistinguishable from it being a public utility.

Monopolies are inefficient, government or private.

Anyhow, with your red herring out of the way.

Let's add you not knowing what a red herring is to the list.

What I'm objecting to is taking public spaces like parks that everyone can enjoy and turing them into private property for the rich is a loss for the majority.

Here we see the entitled child, who thinks taking away something they didn't pay for is a loss to them.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why do you think they want the regulations that stop them having monopolies gone?

Because they don't. They want regulations to keep competition out.

Regulatory capture is a thing, and people like you are unwitting accomplices.

Its what happened during the small government era of the US.

Nope. There was tons of competition for providing electricity until the government swooped in and decided who got to sell where.

There was so much competition it was driving down prices to where some companies couldn't compete, so they whined to the government.

Its an enevitable out come of free market competition.

Nope. Monopolies are only inevitable when you can violently restrict entry into the market. It happens privately at times, but it not always, but it happens far more often with government.

and all the well paid jobs that the gov used to provide are gone and replaced with low paid jobs with no security so a lot of money is taken out of the economy.

Or you have no concept of history or economics.

Tell you what: Provide with some clue you understand economics beyond playing accountant, and I'll revisit your argument.

Spoiler: by doing so you'll have to refine or abandon your current argument.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nope, they want the regulations gone, not because they want to make less, its because they want to go back to the small gov. era of the US when they had monopolies and didnt have to worry about expensive costs like work place safety.

Injured workers aren't productive workers. When the workers were productive enough to warrant that investment it occurred before the regulations.

The workplace fatalities were falling annually before OSHA, and the rate at which they fell didn't change after.

That's just the government taking credit for doing making something already done official.

In other words, the government taking credit for other people's productivity, since it doesn't produce anything itself.

Sure, they can corrupt government. Its even easier for them if government is out of the way altogether - so there is no potential recourse for the people.

Yep. You think only the government is a means of recourse. Taking away government as an option means them having no option to you, which literally means you don't think there's any other possibility.

Remember when I accused you of this and you told me I was "creating" absurd positions?

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ideology after ideology.

Ideologies are sets of ideas. That is a meaningless response.

You still have not confirmed your source, I can tell its not alex jones or the tea party end of it. You are smart and educated, is it one of the colleges the Kock brothers bribed?

Arguments are valid or invalid regardless of who presents them, and no, none of them.

You're desperate in looking for who said what and not addressing the merit of the argument.

Yeah history has shown that.

More accurately the truncated history taught in public school classrooms funded by governments and whose curriculum is tied to the government Department of Education glosses over critical thinking in conflating necessary and sufficient conditions.

Converse error is a fundamental fallacy, and you still haven't refined your point around this.

[–]yeee_bot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They said, based on little more than cherry picking and fallacy.

Nope. The right libertarian free market movement was started in the pinochete dictatorship, friedman trained and oversaw the economists and the whole thing was backed by the same american foundations that promote feminism, social justice and free markets. It was disasterous. You are all useful idiots in different parts of the same fucked up ideology.

Its fairly common knowledge that the right tricks the working class into voting against their own interests, thats what tabloid news papers in uk do.

The near, whole pedo-hysteria thing in the UK was stirred up by right wing news papers as a means to direct anger about working class disenfranchisment away from the economic policies and at pedophiles, for one example.

Disenfranchised American men are being swept into crypto fascist ideologies - free market, ancap, tea party etc . that will only disenfranchise them more.

Free market ideology is the extreme end of the average person getting screwed over by the rich.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Dictatorship is not part of left libertarianism because there its more equatable.

Ah the old intentions determine results and morality logic.

You wouldn't say liberal feminism is part of the free market ideology, but the ford foundation, credited with creating modern feminism is also involved in the spread of free market ideology, as well as social justice or ïnclusive capitalism as its known higher up.

Someone can hold two unrelated viewpoints. You're continuing with the specious reasoning.

The handmaiden of free market capitalism in the US is liberal feminism, rich girls ready to tell men to check their privilage as the middle class wealth is confiscated and working class jobs disappear.

Please. Feminism uses the government to create opportunistic divides where women can hold men responsible for their bad decisions and entitles them to the wealth and labor of men.

Not remotely free market or libertarian.

but the ford foundation, credited with creating modern feminism is also involved in the spread of free market ideology, as well as social justice or ïnclusive capitalism as its known higher up.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Chilie was the first country they started the neoliberal/ right libertarian movement in.

The training program was the result of the "Chile Project" organized in the 1950s by the U.S. State Department, through the Point Four program, the first US program for international economic development.[citation needed] It was funded by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation aimed at influencing Chilean economic thinking. The University of Chicago's Department of Economics set up scholarship programs with Chile's Catholic University. About one hundred select students between 1957 and 1970 received training, first in an apprenticeship program in Chile and then in post-graduate work in Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys

Funded by the same gov fronts that spread modern feminism and idpol.

[–]WikiTextBot1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Chicago Boys

The Chicago Boys were a group of Chilean economists prominent around the 1970s and 80s, the majority of whom trained at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, or at its affiliate in the economics department at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. Upon their return to Latin America they adopted positions in numerous South American governments as economic advisors, many of them reaching high positions. The Heritage Foundation credits them with transforming Chile into Latin America's best performing economy and one of the world's most business-friendly jurisdictions. However, critics point to drastic increases in unemployment that can be attributed to policies implemented on their advice to fight inflation.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except chilie, the 1800s, singapore, hongkong, a well researched book, the track record of the neoliberal movement so far.

Nope, just assertions.

Still waiting.

Its irrelevant that the same deep state power promotes modern feminism, social justice and free markets.

Arguments are valid or invalid regardless of who presents them, so yes it is irrelevant.

Its irrelevant that the ideology is deceptive and tricked people into believing that its grass roots when really its about the special interests of the rich class.

You keep asserting this but that's all you've done.

Its as relevant as the rich class using organized religion to oppress the masses used to be.

Only by someone whose thought processes are dominated by relying on fallacies and imputing moral judgements onto people who have the temerity to not be convinced by such asinine reasoning.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just assertions.

Statements, sources and references to fairly common knowledge. The thing about being in an ideology, and we see this all the time with feminists. You can make a statement about something thats well known, but the ideologue will react with suprise and demand sources, and when you provide them they pretend they never saw them.

Singapore has a large % of the population working, who don't make enough to survive.

https://www.scribd.com/document/175857755/Working-Poor-in-Singapore-Are-Not-Getting-Enough-Pay-to-Make-Ends-Meet

And there is another large chunk that do make enough to survive - they can save $5 a day, but they are on housing benefit too.

Arguments are valid or invalid regardless of who presents them, so yes it is irrelevant.

Your argument that the free market market movement is grassroots and not a top down ideology is invalid.

Organized religion and modern feminism isn't valid.

These top down control ideologies are not valid.

There are true believers, to them they are valid - it doesn't mean they are.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Singapore has a large % of the population working, who don't make enough to survive.

Most people don't even know what or where Singapore is. Don't pretend like anything about it is common knowledge.

I already addressed this: it defines "working poor" as a relative metric, which means it isn't based what is needed to make ends meet.

Your argument that the free market market movement is grassroots and not a top down ideology is invalid.

Based on my conclusion not following from your premises. But the validity of my argument hinges on whether the conclusion follows from my premises.

Basically you are either woefully malinformed on how logic works, or relying on rhetorical expediency.

There are true believers, to them they are valid - it doesn't mean they are.

You don't even know what validity means in the context of logic, so your assessments that are a reflection of that are not to be taken seriously.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, relative income - if there is a large gap with too much wealth concentrated at the top, leads to less social mobility, and situations like average men having to work work full time and not being able to afford a home.

No, it leads to less RELATIVE MOBILITY. Not less absolute mobility.

If it takes X dollars to move to the next income quintile in country A and Y dollars in country B, then when a person in each country literally increases their income an equal amount, one appears less mobile despite them being equally better off.

It is bad math, bad statistics, and desperate policy for the economically ignorant.

But keep fighting for the elite and against the average man.

Stop pretending to be an mra though.

Or you could not invoke another fallacy and infer my motivations from not agreeing with you.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is you agreeing with me and not liking it.

That was me explaining one way the free market ideology is bad for average men and reduces social mobility, and not just relatively.

Singapore isn't just an issue of relative poverty, more than half the population are working but not making enough to make ends meet.

What I am talking about half the population needing gov. subsidies to make ends meet, not a well off population that is simply relatively poor compared to the elite.

There is an inverse correlation there, the more relative inequality there is, the less social mobility and money there is for average men.

And in a European style mixed economy you find more social mobility, so freeer markets are bad for average men, and good for the elite.

More fixed pie fallacy.

So what is your position, you make the rich richer by making others poorer and then the benefits trickle back down?

That doesn't work.

Its like " and the meek shall inherit the earth" - top down ideology used to oppress and pacify the masses.

And you keep handwaving away the hardship it puts on average men and keep arguing for the class politics of the elite and aristocracy.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That was me explaining one way the free market ideology is bad for average men and reduces social mobility, and not just relatively.

No all your metrics are relative ones.

Singapore isn't just an issue of relative poverty, more than half the population are working but not making enough to make ends meet.

Based on a metric of relative poverty.

What I am talking about half the population needing gov. subsidies to make ends meet, not a well off population that is simply relatively poor compared to the elite.

You're confused again. Getting government subsidies-since Singapore has a lot of public ownership of many things-does not mean they need it.

There is an inverse correlation there, the more relative inequality there is, the less social mobility and money there is for average men.

Nope. Only via relative metrics, so it's basically saying more inequality means there's more inequality.

And in a European style mixed economy you find more social mobility, so freeer markets are bad for average men, and good for the elite.

Only by relative metrics again.

So what is your position, you make the rich richer by making others poorer and then the benefits trickle back down?

No, but since you don't understand the fixed pie fallacy I am not confident explaining it would matter.

And you keep handwaving away the hardship it puts on average men and keep arguing for the class politics of the elite and aristocracy

If you keep tripping over yourself to justify your economic illiteracy and spite informing policy, you'll never solve any problems other than satisfying your ego.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Twice divorced, she struggles to hold on to a job and now lives in a one-room rental flat in Ang Mo Kio with her daughter. She gets $360 a month from ComCare

One should immediately ask why she struggles to keep a job.

Having dropped out of school in Secondary 2, Ms Lin struggles to hold on to a job.

Oh I see.

Ms Lin, 33, bought a mango vanilla cake decorated with characters from the movie Frozen. It cost her $50 - one-seventh of the $360 she got a month from ComCare, Singapore's social aid scheme for the poor and needy.

So she struggles with managing her money too.

Your preference would be to let them starve in the streets rather than have well off people sharing to help.

False dichotomy too? Piling up the bad reasoning

The american end of free market ideology is disgusting, men that suffer because the rich are hoarding the wealth can just go and fuck themselves.

Yes charity and the crowding effect the government handouts have on it.

You rely on cherry picking a lot.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One main point of getting men to support the free market ideology is to exploit them more. End unions, work place safety laws, labour laws. Its convincing men to advocate against their economic interests.

You aren't the arbiter for others interests, and you conflate necessary and sufficient conditions for a desired goal.

Your reasoning is fallacious from beginning to end.

Corporations are vastly stronger than individuals, one of the main points of the free market movement is to end government as a means for men to use their numbers as a way of compensating for corporate power.

Good thing the free market allows for voluntary organization, and corporations power is tied to their viability in the market.

But understanding that requires more than the superficial thinking you're applying.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fun fact: corporations need employees too, employee turnover is a significant cost. Your logic is basically: "I'm not truly free unless I have no risks, because I'm a child who think the world owes me everything simply for drawing breath."

Again the weakness of your ideology needs to be hidden behind misrepresentations.

Ill tell you what it is basically.

Your utopia will never exist.

You don't just volunteer out of it, because the only other choices are similar conditions elsewhere. You cannot unionize because the means to do it are gone. you cannot use government to get better conditions based on your strength in numbers because you have done away with that too.

And the next utopian stop in your ideology is well then just volunteer to start a business.

But if you live pay day to pay day with no chance to save, you dont get to start business.

Now you're just going in circles.

Read for yourself where it comes from.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

I don't advocate against any recourse. I advocate against your methods.

You advocate for no viable recourse, you may well believe on good faith that the available recourse described by the ideology to you would be effective, but it has no chance whatsoever.

Im more interested in talking about your contempt for mens rights.

Using issues like homelessness to advocate for more of it, and not to do anything about it.

The free market wing of the mrm is the stereotype of the mra that doesn't want anything to do with helping men.

Oligarch rights activist is a better label.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your utopia will never exist.

No one claimed there would be a utopia.

You don't just volunteer out of it, because the only other choices are similar conditions elsewhere. You cannot unionize because the means to do it are gone. you cannot use government to get better conditions based on your strength in numbers because you have done away with that too.

Um why are the means to organize gone? Just making things up now, or assuming the only way to organize is via government-which would be that whole not distinguishing necessary and sufficient conditions again.

And the next utopian stop in your ideology is well then just volunteer to start a business.

You mean how the Jews did that when people discriminated against them and wouldn't hire them when they first arrived?

Turns out that worked pretty well.

But if you live pay day to pay day with no chance to save, you dont get to start business.

Then you're an idiot. Loans are a thing.

Read for yourself where it comes from.

Oh look, more relative poverty claptrap.

You advocate for no viable recourse

Nope. I just advocate against yours. You narcissistically think yours is the only way, so you infer anyone against yours is against any.

you may well believe on good faith that the available recourse described by the ideology to you would be effective, but it has no chance whatsoever.

They said, with nothing more than incredulity.

Im more interested in talking about your contempt for mens rights.

They said, thinking they were an authority on my motivations based on my position.

The free market wing of the mrm is the stereotype of the mra that doesn't want anything to do with helping men.

Oligarch rights activist is a better label.

"If you disagree with my preferred method, which I'm convinced is the only way, you must not care. It's not possible I'm wrong about what is the only way, or even if it is the only way people can be misinformed. Yep, only one conclusion can be drawn from disagreeing with me and that is being malicious or callous."

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Um why are the means to organize gone?

Because its gone back to the robber baron era system and dismantled all the mean of resistance to corporate tyranny, and people that do organize can be sacked and put on blacklists. This is one of the main goals of the free market movement.

Then you're an idiot. Loans are a thing.

You are a utopian. The average guy one pay day away from fiancial problems doesn't get loans, certainly not the sort to start a viable business, and not everyone is an suited to running businesses anyway. Most guys want a decent job with decent pay.

They said, with nothing more than incredulity.

History. I have linked you to sources about the mens rights movements struggle to negotiate better pay and conditions. During the US small gov era they just blacklisted people who spoke up and used armed malitias to break strikes.

"If you disagree with my preferred method, which I'm convinced is the only way, you must not care. It's not possible I'm wrong about what is the only way, or even if it is the only way people can be misinformed. Yep, only one conclusion can be drawn from disagreeing with me and that is being malicious or callous."

I've asked you several times to let your ideology stand on its own feet and not to change my words to create pretend victories for your ideology.

This book is a pretty good source.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

Your ideology is about disempowering men.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because its gone back to the robber baron era system and dismantled all the mean of resistance to corporate tyranny, and people that do organize can be sacked and put on blacklists. This is one of the main goals of the free market movement.

Examining history through a contemporary lens and false dichotomies in thinking only the government is a means of recourse.

Your entire argument is based on fallacy from beginning to end. You have nothing but cherry picked data and compelling rhetoric that relies on inconsistent logic.

The average guy one pay day away from fiancial problems doesn't get loans, certainly not the sort to start a viable business, and not everyone is an suited to running businesses anyway. Most guys want a decent job with decent pay.

Not since the federal reserve mucked about in the financial industry and made most loans previously given out nonviable.

But of course people couldn't possibly pool their money together.

Most guys want a decent job with decent pay.

Well the value of anything isn't based solely on the demands of those selling it.

History. I have linked you to sources about the mens rights movements struggle to negotiate better pay and conditions. During the US small gov era they just blacklisted people who spoke up and used armed malitias to break strikes.

You provided links to a book. That isn't provided data to that effect.

Your ideology is about disempowering men.

Yours is about disengaging the brain in favor of feelings and expedient rhetoric.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a fucking government dictatorship. It fails to even pass the sniff test on what a free market is.

Not the utopian ideal thats sold to followers no, no followers are going to sign up for their own economic oppression. Its better to tell them they get freedom and other treats.

No, there are clear criteria for a free market, but your understanding of economics seems to stem from a book laced with cherry picking and fallacy.

Those in charge were perfectly happy to use free market ideology to run the global economy into collapse and also perfectly happy to get the tax payer to foot the bill.

Same with Koch brothers who fund the movement, they want corporate welfare.

The "free market" is never free, its political and to suit those with the most power.

There needed to be a dictatorship in chile to crush labour movements and workers organizing. Otherwise the american companies wouldn't have gotten them so cheap.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not the utopian ideal thats sold to followers no, no followers are going to sign up for their own economic oppression. Its better to tell them they get freedom and other treats.

The irony of this seems lost on you.

Those in charge were perfectly happy to use free market ideology to run the global economy into collapse and also perfectly happy to get the tax payer to foot the bill.

You're an idiot or a liar if you think the GFC was due unfettered capitalism.

Same with Koch brothers who fund the movement, they want corporate welfare.

Everyone wants welfare if it's an option. Maybe removing it as an option will disincentivize its corrupting nature.

There needed to be a dictatorship in chile to crush labour movements and workers organizing. Otherwise the american companies wouldn't have gotten them so cheap.

Sounds like that's a problem of governments, not the free market.

[–]ee4m1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link