RE: Capitalist Corona Engineering
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Cronyism started mostly in the 1930's or in some ways in the late 1800's.
0
0
0.000
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Cronyism started mostly in the 1930's or in some ways in the late 1800's.
cronyism: the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
That's the dictionary definition. Do you really think that started only in the late 1800s? I think that's been around since some people had the power to do so. That is, since the population got split in a tiny group of producers who own the means of production, and the rest who can only sell their time. And that's capitalism my friend, sometimes called slavery, feudalism or mercantilism... There are no "free and voluntary exchanges" within capitalism, because we all need the products, we all need to eat; that makes us dependent on the tiny group that owns the means of production. It's really not that hard to understand...
But that's not the definition, not completely. What do you want? If I grow apples from my apple tree, then can you give me some gold for some of my apples? Can we trade? Are you against that? Do I have to give you my apples for free or should I not give you any apples at all? Do you have to have your own apple tree? I do not know what you want. I like the ability to exchange stuff for stuff. Do you not want that ability to barter and exchange? What are you against specifically?
The apple tree wasn't yours to begin with. "Private ownership" is where it all goes awry, it's a legal construction, nothing more, a figment of our collective imagination, a figment that keeps intact the cronyism you're so fiercely criticizing.
Then you should let people eat you. When I come to your house, you CANNOT tell me to stop hurting you or eating you. I can take your computer because it is not yours. So, when I find your house, I will take your stuff because it is not your stuff. It is not theft if we cannot or should not own stuff. You WILL tell me how stupid this is. You WILL tell me that all of this that I am writing is retarded and you are right because private property is founded in natural law which is universal since the dawn of time. Either you can renounce ownership rights and let me take your things or you can align with having things. You are insane. Totally insane. You will likely say that my argument is stupid. That will in turn prove my point. That is my point. My argument is stupid because not having private property is stupid. But you believe in communism and people in Vietnam agree with you. So, please move to Vietnam and live with your fellow comrades. They will love you and have sex with you and take your not things. Because you have nothing. So, it doesn't matter when people take your nothing. Because you cannot have things. You cannot have anything. So, you have no right to eat the apple. Because it is not yours. If an apple belongs to everybody, then it belongs to nobody.
I meet very few people who are unable to at least understand things on a conceptual level; you're one of those few. Try to turn it around and think like this: if nobody owns an apple, the apple belongs to everybody. If no one rules the land, everybody rules the land. Dare imagine that everybody isn't equally poor, but equally rich. Again you simply devolve into ad hominem arguments, the last resort of people who can not form a sound argument on their own. It's the racist who tells people to go back to their own country, which is what you do here by saying that if I don't like capitalism, I should just move to a communist country. This betrays the fact that you do not even understand what communism is; it doesn't exist in real life, even Stalin said that what they had was state capitalism. You read that right: Russia has never been communist, and neither is Cuba, Korea or China, they're all different flavors of good old capitalism.
I wish you luck with your love of power; it's something you'll never have because capitalism won't let you. Another piece of advice: don't threaten people online, that IS retarded, especially when you lack the power to make good on your word.
I am coming to your house as it is not your house. It is my house too. I am going to use your shower. You cannot debate me. You believe in sharing. That cannot work and has not worked. Stefan Molyneux would love to debate you. He would tell you that you are full of crap. Full of oatmeal crap. You threaten me and then lie and deflect and reflect to say that I am doing it to you like NPC SJW bots do. That is what they do. They get so angry at everything. But you cannot even own yourself. So, you must be a Buddhist. Nothing matters, basically. So, you should not write as you do not own what you are writing. Either you own it or you don't own it. If you were honest, you would admit to perhaps owning some things. And there are some things you would say people do not own or cannot own or should not own or whatever. So, if you were honest, you would make a distinction and draw a line between what you would say you owned and did not own. In other words, you may say that you own your thoughts. It is possible that you could say that you do not own your own thoughts. Perhaps, I could get my brain phone or Elon Musk or Bill Gates chip to go into your brain to copyright your thoughts and to share them with the world as you should not own your thoughts perhaps. But if you were to say that you do own your thoughts, then your next job would be to try to explain why you would not own other things. By the way, I am very retarded. And you seem to have problems with certain words. I do not care so much about certain words, either way. It is not like you own your own emotions. So, if I made your feelings hurt, who cares as we all own the emotions you might say. You might be a cult leader. You are trying to rewrite history. You are either blind or you are doing this on purpose. So, if you are not retarded like OATMEAL JOEY ARNOLD IS RETARDED, then you might be very very evil like Rothschild as you are purposely trying to misguide people like CNN. I am not sure which you might be, perhaps a combination of both. China and Russia were infected with communism. Also, communism has been infecting the United States as well. Also, fascism was infecting America in the 1930's like I said. Also, communism and fascism and other things can be very similar in some ways according to The Killing of Uncle Sam. Long story short, what matters is the people behind the curtain pulling the strings to cronyism, fascism, communism, technocracy, plutocracy, etc, as they are of authoritarianism, globalism, transnationalism, tyranny, etc.
Do you want VOLUNTARY EXCHANGES? I like that and I want that. I promote that. You wrote that term, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE. I love that. I believe in that. Are you against that? I want that. Do you disagree with me? But you wrote it. I want that. Do you not want voluntary exchanges?
So you like exchanging, that's nice. Other than that, what's the argument for keeping intact this highly inefficient and unjust system of exchanging privately owned goods? What I wrote is that in capitalism there is no voluntary exchange because there's only a handful of people who own all apple trees. "Power" and "ownership" are one and the same in this reality where we all depend on using and consuming what mother earth has to offer.
You hate private property? I owned an apple tree. Who am I? How did I own an apple tree? People can be equal and yet still be equally poor. I love power. You pretend to hate power. But you are promoting tyranny and yet you pretend to call it sharing. But it is a power vacuum. And what happens is authoritarianism when we pretend to give up private property rights. You promote communism. So, you must be a Bernie Sanders fan.
You are NOT describing capitalism. You pretend as if all of those things is capitalism but capitalism was a term created by Karl Marx. Capitalism is a new term that was created to attack what you wrote, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE. We have many problems in our world and that includes fascism which may involve monopolies marrying governments. One of the problems we run into is within corporatism. It has to do with power as it corrupts and expands. And you referenced favoritism and possibly other things in defining cronyism and of course favoritism and other things have been around since the dawn of time. When I talked about cronyism, I used the word "ESPECIALLY" to describe an elevation and acceleration in it in the 1930's and I did not write that it started then but that it especially started then or was seen at that time in the 1930's and in a lesser degree in the 1800's and that does not mean it did not exist before that at the same time and yet that depends still at the same time on specific terms. Depends on how you define terms. You can define a term in a general way or in a specific way.
We've had this discussion many times now my friend, and while I understand exactly where you're coming from, you seem to have a blind spot. Capitalism is not the free market. Any economy is concerned with two things: producing goods and distributing those goods. Capitalism's built-in class division is the same as in slavery, feudalism and anything else we've had since we stopped living like nomadic tribes; it's the few who own the means of production against the many who depend on those products. Your blind spot stems from an unfounded belief in some magical mechanism in which the accumulation of private wealth does not lead to those handful of people who own it all: Adam Smith called this "the invisible hand". Well, there is no such hand or any other mechanism that turns a fundamentally unjust system into some equitable equilibrium. If you can not understand that, we'll never agree on this point, but that's okay in a debate between so called free adults. Right?
You are stuck on these words. So, I will not say that magic word that you hate, capitalism. I will say free markets. I like free markets. What you are talking is a combination of different things which you label as capitalism and yet it is not that. So, you are making up stuff, you are lying, by conflating and putting a few things into one term called capitalism. An employer should own his stuff. That is a good thing. Are you for communism or socialism? I believe in free markets. Do you not believe in free markets? So, you want globalism as opposed to tribalism? I think you are describing aspects of communism, socialism, redistribution of wealth, Obamism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc.
I believe you said somewhere that you are or that you were a teacher; I seriously doubt that, for teaching requires at least some modicum of intellectual prowess. I just said that capitalism is not the so called free market, and you simply go on with equating the two. You never read a word from Marx, that becomes clear in your every response, so stop using his teachings as a defense in your arguments. And how do you make the mental leap to conclude that I'm talking about redistributing wealth, when our entire discussion here revolves around the very existence of private property? How do you conclude that I want globalism as opposed to tribalism, when in fact I'm talking about global tribalism? Here's a free tip: go read some about economy, its history, try to at least have some inkling about what you're talking about before descending into these mindless rants about loving power... I really feel sorry for the kids in your class if you really are a teacher comrade.
Wealth and property is the same thing in some ways. You talked against tribalism. So, what is an alternative to tribalism if not globalism? Can I learn history from Stefan Molyneux who talked about how Rome fell? I love free markets. You refuse to say that you like free markets too. That means you probably don't like free markets. It is not so hard to agree that you like to trade. But it seems you refuse to acknowledge the value of trade. if you said you were ok with buying and selling, ten would have no reason to debate because we would agree on that. But you can't even say that. Instead, you just want to insult. You can say that I started by saying that I was insulting you. But I was simply describing what I was observing.