Describe your ideal society

[Victus]

*Thinks Rand was a nutter

Kamikaze189 wrote

Ayn Rand and co. certainly seem to be unable to understand that purely voluntary agreements between people can nevertheless lead to oppression

Voluntary actions are slavery!

Kamikaze wrote

The "free market" is an oppressive market.

Freedom is slavery!

Kamikaze wrote

The CEO gets paid millions for doing essentially nothing

Yeah, the company manages itself.

Kamikaze wrote

while the people at the bottom can slave for minimum wage

That's outrageous! The minimum wage infringes on the business owners' rights! Abolish the minimum wage!

Kamikaze wrote

And if the parasite at the bottom rung wants a raise, so that her kids have a decent shot at getting a real education or living somewhere where they won't get involved in crime, the boss is going to ask, "How does that help the CEO make more millions? It doesn't? Ah, well, take minimum wage. Or eat grass."

Yeah! Everyone makes the minimum wage, because factors such as experience, skill, and training play no role in determining the price of labour.

[Kamikaze189]

Brick wrote

1) All the greatest famines in history occurred under left-wing governments. When it comes to letting people starve, central-planners are the undisputed champions.

I don't support central planning either. Workers should manage themselves.

2) In the Robin Hood story, the people were being unfairly taxed. By taking it back from the corrupt government, Robin Hood was a medieval libertarian!

But he wouldn't be a hero if he stole from a CEO to help the poor?

3) If it's a voluntary agreement, both sides are better off. They may not get the same benefit, but that doesn't make it oppression.

Both sides are better off when an agreement is reached with human compassion in mind. I may find you drowning in a river and say, "Well, I'll save you if you give me eighty percent of all your future paychecks. Otherwise, drown." If I care most about selfishness and pursuing property, this is exactly what I would do. Would you say this is part of your ideal society? Do you see any problem with it?

The CEO/company founder was the one who took the risks and made the organization successful. If not for him, there would be no jobs. CEOs of large companies make millions for the same reasons movie stars and athletes do: they have skills which are highly valuable. A CEO doesn't oppress anyone by making a high salary anymore than a movie star does.

The founder may go out on a limb, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to millions. And if he hadn't made his company, there would be smaller companies performing the same function. Without wal-mart, we would just have many more smaller markets -- which walmart destroyed in the first place, and now has a stranglehold on. It competes only with other big chains like Schnucks. Part of the reason these big chains exist is because they can import the products of child labor in other countries, they can prevent the forming of unions, and in general they don't have to treat their employees like human beings, even to the point of thought control. This "service with a smile" is really the end-result of money-driven thought -- the company will treat you as poorly as it can get by with, but you still need to smile and be happy around the customers. And yes, every dollar that goes to the CEO is a dollar that doesn't go to the employee where the rubber meets the road. It is, indeed, oppressive.

Not only would I bet that a business that loses its CEO (and without replacing him, and if this were actually a legal possibility) would not miss him, I would bet that -- if the employees had the foresight and even a week to prepare for it -- they would run the company better without him, splitting his massive profits amongst themselves about equally. I can hardly imagine a person who has worked even a minimum wage job who can't name at least twenty ways to improve the conditions and the actual efficiency of their work. A friend of mine who works at a supermarket modified a cart to reorganize the stock -- reducing five hour's work to about one. The manager told him to stop because it "didn't look good" and he was afraid someone higher up than him would see his employees were "being lazy". He ignored the fact that it was much more efficient anyway. The same thing can be said for my job at a theater, where we were required to always be doing something just to look busy -- which means we wouldn't be doing actual work, getting tired, some people getting pissy, and not doing things that needed to be done as they arose. The guy who ran the company would realize how ineffecient and poorly planned this was if he worked on the frontline, but instead what they do is make guesses about how to run things. And if the employees find some better way to do it, you can be guaranteed it will "look funny" to a manager and he will have none of it.

[Kamikaze189]

Victus wrote

Voluntary actions are slavery!

Hypothetical situation, here. Tell me how this is not oppressive: You are drowning in a river, and I tell you that only by giving me all your money and doing everything I say will I save you. You can drown or voluntarily be a slave.

Abolish the minimum wage!

Only after we abolish capitalism.

Yeah! Everyone makes the minimum wage, because factors such as experience, skill, and training play no role in determining the price of labour.

The poor are getting railed the hardest. Do you expect me to criticize how well-off CEOs are?

[Brick]

Kamikaze189 wrote

I don't support central planning either. Workers should manage themselves.

Should students get to grade themselves?

But he wouldn't be a hero if he stole from a CEO to help the poor?

Nope.

Both sides are better off when an agreement is reached with human compassion in mind. I may find you drowning in a river and say, "Well, I'll save you if you give me eighty percent of all your future paychecks. Otherwise, drown." If I care most about selfishness and pursuing property, this is exactly what I would do. Would you say this is part of your ideal society? Do you see any problem with it?

I know how to swim Suppose I didn't. I'd agree to your ridiculous terms and then ignore them.

Even if you don't give a damn about other people, you still have to bargain with them to get what you want.

The founder may go out on a limb, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to millions. And if he hadn't made his company, there would be smaller companies performing the same function. Without wal-mart, we would just have many more smaller markets -- which walmart destroyed in the first place, and now has a stranglehold on. It competes only with other big chains like Schnucks.

All companies start as small ones. Companies grow because customers prefer them to the competition.

Part of the reason these big chains exist is because they can import the products of child labor in other countries, they can prevent the forming of unions, and in general they don't have to treat their employees like human beings, even to the point of thought control.This "service with a smile" is really the end-result of money-driven thought -- the company will treat you as poorly as it can get by with, but you still need to smile and be happy around the customers. And yes, every dollar that goes to the CEO is a dollar that doesn't go to the employee where the rubber meets the road. It is, indeed, oppressive.

I worked at Wal-Mart the summer I graduated high school. I got paid $7.75 an hour when the minimum wage was $5.15. I wouldn't make a career of it, but it wasn't a slave galley.

How unethical is child labor if the alternative is being destitute? Why is it unethical to prevent unions if those unions will hurt the company's profitability? Why is it bad for the CEO to get paid more if he's the most important employee?

Not only would I bet that a business that loses its CEO (and without replacing him, and if this were actually a legal possibility) would not miss him, I would bet that -- if the employees had the foresight and even a week to prepare for it -- they would run the company better without him, splitting his massive profits amongst themselves about equally.

Even if that worked, each employee would not gain that much more. As it is, there is strong evidence it would not work. American car companies have unions, Japanese ones don't. Who makes better cars?

I can hardly imagine a person who has worked even a minimum wage job who can't name at least twenty ways to improve the conditions and the actual efficiency of their work. A friend of mine who works at a supermarket modified a cart to reorganize the stock -- reducing five hour's work to about one. The manager told him to stop because it "didn't look good" and he was afraid someone higher up than him would see his employees were "being lazy". He ignored the fact that it was much more efficient anyway. The same thing can be said for my job at a theater, where we were required to always be doing something just to look busy -- which means we wouldn't be doing actual work, getting tired, some people getting pissy, and not doing things that needed to be done as they arose. The guy who ran the company would realize how ineffecient and poorly planned this was if he worked on the frontline, but instead what they do is make guesses about how to run things. And if the employees find some better way to do it, you can be guaranteed it will "look funny" to a manager and he will have none of it.

Very true. Many companies don't get the most out of their employees because most companies are structured in such a way that the workers spend most of their time trying to figure out how to do as little as possible without getting into trouble.

At my job (process engineer in a factory), I get paid to look for ways to make things more efficient. I talk to the workers: how can we make this easier for you? What is your biggest problem at work? I look at the machines: is there a better one to use? How should they be arranged? etc.

And I agree that management is often blind. They blame the workers for everything, when it is management that sets the schedules, quotas, hires and fires, and so on. If the process isn't efficient, the people who planned the process are to blame.

[Victus]

Kamikaze189 wrote

Hypothetical situation, here. Tell me how this is not oppressive: You are drowning in a river, and I tell you that only by giving me all your money and doing everything I say will I save you. You can drown or voluntarily be a slave.

While certainly morally repugnant, he doesn't have to offer you a way out. Yes, it is voluntary.

[Kamikaze189]

Brick wrote

Should students get to grade themselves?

Yes, actually. The student isn't learning for the benefit of the teachers or the school. They learn for their own benefit.

I'd agree to your ridiculous terms and then ignore them.

Because the voluntary agreement was oppressive?

Even if you don't give a damn about other people, you still have to bargain with them to get what you want.

So you advocate enlightened selfishness? How is that contradictory with saving a person for 80% of all their future paychecks?

All companies start as small ones. Companies grow because customers prefer them to the competition.

This isn't relevant to the point you were making about CEOs being irreplaceable, which I am not convinced.

I worked at Wal-Mart the summer I graduated high school. I got paid $7.75 an hour when the minimum wage was $5.15. I wouldn't make a career of it, but it wasn't a slave galley.

Were you using it to pay for your own housing, car, and health care?

How unethical is child labor if the alternative is being destitute? Why is it unethical to prevent unions if those unions will hurt the company's profitability? Why is it bad for the CEO to get paid more if he's the most important employee?

Your alternatives are spurious outside of using people as a means to an end. Another alternative to child labor is providing basic care without making children work, and then assisting in teaching skills for adults in such societies so they can be more self-sufficient. Child labor and starving are never the only two options when the well-fed people of America know of the situation.

In the case of the union, profitability is not the only measure of whether a union is worth keeping -- there's that money-driven thinking popping up.

The CEO, as I see it, is not the most important. The founder of the company should get an even split of the money for the work he does, the same as everyone else. If he wants to be paid quadruple the normal amount, that's fine so long as he works quadruple the amount. And if potential business owners don't want to risk too much, they can organize the business with other people from the start.

Even if that worked, each employee would not gain that much more. As it is, there is strong evidence it would not work.

http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_ch2.html on the Spanish Civil War wrote

Although the revolution didn't go as far in the cities as it did in the country, many achievements are worth noting. It was in Catalonia, the industrial heartland and stronghold of the CNT [the anarchists], that most was gained. In Barcelona over 3,000 enterprises were collectivised. All the public services, not only in Catalonia but throughout the Republican zone, were taken over and run by committees of workers.

To give some idea of the extent of the collectivisation here is a list provided by one observer (Burnett Bolloten, The Grand Camouflage by no means an anarchist book). He says "railways, traincars and buses, taxicabs and shipping, electric light and power companies, gasworks and waterworks, engineering and automobile assembly plants, mines and cement works, textile mills and paper factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories and perfumeries, food processing plants and breweries were confiscated and controlled by workmens's (sic) committees, either term possessing for the owners almost equal significance". He goes on "motion picture theatres and legitimate theatres, newspapers and printing, shops, department stores and hotels, de-lux restaurants and bars were likewise sequestered".

This shows clearly that the portrayal of anarchism as being something to do with quaint small workshops is untrue. Large factories, some of them employing thousands of workers, were taken over and run by workers' committees.

Often the workplaces were siezed because the owners had fled or had stopped production to sabotage the revolution. But the workers did not stop with these workplaces all major places of work were taken over. Some were run and controlled by the workers. In others "control committees" were established to ensure that production was maintained (these existed to exercise a power of veto on the decisions of the boss in cases where the workers had not taken over the power of management).

In each workplace the assembly of all the workers was the basic unit. Within the factory workers would elect delegates to represent them on day-to-day issues. Anything of overall importance had to go to the assembly. This would elect a committee of between five and fifteen worker, which would elect a manager to oversee the day-to-day running of the workplace - Within each industry there was an Industrial Council which had representatives of the two main unions (CNT and UGT) and representatives from the committees. Technicians were also on these committees to provide technical advice. The job of the Industrial Council was to set out an overall plan for the industry.

Within workplaces wages were equalised and conditions greatly improved. Let us see how collectivisation actually made things better. Take for example the tramways. Out of the 7,000 workers, 6,500 were members of the CNT. Because of the street battles all transport had been brought to a halt. The transport syndicate (as unions of the CNT were known) appointed a commission of seven to occupy the administrative offices while others inspected the tracks and drew up a plan of repair work that needed to be done. Five days after the fighting stopped 700 tramcars, instead of the usual 600, all painted in the black and red colours of the CNT, were operating on the streets of Barcelona.

With the profit motive gone, safety became more important and the number of accidents was reduced. Fares were lowered and services improved. In I 936, 183,543, 516 passengers were carried. In 1937 this had gone up by 50 million. The trams were running so efficiently that the workers were able to give money to other sections of urban transport. Wages were equalised for all workers and increased over the previous rates. For the first time free medical care was provided for the work force.

As well as giving a more efficient service the workers found time to produce rockets and howitzers for the war effort. They worked overtime and Sundays to do their share for the anti-fascist struggle. To further underline the fact that getting rid of the bosses and rulers would not lead to a breakdown of order it can be pointed out that in the two years of collectivisation there were only six cases of workers stealing from the workshops.

Extensive reorganisation took place to make industry more efficient. Many uneconomic small plants, which were usually unhealthy, were closed down and production was concentrated in those plants with the best equipment. In Catalonia 70 foundries were closed down. The number of tanning plants was reduced from 71 to 40 and the whole wood industry was reorganised by the CNT Woodworkers Union.

In 1937 the central government admitted that the war industry of Catalonia produced ten times more than the rest of Spanish industry put together and that this output could have been quadrupled if Catalonia had the access to necessary means of purchasing raw materials.

It was not only production that was taken over. Many parasitic 'middlemen' were cut out of distribution. The wholesale business in fish and eggs was taken over as were the principal fruit and vegetable markets. The milk trade in Barcelona was collectivised which saw over 70 unhygienic pasteurising plants closed down. Every where supply committees were set up. All of this made the middle classes very unhappy. To them, with their notions of becoming bigger bosses, the revolution was a step back.

Again equalisation funds were established to help out the poorer collectives Indeed there were many problems. Many markets were cut off in the fascist zone and some foreign markets were also temporarily lost. Raw materials were short as sources of supply were cut off. and when they could be obtained funds were held back by the central government. This was one short-coming of the collectivisation.

The banks had not been seized and the gold reserve already referred to stayed in the hands of the government. (The CNT did hatch a plan to seize it but backed down at the last moment).

Despite all this production was increased and living standards for many working class people improved.

Brick wrote

American car companies have unions, Japanese ones don't. Who makes better cars?

I don't think, for example, unions made the Pinto explode when rear-ended. I believe this is a non-sequitur.

Thanks for keeping this convo civil, by the way. My first post in this thread could've been interpreted as asshole-ish rhetoric. Props to you, sir.

I might not respond for a while -- going to work through some new xmas books and video games if I get the chance.

[Kamikaze189]

Victus wrote

While certainly morally repugnant, he doesn't have to offer you a way out. Yes, it is voluntary.

Hmm. I asked:

Kamikaze wrote

Hypothetical situation, here. Tell me how this is not oppressive: You are drowning in a river, and I tell you that only by giving me all your money and doing everything I say will I save you. You can drown or voluntarily be a slave.

We agree it's voluntary; how isn't it oppressive?

[Victus]

Kamikaze189 wrote

We agree it's voluntary; how isn't it oppressive?

The man on the shore isn't doing anything to oppress the man in the water. Even if the man on the shore weren't there (and the situation held the same), he would still be "oppressed" to the same extent, if not more so since the man on the shore is offering him an (admittedly shitty) means of escaping his oppression.

Thus, by having the option of becoming a slave, the man is less oppressed.

[nkb]

Brick wrote

Now who's straw-manning? I also said that those countries spend more money on law enforcement. Does El Salvador have the same forensics laboratories as the US?

Does Saudi Arabia (I believe that was one of your examples of low murder rate countries) have the same forensics labs that we have here?

Misdirection, again.

Brick wrote

You must agree at least that it is harder to get away with murder in certain countries. Why do you suppose that is?

There are multiple factors. Money spent on law enforcement is one of the factors, agreed. But, there are things such as culture, harshness of punishment, pervasiveness of illicit drug trade, etc, to consider.
Once again, it's not a neat black-or-white scenario. It almost never is.

Brick wrote

It is obvious if you accept that the government, at the very least, should protect its citizens from murder. It might do it badly, but if doesn't even try, it doesn't deserve to be called a government.

Well, then, it is obvious that the government should protect single parents from having to deal with raising a kid on their own. It might do it badly, but if it doesn't even try, it doesn't deserve to be called a government.

Brick wrote

Although murders happen despite the law, murder is always bad and if the laws are repealed, the murder rate would certainly rise.

Ahh, so in this case, you get to assume that murder rates would rise if the laws were removed, with no justification except "it's obvious", but defending deadbeat dad laws has to be fully supported by data? How convenient!

Brick wrote

Logically, they ought to stay since nothing good could possibly come from repealing them.

Ditto.

Brick wrote

Going back to the deadbeat dad laws, if individual states want to make their own, that's fine I guess. I don't see why the federal government needs to be involved.

That would make sense, if you could just keep these deadbeats from leaving the state to avoid payment.

Brick wrote

I agree that men ought to support their children, but does it really need to be a law? America got along just fine without these laws for 200 years.

Well, I guess I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence that we were just fine and dandy before, and that these laws are useless.

Be sure to include factors like the social pariah status that unwed moms were burdened with, for 150 of those years.

[Kamikaze189]

Victus wrote

The man on the shore isn't doing anything to oppress the man in the water. Even if the man on the shore weren't there (and the situation held the same), he would still be "oppressed" to the same extent, if not more so since the man on the shore is offering him an (admittedly shitty) means of escaping his oppression.

Thus, by having the option of becoming a slave, the man is less oppressed.

Oppression requires a decision, and nature has none. The man in the water isn't "oppressed" yet, just conventionally "about to die".

The guy on the shore has alternatives and he can choose between them. To begin with, he could save the fellow in the water for free. Or he could make him a slave.

Even if you want to nitpick my use of the word "oppressed", isn't it true that every person who enters into slavery, who gives up all their own money and is required to do everything someone else asks of them, is oppressed? Isn't this true regardless of how they end up in that contract, and isn't it true that someone could voluntarily enter a contract to be a slave?

[Philboid Studge]

Professor Chaos wrote

She crossed my mind. But I couldn't remember if she was shot (or whether I had seen the movie.)

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

If we agree on no killing, no touching bits without special invitation, and no stealing, who cares if I think the rules comes from Spaghetti and you think they come from space via spore. We can share morality without sharing origin myths. In fact, we HAVE to share morality to co-exist peacefully.

We "share morality" precisely because they come from the same place. If you believe your rules come from cosmic pasta products, eventually you're going to advocate something self-serving and corrupt, but at least you'll be able to justify it.

You might have something there. Libertarians, with their superior resource distribution system, only really require the "Don't touch my junk" morality. But when your system has to divvy up the goodies by committee you need kinds of "Touch my junk in just this way" morality.

If only the superior resource distribution system acknowledged and accounted for externalities (all of them), as well as the fact that many resources are finite. (But then it would have to deal with real life, which is clearly too messy for some people.)

Actually, per The Omnivore's Dilemma we are smart because we have to remember what is poison and what isn't. Per the author the smartest animals in ever genus are the omnivores (think rats compared to rabbits and crows compared to pigeons).

Except for the word 'actually' this makes sense. (Though I doubt even Pollan thinks this is the only factor.)

P.S. Chomsky is a 'libertarian socialist,' which, contra the flavors of libertarianism expressed here, advocates the abolition of private property, wage labor, and is expressly anti-capitalist. Here, he lists all the ways that Merkin-style "libertarianism" is a grotesque perversion of the idea, is in fact the opposite of what it means to be truly libertarian.

(I don't know about Assange)

[nkb]

Philboid Studge wrote

She crossed my mind. But I couldn't remember if she was shot (or whether I had seen the movie.)

In the flashback about her wedding day, she gets shot and left for dead by Bill and his buddies.

That's why she wanted to kill Bill so badly.

[ubs]

Kamikaze189 wrote

From a left-anarchist perspective, libertarians on the right hold a lot of positions I can't agree with or even sympathize with.

Given that our one party system is so committed to war (which you seem to object to, as do I) and the Libertarians are anti-war, I would give some thought to focusing what you have in common with other Libertarians including those on the right.

Kamikaze189 wrote

Ayn Rand and co. certainly seem to be unable to understand that purely voluntary agreements between people can nevertheless lead to oppression -- or, more likely, Rand and a good deal of her fans don't give a damn about oppression so long as it's "passive" and done economically. Selfishness -- "Screw You, I Got Mine" -- is now a virtue under her value system.

Rand's position is value for value and anything else leads to slavery for one of the parties. If one person is working for money and is forced to give it others but receives nothing in return, is he not then the slave?

Kamikaze189 wrote

A lot of people honestly cannot imagine a scenario where Robin Hood is the good guy. They actually think the poor should starve, and this is part of their ideal society; masses of "parasites" starving. In such a society, I imagine a business-minded Randian ubermensch would make a great living moving diseased corpses off the streets and into mass graves.

It's very obvious when you read the book that she wanted to trash Jesus and then chickened out, which is unfortunate because Robin Hood was taking not from Rich who earned their money, but from those who took their money. It messed up her entire analogy.

Kamikaze189 wrote

The signs of a complete lack of empathy are there. It might explain why the suggestion that "we're all in this together" has to be scoffed at; whenever I talk with anarcho-capitalists, the last thing they mention is that their taxes pay for explosive rounds being fired from helicopters into civilians and reporters in other countries (for example: http://www.collateralmurder.com/ ). It's interesting that they complain about Robin Hood when at least Robin Hood would put the money to adequate use.

I think you are mixing political philosophies. There are lots of Republicans that consider themselves pro market, but really aren't. Gaming the system so that some companies receive lucrative tax payer contracts, and more horrifying yet, without bidding, or receiving bailouts while others do not is absolutely antithetical to Libertarianism.

Further, the entire premise of Libertarianism is freedom.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine

You seem to be saying that Libertarianism without it's key premise really sucks. Couldn't you say that of every philosophy?

Kamikaze189 wrote

What they care is that the poor are "parasitic", and unnecessarily taking their property.

Getting the poor to support "freedom" or economic oppression through someone like Rand is a good way to go about it. And another way to do it is to create ridiculous rules for giving medical support to its own injured, which it does.

We don't have a capitalist health care system. Our laws grant monopolistic powers to the American Medical Association and protect large insurance companies by preventing new small competition from forming. They restrict the supply and the result is the high price. That is not a free market.

Socialism is a good way to handle medicine - obviously that works - but it can be done efficiently with the market system as well. Singapore uses the free market, and they pay a fifth what we do for the same services. They simply outlaw third party payments and require doctors to post their prices.

Kamikaze189 wrote

And this setup is alright for the poor because the poor have brought it on themselves by being lazy, so some of the libertarians on the right imagine. They don't realize they're committing the just-world fallacy (from wikipedia): "The … just-world fallacy … refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just so when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault." They may only extend this fallacy into the economic world, but that's far enough.

Agreed. I don't think that. I think almost all poverty is a result of corruption at the top - in our case transfer payments to established powers in the form of military bequests and bailouts.

Kamikaze189 wrote

The "free market" is an oppressive market. The CEO gets paid millions for doing essentially nothing while the people at the bottom can slave for minimum wage. And if the parasite at the bottom rung wants a raise, so that her kids have a decent shot at getting a real education or living somewhere where they won't get involved in crime, the boss is going to ask, "How does that help the CEO make more millions? It doesn't? Ah, well, take minimum wage. Or eat grass."

That happens here, but we do not have a free market.

Kamikaze189 wrote

This sort of libertarianism on the right is what happens when humans lose their humanity, start believing that possessing objects leads to happiness, and even call this terrible mistake a virtue. Both sad and false at once. I've never met a happy consumerist, whether they were libertarian or not. The psychological term for their ailment is "hedonic adaptation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_adaptation

I think the message is supposed to be that money is a much more peaceful means of dealing with other human beings than coercion through force and that a world that limits government allows you a wider range of behavior.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington

I would warn against accepting GOP interpretation of capitalism. Most have learned their micro economics from their fathers at the country club and poorly informed tend to twist premises to serve their purpose.

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

We "share morality" precisely because they come from the same place. If you believe your rules come from cosmic pasta products, eventually you're going to advocate something self-serving and corrupt, but at least you'll be able to justify it.

I don't think origin myths matter. If two groups do not share the same morality but they both think it comes from Grandpa's swimmers, what difference does it make. There will be conflict.

Philboid Studge wrote

If only the superior resource distribution system acknowledged and accounted for externalities (all of them), as well as the fact that many resources are finite. (But then it would have to deal with real life, which is clearly too messy for some people.)

I agree with the inefficiencies of dealing with externalities but disagree with the quip about resources are finite. Finite resources is a premise of capitalism, but not of socialism.

I'm trying to remain faithful to my commitment to not to doubt your sincerity, but.... Incidentally, the appropriate response to "I will never doubt again." is "There will never be a need."

Philboid Studge wrote

P.S. Chomsky is a 'libertarian socialist,' which, contra the flavors of libertarianism expressed here, advocates the abolition of private property, wage labor, and is expressly anti-capitalist. Here, he lists all the ways that Merkin-style "libertarianism" is a grotesque perversion of the idea, is in fact the opposite of what it means to be truly libertarian.

(I don't know about Assange)

Well, I just watched a film of Chomsky (admittedly a very young Chomsky) in which he identifies himself as a Liberal Libertarian and I think I've watched every available interview of him, and while I've seen plenty on the corruption of government I can't remember ever seeing him dis capitalism. I'll go hunt down the "Liberal Libertarian" video if you can find the "Captalism Sucks" quote.

If you come back with something against the Military Industrial Complex, that will be an automatic loss for reasons already stated.

I won't have it till much later today.

Assange made his statement in an interview. It wasn't a yodling declaration - an interviewer asked him what his economic and political philosophy was and he said he supposed he was mostly Libertarian and Libertarians everywhere screamed in triumph.