Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
D2 - Walk for Capitalism

By enterfornone in MLP
Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 03:29:52 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

In the last few years, the radical left have been taking to the streets with increased regularity, protesting against the supposed dangers of world trade and economic freedom. Despite their often violent and destructive actions they have been gaining a great deal of support and sympathy.

It is time for those who care about individual rights and economic liberty to take a stand. On December 2nd people from all over the world will take to the streets in a symbolic rally to declare their support for capitalism and free trade. If that sounds like you, visit walkforcapitalism.org for more details or to sign up as a co-ordinator for your city.

"Declare that only you and you alone own your life. Not the government, not "society". You know it's true. Now let's walk the talk! "


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o walkforcap italism.org
o Also by enterfornone


Display: Sort:
D2 - Walk for Capitalism | 62 comments (48 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden)
Is this some kind of a joke? (4.26 / 19) (#1)
by eLuddite on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 09:56:29 PM EST

Walking for capitalism in each of the countries on their tour is like walking for air. Why dont they aggregate their capital resources in order to freely exhange airline tickets for money in order to assemble in the middle of China where they can flex their Nikes to maximum effect. Not only will they be doing as they preach, they'll also have ample opportunity to break some commie windows for a change.

It is time for those who care about individual rights and economic liberty to take a stand.

I was not aware the anti-globalization protest was against individual rights and economic liberty. I thought that was the province of world trade institutions. Damn those protesters for abusing my trust in their miserable intentions. And kudos to walkforcapitalism.org for ommitting any critical explanation of where I went wrong; clearly what the world needs now are cheerleaders, not protesters.

---
God hates human rights.

China (3.33 / 3) (#29)
by Simon Kinahan on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 03:59:36 PM EST

Sorry, I see no communism here.

:) China may still be run by a communist party, but any serious efforts in that direction were abandoned some time ago. The last party congress (the forum where the party's direction is made public) passed a resolution declaring that communism could take "many generations".

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
Only for capitalism? (3.12 / 8) (#2)
by mlinksva on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 10:04:20 PM EST

Don't the [A-Z][0-9]{1,2} protests also have a strong anti-globalism/luddite thread? How about a walk for progress?

Also, too bad the organizer appears to be an objectivist, and the portraits on the bottom of the web site are all of Dead White Males (including Ayn Rand :-)).
--
imagoodbitizen adobe unisys badcitizens

Oh, I get it. (3.25 / 16) (#3)
by sasha on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 10:05:06 PM EST

Oh, okay.

So, by this premise, "individual rights" and "liberty" equates to "perpetual growth and destruction."

Walk for capitalism! Your great, infinitely expanding free market will create some kind of magic utopia of individual rights and liberties! Now sure, the ecology of the planet and the continuity of human existence (theoretically) is at stake, but that's all stool of the infidels! Long live the magic economic liberty to kill off the rest of the world to ensure the enjoyment of your McDonald's hamburger, carcinogenic french cries, and SUV!

No, really.

-1 -- *flush*
--- Signal SIGSIG received. Signature too long.

individualism (3.28 / 7) (#6)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:28:15 PM EST

right-wing extremists(1) tend to idealize social darwinism, egoism and sadism, caling it individualism and liberty.

(1) extremist meaning one who's ideas are far and remote from the views of general population. and before Libertarians give me any of the "american ideals" etc.. bullshit, i suggest you look over the LP's platform with wonderfull ideas for liberty they suggest such as child-selling, end to anti-discrimination laws, end to medicaid and public education -- ideas totally removed from anything the american people desire.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
p.s. american people (2.83 / 6) (#8)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:40:12 PM EST

sorry, i thought you were an american. basically if you're not familiar with LP, they are a small american political faction which advocates total end to all types of regulation, privatization of everything, and complete end of taxes. website of these shits is at http://www.lp.org/. in any case, US at this time has no free-health care system, except for the old and very poor, which Libertarians want to end. some clarification.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Walk for Capitalism? (4.00 / 12) (#13)
by Anatta on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 12:17:21 AM EST

As a pretty hardcore libertarian right winger, this concept seems stupid to me.

Capitalists don't march to promote capitalism; they create businesses, technologies, and wealth, resulting in a better life for all (I'm sure I'll get flamed for that, but I stand by it). We show that capitalism works by example. If you want to show people that our system works, perhaps you should just follow the system and work on starting a business or designing a new technology that will make the world a better place, instead of marching. Marching hasn't been successful since the civil rights era, and at this point the great legacy of Dr. King and others is being trampled on by everyone from the Million Moms to the Anti-Globalizers. Why should the capitalists start marching now?

It seems to me that we should leave the marching for the whiners, and go about creating and selling the things that make our lives better.
My Music

Why should the capitalists start marching now? (3.20 / 5) (#14)
by enterfornone on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 12:53:34 AM EST

I don't think it would achieve much in the same sense of what the socialist marchers are trying to achieve. As Eluddite said, the countries involved are all mostly capitalist anyway. Politically, we've already won. However there still many who beleive we would be better under socialism despite the evidence to the contrary.

The left have been trying to sell the idea that the only people who benifit from capitalism are a few rich business owners. This march will hopefully show that there are many everyday people who believe that capitalism is the best system for all people. Will it work? Who knows, but that's no reason not to try.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Just look around... (3.40 / 5) (#16)
by Anatta on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 01:45:43 AM EST

The left have been trying to sell the idea that the only people who benifit from capitalism are a few rich business owners.

I agree... I once saw an article that had a reporter from some right wing news agency (National Review?) speaking to anti-globalization protesters... and one protester said that "capitalism only makes the capitalists rich!"... to which the reporter replied "then wouldn't it be smart to make everybody capitalist?"

It seems clear to me that virutally everyone, from workers to entrepreneurs to environmentalists benefit from a solid, growing, strong economy with a focus on new technology, and that the individual liberties espoused by the libertarian party have been much less party-lined than those espoused by groups like the ACLU. I'm an optimist who thinks that technology, liberty, and human ingenuity will continue pushing us forward... but I don't need a march to remind myself of that.

Marching seems to me to be a political protest style whose time has come and gone, and further marches for trite, unimportant subjects (at least in America) dishonor those who marched for justice and equality, such as Dr. King and early 70s gay marches.

If the march was in Beijing, I think I would be pleased... but no one really needs a march in New York to see the results of capitalism... one just needs to look around.
My Music
[ Parent ]

Yes! Yes! YES!!! Go man, go! (3.27 / 11) (#15)
by elenchos on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 01:14:37 AM EST

Get out there! I would love nothing more than to see the Randians of the world try to actually join together and accomplish something. I wish I could find that "Millionaire Men's March" cartoon I saw a little while ago. Oh well. The irony of it is just delicious, though naturally the whole thing looks like a parody.

Now, these wouldn't be the same guys who always say that demonstrations are a stupid waste of time, right?

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri

Directions (3.33 / 9) (#17)
by dzeroo on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 05:02:52 AM EST

Why don't you go march in some of the poorer parts of the world? Reinforcing capitalism in your own city is not going to do any good, but perhaps you should go to, say, Afrika and go tell them over there that they're actually better off even though they don't see the bigger picture like you.

The problem with capitalism has never been the theory but the practicality that people 'demand' increasingly and therefore are forced to unfairly subdivide the 'supply'. In other words, people use too many commodities in the Western world and too little elsewhere. I mean really, how do you justify the increase in luxury items on the Western market (GBA: is entertainment really a primary need?)? If you want to streamline and celebrate capitalism you should re-allocate commodities to the extent where MY excess becomes YOUR basic.

But you'd rather walk around saying you're so clever. Your motivation is odd.


== chicks are for fags ==


just curious (3.91 / 12) (#18)
by ooch on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 09:13:46 AM EST

At the top of the page there is this quote:

Thomas Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Now can you please explain me why the way almost all our companies and corporation are run is in no way tyrranical? AFAIK in a company decision are made on top, and are then passed down to people who have no say in the decision. I am very interested in why that does not qualify as tyranny. Probably I don't know what tyrrany is, so please enlighten me. TIA, oege

Maybe once upon a time they were.. (3.00 / 2) (#31)
by Sawzall on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 04:42:35 PM EST

but not for the last hundred years. Coal towns are gone. In order to have that tryannical company, you have to have a government to support it.

Given that today in all of the developed nations, (and most of the middle) there is a balance between the force of labor and capital, it would be impossible to run a company that way. You may argue among yourselves the degree that which that balance is teetering.

The companies that demonstrate this management style are mostly in Asia and Latin America. Note closely the type of governments they have...

Economist North described the State as the organization having the overwhelming threat of violence. Whomever had it was really the State. Cynical as it may sound, it is a pretty good predictor of who will win an arguement. In China today it is almost impossible to find the government leaders outside the companies that they run.

Flame away

[ Parent ]

absolute power (3.66 / 3) (#35)
by ooch on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 07:23:41 AM EST

Tyrrany means absolut power according to dictionary.com. The way most companies are run AFAIK is that the CEO's, or maybe the board of directors, have the absolut power to do with the company as they please. They do not have to listen to their employes, who have no say whatsoever in company policy. In some cases where the union is strong, they sometimes have an advising role in decisions, but most of the time decisions are made on the top.

Hence these rulers of the company have absolut power. Now, if those marchers for capitalism ar so against tyrrany that they place that quote on top of their page, doesn't it make sense to attack as well the government tyrrany(which is not absolut BTW, it must answer to some hardly functioning manner of democracy) as well as the business tyrrany?

How come these capitalists differentiate between the two?

[ Parent ]

The question that begs to be asked (4.00 / 7) (#22)
by marlowe on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 10:56:42 AM EST

How is it that the left is gaining a great deal of support and sympathy, while doing things that would, in the nornal course of events, motivate people to despise them? That's where the real story is.

It's not very bright to try to fix a problem before you understand what its cause is and how it works.


-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
I'm a positive defender of economic liberty! (3.28 / 7) (#25)
by hotcurry on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 12:23:55 PM EST

Down with monopolies, and their oppression of our economic freedoms!



I'm a positive supporter of intellectual liberty! (3.42 / 7) (#26)
by hotcurry on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 12:26:59 PM EST

Up with the freedom to open my source code if I want to!



Who picked the date? (4.11 / 9) (#27)
by Global-Lightning on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 01:00:55 PM EST

December 2nd falls on a Saturday in the middle of the holiday shopping season, the most sacred season of capitalists. Indeed, many businesses sink or swim based on their earnings of this 5 week period. So while you're out demonstrating as a "positive defender of individual rights, free trade, intellectual and economic liberty", I'll be really supporting free enterprise by tracking down and spending way too much for the Malibu CEO Barbie Dream Townhouse for my niece!

One last thing:
What color is the ribbon? Every feel-good "raise awareness" campaign like this one needs a ribbon! That way supporters can feel like they are really doing something about the issue, just not anything substantial.
Thus, I will support the Walk For Capitalism by making little green lapel ribbons for $.02, and selling them to marchers for $2.00. Of course, all proceeds will go towards supporting free enterprise.

Well, DUH! (none / 0) (#48)
by error 404 on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 06:16:40 PM EST

Green. A kind of dingy green with dark grey marks on it.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Wow ! (4.00 / 10) (#30)
by Simon Kinahan on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 04:03:31 PM EST

New, right wing protests ! Even less clear in our objectives than the left-wing kind ! You didn't think it was possible, but our website actually contains less infomation than the S28 one ! Not only do we not know what we're protesting for, but we're not even sure whether we have already got it or not !

Beware of people who feel the need to write the word REASON in capital letters, for they be Randians and full of axioms.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
Tickets ? (4.20 / 5) (#32)
by chbm on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 06:49:47 PM EST

So, are they selling tickets ? Or they plan to make it work by selling merchandising ? :)


-- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --
Capitalism vs. Socialism (3.85 / 7) (#34)
by sventhatcher on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 06:13:56 AM EST

In capitalism, man exploits man. In socialism, it's exactly the opposite.

Fnord.

RE: Capitalism vs. Socialism (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by nobody on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 10:57:01 AM EST

In capitalism, man exploits man. In socialism, it's exactly the opposite.

I'm stealing that one for my .sig.

In capitalism, man exploits man. In socialism, it's exactly the opposite.


In capitalism, man exploits man. In socialism, it's exactly the opposite.
[ Parent ]
a subject for my comment (3.00 / 2) (#37)
by hph on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 11:19:49 AM EST

I see the fnords!

[ Parent ]
how hypocritical (3.50 / 10) (#38)
by crazycanuck on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 12:17:15 PM EST

"Declare that only you and you alone own your life. Not the government, not "society". You know it's true. Now let's walk the talk! "

Tell that to the 10 year old Vietnamese girl who made your nike shoes, fucker.

Last time I checked... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by enterfornone on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 09:46:32 PM EST

My shoes were made in the UK. And vietnam was a communist country.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Communist, my ass. (none / 0) (#46)
by Kasreyn on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 03:58:18 PM EST

It doesn't matter if Vietnam calls itself communist. By allowing corporations like Nike to employ (I use the term loosely; enslave is more appropriate) their citizens so that company can turn a profit, one would expect with some sort of remuneration to the government of Vietnam for the opportunity, they perform a basically capitalist act.

Besides, his point was that capitalism exploits the poor and helpless. His point was that the only people who will be marching for capitalism are the first- and second-world country, middle class people who have done well by the system of capitalism. Capitalism is many things; it is good for economy, industry, and advancement, but it is not very fair at all. In that sense, unless these people make their statements with the deliberate human rights abuses of capitalists in mind, they are hypocrites.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Interesting idea. What will the morons smash? (4.66 / 3) (#39)
by ajf on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 04:12:36 PM EST

I doubt a pro-capitalism march would attract a more intelligent (perhaps I should say less idiotic) crowd than the last few years' anti-capitalism protests have. Hell, there are probably people just along for the violent ride, who would happily attend both, because they don't care about the issues at all.

Where will they focus their attention? Outside charities that help people without fee? On the steps of court houses that have heard cases where the freedom of business to behave as it pleases has been oppressed by the tyranny of big faceless government? Blockading entrance to the UN building, so that unaccountable diplomats are unable to construct yet another international law that further ties the hands of the everyday multinational businessman?

Instead of smashing the private property of capitalist business, what idiotic damage will they do instead? Cut down trees in public parks? Pollute waterways, by dumping rubbish into stormwater drains? Get their cars un-tuned so they cause extra pollution?



"I have no idea if it is true or not, but given what you read on the Web, it seems to be a valid concern." -jjayson
The "Silent Majority" stays silent (4.50 / 4) (#40)
by tapir on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 08:23:09 PM EST

Unfortunately for this scheme, the "silent majority" that supports the status quo has a way of remaining silent. We know that, left to their natural momentum, our leaders will bring us world trade and economic freedom for billionaires. (Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift.) So what's the point of getting in the streets, if you're happy with the way things are going? Anti-globalization protestors are going into the streets because they know that's the only way they'll be listened to. That's the only thing that can cause the slightest deviation of the scenario that unwinds on the evening news -- and even there it doesn't do much. Unless you can get some billionaires to pay for TV ads, I suspect "D2" won't get anywhere. Will you find such financing? Unlikely. The main thing that the billionaires want is for the people to stay silent -- they don't want the people getting the idea that they have anything, even if it's things like "economic freedom", "less government intervention in the economy" and "private property." Billionaires don't want Ayn Rand's idealized world without force and fraud, they want the government to help them steal when they can't steal enough on their own. To take an example, nuclear power just wouldn't exist without government intervention -- the damage that could be done in a worst-case accident would put any private insurance company out of business. [This isn't a decision made by GreenPeace, or some crazy longhairs, this is a decision made by the people who run insurance companies, who are the most conservative people on the planet.] Or what about the time back in the 80's when General Motors started some rumors that they might want to build a new factory in Detroit, so the city government condemned and bulldozed a whole neighborhood -- but GM never built the factory. This is the world of globalization -- capitalism as it is, not as it should be or could be. As much as you might idealize some utopian capitalism, it coincides very little with what happens in the real world.

Er... (none / 0) (#44)
by trhurler on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 12:14:19 PM EST

Maybe you think a system where half your money is taken from you and you're then taxed for either saving or spending the rest so the government can give money to people who don't do anything is "capitalism," but this "capitalism" of yours very closely resembles a "centrally planned economy," except with just enough private efforts to keep it afloat.

Maybe you think a system where bills are always floating around but haven't quite made it yet to criminalize the use of signfiicant quantities of cash in order to make it possible for the g-man to examine anyone's spending habits at a whim is "capitalism?"

Maybe you're referring to the fact that you work, are paid, and buy things. They did that in the USSR, too, and they do it in China and Cuba. In fact, they do that everywhere, and yet most people would not call China a capitalist country.

If capitalism is to mean anything, it has to mean people make their own economic decisions; otherwise, it is nothing more than a veneer laid atop something which is not even remotely capitalist in order to placate people who don't know any better.

(Our good friend streetlawyer once said that capitalism is defined by private ownership of property. The question then arises: given that the government can occupy and/or seize your property at will these days, do you really own it, or did you just pay money to live on it as long as that isn't too inconvenient for anyone else? Well, anyone else with political pull, anyway...)

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
--ahem -- (none / 0) (#49)
by streetlawyer on Tue Jul 10, 2001 at 04:37:19 AM EST

Our good friend streetlawyer once said that capitalism is defined by private ownership of property

There are two errors in that sentence; the second one is that I said that capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production. Your toothbrush is your property, but it isn't part of the means of production, and I don't know of any political movement which suggests that it shouldn't be private to you.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

So (none / 0) (#52)
by trhurler on Tue Jul 10, 2001 at 07:13:26 PM EST

What about my computer? Is that a means of production, and if so, is my game console a means of production? What about my car? A person could argue that a pizza delivery guy shouldn't be allowed to own his own car, whereas I should. Seems rather odd...

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Oh come on (none / 0) (#54)
by streetlawyer on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 04:11:59 AM EST

I'm sure that a smart chap like you can solve these pretty jejune problems.

And if someone's working eighteen hour shifts delivering pizzas, it's stretching things a bit to call it "his own" car.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

and furthermore (none / 0) (#50)
by streetlawyer on Tue Jul 10, 2001 at 04:42:35 AM EST

(stacking up replies in the tradition of mad people everywhere)

The question then arises: given that the government can occupy and/or seize your property at will these days, do you really own it, or did you just pay money to live on it as long as that isn't too inconvenient for anyone else? Well, anyone else with political pull, anyway...

Given that the "people with political pull" are identically equal with the "peiple with property", and that this is an essential characteristic rather than an accident of capitalism, this question is less interesting than it appears.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Political pull (none / 0) (#53)
by trhurler on Tue Jul 10, 2001 at 07:18:57 PM EST

A well developed capitalist society is such that a very large percentage of the people own property, or will at some point. It is absurd to assume that this means that they all have significant political pull. For instance, the oh-so-corrupt St. Louis City government, which owns our airport, is "expanding" it. The airport is in the county. They're not actually building extra capacity; their plan is carefully crafted not to do that. Reason? Land grab for tax purposes; they're already quietly preparing the next airport expansion plans. Now, you want to tell me the hundreds of homeowners losing their houses and tens of thousands each in net worth are the ones who decided to do that, or even that they had any say in the matter? (They did not, despite all the "public meetings" held on the subject.)

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
You've got that wrong (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by ubu on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 04:20:40 PM EST

Actually, it's a pretty interesting comment. You're being fast-and-loose with what you call "political pull".

What trhurler means by "political pull", I suspect, is in essence the destruction of rule of law. If someone with trhurler's brand of "political pull" can seize private property even though -- as you say -- no existing political theory allows such a thing, then it must be true that such "political pull" represents lawlessness in every political ideology in the world. Snap!

Your own use of "political pull" is actually enfranchisement, which (in Western democracies) explicitly refers to equality before the Law. Which pretty much rules out the notion that one person's "political pull" can supercede another's when it comes to property rights, no?

Hey! I see you looking at that word, "equality". Don't get any funny ideas about twisting my use of that word the way you did with trhurler...

Ubu


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
"the rule of law" (none / 0) (#56)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 04:03:25 AM EST

"The rule of law" is a concept which I mistrust, as it tends to be used as if it were unambiguously a good thing. In fact, of course, this depends on which laws are ruling; in a capitalist system, they are the laws made by capital. As you correctly say "political pull" is actually enfranchisement -- nine times out of ten it involves correcting the injustices of the system rather than creating any new injustice. And "equality" worth having is much more than equality before an unequal law.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
I get it (none / 0) (#57)
by ubu on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 12:43:45 PM EST

This is a joke. You monkeyed with the my meaning of "equality", after all. Ha, ha.

Very well. If an unjust law applied equally produces both inequality and injustice, what is the consequence when a just law is applied equally?

As you correctly say "political pull" is actually enfranchisement -- nine times out of ten it involves correcting the injustices of the system rather than creating any new injustice.

I suggest you look up "enfranchisement" in a dictionary or similar reference. It cannot be equated with "correcting the injustices of the system" because enfranchisement explicitly refers to equal protection for the individual under the auspices of "the system".

No matter how many times you change the working definition of "equality" you cannot square your principles with it. Either you believe in establishing a system of equal treatment or you believe in unequal treatment for the sake of manufacturing predetermined outcomes. You don't seem capable of deciding which.

Time to stop moving the goalposts. Does "equality" consist in how man acts within his circumstances, or in how man is acted upon by all of his circumstances? Does "equality" mean equality of outcome, or equality of treatment?

Ubu


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
equality of outcome (none / 0) (#58)
by streetlawyer on Mon Jul 16, 2001 at 03:03:01 AM EST

of course. "Equality of treatment" is, and has always been, a fairly evil piece of misdirection.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
more on the pursuit of cosmic justice (none / 0) (#59)
by ubu on Mon Jul 16, 2001 at 10:26:50 AM EST

That's a start, anyway. Does our responsibility for equality of outcome mean that we only uplift? Or does it also mean that must penalize? If some men were born with extra arms and a useful shark fin on their backs, would "equality of outcome" demand that we remove the offending appendages, so that all might be equal?

Ubu


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
oh come on (none / 0) (#60)
by streetlawyer on Mon Jul 16, 2001 at 10:45:25 AM EST

It means that the strong have a duty to the weak, that no man is an island, and that the only departures from material equality which ought to be tolerated are those which benefit the least well off. Further, that the need for an incentive-based economic system is the result of pathological meanness of spirit on the part of some human beings, and that it should be recognised as such; a condition that ought to be cured rather than exalted.

I have no very strong intuitions about shark people (or bat-people or whatever) and doubt that I would be able to derive any interesting political principles from them if I did.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

reply (none / 0) (#61)
by ubu on Mon Jul 16, 2001 at 11:00:29 AM EST

Further, that the need for an incentive-based economic system is the result of pathological meanness of spirit on the part of some human beings, and that it should be recognised as such; a condition that ought to be cured rather than exalted.

I see. Productivity should not be driven by incentives. I see no alternative except that human volition is useless to your vision of the productive individual. What is it, then? Slavery?

But of course it is. We've both read a little Hayek, eh? *wink wink*

Ubu


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
duty (none / 0) (#62)
by streetlawyer on Mon Jul 16, 2001 at 11:12:32 AM EST

In pre-capitalist times, people lived their lives and produced out of a sense of mutual obligation. The current conditions which allow liberal capitalist democracy to exist were only brought about by people who did not work according to calculated incentives, but rather out of a genuine belief in shared humanity. You might do well to consider the words of our greatest economist:
When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession -as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life-will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.
One of the smartest things Keynes ever wrote, against some stiff competition.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
But are they capitalist? (3.66 / 3) (#42)
by ghjm on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 12:21:51 AM EST

I visited the Walk For Capitalism Web site, probably for the same reason that people slow down to look at a car crash...and what do I find on the front page but this:

SCENARIO ONE

You: Hey! Where's my country? Where's my city?

Me: Oh no! I'm so sorry! We forgot all about it. Too bad we couldn't include you in this historic, world-wide event. Maybe next millennium?

You: How depressing. How sad. All is lost. Life sucks. Everybody's evil. Why don't I ever get a break? It's not fair. It's my parents' fault. If it weren't for ... etc.

SCENARIO TWO

You: Hey! What luck, nobody's volunteered to be a co-ordinator or contact person in my city yet! I want to be the one! Me, me, me!

Me: Fabulous! You're on! Just sign up ... here

You: You bet! I am now clicking ... here. Wow! I feel wonderful!

Me: Well, you are wonderful! You are a doer. A person who walks the talk! We can change the world!

You: Golly, how true! And it all happened when I clicked ... here.

I find this really interesting. Does this strike anyone else as basically identical to the open source / free software ethic of "send in the patches?" If you see a need, put in some volunteer effort and find a way to meet it! Everyone will be happier and better off!

But wait...in what way is this capitalism? Under the capitalist system, those products and services which maximize total happiness are automatically produced because people choose with their dollars (pounds, marks, yen, etc) which products and services they wish to see produced. They DO...NOT...VOLUNTEER. Volunteering labor causes society's scarce resources to be allocated incorrectly, to products and services that were not selected by the rational actions of consumers!

The capitalist solution to this problem would be as follows: The maintainers of the walkforcapitalism.org Web site offer to reduce friction in the market for calitalism rally walks, for a fee, by providing overall organization, branding, etc. - similar to the relationship between a franchise and a franchisee. People who are interested in organizing walks in their local area charge participants for joining, paying their central fee from the proceeds and of course taking a profit. Now, it would be anti-capitalistic to create artificial monopolies, so as many people as feel like it have to be allowed to organize walks in their local area. The competitive providers of capitalism protest walks each face a demand curve that forces price to equal marginal cost, or in other words, they make just enough money that they keep doing what they're doing...but no more. Each marginally profitable walk organizer stages a competing event. Consumers have their choice of purchasing a ticket to attend one of the many walks...or many of them, if that's what maximizes their utility function.

I could go on but I'm afraid I would snort milk through my nose. I mean, look. If capitalism is so great and worth marching for, surely the march itself could be organized along vaguely capitalistic lines?

-Graham

No, quite the opposite.. (3.00 / 2) (#43)
by enterfornone on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 08:24:51 AM EST

Under a capitalist system people do nice things for others, volunteer work, give to charity etc. because they want to.

Under a socialist system people are forced to give a portion of their wealth to funding such activities, so there is less incentive to do these things voluntarily ("I shouldn't have to help the homeless, the government should do that" etc).

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Well, not really. (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by hansel on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 01:57:42 PM EST

You're confusing capitalism with democracy, or libertarianism, or republicanism, or whatever. In other words, you're confusing an economic scheme with a social scheme.

It's true that capitalism has social effects. But those effects are not part of the definition or the generally accepted rewards of a capitalist system.

It's scary that you confuse the two.

[ Parent ]
You're all wrong. (none / 0) (#47)
by isotoxin on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 06:04:48 PM EST

Typical definition of capitalism (this one comes form InvestorWords):
Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services.

Individuals and companies are *allowed* to compete for their own economic gain; not *required* to do so. So a voluntary, procapitalist organization is entirely acceptable.

ghjm's original ideas are interesting, but "procapitalism services" are subject to the free-rider problem, and therefore unlikely to be supplied by a profit-seeking entity.



[ Parent ]
What's the point? (none / 0) (#51)
by davidmb on Tue Jul 10, 2001 at 12:06:27 PM EST

They're marching to say that they're quite happy with the way things are progressing? Because capitalism is winning hands down at the moment. What are they taking a stand against?

The protests of recent years have been against the current system and the way it's heading. Is the sole purpose of this protest to oppose the other protestors?

Are these marches being sponsored by the WTO?
־‮־
D2 - Walk for Capitalism | 62 comments (48 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!