SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[ForgedinHell]

prove that the outcomes of the free market are fair

That they are "fair"? How about this, I will prove that they are better than the alternative.

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary. Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange, otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange. It is difficult to imagine how an exchange, agreed to by the people involved, that makes each person better off, is unfair in any sense of the word. However, for a socialist, somehow this type of exchange is abhorrent enough to cause them to break out the revolution manuals.

The alternative to the free-exchange I just stated, would be one where the exchange was not voluntarily entered into. That means someone is giving up something they don't want taken from them, which is like being raped, or someone is getting something they don't want, which is also like being raped. Now, since the parties do not agree to this exchange, at least one of the parties has to be left worse off than they were before the exchange. Otherwise, why would they have to be forced into the exchange? So, the alternative to the free-exchanges under capitalism, which the socialists dream about, even during sex, involves forcing someone to engage in an exchange that they don't want to make, that makes them worse off. If that is "fair" to you, then I would think your moral compass was broken.

[Lynn]

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary. Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange, otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange.

In a free market, subject to the laws of supply and demand, people can still be forced into a position where the exchange has to take place e.g. if there is no alternative vendor or other means of way of securing the exchange - or be denied the exchange at all.

[ForgedinHell]

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary. Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange, otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange.

In a free market, subject to the laws of supply and demand, people can still be forced into a position where the exchange has to take place e.g. if there is no alternative vendor or other means of way of securing the exchange - or be denied the exchange at all.

That's not being forced into anything. If one believes that their best option is to make the deal, it can only be because they decide to do so, and because taking the deal makes them better off.

[Lynn]

Lynn wrote:

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary. Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange, otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange.
In a free market, subject to the laws of supply and demand, people can still be forced into a position where the exchange has to take place e.g. if there is no alternative vendor or other means of way of securing the exchange - or be denied the exchange at all.

That's not being forced into anything. If one believes that their best option is to make the deal, it can only be because they decide to do so, and because taking the deal makes them better off.

If you have a demand, then sometimes you can be forced into a corner to make the deal, probably making the supplier better off financially but not necessarily you, although you have satisfied your demand. It can apply in many scenarios but on a personal level it generally happens when I have to a strictly defined requirement to purchase specific items even though I know the supply will be limited or there is only one or a few suppliers who can meet my requirement. Have you experienced trying to buy a popular toy for a child at Christmas or even an M&S organic turkey for Christmas dinner, or at Thanksgiving, and being forced into making the deal? Or feeling forced to re-arrange your schedule to fit in with the availability of a supplier providing a service to you so you can actually get the service, be it a gas engineer home visit or a flight to Barcelona?

[Kayla]

That's not being forced into anything. If one believes that their best option is to make the deal, it can only be because they decide to do so, and because taking the deal makes them better off.

so lets try this scenario

i have a job with no long term contract

there are no other jobs or at least a severe shortage of other jobs

my employer says that he is going to change my job duties a bit - instead of whatever it is i do first thing in the morning - filing say - i have to give him a blow job

if course i do not have to do so i can quit my job instead

there is nothing about the hypothetical free market capitalism that would prevent this scenario

do you think this should be permitted

[Kayla]

That they are "fair"? How about this, I will prove that they are better than the alternative.

better for whom

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary.

in what way is this good

prove that this is a good thing

Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange,

prove it

otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange.

non sequitur alert!

non sequitur alert!

However, for a socialist, somehow this type of exchange is abhorrent enough to cause them to break out the revolution manuals.

when did canada have a revolution

[Kayla]

Penn & Teller are both Libertarians, Penn is fat, but Teller is not. John Stossel?

but all are white males

He's not fat, especially compared to a commie like Michael Moore.

in what way is michael moore a communist

he sells a product - poorly researched journalism that purports to be progressive - and a lot of people voluntarily buy this product

Also, Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.

she did?

she started the whole movement

her views on capitalism and whatnot are libertarian views

Besides which, isn't Santa Clause an overweight white male? You hate him too?

i did not say i hate overweight white males

i was just wondering why with the notable exception of ayn rand libertarians are white males often seriously porky

[bobevenson]

Exactly what should I ask a motherfucking Somali pirate?

Ask them why a lack of government has been so good for business.

You understand neither government nor economics. The only proper function of government is social integration, like a traffic cop keeping people from running over each other, which, of course, doesn't exist in Somalia.

[bobevenson]

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary. Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange, otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange.

In a free market, subject to the laws of supply and demand, people can still be forced into a position where the exchange has to take place e.g. if there is no alternative vendor or other means of way of securing the exchange - or be denied the exchange at all.

Sorry, honey, the free market doesn't force anybody to do anything. You may not like the available choices, but that comes under the category "tough shit."

[ForgedinHell]

Lynn wrote:

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary. Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange, otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange.
In a free market, subject to the laws of supply and demand, people can still be forced into a position where the exchange has to take place e.g. if there is no alternative vendor or other means of way of securing the exchange - or be denied the exchange at all.

That's not being forced into anything. If one believes that their best option is to make the deal, it can only be because they decide to do so, and because taking the deal makes them better off.

If you have a demand, then sometimes you can be forced into a corner to make the deal, probably making the supplier better off financially but not necessarily you, although you have satisfied your demand. It can apply in many scenarios but on a personal level it generally happens when I have to a strictly defined requirement to purchase specific items even though I know the supply will be limited or there is only one or a few suppliers who can meet my requirement. Have you experienced trying to buy a popular toy for a child at Christmas or even an M&S organic turkey for Christmas dinner, or at Thanksgiving, and being forced into making the deal? Or feeling forced to re-arrange your schedule to fit in with the availability of a supplier providing a service to you so you can actually get the service, be it a gas engineer home visit or a flight to Barcelona?

That's just not true. If you are suggesting that in hard times, deals are not fair, how could that be? If it's unfair, then the person doesn't do the exchange. If the person is suffering hard times, and the person makes a deal, it's only because they are better off doing so. That means capitalism, free trade, is helping to relieve the person from their bad position. If the trade made the person no better off, then they wouldn't do it, it would be a waste of time. If it made them worse off, they would not do it.

[ForgedinHell]

That's not being forced into anything. If one believes that their best option is to make the deal, it can only be because they decide to do so, and because taking the deal makes them better off.

so lets try this scenario

i have a job with no long term contract

there are no other jobs or at least a severe shortage of other jobs

my employer says that he is going to change my job duties a bit - instead of whatever it is i do first thing in the morning - filing say - i have to give him a blow job

if course i do not have to do so i can quit my job instead

I don't think anyone should be forced to do what they don't want to do. You can quit, and if there are no jobs available in that area, then move to a place where they are available. If the person wants to keep the job and give blow jobs, then isn't that the person's choice? Provided no one forces one to do something, they will not do anything that they consider is not in their interest. And before you state, I'm horrible, am I? How many people get married, because it is a way to financially survive? But as long as they are not forced to marry, should I force the parties not to get married, because one of the parties lacks money?
there is nothing about the hypothetical free market capitalism that would prevent this scenario

do you think this should be permitted

[ForgedinHell]

That they are "fair"? How about this, I will prove that they are better than the alternative.

better for whom

First, in a free-market, people are never forced to exchange with one another, the exchanges are voluntary.

in what way is this good

prove that this is a good thing

Since people are voluntarily doing the exchanges, the people are presumably better off after the exchange,

prove it

otherwise, they would not have agreed to the exchange.

non sequitur alert!

non sequitur alert!

However, for a socialist, somehow this type of exchange is abhorrent enough to cause them to break out the revolution manuals.

when did canada have a revolution

Okay, so you are saying that people who voluntarily exchange with one another would do so because it makes them worse off? That seems to be a foolish position to take. When you go to a grocery store and buy food, you prefer the food to the money you have, and the grocer prefers your money to the food it has on stock. If you weren't both getting what you want, then why are you paying for the food, and why is the store selling the food?

But, let's accept your bizarre position that people voluntarily do things to make them worse off. How can you prove that? It seems irrational to believe that people would agree to do what makes them worse off. But, like I said, for the sake of argument, let's agree that everyone undergoes these exchanges, which is making us all poorer, despite the historical evidence that capitalism and free trade has improved our lives to the point a poor person alive today in the US has a greater life style than a king of old. Even then, the exchanges would be fair because the people want the exchanges. To suggest that you can force people to do what they don't want, and still be fair, is to take the position that slavery is moral. You have no right to boss someone around, and dictate how they shall live, and it doesn't matter if your claim is that you know how to make them better off than they are. Taking away a person's freedom is always unfair. Being a slave to another is always unfair. Tell us, what would you have done to justify your ownership of another person, so you can dictate to that person how they shall live?

[ForgedinHell]

Penn & Teller are both Libertarians, Penn is fat, but Teller is not. John Stossel?

but all are white males

He's not fat, especially compared to a commie like Michael Moore.

in what way is michael moore a communist

he sells a product - poorly researched journalism that purports to be progressive - and a lot of people voluntarily buy this product

Also, Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.

she did?

she started the whole movement

her views on capitalism and whatnot are libertarian views

Besides which, isn't Santa Clause an overweight white male? You hate him too?

i did not say i hate overweight white males

i was just wondering why with the notable exception of ayn rand libertarians are white males often seriously porky

Ayn Rand did not start anything. That's myth that her cult wants people to believe. She had no original ideas of her own, and just packed them in novels and poorly presented them to the public. She hated Libertarians. She was an Objectivist, not a Libertarian, remember? Libertarians have long roots. Read The Rights of Man and see if long before Rand was born Libertarian ideas were not freely flowing in America.

[ForgedinHell]

Penn & Teller are both Libertarians, Penn is fat, but Teller is not. John Stossel?

but all are white males

He's not fat, especially compared to a commie like Michael Moore.

in what way is michael moore a communist

he sells a product - poorly researched journalism that purports to be progressive - and a lot of people voluntarily buy this product

Also, Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.

she did?

she started the whole movement

her views on capitalism and whatnot are libertarian views

Besides which, isn't Santa Clause an overweight white male? You hate him too?

i did not say i hate overweight white males

i was just wondering why with the notable exception of ayn rand libertarians are white males often seriously porky

You are unfairly stereotyping. There are skinny black women who are Libertarians. They come in all shapes and sizes. From all religious backgrounds, except probably not a lot from Islam.

Rand was an Objectivist, not a Libertarian, and she thrashed the Libertarian movement. Her ideas were not original. Just read The Rights of Man and you will see that long before Rand was born, at the start of America's existence, Libertarian ideas were freely flowing.

[John]

Exactly what should I ask a motherfucking Somali pirate?

Ask them why a lack of government has been so good for business.

You understand neither government nor economics.

I suspect I understand both these things much better than you but I was just offering you a question to ask your Somali pirate as you seemed a little lost.

I know you try to talk a big game with our aggressive stance but I suspect you're just a poor lost soul filling a void in your life by seeking attention here so I don't take anything you say to heart.