Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[Akka]

Sometimes I long to be a lone geek again! For instance, Doom 3 is coming in two weeks. Doom freakin' 3. But I won't buy it, because I'd have to buy a new computer to play it, and all my computer money goes to ladies's shoes and puppies.

I propose we switch places.
I advise you to think very thoroughly before accepting


Luiz : sure, sometimes all this work, sometimes it doesn't. I don't say that the market ALWAYS fails. I say that it's not, by any means, a measure of value or competence. That you can be successful with a crappy product and totally immoral behaviour (in fact, the latter is nearly required if you wish to be competitive), and as such you can't use the market to make an objective judgement on the merit of people.

Advertising is of course good for business. But it doesn't actually force people to buy, there's no coercion involved. It can't be a bad thing. Ultimately the consumers will decide what to buy, if they are not very smart and buy whatever advertises more tough luck for them.

Again this "tough luck for them" that has nothing to do with this.
The first point is that advertising doesn't make the product any better. You can advertise it like mad, it won't change either the price or the quality.
The second point is that it's a direct consequence of the flaws of the market : publicity is necessary because, UNLIKE IN THE THEORY OF THE PERFECT FREE MARKET, people do NOT have the full information required to make a rationnal choice.
Third point : do you expect anyone to actively look for every company, with complete background data, that is producing every object, before buying one ? It's stupid to even consider, except for the biggest deals (like a house). It's horribly time-consuming, it require quite a lot of work, and it is not easily doable (companies don't precisely advertise they exploit their workers or use child labor, you know...).

The conclusion is that saying "tough luck" is stupid. I was pointing that the REALITY of the market is that it DOES NOT necessarily reward merit. The REALITY is that you can have a worse product, if you can heavily outspend your competition in publicity, people will simply buy from you and not from them, because they won't know about them. You can call it "tough luck", it's irrelevant to that it's a FACT that market is NOT fair, do NOT work like by the book with ideal competition and ideally informed buyers, and as such, has NO value when it comes to evaluate merit (and, as a consequence, to say that people automatically deserve every penny they have won in the market, as how much they win and how much they have merit IS NOT LINKED).

As for suing. If you sue somebody without a proper cause, you will have to pay the whole bill of the lawsuit AND the competition might sue YOU for moral damages untill your complete bankrupcy.

You just need to find a good enough pretext. Then you can threaten of a lawsuit, which can usually do the trick. That's not "market by the book", but that's both legal and the reality. And that happens very often (Microsoft is a fond proponent of this tactic. It often backfires, but they can absorb the losses without a wink, unlike many of their victims).

I think you're beign too harsh on Microsoft.

No.
But you're really having an idealistic view of the market here. Let me offer another point of view on the situation.

They truly revolutionised PC interface.

False. The interface was a shameless carbon copy of the Mac one (except that the bar is bottomside and not topside), and inside report said at the time that Bill Gates was pressuring his employees to make sure it was this way.

They don't force anyone to buy their products, and neither does Intel.

Intel is a separate case. As for Microsoft, please
It doesn't actually force you to buy its product by sending people with gun to your house. But are you seriously saying that someone who will have to work with computer in the company and outside, or someone who wish to buy a computer to have at home and use games and utilitarian software, have the REAL choice of buying anything but Windows ?
The fact is : no.
That's a fact based on plain simple view of the situation.

Actually, I can also point that there was several "selective crash" in the previous Windows, that happened when you used something not Microsoft-made. Like detecting if it was IE that was launched, or Netscape. And increasing then the probability of crash.
Not forcing to buy Microsoft ? Certainly encouraging it in a not really acceptable way, anyway...

Anyone can buy a Mac, Microsoft doesn't use coercion to keep it's dominant status. The consumers are the ones choosing Intel over AMD(even if AMD executives are also extremely rich). But even this is changing, in Brazil most public Universities now use AMD proccessors and Linux as an operational system. There IS a choice.

I'm not saying there is not a choice.
For Microsoft, I'm saying that the other choices are actually not seriously acceptable for most people. The existence of choice is irrelevent if you plan to buy a computer to play on your computer, by example. The existence of choice is irrelevant if you have to replace all your software if you wish to change your OS, and so on.
The point is that the market actually reward Microsoft for just abusing its position (or "milking it beyond measure" if you prefer), not for having better product. The fact is that it's rewarded because of its economic leverage, NOT its merit.
For Intel, the point is that the market has still not put it out of business, despite having competitors that offer comparable products much less expensive. It shows that the reality of the market is not just the theory.

The general point is the same since the start : the market isn't fair. It depends much more on power, exploitation and leverage than on honest hard work. The idea of making the market the benchmark of merit is based on pure theory, and is so absurd and contradict so much the plain REALITY, that it can only be compared to Marxist theory, less the humane ideal.

The market is, again, simply an arena where the strongest and cunniest win. I see no reason why I should accept such a thing as the example of ideal freedom and happiness, and accept that the arbitrary changes in it can be considered legitimate when they put people in poverty, while giving to others, who are no more deserving, obscene amount of money.

 

[newfangle]

Damnit, you posted that huge freakin thing just after me. See my post prior to this one.

 

[Akka]

@Akka

This is possibly the worst time to introduce this, but I found a 16-page essay on why being a criminal isn't in your bests interests.

Yeah yeah, it's about a year late. Whaddya gonna do, shoot me?

http://journals.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=5139594

Well, I'll have an eye at this, and I'll make another thread to answer it. It doesn't really fits in this one ^^

(but that thing is big, and I just finished another big piece of text, so it probably won't be before tomorrow)

Damnit, you posted that huge freakin thing just after me. See my post prior to this one.

Don't sweat. I always look above my post after I posted, in case people posted while I was typing. Especially when I type huge things like the last post ^^

 

[newfangle]

Take your time. I need to go through it a little more myself.

 

[thestonesfan]

I propose we switch places.

Then you'd have to read my pile of Ayn Rand books.

 

[luiz]

Luiz : sure, sometimes all this work, sometimes it doesn't. I don't say that the market ALWAYS fails. I say that it's not, by any means, a measure of value or competence. That you can be successful with a crappy product and totally immoral behaviour (in fact, the latter is nearly required if you wish to be competitive), and as such you can't use the market to make an objective judgement on the merit of people.

The market always work what it's suppoed to do, Ie, efficiently alocating resources. It's not supposed to fight crime or police the means of the companies.

A crappy porduct will never be successful by itself. It's like Britney Spears music, it takes understanding of "what the people want"(They found out that many don't care about music, only about good looking chicks)

Again this "tough luck for them" that has nothing to do with this.
The first point is that advertising doesn't make the product any better. You can advertise it like mad, it won't change either the price or the quality.
The second point is that it's a direct consequence of the flaws of the market : publicity is necessary because, UNLIKE IN THE THEORY OF THE PERFECT FREE MARKET, people do NOT have the full information required to make a rationnal choice.
Third point : do you expect anyone to actively look for every company, with complete background data, that is producing every object, before buying one ? It's stupid to even consider, except for the biggest deals (like a house). It's horribly time-consuming, it require quite a lot of work, and it is not easily doable (companies don't precisely advertise they exploit their workers or use child labor, you know...).

The conclusion is that saying "tough luck" is stupid. I was pointing that the REALITY of the market is that it DOES NOT necessarily reward merit. The REALITY is that you can have a worse product, if you can heavily outspend your competition in publicity, people will simply buy from you and not from them, because they won't know about them. You can call it "tough luck", it's irrelevant to that it's a FACT that market is NOT fair, do NOT work like by the book with ideal competition and ideally informed buyers, and as such, has NO value when it comes to evaluate merit (and, as a consequence, to say that people automatically deserve every penny they have won in the market, as how much they win and how much they have merit IS NOT LINKED).

Advertising of course doesn't make the product better, but it doesn't coerce people into buying either. Furthermore a good marketing is not without merit.

The Market theory is not based on Full Information. In fact it's based on the notion of very limited information and on the sharing of little pieces of information coming up with a decent picture. The consumers don't have full information on all products avaiable, but it's up to them if they'll buy product X or do a little research and try to find a cheaper similar. When resources are scarce, people don't buy the fisrt thing they see and they do, in fact, act rationally. I don't see poor people buying clothes of known brands, but rather of local industries with a very small revenue.

Merit is a subjective concept. What has more merit: a cheaper product or a brillian marketing strategy?

The market rewards the ability to please the consumer, in one way or another.

You just need to find a good enough pretext. Then you can threaten of a lawsuit, which can usually do the trick. That's not "market by the book", but that's both legal and the reality. And that happens very often (Microsoft is a fond proponent of this tactic. It often backfires, but they can absorb the losses without a wink, unlike many of their victims).

The solution is:
1-Don't give a decent pretext
2-Reform the Judicial system in order that people who sue without proper cause are punished severily.

No.
But you're really having an idealistic view of the market here. Let me offer another point of view on the situation.
They truly revolutionised PC interface
False. The interface was a shameless carbon copy of the Mac one (except that the bar is bottomside and not topside), and inside report said at the time that Bill Gates was pressuring his employees to make sure it was this way.

I don't know much about the history of the development of Software, but I can say that Microsoft has develped many more systems besides the first one, and usually they are far more useable then the competition.
(and a bar on the bottomside is far more comfortable, what was the Mac guys thinking )
Anyway, Mac is a huge corporation and Steve Jobs is the proud owner of a private jet and severall Yatchs. he is not unrewarded. Anyone can buy a Mac, Microsoft does not force the consumers into anything.

Intel is a separate case. As for Microsoft, please
It doesn't actually force you to buy its product by sending people with gun to your house. But are you seriously saying that someone who will have to work with computer in the company and outside, or someone who wish to buy a computer to have at home and use games and utilitarian software, have the REAL choice of buying anything but Windows ?
The fact is : no.
That's a fact based on plain simple view of the situation.

So I blame Mac for not offering a system that supports utilitarian use, not Microsoft for offering a decent system.

Actually, I can also point that there was several "selective crash" in the previous Windows, that happened when you used something not Microsoft-made. Like detecting if it was IE that was launched, or Netscape. And increasing then the probability of crash.
Not forcing to buy Microsoft ? Certainly encouraging it in a not really acceptable way, anyway...

The thing is Microsoft has the right to make software compatible with whatever they want. Why should they be forced to make something compatible with the Competitors?
Are the Nintendo consoles compatible with Sega games?

I'm not saying there is not a choice.
For Microsoft, I'm saying that the other choices are actually not seriously acceptable for most people. The existence of choice is irrelevent if you plan to buy a computer to play on your computer, by example. The existence of choice is irrelevant if you have to replace all your software if you wish to change your OS, and so on.
The point is that the market actually reward Microsoft for just abusing its position (or "milking it beyond measure" if you prefer), not for having better product. The fact is that it's rewarded because of its economic leverage, NOT its merit.

If there is no serious it's because nobody developed a system of comparable quality, right?

For Intel, the point is that the market has still not put it out of business, despite having competitors that offer comparable products much less expensive. It shows that the reality of the market is not just the theory.

Over here AMD is basically the same price as Intel, so people choose Intel because they are better known and usually more trustworthy.
If AMD could develop a substiantially cheaper product with similar quality then I'm sure eventually they would outgrow Intel.
Anyway it's no lack of publicity, because everyone into computers know AMD.

The general point is the same since the start : the market isn't fair. It depends much more on power, exploitation and leverage than on honest hard work. The idea of making the market the benchmark of merit is based on pure theory, and is so absurd and contradict so much the plain REALITY, that it can only be compared to Marxist theory, less the humane ideal.

It's based on rewarding those who please the consumer. Since the consumers are not forced to buy, how can this not be true?
Even if the decision are not necessarily rational, the fact is if the consumers are choosing product X over Y it's because they think product X will make them happier.

 

[Akka]

Well, to sum up, whatever happens, it's not the fault of the one who do it, but the fault of others. If Microsoft abuse its position, then it's the fault for competitors for not beeing able to be in the same position.

Another excellent demonstration of the law of the strongest that is the market. Kinda like "if you were killed by this guy, it's not his fault for doing it, it's yours for not being able to defend yourself". Why should we accept such a blatant absurdity as legitimate ?

I have no problem with a company that goes bankrupt because it did stupid things, sold overpriced and/or was rude to consumers. That is of their responsability.
I have theorical problems, but recon there is nothing to do about it, when a company goes bankrupt because, despite having superior product, it's unable to compete with bigger one because of lack of publicity.
I have big problems with companies getting away with whatever behaviour, and being considered legitimate, just because they were successful and as such are seen as "in their rights".

If, like you recon it, the market is unfair and isn't able to distribute the wealth according to merit, then there is NO REASON to regulate it. The point of a society is to make people live in the best environment possible, NOT to provide a playground for some happy few and let them manipulate the lives of others throught their economic leverage.
The market is here because people are free, and as such enter in certain moments into commercial relationships. That is desirable.
The market is also here because it's efficient, and allows creation of wealth. This is also desirable.
But the market should be regulated and wealth should be redistributed because, as you recognized it, IT DOESN'T DISTRIBUTE WEALTH ACCORDING TO THE MERIT.

I can accept that someone get more money than me by working more/better. But I don't see the legitimacy of someone getting money just because he was able to be a bastard and getting away with it. Regulation of the market is here to ensure that these behaviours won't pay. That is perfectly fine and desirable. Deciding that rules and regulations in the market are bad, is nearly as stupid as saying that rules and regulations in society are bad.

 

[luiz]

The market is not unfair, it does well what it's supposed to do.

I'm not against Laws, neatly nobody is. What I call "Market regulations", which I disapprove, are things that interfer with the Economy taking away efficiency.

I'm talking abouth things like Tariffs, Subsidies, Price Regulations, Public Companies, etc.

I'm not against Laws against fraud, slavery, etc.

To summarize: the market is not unfait, ít's simply not supposed to make people obey the Law in the first place. A free market rewards ability to please consumers, one way or another.

 

[Akka]

The market is not unfair

I've spent quite a bit of the last pages to prove the contrary, with examples and reasoning.
You yourself recognized that the market doesn't reward merit.

There is countless example of people being exploited because it's better on a market point of view.

As such, the market IS unfair.

 

[luiz]

I've spent quite a bit of the last pages to prove the contrary, with examples and reasoning.
You yourself recognized that the market doesn't reward merit.

There is countless example of people being exploited because it's better on a market point of view.

As such, the market IS unfair.

I didn't say that doesn't reward merit, I said that merit is quite subjective. According to market-logic, merit is pleasing the consumers.

 

[Akka]

That's just nonsensical. We don't care about market logic. We are human. This is human society. What a systemic fabric reward is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's unfair for humans. Submitting humans to a faceless mechanic was, I thought, why pro-free market opposed government and wished free market ?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[luiz]

That's just nonsensical. We don't care about market logic. We are human. This is human society. What a systemic fabric reward is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's unfair for humans. Submitting humans to a faceless mechanic was, I thought, why pro-free market opposed government and wished free market ?

Thanks for proving my point.

Akka, what exactly is merit? And I'm not beign rhetoric here.

Since the consumers are ultimately the ones that pay all the bills, I think it's quite fair that the ones who please them the most receive more.

 

[insurgent]

Would you look at that. I leave for less than ten hours and this entire thread goes mad. Akka, you're going to have to wait for my answers, as I don't really have the time right now. Perhaps tomorrow. I know how you're all dying to hear what I have to say ( ).

And as usual, luiz:

 

[Akka]

Akka, what exactly is merit? And I'm not beign rhetoric here.

Since the consumers are ultimately the ones that pay all the bills, I think it's quite fair that the ones who please them the most receive more.

Now, this is becoming downright ridiculous.
It has already been said about a gazillion times that it is NOT necessarily the ones who please the most the consumers that are rewarded. I'm REALLY tired of repeating myself.
Additionnally, pleasing the consumers is not the only thing in the market. There is also speculation (which bring consequences that are on the scale of ruining a country and hurting hundred of thousands to millions of people, which would be considered a major crime if done by an individual, tyranny if done by a government, but is perfectly normal and even praisable because it's done by bankers and like ), exploit and abuse of workers, who are also rewarded by the mechanism of the market.

Now, if you consider THIS to be merit, deserving of praise, legitimate, and if you say that people gaining money in this way have won it by their honest work and it would be theft and unjust to redistribute at least part of this wealth, what can I say ?
Anybody who would do such things, but in a context different as "the market" would be hanged for being a criminal bastard. Ah, but well, it's "the market". Guess there must be something magical about it.

 

[luiz]

Now, this is becoming downright ridiculous.
It has already been said about a gazillion times that it is NOT necessarily the ones who please the most the consumers that are rewarded. I'm REALLY tired of repeating myself.
Additionnally, pleasing the consumers is not the only thing in the market. There is also speculation (which bring consequences that are on the scale of ruining a country and hurting hundred of thousands to millions of people, which would be considered a major crime if done by an individual, tyranny if done by a government, but is perfectly normal and even praisable because it's done by bankers and like ), exploit and abuse of workers, who are also rewarded by the mechanism of the market.

Now, if you consider THIS to be merit, deserving of praise, legitimate, and if you say that people gaining money in this way have won it by their honest work and it would be theft and unjust to redistribute at least part of this wealth, what can I say ?
Anybody who would do such things, but in a context different as "the market" would be hanged for being a criminal bastard. Ah, but well, it's "the market". Guess there must be something magical about it.

I'll have to repeat myself too: the consumers decide what pleases them and what doesn't, not an objective criteria. It's subjective and it varies from individual to individual. If they want to buy crappy and overpriced products, who is to say that they can't?

As for speculation. I don't see why it has such a bad name between Left-wingers. It's nothing more then buying and selling products or stocks. What can possibly be wrong with that? In fact, speculation is a very efficient means to share information and make relatively accurate economic predictions(better then any government body can predict).

And now, if anything the ones that support the free-market are a minority. You read what the intelectuals have to say, they are all on the Left. And nobody "hangs" them for it, in fact they are frequently praised, even if they insit in ignoring all evidence and logic and stick to their blind faith in central planning.

 

[Akka]

I'll have to repeat myself too: the consumers decide what pleases them and what doesn't, not an objective criteria. It's subjective and it varies from individual to individual. If they want to buy crappy and overpriced products, who is to say that they can't?

I don't have problem with consumers buying crappy products.
I have problem with big companies abusing their position to influence people, use immoral ways to gain money, destroy competition and so on.
And I have problem when people can use their economical leverage to gain disproportionately more than others, and even more problems when I heard that they gain that much because their work is worth more.
And finally, I have also problem when something that has not been elected (like a big company) can wield so much power over so many people.

As for speculation. I don't see why it has such a bad name between Left-wingers. It's nothing more then buying and selling products or stocks. What can possibly be wrong with that?

Yeah, really, it's a wonder. I mean, someone who is purposedly destroying the economy/money of a country, bankrupting thousands of small businesses, putting millions to unemployment, so he can add some hundred millions dollars to the billions he already had... What's to give a bad reputation in that ? I mean, it's only business practice !
Oh well, there is some thousand of lives destroyed, some millions of people in need, but, hey, if it can allows some billionaires to be a bit more wealthy, what's the problem ?

These leftists are really illogical !

And now, if anything the ones that support the free-market are a minority.

Wish it was true. But the existence of hard capitalism in so many places, and the obscene inequality of income in most countries, make me somewhat doubtful...

You read what the intelectuals have to say, they are all on the Left. And nobody "hangs" them for it, in fact they are frequently praised, even if they insit in ignoring all evidence and logic and stick to their blind faith in central planning.

Wow, they promote being humane to humans, and nobody hangs them ? That's really wicked !

 

[Mise]

And now, if anything the ones that support the free-market are a minority. You read what the intelectuals have to say, they are all on the Left. And nobody "hangs" them for it, in fact they are frequently praised, even if they insit in ignoring all evidence and logic and stick to their blind faith in central planning.

Which evidence is this? The one which says that European-style centre left democracies are at least as economically successful as their centre right counter parts? Or the complete lack of evidence that laissez-faire capitalism even works in practice? It's so easy to defend a postulate which hasn't been tested yet, all the while using "real life economics" to disprove the anti-postulate.

 

[luiz]

I don't have problem with consumers buying crappy products.
I have problem with big companies abusing their position to influence people, use immoral ways to gain money, destroy competition and so on.
And I have problem when people can use their economical leverage to gain disproportionately more than others, and even more problems when I heard that they gain that much because their work is worth more.
And finally, I have also problem when something that has not been elected (like a big company) can wield so much power over so many people.

As long as the methods used are non-coercive and non-fraudulent, the "power" the corporation have over people is not really that big, and is positive for most of the time.

I think we disagree in what we consider "abuse of power" by corporations. When Microsoft makes a software not compatible with NetScape, I think they are completely within their rights. They don't force anyone to buy Windows, then shouldn't be forced to make a software compatible with the competition. Just like Nintendo videogames don't work with Sega games.

No coercion and no fraud, no problem.

Yeah, really, it's a wonder. I mean, someone who is purposedly destroying the economy/money of a country, bankrupting thousands of small businesses, putting millions to unemployment, so he can add some hundred millions dollars to the billions he already had... What's to give a bad reputation in that ? I mean, it's only business practice !
Oh well, there is some thousand of lives destroyed, some millions of people in need, but, hey, if it can allows some billionaires to be a bit more wealthy, what's the problem ?

These leftists are really illogical !

Yes, they are really illogica. They believe that hundreds of groups of investors, from all parts of the globe, orchestrate a "speculative attack" against a certain knowing full well what will happen in order to make cash. What they usually ignore it's that it's impossible for so many and so varied groups to actually make contact and say "hey let's destroy Argentina!". The grouops that invest and are usually blamed for "speculative attacks" are as vary from George Soros to retired pensionists of Massachussets. I doubt they orchestrate attacks.

Furthermore, as I said speculation is nothing more then buying and selling papers. What can be wrong with that?
A country harmed by speculation must look for the guilty part inside the government. Failed monetary and fiscal policies are what make a country vulnerable(to everything, not only speculation). No wonder that the countries that usually suffer from this are most of the time Latin-American

Wish it was true. But the existence of hard capitalism in so many places, and the obscene inequality of income in most countries, make me somewhat doubtful...

Nah, you don't know what is actually hard capitalism...
It would make the USA look like Cuba

Wow, they promote being humane to humans, and nobody hangs them ? That's really wicked !

That's beside the point. I was just pointing out that Leftism is dominant on the academic circles. The ones that actually get "hanged" are those who dare to propose liberal policies and reduction of the state.

 

[luiz]

Which evidence is this? The one which says that European-style centre left democracies are at least as economically successful as their centre right counter parts? Or the complete lack of evidence that laissez-faire capitalism even works in practice? It's so easy to defend a postulate which hasn't been tested yet, all the while using "real life economics" to disprove the anti-postulate.

What I see is that the more liberalised the economy the more successful.

Of course this has to take into account history, don't expect South Korea to suddenly surpass Germany. But they(the liberal* nations) are moving forward. Can I say the same about center-left social-democracies?

*Traditional sense of the word.

 

[insurgent]

Well, that is a nice ideal. It's, actually, the anarchist ideal. But I suppose that, even if I respect the principle of the ideal, we would be quite opposed to how make it practical.

Right. I don't consider myself an anarchist, but I don't consider it an insult either. For a long time, I've been trying to justify to myself the existence of a state as a matter of principle, but I simply can't, so I've accepted its existence as moral because of its necessity. I'm verging on anarchism, in other words, and that is why I've argued for a right to ignore the state, for instance, as a sort of compromise. But I suppose you're right, our disagreement about the means would probably prevent agreement, even if we agreed about the ends.

In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't say "immoral". I said "amoral". Which is quite different.

I never knew that difference. I do now. Anyway, my statement is still that the market is moral insofar as it is an expression of a moral state of individual freedom. Does that make any sense to you?

In other ways, it's immoral to tell you to think to anything but your navel.

You can appeal to the goodness and responsibility of the free individual, but you cannot justifiably order him or force him to do as you think is right. Their own judgment is the best and the only one that matters when it comes to deciding way of life.

Seriously, the rant about "taking away the economic freedom", "reducing people to subordinate creatures" and so on is simply ridiculous. Yeah, sure, big corporation CEO are reduced to subordinate creatures, compared to people who work 10 cent an hour in sweatshop, who are simply lazy asses not able to bring themselves to do anything useful

It's not just big company CEOs. Sure, they often suffer the most from it, and that is unfair since it is them who pay for the system that endeavours to redistribute their wealth and restrain them. If property rights are to have any meaning whatsoever, then government should not discriminate in taxation between different economic classes.
But my real problem is not the situation of the CEOs. It is what I see around me here in Denmark: Disillusionment - there is no hope for the individual to rise, as society opposes this rise and perceives it as wrong. Dependence - the dependence of more than half of the voting population on the transfers of wealth from other people. Social immobility - in a system that seeks to achieve some ideal of wealth distribution and punishes one course of action and rewards another, it is hard for a person to achieve whatever goals he may perceive as his own. In other words he is locked and enslaved by the system, made by temptation, incentive, and taxation to conform to a life which the government sees as the moral state of an individual. His freedom is hurt, he can no longer decide for himself what life to live and what objectives to pursue and achieve. I see that as a great crime.
In other words, I hate what engineered systems do to people. And though Denmark still clings to some sort of capitalism with its mixed economy, apathy, disbelief, disillusion, and individual freedom is hurt.

Your ideal is simply a call for a self-centered world, where each one can look at only himself without bothering of others and what might happen to them. It's an ideal of "what do I care if the consequences of my action bring terrible consequences simply because I wield a much bigger power than some more modest folk ? He simply should have worked harder to have more power and as such not be in position to be ruined by mine !".

That statement makes no sense to me. Per definition, a man has the right to do with his property as he wants. The fact that the person seeks profit above nothing else is what produces competition and efficiency - production and wealth. The fact that a company pursues profit is the very reason it can employ people - it employs people to that end. If it starts prioritising things differently, if it starts prioritising humanitarian efforts over profit, then it is doomed simply because it won't have any basis of survival. This will lead to less efficiency, less production, company crashes etc. In the end, that only harms people who are either employed by the company or trades with it.
What you seem to be referring to is situations when selfishness leads industrialists to make choices when people get hurt in the name of profit. But since it is their property and their very purpose to seek profit, you cannot ask them to do otherwise as it would make them redundant and harm the economy and people even more.

It's law of the strongest and egoism. It's easy to be egoist. There is no particular quality required for it. There is nothing glorious in being an egoist, every child is quite one until they learn about being able to understand another one's point of view. I also fail to see what is ideal and glorious in the law of the strongest.

It's perfectly justifiable to be an egoist. But I've never been accused of that by anyone. I'm no egoist. Sure, I place my desires above those of others, but I do not treat people bad because of that. I can be compassionate, I can help people without expecting anything in return, I can be nice to people.
But the fact is that I hate being forced to help others, and I hate when other people tell me how I should live my life, and I hate even more when people tell me that I should resent egoism and apologise for my existence.
For, you see, it is not inherent in the capitalist system that somebody has to act selfishly toward other people - in a capitalist system, your selfish interests do not conflict with those of others. You trade freely and voluntarily with your fellow men making both wealthier. That is morally right, in my opinion. Why do I trade? Because it benefits me. This general function of mutual benefit is destroyed if you place other people's interests over your own.

I can see, and accept, that you're an ideal about freedom. Freedom is a noble cause.

I'm happy you say that. I will choose to ignore the omitted part of that statement, as it is clearly our point of disagreement, the very thing that we discuss.

That is, of course, false. We already know and have showed that the market is in NO WAY a good way to measure the usefulness of someone. The market show how you are able at manipulating it. Creating better products is a major help to get rich because of the market, but it's in no way required. You can have a crappy product, and still become rich, just because you're better at promoting it/crushing concurrence/exploit your workers/lie and so on.
Which doesn't really show how "useful" you've been to the society. Only how useful you've been to yourself.

I think luiz is arguing against that very well ( ). Of course it is a measure of how useful you are to society, how much you please other people, that is. Saying that this results from manipulation and crushing competition is arrogant and derogatory against the consumers who make the real decisions. They call the shots. It is not your place to judge what they decide. Your idea about this is just as subjective as the individual choice on the free market.

No. Manipulating this flow to serve your own end, ruining thousands people in the way, thought, IS evil. And happens constantly. It's one more example of the law of the strongest.

This is what we discussed above.

Well, are you aware that you are simply bashing the idea of laws here ? Replace "economics" with "brute force", and you have a very good claim that people should not be prevented of murder because it impedes their freedom.

No, because the very purpose of it all is to protect man's right to life, liberty, and property. The very greatest law of all should be the equality of freedom, by murdering somebody you infringe on somebody else's most fundamental rights. By using your own property, you don't.

May I call you a criminal wanabee murdered then, for your open praise of the law of the strongest ?

I honestly don't see the relation between what I argue and murder, but if it pleases you to call me that, then yes, that's your right.

That's your ideal ? Well, have it, but don't force it onto me, thanks.

Much of what you mention is a result of collectivist thinking, but yes, free market capitalism is my ideal.
Now let me just point out that nobody forces anything on anybody. A person in a free society can choose to live as he wants. He can join with other socialists and form collective societies voluntarily. There's plenty room for that in a capitalist society.
But in a collectivist society, everyboy is forced to live in accordance with the ideal of the people in power. If I chose that I wanted to live in a free capitalist society, I couldn't, could I? No, I'd still have to pay an outrageous tax of 60% and live under the regulations and restrictions of a coercive government that wishes to force this on me.
So, sure, you wouldn't like to live in a society that I advocate, but I would never force it on you. On the other hand, you would readily for your society on me. We have learnt to accept this, but it doesn't make it any more right.
Why won't collectivists let people choose voluntarily? Because they know that if it depended on people's free will, only an army of looters would choose their society, whereas the productive elements that keep it all going would choose a society that does not punish them for being true to their ideals.
In other words, those who pay and work for the collectivist society are also those who suffer most from it. They are kept in submission by the coercive power of society.

Yes. I hope you can cast aside your false morals and face the REAL responsability and freedom. The ones who tell you just what you can do, but also what you can't.

Exactly, your rights are those individual rights you can hold without preventing other people from having the same rights.

Anyway, I'm going to Scotland tomorrow, so I won't have time to answer your reply to this...