If you think with 1 in 20 people "very food insecure" that no one is starving to death in this country? No elderly, no children who look after themselves?

Quite the optimist, you are.

"Draugnar wants to kill people for not working and he admits that capitalism is fundamentally about forced labor. "

It's not really that unreasonable a position. If you lived in the wilderness, and didn't work to get your food, either by hunter or foraging you would die of starvation. Life is work, and always has been.

The fact that humans learned to cooperate and help each other survive, even the vulnerable, is why we're not dragging our knuckles in the wilderness anymore.

Species that tend to not help their vulnerable survive are the ones having problems thriving today.

Cooperative species outlast individualistic ones across the board.

Also what happened to you? You used to call yourself a National Socialist, now you're defending live-and-let-die neoliberalism.

I had an ideological transformation. Interestingly there is little difference in motivation for both ideologies for me (also nationalistic socialist, not national socialist. Slight difference :P). The main shift was realizing that I don't trust the government to do anything competently.

I don't disagree that humans should cooperate. But I trust people to cooperate on their own. I think the existence of economic redistribution through the government, promotes class warfare, and decreases the cooperation.

Anti-statism seems in vogue these days. A pity.

I would suggest the anti-statism is a result of incompetent governments, who are spending themselves into debt, and declining political participation is a symptom of the ineffectual nature of modern governments, (at least in Canada and the States).

I'm not entirely against government provided services, but I think they should be voluntary, such that we can choose other options if the government is offering an inferior service.

On the topic of the fast food walk outs, I really don't see the need for a minimum wage increase.

A more natural solution would simply be collectively bartering with the companies. Of course, years of anti-union sentiment (thanks faux news), and a large supply of workers, means its difficult to negotiate a wage increase.

@Putin33 you don't fear authoritarianism enough. You seem to have special respect for leaders who refuse to relinquish power. I'll take anti-statism over "l'etat, c'est [Mugabe/Putin/whoever]"

@Thucydides 'If you think with 1 in 20 people "very food insecure" that no one is starving to death in this country?'

Basically, that is what I think. What are the actual numbers on starving to death?

Incompetent governments? Spending into oblivion? Private companies tanked the economy and then the government was left picking up their tab. Revenues declined overnight and automatic stabilizers kicked in, causing debt to skyrocket. Considering where we were, government action has been quite admirable. But people want instantaneous results. They can't vote out the managers and corporate CEOs, so they take it out on the politicians because they're the only people who hold themselves accountable.

You can't have it both ways on spending & minimum wage. Government is right now subsidizing these franchises who pay their workers so little, pay them so little they need assistance to make ends meet. Collective bargaining is made nearly impossible because these corporations are franchised, so they behave and use the excuses of small businesses for why they must treat their workers like shit or else go out of business. The corporate offices call the shots but these corporations are able to abdicate responsibility for wage & benefit policy to the franchises.

Voluntarism is a grossly inferior mechanism for distributing resources. If you think government is corrupt and wasteful, just take a look at charities and non-profits.

"@Putin33 you don't fear authoritarianism enough. You seem to have special respect for leaders who refuse to relinquish power. "

Look around you Tendmote. The problem in the world isn't "authoritarianism", it's collapsing state authority. It's government being supplanted by warlords and criminal syndicates. If you think that is preferable to a strong state whose leadership doesn't step down after some arbitrarily proscribed term limit, I don't know what to say. Anti-statism has made it impossible for governments to do anything, and the paralysis has simply intensified the resistance, causing a vicious cycle of dysfunction.

Dysfunction leads to plummeting living standards far quicker than authoritarian government, and is far more difficult to fix.

@Putin33

"warlords and criminal syndicates"

That's bad.

"strong state whose leadership doesn't step down after some arbitrarily proscribed term limit"

That's worse, and often embodies all of the "criminal" and "warlord" characteristics anyways.

Actually, Draugnar wants to let them die and decrease the surplus population. Killing is an action. Letting nature take it's course and weed out the slothenly is both inaction and evolution.

At what age do you wish to starve them to death, Draugnar? I would assume prior to reproductive age so that you ensure that the surplus population is reduced by this massive enforced famine of yours, right?

"That's worse, and often embodies all of the "criminal" and "warlord" characteristics anyways."

How is it worse? Liberal democracy is a recent phenomenon. Human civilization has progressed well enough without it. Living standards have grown by leaps and bounds thanks to the expansion of state power at the end of the 19th and going into the middle of the 20th centuries. Living standards grew precisely because states needed healthier people and better infrastructure in order to fight wars to expand state power. That's why the first welfare state was created by the masters of effective all-encompassing (authoritarian) government - the Prussians.

Warlords and criminal syndicates simply do not have the same compulsion to make investments in social development. So to say that government is simply the same as them is just anti-government rhetoric, not reality.

Inaction is a choice just as action is. There is little difference.

As far as the workers go I have little sympathy. They knew what the job was when they took it, so it seems damned rich for them to be complaining about it now. We have many different fast food companies. Some give the opportunity for able staff who demonstrate leadership to train for management positions and provide genuine career paths, some don't. But low paid jobs with little career prospects also have value:

For a student who needs extra cash they are great.
For a worker recently unemployed who wants to keep working and an income whilst looking for a new career they are great.
For a long term unemployed chap who is turning his life around and wants evidence that he can be a hard worker and put a shift in they are great.
For families where an adult has traditionally stayed at home but now require extra income to pay bills/ reach a savings goal they are great.
For a long term career they are a bit shit.

Solution: if you think the job is shit, let those who want an appreciate it get it.

"They knew what the job was when they took it, so it seems damned rich for them to be complaining about it now"

Because there are so many good paying alternatives out there, right, Oct?

The attitude of total indifference to anybody but yourselves among conservatives never ceases to surprise, and nauseate me.

For whatever reason you rightwingers seem to think that as soon as you sign on for employment, you lose any expectation of being treated with dignity by your employer, and they can do with you what they like.

Indentured servitude, is apparently what your ideology has been reduced to cheerleading for.

When you sign up to a job that pays £7 an hour you should not be surprised you end up getting £7 an hour. Anyone who is is a complete idiot. Dignity should be common throughout business, but isn't about money.

What would you prefer, Putin? Fast food has cut prices to the bone in all areas to serve people cheap (food is the wrong word) favours. It does this to bring people in. Pay people more and demand will fall and there will be fewer fast food restaurants employing fewer people. To be honest I wouldn't mind that in the least, but I suspect the current workers would generally support the status quo.

Stepping back a bit in the argument, I actually agree with Putin here on government. The United States was virtually alone in its massive deficit spending before the financial crisis. Japan was spending to try and get out of deflation (I'll let them off on that one) and we had a few nations like Greece and Portugal running fairly large current account deficits, but nothing eye popping. Germany had a larger debt/gdp level than portugal up until 2007 I believe.

What really tanked the fiscal situations of these countries was having to bail out the banks that caused the financial crisis. Ireland, Iceland and Spain went under solely due to the banking crisis. The US, UK, France and others massively increased their debt levels to try and stimulate the economy as well as absorbing the debts of private companies.

Governments deserve some blame for their debt levels, that's for sure. But the irresponsible spending you're talking about? Its not any more egregious now than it was back in the 1950s and 60s.

@Putin33 "So to say that government is simply the same as them is just anti-government rhetoric, not reality."

I'm specifically referring to the authoritarian, dictator-for-life type of government you seem to favor. I agree that completely impotent government ends up devolving power to thugs and gangsters. But the "permanent strong leader" style of government you'd like to see, the government often is just the biggest thug and gangster. When trucks full of dudes with guns roll into town and take your stuff, is it any consolation that it's "dekulakization" rather than warlordism?

I reckon the sweet spot, where there's a sheriff in town and he's not just taking your stuff, is in the North American and Western European systems you oppose. It's not perfect, but it works well enough in practice.

Separately, that Western governments continue to prop up and bail out irresponsible (and large) business is mind-boggling. The moral hazard has been accumulating for decades and they really should have dismantled the too-big-too-fail institutions as part of the bailout. They also should have let Long Term Capital Management blow up in the 90's. Instead the "smoothed" everything and just let the risk keep accumulating.

When government decides who stays and who plays, they're handing out licenses to act crazy. The debt incurred by the government to rescue irresponsible institutions is bad enough. That the potential for a worse crisis in the future were actually increased is horrible.

@Putin33 you said:

“Liberal democracy is a recent phenomenon. Human civilization has progressed well enough without it. “

“Living standards grew precisely because states needed healthier people and better infrastructure in order to fight wars to expand state power. “

So just to be absolutely clear, you’d prefer to exchange liberal democracy for an authoritarian state organized on the principle of expanding it’s power through war?

Are you aware of what the eventual war does to living standards?

Even in the absence of war, you aware of what a pain in the ass it is not to be able to drive your car in the rain because the centrally planned economy didn’t make enough windshield wiper blades, and yours got stolen because you forgot to take them with you into the store that one time? What was life really like in the states organized on these principles during the 19th-20th centuries?

“Healthy Spartan warriors” and “quality of life” aren’t the same thing. (Although here in the U.S. we should probably take better care of our health.)

"But the "permanent strong leader" style of government you'd like to see, the government often is just the biggest thug and gangster"

You're just repeating yourself at this point.

"When trucks full of dudes with guns roll into town and take your stuff, is it any consolation that it's "dekulakization" rather than warlordism?"

Well yes because if it's dekulakization, chances are the "thugs" taking my stuff would be poor starving peasants and not rich criminals. I'd actually be the gangster, since I'm hoarding food while people starve.

"Separately, that Western governments continue to prop up and bail out irresponsible (and large) business is mind-boggling."

So we should just let the thing collapse eh? If they had let LTCM blow up, what do you think the aftershocks would have been?

"When government decides who stays and who plays, they're handing out licenses to act crazy."

Or they're trying to minimize the damage at the time of the crisis while working towards reforms to make sure it doesn't happen again (all the way opposed and bitched at by anti-statists who hate regulation).

There is an argument that the bailouts were bad, but certainly the treatment of the financial sector in the years since the bailout has been obscenely kind.

States tend to be almost the worst way to form collectives. Centrally planned economies at this level of distance don't work. Planned economies are not so flawed a concept, but they need to be managed at a much closer level.

Tendmote, I have yet to see any condition in which you'd actually be pleased. You're seem to be perpetually disgruntled with the way the world works.

"So just to be absolutely clear, you’d prefer to exchange liberal democracy for an authoritarian state organized on the principle of expanding it’s power through war? "

I'm saying ostensibly selfish motives for expanding state power ended up aiding living standards. That strong states lead to better living conditions, period, regardless of the motivation of the rulers.

I'd prefer an effective illiberal government over an ineffective liberal one, yes.

You seem to think that no matter what, public/government abuse is always worse and more wicked than abuse at the hands of private interests. You say government is always the "biggest thug". It doesn't seem that way when private entities have higher revenues than entire countries these days.

"Even in the absence of war, you aware of what a pain in the ass it is not to be able to drive your car in the rain because the centrally planned economy didn’t make enough windshield wiper blades, and yours got stolen because you forgot to take them with you into the store that one time?"

I know what a pain in the ass it is that the city I live in has not developed any real system of public transportation, and that cities across the country are nothing but sprawl and smog because they've let anarchic market forces "plan" their development. I know what a pain in the ass it is that the world is being destroyed by overconsumption and overproduction but we can do nothing about it because all of our mechanisms for investment are voluntaristic and incentive based, and these greedy corporations will never do anything but line their pockets at the expense of the planet.

But yeah I guess your manufactured windshield wiper example is a bigger problem.

@Putin33 Actually the sprawl problem has it's roots in (strong state!) federal government assistance programs designed to assist whites to live separately from African Americans:

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/fairhousing/historical.html

---

Federal agencies were developed during the New Deal to increase homeownership rates among Americans, but in practice these programs generally benefited Whites only.[38] These agencies provided "crucial financial support to the housing industry"[39] and facilitated the movement to the suburbs by making the purchase of suburban homes cheaper than renting in the cities

---

I'm not totally disgruntled, in fact I said the sweet spot right now seems to be in the Western European/North American systems you despise. In fact I offered the constructive suggestion that a basic income should be considered as an improvement. You're the one trying to kick over the table.

So, how do you like the effective illiberal racist sprawl you're living in as a result of state power?

"Planned economies are not so flawed a concept, but they need to be managed at a much closer level."

They typically were except in a dozen or so key industries and even then during the later stages managerial autonomy was granted across the board (which ended up causing a lot of problems actually). But at any rate it's not clear that distance is the problem when Russia was more sustainable than its ECE neighbors who unlike Russia, simply collapsed.

And if you think states are the "worst way to run collectives" I'm left wondering what your better alternative is. Because certainly NGOs, cooperatives, and corporations have proved to be far inferior.

I believe I said "almost the worst way to run collectives". Interesting how you chose the quote to remove the qualifier. Because without the qualifier it would be contradictory to say that corporations are even worse.

"I'm not totally disgruntled, in fact I said the sweet spot right now seems to be in the Western European/North American systems you despise."

Who said I "despise" it? I despise capitalism. I'm on record as stating that Germany is the most effectively run government on the planet. You're the one bitching about virtually everything these governments do and constructing an image of government as bogeyman even though you live in one of these "sweet spots". So pardon my confusion as to what your actual position is here. You live in what is effectively a shangri-la of beneficent government rule, but you still are allergic to government.

"So, how do you like the effective illiberal racist sprawl you're living in as a result of state power?"

It's not the result of state power, it's the result of a lack of state planning. Because the government could not control who purchased the subsidies or how they were used, sprawl resulted. Had it been a planned economy, they could have. Subsidies are not planning. They're trying to mold behavior through market mechanisms and incentives. Much like tax credits. Nobody would say that "state power" is controlling how many kids are being born in the US because we have a child tax credit.

And you really think suburbs had nothing to do with the automobile industry and was all due to housing subsidies? Ok then.

Draugnar actually just quoted ebenezar Scrooge for real. Next "are there no prisons, are there no work houses"

Mendax, it'd be nice if you answered my question.

What's the optimal way to run collectives?