ObamaCare - Free HealthCare 4 Ever! Hip-hip...hooray!?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Did someone really try to explain and/or justify the behavior seen at various Black Friday mobs and stampedes across the US by suggesting it was the fault of advertising?

As Jon Lovitz would say: Yep, that's the ticket. Always find someone to blame, that will surely move us forward.

It absolutely boggles the mind trying to understand why some folks - heck, some entire philosophies - go to such lengths to excuse people acting like idiots, committing crimes, or simply disrespecting other people by finding something or someone whom they disagree with to blame for that behavior.

It's easy to go into public, with others, and act civilized. Plenty of shoppers on Friday shopped and came home, without incident or any idiotic behavior. Plenty is too weak of a word - how about millions?

To flip the whole thing around, there were thousands of retail stores across the US where there were NO stampedes, NO push-and-shove matches, and NO cases of idiots and assholes who don't know how to act in public bopping someone over the head for a f***ing phone or television.

Can we then also credit or praise "advertising" for those good shoppers who didn't cause trouble and act like idiots? Or does someone or something else get the credit and praise when those folks acted like normal people who were out shopping for bargains at their local stores?

Since both groups - those pushing and shoving and causing problems and those who shopped politely without incident - saw the same advertising, yet each behaved differently when put into the same situation.

The blame game is getting so f***ing old.

No one tried to blame the behavior of those Wal-Mark rioters on advertizing. I put the clip up as a joke, a nudge and RockNRoll brought up a study on the long term/long range effects of advertizing through various entrenched media. A very valid point which can be related to the clip in question if one wishes...It's not like human behavior can't be studied and that there is no cause and effect at play in the world?

 Blame game??? It's fine when we're blaming the government or left-wingers, but when someone dare blame the free market..... boo hoo!!!!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I know they're not anarcho-capitalists but they did believe in a much more laissez-faire market than they're credited for.

In fact, it's the opposite. Adam Smith, for example, is simply a figure who we're supposed to worship but not read. So, for example, we're supposed to ignore the fact that he is widely supportive of a form of what we would call a progressive taxation, believing that the wealthy in particular should "contribute to the public expense." Ultimately, Smith advocated markets only on the grounds that perfect liberty would lead to perfect equality.

Jefferson, whom you mention, was a major statist and both The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 and The Louisiana Purchase are widely understood to be internal improvement subsidies.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It absolutely boggles the mind trying to understand why some folks - heck, some entire philosophies - go to such lengths to excuse people acting like idiots, committing crimes, or simply disrespecting other people by finding something or someone whom they disagree with to blame for that behavior.

Can you explain to me how you are not "playing the blame game" in this sentence?

[guitarfool2002]

It absolutely boggles the mind trying to understand why some folks - heck, some entire philosophies - go to such lengths to excuse people acting like idiots, committing crimes, or simply disrespecting other people by finding something or someone whom they disagree with to blame for that behavior.

Can you explain to me how you are not "playing the blame game" in this sentence?

Tu quoque, defined as:

Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented[2], whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

That tactic won't work with me as a means to derail or divert the points I originally raised, and they were far from inconsistent. It's as pointless as playing tic-tac-toe. My points are laid out clear and concise in the original post. Therefore I won't play the "I know you are, but what am I?" game.

[guitarfool2002]

No one tried to blame the behavior of those Wal-Mark rioters on advertizing.

Note the quote in bold print:

but THIS is freedom, right??

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20169595/video-shows-shoppers-pushed-shoved-during-black-friday-sales

No one forced them to go there at all hours of the night for silly sales.

Sorry but that doesn't wash at all. Studies routinely show that there is ultimately a lack of free will in the behavioral impulses triggered by advertisements - which is probably why the ad industry is so enormous because it works in effectively creating unnatural desires. See John Bargh's work for a more detailed analysis on this.

So referencing studies which show that advertisements are the trigger for certain behavioral impulses, where this was the direct response to a link about shoppers getting roughed up during a Black Friday sale followed by someone else saying no one forced them to be there, then using the term "unnatural desires",  isn't directing blame to the advertisers?

Seriously? 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

And it's a good point.... Make of it what you will or simply disagree with it.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Tu quoque, defined as:

Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented[2], whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

That tactic won't work with me as a means to derail or divert the points I originally raised, and they were far from inconsistent. It's as pointless as playing tic-tac-toe. My points are laid out clear and concise in the original post. Therefore I won't play the "I know you are, but what am I?" game.

I don't think you quite grasp "Tu quoque" and given your argument I don't think you are being clear - do you think playing the blame game is a bad thing or don't you? Yes, if a smoker says "smoking is wrong," his point is not invalidated because one can certainly still hold the position that smoking is wrong while being a smoker and that certainly doesn't suddenly make smoking a good thing. But if your beef with me is that I'm playing the "blame game" then it simply makes no sense that you should blame someone else in the course of your argument. Do you really mean to say that I am blaming the wrong party?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No one tried to blame the behavior of those Wal-Mark rioters on advertizing.

Note the quote in bold print:

but THIS is freedom, right??

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20169595/video-shows-shoppers-pushed-shoved-during-black-friday-sales

No one forced them to go there at all hours of the night for silly sales.

Sorry but that doesn't wash at all. Studies routinely show that there is ultimately a lack of free will in the behavioral impulses triggered by advertisements - which is probably why the ad industry is so enormous because it works in effectively creating unnatural desires. See John Bargh's work for a more detailed analysis on this.

Yeah, and that's about whether or not people were "forced to go there" not about whether they were forced to riot. So if your point is, as it was, that "Plenty of shoppers on Friday shopped and came home, without incident or any idiotic behavior" then that hardly undermines my point. Certainly, when desire is created it can have various kinds of effects, can't it?

[guitarfool2002]

Tu quoque, defined as:

Tu quoque (play /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented[2], whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

That tactic won't work with me as a means to derail or divert the points I originally raised, and they were far from inconsistent. It's as pointless as playing tic-tac-toe. My points are laid out clear and concise in the original post. Therefore I won't play the "I know you are, but what am I?" game.

I don't think you quite grasp "Tu quoque" and given your argument I don't think you are being clear - do you think playing the blame game is a bad thing or don't you? Yes, if a smoker says "smoking is wrong," his point is not invalidated because one can certainly still hold the position that smoking is wrong while being a smoker and that certainly doesn't suddenly make smoking a good thing. But if your beef with me is that I'm playing the "blame game" then it simply makes no sense that you should blame someone else in the course of your argument. Do you really mean to say that I am blaming the wrong party?

First, don't post about not getting shown respect in these public opinion debates as I saw posted a few months ago and then post a comment to me like the one in bold. It comes off as arrogant if not worse to tell someone what they do or don't "grasp" in this kind of context, unless you're so secure in your own grasp of the notion of "tu quoque" or anything else to consider passing such a judgement on someone else's use of the term.

And for the record, who exactly did I blame for people acting like assholes to other shoppers, or causing stampedes or riots or whatever, in my post? The main point I made was the individual who decides to bash someone over the head in order to get a phone or a television is solely responsible for that decision, and should answer for that decision. It is foolish - to me - to suggest ANYONE OR ANYTHING except that individual led that particular individual to hurt another person in that moment when they decided a phone was worth more to them than the person standing next to them.

Simple human nature - respect people around you, show them respect and expect a level of respect in return. Plenty of shoppers showed that basic human-to-human respect on Friday and came home with some good deals, and didn't get trampled or hurt anyone in return. And that ultimately is the better choice for someone to make, isn't it?

A lot of it comes back to my strong disagreement with attempts to explain or excuse bad choices with moral relativism, simple as that, and much more with that train of thought than any "beef" with anyone in particular here or elsewhere.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

First, don't post about not getting shown respect in these public opinion debates as I saw posted a few months ago and then post a comment to me like the one in bold. It comes off as arrogant if not worse to tell someone what they do or don't "grasp" in this kind of context, unless you're so secure in your own grasp of the notion of "tu quoque" or anything else to consider passing such a judgement on someone else's use of the term.

Well, in the part that you didn't bold and that you ignored entirely, I explained why I don't think think you grasped the term. I agree, if you read that phrase out of context as you are suggesting then it would sound "arrogant if not worse."

And for the record, who exactly did I blame for people acting like assholes to other shoppers, or causing stampedes or riots or whatever, in my post? The main point I made was the individual who decides to bash someone over the head in order to get a phone or a television is solely responsible for that decision, and should answer for that decision. It is foolish - to me - to suggest ANYONE OR ANYTHING except that individual led that particular individual to hurt another person in that moment when they decided a phone was worth more to them than the person standing next to them.

Well, what is foolish to me - in fact, outright dangerous - is to ignore the causes of actions, that is if we are serious about preventing such actions from occurring.

Simple human nature - respect people around you, show them respect and expect a level of respect in return. Plenty of shoppers showed that basic human-to-human respect on Friday and came home with some good deals, and didn't get trampled or hurt anyone in return. And that ultimately is the better choice for someone to make, isn't it?

Nevertheless, plenty of shoppers were incited in general to participate in this event because a particular desire was created for them. Had this day not been constructed and relentlessly advertised, and essentially made part of the cultural fabric, there would have never been that many people out shopping. The riots like the one Erik posted are just about entirely expected now - it has become a yearly tradition and if you don't believe that that is behavior that is both fostered and encouraged then you should be prepared to see an endless amount of it.

A lot of it comes back to my strong disagreement with attempts to explain or excuse bad choices with moral relativism,

Well, if it is that is the case then perhaps you can demonstrate where I did this.

[grillo]

Okay...
The government IS violence, period. The only way the government functions is using coercion (force, threats of force, etc.) to take individuals wealth (property, money).

Well, let's look at this realistically. The government can function non-coercively. So, for example, if we define government as being specifically organized by the public and fully controlled by the public (and this is a reasonable definition and is how democracy should function) then you eliminate coercion. However, if are we going to be honest in our use of the term coercion then we must acknowledge that it is impossible in a capitalist society to attain property and money without coercion. If there is anything that fosters violence and use of force, and reinforces a power dynamic, it is a capitalist economy.

The government creates nothing at all, other than debt for the unborn.

Again, though, in reality, if the government in the United States got more involved in health care they would significantly reduce the debt for the unborn.

The US health care industry exists as it is Because of government interference, not despite it.

That's completely false. I mean, honestly, you're living in a dream world. I repeat, unlike other industrialized countries, the United States government is strictly prohibited from interfering in the affairs of drug companies and therefore have had no control over the amount of waste that the public, by and large, pays for. If the government could interfere, they could significantly reduce health care costs.

Forcing me (or anyone) to help support it is absurd at best.

Well, you're not being forced, for one. And second, you're a hypocrite. The public has essentially been supporting you all your life - essentially created life as you know it - and for you to have the arrogance to now turn your back and say that you don't have to "help support" anyone else is a textbook definition of hypocrisy and also just smugly self-serving.

Freedom = the rights of the individual to self-ownership, the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others, the sanctity of justly acquired private property, and voluntary exchange, voluntary association and voluntary contracts. When used by people like me...

Exactly. You simply re-define freedom in order to justify being a corporate apologist. Your definition means just about nothing to anyone who has struggled for real freedom throughout history and to be honest it is a disgrace when you consider what people who have had genuine struggles, participated in them to the full (which meant that they didn't have time to complain about it on the internet) have actually gone through and have actually accomplished.

All corporations.

No, not all corporations. This is not the 1600s.

So undermine the corporation taking away the power that the state gives to it.

The state doesn't give it power. Let's suppose you are correct for a moment that the state creates corporations. So what? It doesn't follow that just because you create something that you empower its ongoing existence. If I died tomorrow, my child would continue to grow without me. What's more, this is just a historical falsity. We've seen what happens in periods of American history where the government interferes less in the corporate world - typically corporate power grows, and public power diminishes. This is just a historical truism and what's more this is true of the present if you compare nation by nation - where the state is less intrusive, the corporate world ends up being more powerful and, most certainly, ends up bolstering the power structure that divides the ownership class from the labor class.

Stop pretending that government is the savior (in the twentieth century alone governments are responsible for the deaths of over half a billion people. This is called democide.) Why defend this institution that has been tried for, oh, what, 10,000 years? It is failed. Voluntary interactions are 100% of the time preferable. Stop defending the use of violence against me and everyone else.

Of course, governments have the capacity to do really bad things. That's a trivial observation. One can easily say that they have the capacity to do excellent things, like, for example, save
 millions of lives every year, which they do. Like, revive dead rivers. Like, end widespread illiteracy. Like create a middle class. The government, of course, is not "the savior" - the public are the ones who can have the actual control and they should use it, which is why they should pressure the government to do these good things and to not do these really bad things, and we know this is perfectly within our capabilities.

Ouch. Yes, I've heard about how the Government (which is defined as a monopoly on violence even by your dear leader, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ ) helps everybody and it steals from the wealthy and gives to the needy, using force. Now, you want to "look at this realistically" and then you make up a definition of a government that does not exist anywhere on earth.

So, you don't like capitalism (voluntary human interactions that are win/win , but now a term co-opted by the state and used to define the Semi-facisistic model that permeated most of the 20th century as well as the current reality), you think I owe everybody something simply because my parents f***ed in the imaginary boarders that are controlled by a particular group of sociopaths, you think it's hypocritical of me to insist that morality applies to everyone (including men in blue or green uniforms, and men that where black dresses and judge people, and any politician) meaning if I can't take 30% of your earnings, well it only follows that I can't vote for somebody to do it for me? Maybe you can explain in one or two sentences exactly what part of me you are entitled to?
   The state enforces law, which IT creates. The laws that govern corporations, and allow them to exist as entities that privatize profits to the upper management while the shareholders and often the public take any losses are created and overseen by the state. They can legally do this. I understand that states no longer create corporations as they did during the age of discovery. Do you understand how the state is the guy with the gun in the room?
  
  I'm neither on the left, right, or Libertarian. I simply accept the non-aggression principle at face value (that you can't hit someone or take their stuff, ever, except in the extreme of self-protection). Taking this to its logical conclussion I accept no authority over me,nor do I have authority over anyone else. I certainly don't pretend that a politician who never met me and would never know a single thing about me somehow represents me because some schmo in the suburbs voted for him.  Most people try to think of reasons that they or their favorite group should not be included in this principle. I consider it universal.
  

        

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, I've heard about how the Government (which is defined as a monopoly on violence even by your dear leader, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ ) helps everybody and it steals from the wealthy and gives to the needy, using force.

I suppose your first mistake is referring to Obama is my "dear leader" - he is neither that in practice, nor in spirit and I am a fierce opponent of Barack Obama, which is why in my very first post in this thread I state my opposition to Obamacare. Perhaps you should actually engage with the points I raise rather than respond to the fiction you've created.

Now, you want to "look at this realistically" and then you make up a definition of a government that does not exist anywhere on earth.

I hardly made it up. Are you familiar with The Gettysburg Address? Furthermore, the definition of government I used (which I repeat is probably the best definition of it there is) has existed in history so I'm not sure what you mean.

So, you don't like capitalism (voluntary human interactions that are win/win

Any economic system including capitalism could in theory operate by "voluntary human interaction" - it's hardly an accomplishment to use that to bolster the argument in favour of capitalism.

 

but now a term co-opted by the state and used to define the Semi-facisistic model that permeated most of the 20th century as well as the current reality),

Not just the 20th century. Capitalism was ushered into existence with necessary extreme violence and coercion.

you think I owe everybody something simply because my parents f***ed in the imaginary boarders that are controlled by a particular group of sociopaths,

No, this has nothing to do with the state in which you were born. Life as you know it and your place in it is always dependent on and determined by the society in which you exist no matter where you are born.

you think it's hypocritical of me to insist that morality applies to everyone (including men in blue or green uniforms, and men that where black dresses and judge people, and any politician) meaning if I can't take 30% of your earnings, well it only follows that I can't vote for somebody to do it for me?

No, I think it's hypocritical to suggest that once your social position has by and large been created for you by the public that you want to not do the same for someone else.

Maybe you can explain in one or two sentences exactly what part of me you are entitled to?

I'm not entitled to any "part" of you - nor am I expected to believe the things that are fundamentally not part of you are.

The state enforces law, which IT creates. The laws that govern corporations, and allow them to exist as entities that privatize profits to the upper management while the shareholders and often the public take any losses are created and overseen by the state. They can legally do this.

In fact, the state essentially granted rights to the corporations that in many respects put corporations outside of the reaches of state control at the beginning of the 20th century. Corporations in the United States, from the position of the law, have been by and large outside of the hands of state for quite a long time now.

Do you understand how the state is the guy with the gun in the room?

Well, if you are suggesting that the state is the most powerful entity in the state-corporation-population triumverate, then, no, I don't understand that.
  

 I'm neither on the left, right, or Libertarian.

 

I simply accept the non-aggression principle at face value (that you can't hit someone or take their stuff, ever, except in the extreme of self-protection). Taking this to its logical conclussion I accept no authority over me,nor do I have authority over anyone else.

So in that sense you oppose capitalism since it functions with an inherent power structure and means to profit off the labour of others.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Regarding black Friday-
My tolerance for these behaviors is running thin.  In the hospital right now, and I just heard someone get into it with someone cause apparently she hit someone while texting and driving and didn't appreciate being criticized. Brings to mind the fact that I live in Texas, and the governor Rick Perry said it should not be made illegal because grown folks should not have their behavior governed. So much wrong with that. Fight is just about out of me at this point though. Had a long response all typed up and the post I was responding to has had several replies since and I cannot copy paste on this phone.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

But I do agree with rnr about the fact that these behaviors are encouraged. It is that very fact that sickens me. I just don't understand that mentality...why people have to act like this with each other.

[SMiLE Brian]

Black Friday has turned into a bloodbath of greed. People honestly need to chill the hell out and stop fighting over consumer products that can be bought on cyber monday.

[grillo]

Yes, I've heard about how the Government (which is defined as a monopoly on violence even by your dear leader, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ ) helps everybody and it steals from the wealthy and gives to the needy, using force.

I suppose your first mistake is referring to Obama is my "dear leader" - he is neither that in practice, nor in spirit and I am a fierce opponent of Barack Obama, which is why in my very first post in this thread I state my opposition to Obamacare. Perhaps you should actually engage with the points I raise rather than respond to the fiction you've created.

Now, you want to "look at this realistically" and then you make up a definition of a government that does not exist anywhere on earth.

Are you familiar with The Gettysburg Address? Furthermore, government as I've defined it has existed in history.

So, you don't like capitalism (voluntary human interactions that are win/win

Any economic system including capitalism could in theory operate by "voluntary human interaction" - it's hardly an accomplishment to use that to bolster the argument in favour of capitalism.

 

but now a term co-opted by the state and used to define the Semi-facisistic model that permeated most of the 20th century as well as the current reality),

Not just the 20th century. Capitalism was ushered into existence with necessary extreme violence and coercion.

you think I owe everybody something simply because my parents f***ed in the imaginary boarders that are controlled by a particular group of sociopaths,

No, this has nothing to do with the state in which you were born. Life as you know it and your place in it is always dependent on and determined by the society in which you exist no matter where you are born.

you think it's hypocritical of me to insist that morality applies to everyone (including men in blue or green uniforms, and men that where black dresses and judge people, and any politician) meaning if I can't take 30% of your earnings, well it only follows that I can't vote for somebody to do it for me?

No, I think it's hypocritical to suggest that once your social position has by and large been created for you by the public that you want to not do the same for someone else.

Maybe you can explain in one or two sentences exactly what part of me you are entitled to?

I'm not entitled to any "part" of you - nor am I expected to believe the things that are fundamentally not part of you are.

The state enforces law, which IT creates. The laws that govern corporations, and allow them to exist as entities that privatize profits to the upper management while the shareholders and often the public take any losses are created and overseen by the state. They can legally do this.

In fact, the state essentially granted rights to the corporations that in many respects put corporations outside of the reaches of state control at the beginning of the 20th century. Corporations in the United States, from the position of the law, have been by and large outside of the hands of state for quite a long time now.

Do you understand how the state is the guy with the gun in the room?

Well, if you are suggesting that the state is the most powerful entity in the state-corporation-population triumverate, then, no, I don't understand that.
  

 I'm neither on the left, right, or Libertarian.

 

I simply accept the non-aggression principle at face value (that you can't hit someone or take their stuff, ever, except in the extreme of self-protection). Taking this to its logical conclussion I accept no authority over me,nor do I have authority over anyone else.

So in that sense you oppose capitalism since it functions with an inherent power structure and means to profit off the labour of others.

Glad to hear you did not participate in the Election process, because if you did, then yes, Obama IS your dear leader. Maybe not the one you voted for, but the system you defend and participate in gave him to you. Like I always say, if you vote you can't complain!
Please, tell me about my social position.
You are not really saying that I owe "the public" something simply for being alive?  I know for a fact I owe you nothing. Perhaps there are people who have helped me, and being a good person I do my best to recompense them any way I can. But I don't use force, nor do I advocate force, which most people in society seem to love.
  The Gettysburg Address? That was a short speech given by a man who was directly responsible for the deaths of over six hundred thousand people , many of them non-combatants. Hopefully that is not your ideal.
   The only entity that has the supposed "right" to use force IS THE STATE. Without the state and people's belief in it's legitimacy, corporations would not be protected by the guns of the state. Naturally they feed off each other. However, the state can exist without corporations, but corporations would not continue to exist as they do because they would not be protected by law (legitimate force).
   Of course I oppose capitalism, if we use your definition. I fully support markets however, and the peaceful and voluntary trade between individuals. And sorry, I really don't owe you any of my money, though I don't mind spending some time in discussion, freely and voluntarily.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Glad to hear you did not participate in the Election process, because if you did, then yes, Obama IS your dear leader. Maybe not the one you voted for, but the system you defend and participate in gave him to you. Like I always say, if you vote you can't complain!

He's not my "dear leader" in any sense because I'm not from the United States. But even if I was and even if I voted, I would not accept your premise because one could very easily on the one hand fight to overturn or significantly alter the system as it currently exists (as I think one should both in the US and in Canada where I live) and on the other hand (whilst holding one's nose with the other) vote in the election because it is understood to be a very necessary step in the process of altering the system because it is much harder to do that under more repressive, tyrannical figures who take away the rights of the public, making it more difficult for them to participate in activist culture.

Please, tell me about my social position.

I don't know anything about your social position but my point is not about your specific social position. Rather, I am suggesting that all social positions are essentially made available through a publicly subsidized social system. So for example, the emergence of the middle class in the United States was by and large created by public subsidies, namely the New Deal. Not only did the New Deal essentially construct the class system as it was understood for decades but it also made substantial changes in who was being educated, how much education they were to receive, how many were to receive a particularly good education, and so on. And obviously it meant that a particular level of creativity was achieved. Furthermore the 20th century was a period of unparalleled economic growth in the US and this is primarily the result of publicly subsidized industrial development.

The class system fundamentally began to change in the 1970s and most significantly under Reagan in the 1980s and at that point there became less opportunity and therefore there ended up being a larger gap between the rich and the not-rich and what it meant to be part of the middle class fundamentally changed. The 90s then saw a major economic miracle which was mostly publicly funded. But by and large, the public has essentially created the social positions that have been made available to you.

 The Gettysburg Address? That was a short speech given by a man who was directly responsible for the deaths of over six hundred thousand people , many of them non-combatants. Hopefully that is not your ideal.

Since that's not what Lincoln was addressing in the particular part I'm referring to, I'm not sure why you would leap to such a conclusion.

The only entity that has the supposed "right" to use force IS THE STATE.

But that's a right that is severely curbed by the public. So for example, the state simply couldn't get away with, say, an extermination campaign because the public would be abhorred by it. And if it did it would either have to do it covertly or radically propagandize the public in order to get away with it. That suggests to me that, in fact, it is the public who are far more powerful than the state since the state can only use the power that they can get away with using.

Without the state and people's belief in it's legitimacy, corporations would not be protected by the guns of the state. Naturally they feed off each other. However, the state can exist without corporations, but corporations would not continue to exist as they do because they would not be protected by law (legitimate force).

You are correct that corporations "would not continue to exist as they do" without the state - they would indeed face some dire consequences because you are correct to a degree they are dependent on the state (more through public subsidies than through direct violence, though). But we know how they would react to these dire consequences because there is a historical record on that. Corporations that are no longer dependent on government would be forced to exploit labor as much they can which without state interference would be limitless. So you are correct that corporations probably would not be making the kind of profits they do now, but the power structure would more than likely be bolstered even further since the public would be largely rendered powerless within a structure that is still fundamentally tipped to benefit those in charge, namely the ownership class. So I agree, corporations would not exist as they do now but the situation would be far more grim for the majority of the population that it would be for corporations.

  Of course I oppose capitalism, if we use your definition.

Well, since capitalism does mean private ownership, then we would have to use my definition.

I fully support markets however, and the peaceful and voluntary trade between individuals.

Do you mean trade for profit or trade because, say, I may be good at producing one thing and you another and they are of equal value so we trade our items.

And sorry, I really don't owe you any of my money, though I don't mind spending some time in discussion, freely and voluntarily.

You make it sound so personal!

[grillo]

But it IS personal We keep talking about the state, government, and corporations, when really, all that exists are people. Take away the people and those institutions vanish. It IS personal because you are advocating for the state, which is, by definition, a monopoly on violence. When folks start to talk about almost pure concepts like we have, I feel it's best to bring it back to real things that we, as individuals, can affect. I do not support the use of force against a person or their property for any reason, barring in the extreme of self defense. I do not support it against you, but you seem to be supporting a State's right to do just that to me (and anyone else). It doesn't matter how many people vote for something, that certainly doesn't give it legitimacy, unless you think it's legitimate to, say, lynch someone because the majority of a racist town says so. I take it personal because you actually think you have the answers for other people and their problems, and you want the state to enforce your ideas, whereas I advocate for peaceful, non-coercive trade between individuals. As long as you advocate for violence I will take it personally.

Forgive me if I disengage from this topic.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But it IS personal We keep talking about the state, government, and corporations, when really, all that exists are people.

That's not quite what I mean, nor what anybody means when they commonly use the term "personal."

Take away the people and those institutions vanish. It IS personal because you are advocating for the state, which is, by definition, a monopoly on violence.

Again, that's a false premise - you're talking about specific governments and specific contexts. Furthermore, another false premise, I am not advocating for the state because I am an anarchist in the traditional Bakunin/Rudolf Rocker sense. Fundamentally, I don't believe that the state has the right to exist as an authoritative body within a power structure. So ultimately I advocate for whatever will ultimately allow a society of autonomous individuals to flourish, and whatever course it takes is up to those individuals.

When folks start to talk about almost pure concepts like we have, I feel it's best to bring it back to real things that we, as individuals, can affect.

Well, here, I entirely agree with you.

I do not support the use of force against a person or their property for any reason, barring in the extreme of self defense. I do not support it against you, but you seem to be supporting a State's right to do just that to me (and anyone else).

Well, first of all, I don't accept you throwing in "or their property" for several reasons. Remember that the idea of private property in the capitalist sense is and always will be bound with actions that fundamentally robbed the vast majority of the English population from their means of subsistence. Therefore, the preservation of private property in the capitalist sense is simply the maintanence of force over the population. Furthermore "property" is just too vague a term because it can mean either personal property or productive property and the wealthy elite thrive on us not recognizing that distinction. So to merely say "property" is to really open a can of worms that would really need to be addressed if we were to talk about the material reality of people's lives.

Again, as I said above, I don't support a "State's right" to use force against a person. I simply defend the existence of the state over structures where the public has less say and is more easily rendered subservient and I also would call for a more flexiable and historically accurate definition of "government."

It doesn't matter how many people vote for something, that certainly doesn't give it legitimacy, unless you think it's legitimate to, say, lynch someone because the majority of a racist town says so.

Maybe I'm naive but I would like to believe that a society which is autonomous wouldn't be making decisions like that. I don't accept the tyranny of the majority argument - it entirely eliminates the very real existence of compromise. If you are with a group of eight friends and everyone but you wants to go to the same restaurant and you want to go to another but you decide to go with them anyway, you certainly wouldn't argue that they were using force. In a decent and civilized society, I would imagine that there would be a common principle of compromise and they would be organized as voluntary anyway so even if one would feel consistently excluded, they would not necessary have to participate.

I take it personal because you actually think you have the answers for other people and their problems, and you want the state to enforce your ideas,

No, that's completely false.

whereas I advocate for peaceful, non-coercive trade between individuals.

But individuals can do far more than simply "trade." In fact, systems of "trade" are largely imposed so those matters are, I think, secondary.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't know anything about your social position but my point is not about your specific social position. Rather, I am suggesting that all social positions are essentially made available through a publicly subsidized social system. So for example, the emergence of the middle class in the United States was by and large created by public subsidies, namely the New Deal. Not only did the New Deal essentially construct the class system as it was understood for decades but it also made substantial changes in who was being educated, how much education they were to receive, how many were to receive a particularly good education, and so on. And obviously it meant that a particular level of creativity was achieved. Furthermore the 20th century was a period of unparalleled economic growth in the US and this is primarily the result of publicly subsidized industrial development.

This is simply not true. What you have credited the "New Deal" with achieving in the US was actually achieved by the necessities of World War 2 through the military, which covered all bases from industry to transportation to education. The military and the need to expand the military's capabilities and strength in order to win the war was the major catalyst in the socioeconomic earthquake that followed in the post-war years.

The fact that millions of men were called up or volunteered to serve, and got educated, trained, and dispatched to areas they never would have seen nor lived had it not been for the war was the biggest socioeconomic jolt this country has experienced in modern times.

Just a heads-up: My father, my uncles, and various family members served in that war and I have heard many stories and accounts direct from those primary sources, which I trust above any textbook or analyst. They lived it - and what happened in their experience is what happened in those cases, so the revision and analysis will simply fall short of what was the reality of their experience. Was it a 100% shared experience? Nothing is, of course - but many, many people shared something similar in that era.

Consider this: When my father was called to basic training, actually it will be approaching the anniversary of that since he had to board the train two days before Christmas in 1943 directly from high school at age 18, there were men at his boot camp who had to sign an "X" on any paperwork because they were illiterate and had come from very rural areas where they had not gone to school and had worked instead from a young age. Similar stories involved a man who had never seen a bathroom with running water, as outhouses were still the norm in rural areas of the US at that time, and he had never seen a running water toilet before reporting to that camp. Others saw men reporting without proper shoes or no shoes at all, depending on the area. 100% true.

This was happening 10 years or so into the "New Deal" programs, along with the myriad of other programs in place to fight poverty on that level.

These men eventually received an education, through the military, and were assigned and stationed according to their abilities and skill set. My dad, who I've asked numerous times about this because I find it fascinating, probably would not have left his hometown area had it not been for the navy. Especially at age 18. He actually wound up for a stretch near Hollywood, of all places, and got to see live radio shows with Mel Blanc and Dinah Shore and other radio stars, got to hang out at the Hollywood Canteen where actors and actresses helped the USO serve coffee and donuts and would entertain, and he made it to places like the Brown Derby and Graumann's and the Rose Bowl which were places only seen in newsreels and photos for many kids.

Then they shipped him to Saipan after that, where he served the rest of the war and beyond. And many of those guys who came to basic training from all walks of life, often from real poverty versus what passes for poverty today, if they made it home, more of them had a skill set and access to an official "thank you" through the GI Bill, which also opened up academia and access to a college education to the "regular folks" who would have had those same doors slammed in their face if it were 1938 rather than 1947. And some went on to do incredible things, and change a lot of lives because of it. Much of the aerospace and automotive innovation that surrounded places like Hawthorne CA when Brian Wilson was a kid was due to ex-military men getting jobs and innovating in those fields. And that's just one area, not even mentioning medicine and the interstate highway system (which was Dwight Eisenhauer's brainchild) - the boom was simply incredible in what was produced and how much was innovated post-war, and how many people became mobile after the war.

And it was due not to the New Deal, but to the terrible necessities of a war which saw guys from the farms and factories and everywhere in between suddenly being thrown together and scattered around the country, then around the world, and in the process gaining knowledge and skills which never would have been accessible to many of them had it not been for the war.

So it's a terrible necessity, but consider what came afterward. It was not a New Deal plan which brought about that kind of result.

And FYI, my dad also saw the New Deal plans and actually was involved in one of the WPA projects as a teenager. His memory was seeing those who were previously wealthy residents of town working on road crews and doing manual labor outdoors on various WPA projects, and CCC projects for different folks, where they once were rarely seen without a suit and necktie. And many of those men also had come looking for a meal, too, and someone generous enough to share one with them.

Bottom line: There are historians on all sides who can make a case pro or con on the success or failure of the New Deal. Ultimately I side with those who say it was not as successful as advertised, and the historical record of job growth numbers and the like might show that to be true. But whatever the case on those areas, let me emphasize this:

The New Deal had far less to do with the claims made and credit given in rockandroll's initial post than the events surrounding World War 2 which were the real catalyst, and the cultural and economic shift which happened as a result, and manifested itself in what many call the "Post War Boom" of the late 40's and 1950's.

I hope to have cleared up any misunderstandings.

[guitarfool2002]

Just to add to my last post - A bit of trivia many already know. The computers we're using to type and send and read all this stuff have a direct ancestry going back to the military effort in WW2.

The ENIAC was the first electronic computer, and started as a wartime military contract in 1943, and was developed under a top secret project at the University of Pennsylvania. The project was for improving artillery calculations for the US Army. The project started in '43 but wasn't completed until after the war, '46 and beyond.

That's one prominent example of the necessities of that war identifying a need, developing a technology and a project to address that need, producing that product as a workable tool, and seeing it go on to literally break all barriers of communication and change the world and everyday life as it evolved into what we know today. If there is some positive to look back on what was the ultimate tragedy of the modern era and find something good which came out of the ashes, the ENIAC computer would be on the list for sure...not for what it did but for how it eventually developed.

[grillo]

Well, to say the war ended the Depression is sort of inaccurate. Sure, shipping five million guys over seas will get rid of the unemployment problem, but it was not until after wwII when the military spending (and government in general) was slashed that folks started seeing new jobs and opportunities arise. I just don't want people thinking that war is good for an economy, even though it seems to be the only part of the economy still functioning in the US.

[grillo]

But it IS personal We keep talking about the state, government, and corporations, when really, all that exists are people.

That's not quite what I mean, nor what anybody means when they commonly use the term "personal."

Take away the people and those institutions vanish. It IS personal because you are advocating for the state, which is, by definition, a monopoly on violence.

Again, that's a false premise - you're talking about specific governments and specific contexts. Furthermore, another false premise, I am not advocating for the state because I am an anarchist in the traditional Bakunin/Rudolf Rocker sense. Fundamentally, I don't believe that the state has the right to exist as an authoritative body within a power structure. So ultimately I advocate for whatever will ultimately allow a society of autonomous individuals to flourish, and whatever course it takes is up to those individuals.

When folks start to talk about almost pure concepts like we have, I feel it's best to bring it back to real things that we, as individuals, can affect.

Well, here, I entirely agree with you.

I do not support the use of force against a person or their property for any reason, barring in the extreme of self defense. I do not support it against you, but you seem to be supporting a State's right to do just that to me (and anyone else).

Well, first of all, I don't accept you throwing in "or their property" for several reasons. Remember that the idea of private property in the capitalist sense is and always will be bound with actions that fundamentally robbed the vast majority of the English population from their means of subsistence. Therefore, the preservation of private property in the capitalist sense is simply the maintanence of force over the population. Furthermore "property" is just too vague a term because it can mean either personal property or productive property and the wealthy elite thrive on us not recognizing that distinction. So to merely say "property" is to really open a can of worms that would really need to be addressed if we were to talk about the material reality of people's lives.

Again, as I said above, I don't support a "State's right" to use force against a person. I simply defend the existence of the state over structures where the public has less say and is more easily rendered subservient and I also would call for a more flexiable and historically accurate definition of "government."

It doesn't matter how many people vote for something, that certainly doesn't give it legitimacy, unless you think it's legitimate to, say, lynch someone because the majority of a racist town says so.

Maybe I'm naive but I would like to believe that a society which is autonomous wouldn't be making decisions like that. I don't accept the tyranny of the majority argument - it entirely eliminates the very real existence of compromise. If you are with a group of eight friends and everyone but you wants to go to the same restaurant and you want to go to another but you decide to go with them anyway, you certainly wouldn't argue that they were using force. In a decent and civilized society, I would imagine that there would be a common principle of compromise and they would be organized as voluntary anyway so even if one would feel consistently excluded, they would not necessary have to participate.

I take it personal because you actually think you have the answers for other people and their problems, and you want the state to enforce your ideas,

No, that's completely false.

whereas I advocate for peaceful, non-coercive trade between individuals.

But individuals can do far more than simply "trade." In fact, systems of "trade" are largely imposed so those matters are, I think, secondary.

Okay, One last try...
Words have meanings. I have tried to define the words I am using. If you do not think people can have justly aquired property then yes, you are naive in the extreme. Do you also believe people do not own their actions and the effects of their actions? If so I feel it is pointless to continue as your definition of freedom is what is best for most, when that is patently false. Mob rule, I'm sorry, socialism (the forced transfer of wealth) has failed catastrophically everytime it has been tried because it is based on non-reality. Humans desire things. There is an unlimited number of desires and only a finite number of things. So people work and trade to acquire that which they desire. They enter into voluntary relationships with each other for the betterment of both parties. If I want your watermelon (which you have twenty of) and you want my frisbee, then it is mutually beneficial for us to trade. This is the free market. If you have fifty plastic pigs and you want my frisbee but I do not want your pigs, do you feel you have the right to my frisbee anyway?
The state has destroyed almost every vestige of the free market (humans acting voluntarily to serve their own rational best interest) by imposing and inserting itself between individuals. Freedom isn't "everyone has the same stuff", but everyone has the same rules applied to them, from the  street-sweeper to governor, protecting them from, as well as barring them from coercion and violence. Leftist Anarchism they way you define it is simply impossible. Things must be created. Some people are better at using resources than others. Those people will gain advantages and items because they earned it, and just because you (or someone else) is not as good at using your resources doesn't mean you get to have the other guy's stuff. I think of anarcho-socialists as people who forever want mommy to give them the things they want, especially if mommy didn't do that in real life. (not meant as a personal attack, just my metaphor)
   If you really do not believe in property rights you should feel free to send me your computer and, if you have one, your car. Or I can just swing by and pick them up. If you won't do that then you are defending your right to property. It appears to me you do not understand economics (12 years of government education will do that to a guy) but you have internalized the socialist indoctrination of the state to the point where you hold two opposing views; (1) People should do as they see fit so long as none are harmed, and (2) I deserve as much as the next guy. Please understand that violence, in the guise of the state or whatever authority comes to bear in your socialist world, is always unjust, even if everybody says otherwise. Peace does not include the forced transfer of wealth.

[guitarfool2002]

Well, to say the war ended the Depression is sort of inaccurate. Sure, shipping five million guys over seas will get rid of the unemployment problem, but it was not until after wwII when the military spending (and government in general) was slashed that folks started seeing new jobs and opportunities arise. I just don't want people thinking that war is good for an economy, even though it seems to be the only part of the economy still functioning in the US.

It is not what I said, first, and "ending the depression" was not the main point but rather trying to correct what I believe is a mistaken view that the New Deal accomplished things it did not. Reread my post, I put a lot of time into it: the credit being given to the New Deal is misplaced credit, and I've already spelled out some of the reasons why, and can go on for pages with personal anecdotes and family histories if that's needed.

Just like you'd rather not see people thinking war is good for an economy, I'd rather not see the New Deal and various government projects which comprised it receiving credit where the credit is not due.

As far as the whole issue of thinking war is good for an economy, this was never my assertion. At the same time, you must put aside whatever opinions you may have and look at some of the aftereffects, particularly in the decade or so after the war ended.

I'm very much invested in the history of this era, so forgive in advance any ramblings, but just consider these points:

1. Housing. There was no concept of "suburbia" or the suburban neighborhood before the war. Immediately after the war, there was a housing shortage bordering on a housing crisis, where millions of returning GI's were discharged and found a lack of available housing. That led to families opening up boarding houses, renting spare rooms, doubling up on accommodations where a house for 4 became a house for 7 with cots opened in the middle of the living room, etc. It's true, it happened in my own family where my grandparents took in family members this way.

And what it led to was the housing boom that saw "Levittown" and the concept of cookie-cutter suburban single-family homes start dotting the landscape in previously undeveloped land which surrounded the cities. It was a revolution in the way people lived, and the way people commuted to and from various activities...where before the war, communities in general especially rural ones were sort of entities that existed in their own bubble, where most everything the residents needed for daily life existed inside that radius.

Suburbia happened in large part because of the housing assistance given to ex-servicemen who had been honorably discharged, much like the GI Bill. So these men who had often married during the war could find affordable housing, living among families and other ex-servicemen of similar ages and interests, and they could raise a family in what were brand new houses designed to alleviate the "housing crisis" and st.art communities where a commute and a car were the necessary tools to live and work. Then those kids became the "baby boomer" generation.

Suburbia changed the US, plain and simple. And a lot of it was started in finding housing solutions for returning GI's who were starting a family.

2. Education. Pre-war, college was for the wealthy, the influential, and the "elite" class. It was far from common to have someone who did not come from some means, wealth, or influence to attend college unless it came from athletics. Then post-war, the GI Bill opened the doors, literally, to thousands of returning servicemen who could apply for these schools under the GI Bill, and receive assistance as well as the opportunity itself to even be considered for admission to these campuses which had been all but closed in earlier times unless you had some wealth.

Then there were all of those people who had come back from the war, had gained an education through the GI Bill, and who through learning a skill or a trade or even improving skills and knowledge they had gained while in service, they hit the workforce like a lightning bolt, and stop to think about the sheer volume of innovation and discovery which happened in the second half of the 20th century. It is simply mind-boggling to realize how much and how fast things changed, and a catalyst in that was the opportunity for many more people to get that higher education than had existed previously - or if it existed, it was not made available by the elite class in some cases.

My own father took the opportunity to open his own business on GI loans and the like, instead of using it to fund college. He took skills he had been taught in the Navy for and during the war, and used them to start his own shop after the war. This would not have been possible under the pre-war condition of business and the economy in the US.

3. The workforce. How about "Rosie The Riveter"? That poster and image became an icon, but it was a reality that women during the war had a newly opened access to work and jobs which had not been available to them before the war. These were manufacturing jobs, factory jobs, repair jobs, truck-driving and delivery jobs...far from what was available to women before the war, and even far from the kind of work a woman would have been expected to do in any situation.

But the fact that a majority of men who had filled those jobs had gone to war necessitated a larger pool of workers be mustered to fill those needed positions, and the doors were open to women. And they excelled in many cases at those jobs, and not only filled the immediate need for workers but also learned trades and skills, and saw a different way of life than was shown to many of them before.

This is all true, again, and beyond personal stories I know there are many historical accounts of how this played out in reality.

These jobs would not have been open had it not been for the necessities of that war.

4. I could go into medicine - where doctors, surgeons, and corpsmen who had been treating the frontline casualties brought the techniques and skills they had developed in those situations back to their own communities, back to their own hospitals, and back to the US in general and revolutionized the way emergency situations are handled. And how many lives and limbs were saved because of those techniques? Before the war, the ambulance service mainly consisted of someone being put into a vehicle and taken to the nearest hospital, which could have been miles and miles away. It was primitive - and the concept of having trained medics and paramedics rendering emergency care on the spot as part of the first aid lifesaving procedure rather than having what amounted to ambulance drivers picking up the injured was improved dramatically by former military medics teaching their techniques to those at home, and those hospitals and emergency systems adapting them.

And there is also the whole development of penicillin, which saved millions.

There could be many more, but there isn't enough time to list.

I see Grillo's point here, and in no way have I or would try to argue that war is necessary to boost the economy, or however else that sentiment can be twisted or misapplied.

But it is crucial to telling the accurate version of history to point out what did happen in the post-war years of the US and to trace how and why some of what happened in the latter half of the 20th century actually happened. And I think it is inaccurate to credit programs that do not deserve that credit as much as it is to try to make a blanket statement like "Well, to say the war ended the Depression is sort of inaccurate" when that was *not* what I wrote about only serves to distract from what was the reality of what happened.

And trust me, the "reality" of that era cannot be boiled down to a few paragraphs written online, and a complete overview and grasp of that era and all that surrounded it would require a lifetime of work and beyond to tell the whole story. I can say with a lot of confidence that too many people in 2012 do not have a clear understanding of the way things were at that time, and the way many people lived in the 30's and 40's. If you want to understand it, talk to and listen to those who lived it and can shed light on what everyday life really was in that era. And that will weigh much more heavily toward getting a clear picture of those events than any textbook or professor could hope to do from afar. That last sentence is my own two cents and my own opinion, nothing more. 

[grillo]

I totally agree about the New Deal, as well as all government programs, and you did make your point succinctly. I have just heard many people say(in fact I think it was even taught in my government indoctrination camp, I mean school)  that the war ended the depression, so I was only trying to clarify the point that that is not true.
Who knows what amazing things were never created due to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. It is the unseen and unknowable costs that hurt the most.