Democratic Marxism

[Dilip Panjwani]

Just trying to stay in practice.

Do not hesitate to let me know if you need any more clarifications...

[Pargat Perrer]

Just trying to stay in practice.

LOL ok .... but it's kind of mean, making Dilip think he actually has a captive audience who are thinking his nonsense might have some viability. We all know he's never going to see his version of Libertarianism, he will die of old age still saying "enforce natural law .... easy access to capital .... enforce natural law .... easy access to capital ...." in a delerium.

[Peter McKillop]

Peter, why do you even try to get a proper answer from this clueless cultist? You KNOW he has no proper answers to give!

This just keeps going around in circles, you are all just dogs chasing your tail.

Just trying to stay in practice.

[Dilip Panjwani]

UBI is a simple and eloquent idea, it has my full support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ-p...nnel=TEDxTalks

Thanks for the link to the video, Bob G.
The government gave up the idea because:
1. The majority were unhappy with it.
2. It led to the majority of 'net recipients' resorting to laziness/leisure.
3. The government would have to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers who currently 'work' on the programs UBI is meant to replace.
4. The corrupt politicians' corrupt friends in business would never allow the discontinuation of 'corporate subsidy'.
5. Because UBI is universal and straightforward, the corrupt politicians would not be able to buy votes by 'selling' the programs which UBI would be replacing to the special interest groups enjoying those programs.

Libertarianism provides a much more workable and fairer solution to betterment of society....

[Pargat Perrer]

1. Can you give us a specific example of a provision in the "Natural Law" that would protect the "not so rich" from exploitation by the rich?
2. Who would draw up and codify this Natural Law? By any chance would it be .... the rich, i.e. the people who have the wealth and power to put themselves in charge?
3. If your answer to question 2 is yes, it would be the rich, then where would this spirit of egalitarianism come from whereby the powerful would enact laws to protect the not-wealthy from the wealthy? I'm asking this question because you've previously expressed admiration for Peter Thiel, a wealthy individual, who has made it clear that he feels no obligation to help those less fortunate than he is. And Thiel is not alone among his fellow billionaires. So in your libertarian world, Dilip, where will all of these powerful Boy Scouts come from?

Peter, why do you even try to get a proper answer from this clueless cultist? You KNOW he has no proper answers to give!

This just keeps going around in circles, you are all just dogs chasing your tail.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Peter,
No one needs to codify the Natural Law...it has always been the same and will always be the same: 'No one can harm anyone, except in fair competition' (and we have discussed what this means, previously).

Yes ... you defined fair as "using no means to harm others". And so the "except in fair competition" can be removed and Natural Law basically says "No one can harm anyone, period." which of course means all use of fossil fuels must stop immediately because it harms everyone!!!

You wrote "Those who are found to be committing the offences (or deliberately filing frivolous suits) would be the primary bearers of the cost of this enforcement". So any company using fossil fuels must pay ongoing fines until they cease using fossil fuel.

You have to find another definition for "fair". THAT IS THE PART THAT HAS TO BE CODIFIED, SO PETER IS CORRECT TO ASK ABOUT THIS CODIFICATION.

Under your definition, the fair competition clause is NO CLAUSE AT ALL.

... The main rationale for Marxism, ensuring that the 'workers' are paid a fair wage, will be more than adequately realized by Libertarianism's provision of easy access to capital, as the demand for 'workers' will multiply, and the supply drop, enabling the workers to successfully demand better wages simply by market forces...
.....

ahhh yes, for sure the supply of workers WILL drop. Resulting in much higher wages, resulting in higher inflation, resulting in businesses going out of business because they can't find cheap workers, but Chinese and other non-Libertarian nations will have plenty of low-wage workers and wlll undercut your prices until you are out of business.

This "easy capital" (free money, basically) skews the market causing economic chaos .... until everything corrects itself and we end up with what we have now .... a sustainable balance between entrepreneurs and workers.

Meanwhile, the providers of "easy capital" are also going out of business, not getting ROI. People who aren't meant to ever be entrepreneurs, who can't run a business, who go bankrupt in droves, will also cause chaos in the market AS HAPPENED IN THE 2000 DOT COM BUBBLE.

You just can't admit that this dream of yours is fundamentally FLAWED. It was tried and it failed spectacularly.

[Pargat Perrer]

Okay! So the hard and smart working tax payers have to pay for the Leisure activities of all Marxists too!! Add that to your DM principles, Bob!!!

Yes, exactly .... because it is a business expense. If you run a business with many workers, and you want your workers happy and productive, you pay taxes so that the government makes their lives happy and healthy. As a businessperson, you understand that this is a necessary business expense.

Of course, you can always be a Scrooge and penny pinch to the extreme and even refuse to pay taxes, maybe via fraud or maybe using legitimate loopholes. Buf if your penny-pinching results in many workers leaving, and you have to go through the hiring process again and again, and you have trouble finding qualified candidates ... you will eventually realize you need to stop the penny-pinching.

You see, Dilip, your fantasyland utopia of everyone becoming an entrepreneur because they have "easy access to capital" LOL can never be realized. It's certainly not happening in "Libertarian" Argentina. One reason it can't happen is that every business in order to grow needs workers. Workers are people who don't want or need to become entrepreneurs. They just want a steady job that they enjoy and that pays the bills. There are many of these people and they exist under all political systems. And all the systems, all the nations, need these people.

If you give them all free money (free because you will likely never get it back, as in the 2000 dot-com bubble), and tell them "go start your own business, be smart and hard-working", 90% of them will not achieve that. But if we imagine that they DID try and run their own business, guess what? No labor force! No workers! You have to offer HUGE wages and benefits to get someone to accept being a worker.

You have no understanding of basic economics.

[Dilip Panjwani]

1. Can you give us a specific example of a provision in the "Natural Law" that would protect the "not so rich" from exploitation by the rich?
2. Who would draw up and codify this Natural Law? By any chance would it be .... the rich, i.e. the people who have the wealth and power to put themselves in charge?
3. If your answer to question 2 is yes, it would be the rich, then where would this spirit of egalitarianism come from whereby the powerful would enact laws to protect the not-wealthy from the wealthy? I'm asking this question because you've previously expressed admiration for Peter Thiel, a wealthy individual, who has made it clear that he feels no obligation to help those less fortunate than he is. And Thiel is not alone among his fellow billionaires. So in your libertarian world, Dilip, where will all of these powerful Boy Scouts come from?

Hi Peter,
No one needs to codify the Natural Law...it has always been the same and will always be the same: 'No one can harm anyone, except in fair competition' (and we have discussed what this means, previously). The main, overwhelming responsibility of the 'government' (duly 'elected' in the circles within circles set-up) will be to enforce this Natural Law rigorously. Those who are found to be committing the offences (or deliberately filing frivolous suits) would be the primary bearers of the cost of this enforcement, besides a small amount of indirect taxation on all (and of course those who spend more will end up paying more of this). The thousands of silly and self-contradicting laws which now exist will no longer be necessary...

The main rationale for Marxism, ensuring that the 'workers' are paid a fair wage, will be more than adequately realized by Libertarianism's provision of easy access to capital, as the demand for 'workers' will multiply, and the supply drop, enabling the workers to successfully demand better wages simply by market forces...

And for all you know, the guys who feel 'no obligation' to help may in fact be the most charitable individuals in our society, doing charity out of love and kindness, and not obligation.

[Peter McKillop]

Nobody gets sacrificed to anything in Libertarianism. In fact, enforcement of the Natural Law ensures that the rich cannot harm the not so rich. And the not so rich are given easy access to capital to be able to work hard and smart and build their own lives, if they wish to...
In DM, fairness and betterment of society get sacrificed to the political need to rob the minority and transfer that stolen wealth to the majority, in order to win the majority vote.
Understand, Bob?

1. Can you give us a specific example of a provision in the "Natural Law" that would protect the "not so rich" from exploitation by the rich?
2. Who would draw up and codify this Natural Law? By any chance would it be .... the rich, i.e. the people who have the wealth and power to put themselves in charge?
3. If your answer to question 2 is yes, it would be the rich, then where would this spirit of egalitarianism come from whereby the powerful would enact laws to protect the not-wealthy from the wealthy? I'm asking this question because you've previously expressed admiration for Peter Thiel, a wealthy individual, who has made it clear that he feels no obligation to help those less fortunate than he is. And Thiel is not alone among his fellow billionaires. So in your libertarian world, Dilip, where will all of these powerful Boy Scouts come from?

[Bob Gillanders]

Universal Basic Income (UBI)

UBI is a simple and eloquent idea, it has my full support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ-p...nnel=TEDxTalks

Dilip will never agree, no sense trying to convince him.

[Bob Armstrong]

Universal Basic Income (UBI) [Sometimes called the Guaranteed Annual Income]

Under most planned UBI, you can opt in or opt out.

Live on a low modest income supplement (With earned income). Do paid work for fewer hours (Fewer Part-time Jobs) because you now have a modest total "living" wage.

BUT, trial recipients have been seen to be productive in the new unpaid time, such as developing their talents, to contribute something to society (maybe charitable works, etc.)

Or

Opt out, earn as much as you want, don't take a handout, be taxed on a progressive system, and do your own thing as to division of paid work hours/unpaid productive hours.

Note: Those receiving UBI are taxed under the same progressive system as those opting out. The UBI payment is treated as "Income".

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

But they became more productive and used talents that were unused because previously they had no time to develop them

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

All this 'productivity' was not charity, right? Then why could they not convert their talented productivity into income to sustain themselves and their families, instead of making the Marxist government rob other hard and smart working tax-payers to pay them?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Read: Josef Pieper: Leisure - the Basis of Culture (1948).

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Okay! So the hard and smart working tax payers have to pay for the Leisure activities of all Marxists too!! Add that to your DM principles, Bob!!!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

This is out of step with all prior reports I have read on "UBI" trials over long periods in many countries.

I will have to now go research UBI, since I have not archived this to my knowledge.....but I will go look to see if I have a folder on it, or have put them in another broader archive folder.

My understanding was that, over all, trial participants did start working less (fewer part-time jobs).

But they became more productive (unpaid hours) and used talents that were unused because previously they had no time to develop them, and because they were going to be unpaid hours, which they could not afford.

Read: Josef Pieper: Leisure - the Basis of Culture (1948).

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Sid:

My solution is not to go back to old politics. And it is certainly not Libertarianism with the ordinary citizen being sacrificed to the God of Capitalism.



As you know, I suggest "new" politics: Democratic Marxism (Which is definitely not the old USSR-style Communism).

DM is the legitimate progeny of the writings of the early Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto & Das Kapital.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Something more for you to chew on, Bob:

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pub...in-your-pocket