- 17 Feb 2020 11:24
#15067787
Good luck getting me to even *see* these updates on-time -- I got wrapped up at that other thread, and am just seeing this one now. Thanks.
---
And where do you stand on strikes? Once organized, and no agreement on a new contract can be reached, do you think the workers and their unions are justified in a work stoppage until a suitable contract is proposed?
---
So just a splash of Sanders-type populism, huh?
And consolidate the bourgeois state as much as possible. Okay, you may not be running for elections *now*, but we got you covered.
---
Very dramatic. So instead of proposing *technology*-type approaches to change the climate for the better (racks of portable algae tanks everywhere, etc.), we should instead have a species-wide free-for-all as to who gets to live and who has to die. Very pagan. Very 'Wicker Man'.
---
Okay, if 'morality' isn't the determining factor (it's morally ambiguous just to be a consumer in modern society) then whose empirical / objective interests should be *favored* by society? As things are now the state is bourgeois and does much to uphold private property interests, even taking on *warfare* against other countries / entities, for the same.
Do you think things are pretty-much as they should be, or what needs to be improved-on regarding the state and the economy, as they're currently structured?
Donna wrote:
Good luck getting Rich to engage in a conversation. He's a bit of a ghostly figure.
Good luck getting me to even *see* these updates on-time -- I got wrapped up at that other thread, and am just seeing this one now. Thanks.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
So this means that you're all for rank-and-file workers and labor unions being able to organize, correct -- ?
Rich wrote:
I do not think that labour Unions overall help the general good, but professional associations also operate monopolies, so I think they should be allowed.
And where do you stand on strikes? Once organized, and no agreement on a new contract can be reached, do you think the workers and their unions are justified in a work stoppage until a suitable contract is proposed?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
How would 'income redistribution' be done, exactly? As things are now income redistribution happens with 'quantitative easing', supplying public funds to the markets (banks), for the sake of keeping capitalism alive.
Rich wrote:
Pretty much as now. I'd like to see higher Capital gains, Corporation, inheritance and Mansion taxes. we need to combat the race to the bottom on rich people's taxes. Lets start by wiping, Morocco, San Marino, the channel islands and the like off the map as political entities. I'd also like to see a United British and Irish Republic.
So just a splash of Sanders-type populism, huh?
And consolidate the bourgeois state as much as possible. Okay, you may not be running for elections *now*, but we got you covered.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
There's nothing currently 'wrong' with the world's human population. You're sounding like a Malthusian.
Rich wrote:
I am a Malthusian. The last 200 years are just a blip in a Malthusian world. The environmental damage we're doing to (non -human) nature is just displaced Malthusianism.
Very dramatic. So instead of proposing *technology*-type approaches to change the climate for the better (racks of portable algae tanks everywhere, etc.), we should instead have a species-wide free-for-all as to who gets to live and who has to die. Very pagan. Very 'Wicker Man'.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're showing a preference for political Zionism, which is contrary to your repeated 'laissez faire' pronouncements.
Rich wrote:
I'm fairly pro market. I'm not a (right) Libertarian. I don't believe in absolute property rights. Consistent with this I don't believe in absolute self ownership. I also don't believe in absolute national sovereignty. I am happy to use Good and Evil rhetorically, but I don't believe at least intellectually in absolute morality. I believe however that we have evolved to emotionally believe in absolute morality, although its pretty easy to punch holes in any absolute morality system.
Okay, if 'morality' isn't the determining factor (it's morally ambiguous just to be a consumer in modern society) then whose empirical / objective interests should be *favored* by society? As things are now the state is bourgeois and does much to uphold private property interests, even taking on *warfare* against other countries / entities, for the same.
Do you think things are pretty-much as they should be, or what needs to be improved-on regarding the state and the economy, as they're currently structured?