the neoliberal vision of the future

[onarchy]

You still labour under the illusion that laissez faire capitalism magically resolved these issues. If you were to travel back in time and talk to a factory or mill worker, you'd probably tell them that they were lying when they described the awful conditions that they lived in.

You're dishonest...and desperate.

I am not dishonest. I don't deny that the factory workers were working under horrible conditions, but why did they work there? Why didn't they just do something else? Could it be because despite the horrible working conditions at the time, this was BETTER than the alternative that existed prior to the rise of capitalism? Remember, it was not first and foremost the workers that were the primary critics of capitalism. It was the upper class. The nobles saw that the people who previously worked on their farms chose to leave and work in the city. Why did they do that? Why would anyone voluntarily seek out these horrible working conditions? The nobility was enraged that they were losing cheap labor to the industrialists in the cities, because the industrialized PAID BETTER SALARIES. Also, the conservative upper class was raging against capitalism because women were being liberated from men. With a salary of their own they could become independent, and this women's independence was looked upon with extreme suspicion in the then male dominated upper class.

I have now laid out the facts, and for some reason you are closing your ears to them, and not willing to even think about why the upper class was so against capitalism and why workers chose voluntarily to leave the country side and a safe job with their feudal lords to go to the city to get a factory job. Can you explain all this?

 

[Idris2002]

Oh, and while we're on the subject of 'Hitler the collectivist', here's to a PDF of a paper which argues that the Nazis actually privatised some important state-owned enterprises in Germany.

onarchy - go away.

 

[Idris2002]

I am not dishonest. I don't deny that the factory workers were working under horrible conditions, but why did they work there? Why didn't they just do something else? Could it be because despite the horrible working conditions at the time, this was BETTER than the alternative that existed prior to the rise of capitalism? Remember, it was not first and foremost the workers that were the primary critics of capitalism. It was the upper class. The nobles saw that the people who previously worked on their farms chose to leave and work in the city. Why did they do that? Why would anyone voluntarily seek out these horrible working conditions? The nobility was enraged that they were losing cheap labor to the industrialists in the cities, because the industrialized PAID BETTER SALARIES. Also, the conservative upper class was raging against capitalism because women were being liberated from men. With a salary of their own they could become independent, and this women's independence was looked upon with extreme suspicion in the then male dominated upper class.

I have now laid out the facts, and for some reason you are closing your ears to them, and not willing to even think about why the upper class was so against capitalism and why workers chose voluntarily to leave the country side and a safe job with their feudal lords to go to the city to get a factory job. Can you explain all this?

You clueless fucking twat. Just fuck off, alright?

 

[stethoscope]

I am not dishonest. I don't deny that the factory workers were working under horrible conditions, but why did they work there? Why didn't they just do something else? Could it be because despite the horrible working conditions at the time, this was BETTER than the alternative that existed prior to the rise of capitalism? Remember, it was not first and foremost the workers that were the primary critics of capitalism. It was the upper class. The nobles saw that the people who previously worked on their farms chose to leave and work in the city. Why did they do that? Why would anyone voluntarily seek out these horrible working conditions? The nobility was enraged that they were losing cheap labor to the industrialists in the cities, because the industrialized PAID BETTER SALARIES. Also, the conservative upper class was raging against capitalism because women were being liberated from men. With a salary of their own they could become independent, and this women's independence was looked upon with extreme suspicion in the then male dominated upper class.

I have now laid out the facts, and for some reason you are closing your ears to them, and not willing to even think about why the upper class was so against capitalism and why workers chose voluntarily to leave the country side and a safe job with their feudal lords to go to the city to get a factory job. Can you explain all this?

Fucking hell, just so much fail.

 

[nino_savatte]

I am not dishonest. I don't deny that the factory workers were working under horrible conditions, but why did they work there? Why didn't they just do something else? Could it be because despite the horrible working conditions at the time, this was BETTER than the alternative that existed prior to the rise of capitalism? Remember, it was not first and foremost the workers that were the primary critics of capitalism. It was the upper class. The nobles saw that the people who previously worked on their farms chose to leave and work in the city. Why did they do that? Why would anyone voluntarily seek out these horrible working conditions? The nobility was enraged that they were losing cheap labor to the industrialists in the cities, because the industrialized PAID BETTER SALARIES. Also, the conservative upper class was raging against capitalism because women were being liberated from men. With a salary of their own they could become independent, and this women's independence was looked upon with extreme suspicion in the then male dominated upper class.

I have now laid out the facts, and for some reason you are closing your ears to them, and not willing to even think about why the upper class was so against capitalism and why workers chose voluntarily to leave the country side and a safe job with their feudal lords to go to the city to get a factory job. Can you explain all this?

You really either don't have a clue or are being wilfully ignorant. Whatever the case, I've wasted too much time on you.

I am not dishonest. I don't deny that the factory workers were working under horrible conditions, but why did they work there? Why didn't they just do something else?

This sums you up to a tee. We all don't have the luxury of growing fat off the back of those who sell their labour. Many of us have no choice but to sell our labour. You're a sociopath.

 

[nino_savatte]

Oh and before I forget. Rand was not a philosopher. She was a chainsmoking, amphet-popping charlatan who sought to rationalise her selfish and greedy impulses with her own cod philosophy.

 

[invisibleplanet]

DP

 

[onarchy]

'This Irish famine will kill one million people, and that is not enough to do any good'.

There was really no famine in Ireland, there was a property crisis. Ireland is extremely fertile, yet from about 1800 and onwards large parts of fertile land simply lay there, unused, no-one farming it. (It was due to this that the Irish got the reputation for being lazy) Had this land been farmed there would have been no famine in Ireland.

So why was so much wonderful land simply unfarmed? A few hundred years earlier the protestant feudal England had taken Ireland and made laws so that catholics could not own land. As a consequence huge areas of land were expropriated by the state and given to the protestant nobility. The catholic irish then became de facto serfs, simply RENTING the land that they had owned and worked for centuries. Then in 1797 there was a currency crisis and as a consequence the rent rose dramatically, so much so that it was not profitable for the farmers to rent the land. During the entire famine food was being EXPORTED from Ireland to England.

After the famine the Irish started land reforms to return the land to the original owners that had been robbed of their land by feudalists. This largely rectified the problem. Sadly, however, people today believe that this perfect example of feudalism somehow had anything to do with laissez-faire.

 

[invisibleplanet]

I am not dishonest. I don't deny that the factory workers were working under horrible conditions, but why did they work there? Why didn't they just do something else? Could it be because despite the horrible working conditions at the time, this was BETTER than the alternative that existed prior to the rise of capitalism? Remember, it was not first and foremost the workers that were the primary critics of capitalism. It was the upper class. The nobles saw that the people who previously worked on their farms chose to leave and work in the city. Why did they do that? Why would anyone voluntarily seek out these horrible working conditions? The nobility was enraged that they were losing cheap labor to the industrialists in the cities, because the industrialized PAID BETTER SALARIES. Also, the conservative upper class was raging against capitalism because women were being liberated from men. With a salary of their own they could become independent, and this women's independence was looked upon with extreme suspicion in the then male dominated upper class.

I have now laid out the facts, and for some reason you are closing your ears to them, and not willing to even think about why the upper class was so against capitalism and why workers chose voluntarily to leave the country side and a safe job with their feudal lords to go to the city to get a factory job.

There are no facts in the above fantasy.

Can you explain all this?

Yes. Succinctly, in four words 'SHEEP EAT MEN' and 'Inclosures'

 

[onarchy]

'This Irish famine will kill one million people, and that is not enough to do any good'.

There was really no famine in Ireland, there was a property crisis. Ireland is extremely fertile, yet from about 1800 and onwards large parts of fertile land simply lay there, unused, no-one farming it. (It was due to this that the Irish got the reputation for being lazy) Had this land been farmed there would have been no famine in Ireland.

So why was so much wonderful land simply unfarmed? A few hundred years earlier the protestant feudal England had taken Ireland and made laws so that catholics could not own land. As a consequence huge areas of land were expropriated by the state and given to the protestant nobility. The catholic irish then became de facto serfs, simply RENTING the land that they had owned and worked for centuries. Then in 1797 there was a currency crisis and as a consequence the rent rose dramatically, so much so that it was not profitable for the farmers to rent the land. During the entire famine food was being EXPORTED from Ireland to England.

After the famine the Irish started land reforms to return the land to the original owners that had been robbed of their land by feudalists. This largely rectified the problem. Sadly, however, people today believe that this perfect example of feudalism somehow had anything to do with laissez-faire.

 

[Idris2002]

There was really no famine in Ireland, there was a property crisis. Ireland is extremely fertile, yet from about 1800 and onwards large parts of fertile land simply lay there, unused, no-one farming it. (It was due to this that the Irish got the reputation for being lazy) Had this land been farmed there would have been no famine in Ireland.

So why was so much wonderful land simply unfarmed? A few hundred years earlier the protestant feudal England had taken Ireland and made laws so that catholics could not own land. As a consequence huge areas of land were expropriated by the state and given to the protestant nobility. The catholic irish then became de facto serfs, simply RENTING the land that they had owned and worked for centuries. Then in 1797 there was a currency crisis and as a consequence the rent rose dramatically, so much so that it was not profitable for the farmers to rent the land. During the entire famine food was being EXPORTED from Ireland to England.

After the famine the Irish started land reforms to return the land to the original owners that had been robbed of their land by feudalists. This largely rectified the problem. Sadly, however, people today believe that this perfect example of feudalism somehow had anything to do with laissez-faire.

This is a highly peculiar and eccentric reading of Irish history: from what source are you drawing your information on Ireland's historical experience in those years?

Also, you conveniently ignore the inadequacy of state response to the famine crisis of 1845 - 1850, which was directly rooted in laissez-faire ideology that inhibited anything that smacked of state intervention in the economy. This included the disbursement of food aid on a scale large enough to prevent the deaths of millions by starvation.

 

[invisibleplanet]

There was really no famine in Ireland [...]

Your knowledge-gap has caused you to become prey for propaganda.
Essentially, you're revising history to suit your political bent.

 

[nino_savatte]

There was really no famine in Ireland, there was a property crisis. Ireland is extremely fertile, yet from about 1800 and onwards large parts of fertile land simply lay there, unused, no-one farming it. (It was due to this that the Irish got the reputation for being lazy) Had this land been farmed there would have been no famine in Ireland.

So why was so much wonderful land simply unfarmed? A few hundred years earlier the protestant feudal England had taken Ireland and made laws so that catholics could not own land. As a consequence huge areas of land were expropriated by the state and given to the protestant nobility. The catholic irish then became de facto serfs, simply RENTING the land that they had owned and worked for centuries. Then in 1797 there was a currency crisis and as a consequence the rent rose dramatically, so much so that it was not profitable for the farmers to rent the land. During the entire famine food was being EXPORTED from Ireland to England.

After the famine the Irish started land reforms to return the land to the original owners that had been robbed of their land by feudalists. This largely rectified the problem. Sadly, however, people today believe that this perfect example of feudalism somehow had anything to do with laissez-faire.

There was "no famine in Ireland"? Are you for real? Presumably the potato blight that wiped out all of Ireland's potato crop was what? A figment of the imagination? By the way, the same potato blight also wiped out Scotland's crop - though it doesn't get talked about much.

 

[onarchy]

This sums you up to a tee. We all don't have the luxury of growing fat off the back of those who sell their labour. Many of us have no choice but to sell our labour. You're a sociopath.

You didn't answer my question. If capitalism CAUSED the misery of so many people, then why didn't the people just go back to the life they had before capitalism, working the fields? How do you explain this? To me the behavior of so many poor people can ONLY be explained by two facts: 1) the extreme poverty was not caused by capitalism, but existed prior to capitalism everywhere, 2) capitalism provided alternatives that (in the beginning) were horrible, but which were BETTER than what existed. 50-100 years of capitalism lifted millions of people out of poverty. Why deny this fact? What is your motivation for willfully ignoring reality?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

....just waiting for him to deny the Holocaust.....

 

[Idris2002]

Anyone remember Jared Lee Loughner?

Yes, he had a confusing and contradictory reading list. He was also a spree killer.

Hang on...

Seriously, should we alert the relevant authorities in Norway?

 

[nino_savatte]

First you tell us there wasn't a famine then you say this

After the famine the Irish started land reforms to return the land to the original owners that had been robbed of their land by feudalists. This largely rectified the problem. Sadly, however, people today believe that this perfect example of feudalism somehow had anything to do with laissez-faire.

You're not even consistent.

 

[nino_savatte]

Seriously, should we alert the relevant authorities in Norway?

I think so. On his Facebook page, he claims to be a "politician".

 

[onarchy]

There was "no famine in Ireland"? Are you for real? Presumably the potato blight that wiped out all of Ireland's potato crop was what? A figment of the imagination? By the way, the same potato blight also wiped out Scotland's crop - though it doesn't get talked about much.

Did you even read anything of what I wrote? People were starving, not due to the potato blight, but due to a) huge areas of fertile Ireland NOT being farmed and b) much of the food grown was EXPORTED to England. And why on earth would not all of Ireland be farmed when it was so fertile? Because of the feudal property rights that robbed the farmers of their private property.

 

[nino_savatte]

You didn't answer my question. If capitalism CAUSED the misery of so many people, then why didn't the people just go back to the life they had before capitalism, working the fields? How do you explain this? To me the behavior of so many poor people can ONLY be explained by two facts: 1) the extreme poverty was not caused by capitalism, but existed prior to capitalism everywhere, 2) capitalism provided alternatives that (in the beginning) were horrible, but which were BETTER than what existed. 50-100 years of capitalism lifted millions of people out of poverty. Why deny this fact? What is your motivation for willfully ignoring reality?

You haven't got a clue, have you? Have you ever heard of the phrase "historical materialism"?

Perhaps you could tell me how mercantilism was superseded by classical liberal economics.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Vanity googler [...]

^^ THIS

 

[TruXta]

Seriously, should we alert the relevant authorities in Norway?

FFS, this guy's a clown. You're feeding him oxygen. Starve the fucker, he'll leave if people just ignore him. Look at yourselves, he's got you all wound up. I bet he's pissing his pants laughing.

 

[nino_savatte]

Did you even read anything of what I wrote? People were starving, not due to the potato blight, but due to a) huge areas of fertile Ireland NOT being farmed and b) much of the food grown was EXPORTED to England. And why on earth would not all of Ireland be farmed when it was so fertile? Because of the feudal property rights that robbed the farmers of their private property.

Yes, I read it and it's nothing less than historical revisionism. Nice try but no cigar.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

FFS, this guy's a clown. You're feeding him oxygen. Starve the fucker, he'll leave if people just ignore him. Look at yourselves, he's got you all wound up. I bet he's pissing his pants laughing.

Nah. Look at his blog. He believes this shit.

 

[TruXta]

Nah. Look at his blog. He believes this shit.

I didn't say he didn't believe it, that's besides the point really. The point is he's a wind-up merchant who just happens to believe in his own crap.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Yes, I read it and it's nothing less than historical revisionism. Nice try but no cigar.

Yes. To be clear, not the legitimate re-examination of historical knowledge, but rather a distortion of history for a political agenda.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I didn't say he didn't believe it, that's besides the point really. The point is he's a wind-up merchant who just happens to believe in his own crap.

I may be wrong, but from the way he's posted, and particularly the way he felt the need to invent a sock-puppet to attack everyone else with, it seems to me that he's the one getting wound up. The rest of us aren't so much being wound up as demolishing his arguments. LLETSA's a case in point – the miserable sod's doing rather well.

If O's still about, I'd like him to address the criticisms I made of his article earlier. Particularly, I would like him to explain where interest on loans comes from. Rude to ignore it, O. You posted up a link to your blog and someone took the time to read it and criticise it. What do you have to say for yourself?

 

[invisibleplanet]

He seems to belong to a Norwegian ultraliberalistic microparty, but he's pretty much an unknown figure in Norway. Likely his association with the ''Tea Party'' is opportunistic narcissism, to gain attention for himself outside of Norway.

He also wrote a book about how to discuss with irrational people. Seeing his discussion activity and level here, I wouldn't buy that book ...

But we shouldn't waste much more time on him. He thrives on discussions with “irrational people” and won't change his mind

 

[Bernie Gunther]

....just waiting for him to deny the Holocaust.....

and climate change too I bet, probably not evolution though. I'd imagine he's quite keen on some sort of social darwinism.

 

[TruXta]

He seems to belong to a Norwegian ultraliberalistic microparty, but he's pretty much an unknown figure in Norway.

Total keyboard warrior with a much inflated ego by the looks of things. As you say a complete nobody in Norway.