free market system

Myers Briggs Type & Political Affiliation (Old Data)

As you can see, from observing the table, there are a few things that stand out:

  • xSTJs and xNTJs identify as Republican the most.
  • Democrat affiliation is lowest among rational types.
  • Democrats are represented highest among “SF” and “NF” types.ESTJs mostly identify as Republican.
  • INTPs followed by ENTPs identify mostly as Independent.



  • Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws do not thwart criminals. You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Sensing
    likely in favor by: ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ESFP
  • Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes. The Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children.
    Relevant function: Introverted Intuition
    Likely in favor by: INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ


  • Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his/her actions. People should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs based on their ability. It is unfair to use race as a factor in the selection process. Reverse discrimination is not a solution for racism.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP
  • Liberals believe that it’s okay to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups. Due to prevalent racism in the past, minorities were deprived of the same education and employment opportunities as whites. We need to make up for that. Support affirmative action based on the belief that America is still a racist society. Minorities still lag behind whites in all statistical measurements of success. Also, the presence of minorities creates diversity.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ


  • Conservatives oppose long-term welfare. We need to provide opportunities to make it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage a person to become self-reliant, rather than keeping them dependent on the government for money.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

  • Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always….you guessed it, another government program. They support social welfare. They want welfare to provide for the poor. To liberals, conservatives oppose welfare because they are not compassionate toward the poor. We have welfare to bring fairness to American economic life. Without welfare, life below the poverty line would be intolerable.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP


  • Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn’t be punished for being successful. The free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise afford the widest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Intuition, Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ENTP, ENFP, ENTJ, ESTJ
  • Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That’s why they don’t respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs. Favor a market system in which government regulates the economy. We need government to protect us against big businesses. Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest. We need government regulation to level the playing field.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling, Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, INFP, ISTJ, ISFJ


  • Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. Nobody has the right to murder a human being. Support legislation to prohibit partial birth abortions, called the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” (partial birth abortion – the killing of an unborn baby of at least 20 weeks by pulling it out of the birth canal with forceps, but leaving the head inside. An incision is made in the back of the baby’s neck and the brain tissue is suctioned out. The head is then removed from the uterus.)
    Relevant function: Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ

  • Liberals, largely believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother. A fetus is not a human life. The decision to have an abortion is a personal choice of a woman regarding her own body and the government should stay out of it. Women should be guaranteed the right to a safe and legal abortion, including partial birth abortion.
    Relevant function: Introverted Thinking

    Likely in favor by: ISTP, ENTP, INTP, ESTP


  • Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That’s why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

  • Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ


  • Conservatives believe the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This prevents the government from establishing a national church. However, it does not prevent God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings. Oppose the removal of symbols of Christian heritage from public and government spaces. Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.
    Relevant function: Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ

  • Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That’s why, whether you’re talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society. They support the separation of church and state. Religious expression has no place in government. Support the removal of all references to God in public and government spaces.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP


  • Conservatives believe the death penalty is a punishment that fits the crime; it is neither ‘cruel’ nor ‘unusual’. Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life.
    Relevant function: Introverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ISTP, ENTP, INTP, ESTP

  • Liberals believe we should abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is inhumane and is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. It does not deter crime. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment. Every execution risks killing an innocent person.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP


  • Conservatives advocate for school vouchers to give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children, not just those who can afford private schools. Parents (who pay the taxes that fund the schools) should decide how and where to educate their child.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP

  • Liberals believe School vouchers are untested experiments. We need to focus on more funding for existing public schools -to raise teacher salaries and reduce class size.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ


  • Conservatives desire clean water, clean air and a clean planet, just like everyone else. However, extreme environmental policies destroy jobs and damage the economy. Changes in global temperatures are natural over long periods of time. So far, science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth’s temperature.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Sensing
    likely in favor by: ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ESFP

  • Liberals believe Conservatives don’t care about protecting the environment. Industrial growth harms the environment. Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide. The U.S. is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world’s carbon dioxide. The U.S. should enact laws to significantly reduce that amount.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ


  • Conservatives believe that free healthcare provided by the government (socialized medicine) means that everyone will get the same poor-quality healthcare. The rich will continue to pay for superior healthcare, while all others will receive poor-quality free healthcare from the government. Health care should remain privatized. Support Healthcare Spending Accounts.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

  • Liberals support universal government-supervised health care. There are millions of Americans who can’t afford health insurance. They are being deprived of a basic right to healthcare.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ


  • Conservatives support legal immigration at current numbers, but do not support illegal immigration. Government should enforce immigration laws. Oppose President Bush’s amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally should not have the same rights as those who obey the law by entering legally. If there were a decrease in cheap, illegal immigrant labor, employers would have to substitute higher priced domestic employees, legal immigrants, or perhaps increase mechanization.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Sensing
    likely in favor by: ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ESFP

  • Liberals support legal immigration and increasing the number of legal immigrants permitted to enter the U.S. each year. Support blanket amnesty for current illegal immigrants. Believe that regardless of how they came to the U.S., illegal immigrants deserve: – U.S. government financial aid for college tuition. – visas for spouse/children to come to the U.S. Families shouldn’t be separated. Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans do not want to do.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ


  • Conservatives insist that marriage is between one man and one woman. Opinions differ on support for the creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Believe that requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
    Relevant function: Introverted Sensing
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ

  • Liberals believe marriage should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples to ensure equal rights for all. All individuals, regardless of their sex, have the right to marry. Believe that prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them of their civil rights. Opinions differ on whether this issue is equal to civil rights for African Americans.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ


  • Conservatives believe the current Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Changes are necessary because the U.S. will be unable to maintain the current system it in the future. Support proposal to allow a portion of Social Security dollars withheld to be put into an account chosen by the individual, not the government.
    Relevant function: Introverted Intuition
    Likely in favor by: INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ
  • Liberals generally oppose change to the current Social Security system. Opinions vary on whether the current system is in financial trouble. Changing the current system will cause people to lose their Social Security benefits. Support a cap on Social Security payments to the wealthy.
    Relevant function: Introverted Feeling
    Likely in favor by: ISFP, ENFP, INFP, ENFP


  • Conservatives support lower taxes and a smaller government. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it.
    Relevant function: Introverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ISTP, ENTP, INTP, ESTP

  • Liberals support higher taxes and a larger government. High taxes enable the government to do good and create jobs. We need high taxes for social welfare programs, to provide for the poor. We can’t afford to cut taxes.
    Relevant function: Extroverted Thinking
    Likely in favor by: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, INTJ

(Note: Please keep in mind that this research was conducted over a decade ago. The above table is taken from a U.S. sample of 3000 people. It was part of data collected when Consulting Psychologists’ Press revised the MBTI in 1998. Political affiliation and mbti type was among the survey questions.)

anonymous asked:

wait the free market allows funko pop to exist righ? so either you have to admit thats fine or that the free market isnt a good system.

Funko Pops are the most compelling argument in favor of Communism out there.

anonymous asked:

can you explain what trump is doing to your healthcare rn? i've tried to read about it but i can't find an actual explanation and i'm curious. thanks in advance!

that’s because health care law is one of the most complicated subjects out there and if you want to understand what’s happening you probs need to dedicate a bit of time (i actually spent like 4 whole days for 7 hours a day reading about it in december and i’m still not sure i have everything straight). 

this explanation is a good and somewhat simple one but it’s still jargon-y. you might find yourself needing to google some concepts. 

some of the biggest changes though: 

  • people would no longer have to pay a tax penalty if they’re uninsured
  • the bill would make insurance “marketplaces” sort of defunct and revert to a free market system of price regulation on premiums. this could actually lower premiums up front meaning people could pay less out of pocket for their plans
  • the tax credits (basically deductions from your income tax) that people receive from the govt to buy insurance would no longer be based on income, but rather on age. that means, rather than giving the most money back to poor people who need it to help cover costs, they’ll give more money back to older people 
  • there are no longer requirements for insurers to cover important ‘essential benefits’ (such as mental health care, preventive care, maternity care, etc.) instead, states will get the option to decide what those essential benefits are or whether they should be waived entirely 
  • medicaid, which is a program that gives subsidized insurance to the poor, was expanded under obama’s health care leg. that expansion will be slowly rolled back–basically fewer people will be eligible for subsidized/free health insurance

important to note–this is a bill that has only passed one chamber of congress. it probably won’t pass the second, at least not in its current form meaning it almost certainly won’t become law. basically no one likes it including many conservative lawmakers 

What’s the purpose of it? Capitalism would not collapse if Grenada remained revolutionary. And Reagan was right, it wasn’t a matter of direct resources that you needed from that country. He said, “Nutmeg is not the question.” I mean, that was Grenada’s biggest export, we could get perfectly good nutmeg from Africa, you don’t need Grenada’s nutmeg. So why did they invade Grenada? They invaded Grenada because they were serving notice to the people of the Caribbean, and to the people of Latin America, and to the people of the world, that you cannot drop out of your client-state free-market system. That if you tried to take an independent source, and that if you use your land, your labor, your resources, and your capital, and your markets in a different way, in a collectivist way, if you use them to benefit the needs of your people, rather than to be milked like a cow for foreign investors, if you do that, this is what’s going to happen to you.
—  Michael Parenti

A free market system can’t possibly work. There is no way you can provide roads, healthcare and education through a free market. What you really need to do is construct a monolithic central bank that is constantly devaluing the currency by borrowing more and more, and institute a system so even those who haven’t been born yet will be pledged as collateral against this loan. The loan will never be paid off, enabling politicians to spend money on all sorts of useless and/or violent programs.

That’s right, a free market system based on voluntary interaction could never work, and it just so happens that the exact system that will work is the one that’s already in place. I know that a free market system will never work based on my observations of the current system, which is radically different to a free market system. How incredibly lucky we are that we have this system considering it’s the best one possible in the entire universe of possibilities. We’re just so fortunate to have found the One True Way.

TalesFromTheFrontDesk: I know I don't need justification to quit, but...

I’m well aware that we live in a free market system and I’m as disposable as my employer is and there’s no such thing as compassion in business. I still feel like before I make a lot of work for people to hire and train someone who, frankly, is as good as me, I should have justification if I don’t have another job lined up yet (which, from experience, I know I really really should and am trying to arrange).

It’s pretty business as usual here so I don’t know why it’s grinding me so much more today, but because I work quickly I get stuck with high c/o days by myself rather than calling someone in, which is what I usually end up having done to me on my days off. But I was given a six hour shift today to do sixteen checkouts and twenty stayovers. I have a final tonight at school I’m going to run over into, I’m sure (I take night classes five nights a week and thank God it’s walking distance).

I get nobody needs to care about that but, like, a little interpersonal consideration after saving asses, coming in early, doing favors, covering shifts, etc so often would be nice. Maybe this is just a vent topic but I get really exhausted by this bullshit and I want to leave. This is also a no union, no benefit, keep me at 36 hours a week and finagle my weeks to get six days of work a week out of me min wage position, so.

By: polygraphicmemory

If you don’t think capitalism is close to it’s end in relevance, you’re certainly quite ignorant to reality. Automation, changing climate, and economic globalization will render the economic system impossible and inhumane. When there aren’t enough jobs for the populace to be effectively supported, when the world is going through catastrophic environmental changes, and when all labor can be shipped to third-world countries where wages are minimal, it’s difficult to come up with any scenario in which a system that requires plentiful labor will survive.

When labor itself becomes scarce, capitalism is no longer a possible path, and labor scarcity is a fast-approaching bullet. Even now, American production output is at an all-time high, while unemployment increases due to technological advances and ecological constraints. This trend will only continue until a crisis emerges.

This is why the current political discussion in the United States is particularly dangerous. As we ask ourselves whether we should drift towards a free-market system or increase national welfare spending, we are ignoring the fact that the former has absolutely no possible future, and the latter is an absolute future necessity. The only possible result of the current debate is future violent revolution. When people cannot work, and they cannot eat, they will revolt and depose the current government and system for their own survival. Both Democrats and Republicans are directly complicit in the necessity of the revolution, and until they accept the socialist reality, neither should be supported or encouraged.

Violent revolution is, however, of course, not ideal. It breeds the exact seeds needed for an authoritarian government to arise, it threatens lives, and with nations holding nuclear arsenals and oligarchies desperate to retain power, it threatens the world. This is why reform is needed.

We must stop asking ourselves whether socialism is the right path for the United States and accept reality: socialism is the only path for the United States, because socialism is the only path for our survival. Then, we must employ preventative measures, and drastically reform the way we currently view our economy, before we enter a period of gradual change that will eventually lead us to a communist society. Gradual here is the key word, as we must assess our path step-by-step in this fragile process of changing both our culture and the economic structure of our society.

The most important of these reforms is universal basic income. Everybody, regardless of work status, must be given a basic living wage, adjusted for inflation, that can cover their cost of survival - enough to pay for food, shelter, and basic comfort services such as the internet and phone service, which have become practical necessities in modern society. The minimum wage can be lowered in relation, as people will be paid it on top of their income, and large companies must be taxed higher to compensate for this (and to pay for the UBI).

Until such a period of reforms can be reached, the left-wing must not support gun control measures. If the status quo remains, revolution is an absolutely inevitable scenario, and opening our gun laws should be priority over limiting them. All of those on the left (whose numbers will swell as capitalism enters its death throes) must arm themselves with the most powerful weapons available to them, and be trained in their usage. When the system begins to collapse, the police and military is likely to continue its defense of the bourgeosie, and an unarmed populace cannot stand against the force of either. When fighting erupts, our force must be greater, for if the revolution is to fail at such a point, the alternative will not be capitalism, but authoritarian rule. The success of the bourgeosie will usher their supremacy, not economic freedom, for economic freedom will be obsolete in a world of machinery and slaves.

For anyone else unfamiliar with the Free-Market

One view is that a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. Another view considers systems with significant market power, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry to be less than free.

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.
—  Milton Friedman

We have all been trained and conditioned at such a young age. All through our adolescent years and even as we grow into adulthood we continue to be groomed, sculpted and refined in our conditioning that in order to be happy we need to buy. If we have a problem or are lacking in anything to not worry, the solution can be purchased no matter how complex.

Lonely? Depressed? Hungry? Hot? Cold? Uncomfortable in some minor/major way? Don’t worry… ‘operators are standing by.’

It is not some great conspiracy, it is blatant, it is obvious, but we have been also trained to not notice or at least not care. There are many people not part of this culture and they see us and marvel at how fortunate we are. They don’t see us as subjects of manipulation but rather the cultivated lucky few who don’t know how good they got it. And maybe we don’t.

I believe the free market system is the best economic system to encourage freedom, promote liberty, inspire innovation, create wealth. Unchecked we allow ourselves to become the playthings of master manipulators where millions and millions and millions of dollars are spent to learn how to convince/persuade/entice/promote a culture where we can no longer do for ourselves. Our education is derived from the TV commercial. Our problem solving skills have been reduced to calling the 800 number.

There needs to be an awakening. We need to remember how great we can be. We need to understand that what we allow others to do for us might be a luxury enjoyed but truly is a liberty lost.

The skills of our grandparents. Those considered to be our nation’s greatest generation are dying. Eventually we will be left alone, alone with our trainers who want us to believe they hold the true secret to happiness, and it can be purchased.

Pavlov would be proud.

—  Colorado-Style

Hundreds of Colorado students are fighting back against dangerous text book changes

A Colorado school district has come under fire for trying to change its history curriculum — and its own students have schooled it on what real American history is.

Earlier this month, the school district of Jefferson County, Colo. — the second-largest district in the state — announced it was considering a change to the Advanced Placement U.S. history curriculum to “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights” and not “encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law.”

If the proposal passes, the district’s conservative-majority school board would establish a committee to review textbooks and other classroom materials to see if they meet this new criteria. In other words, any textbook that didn’t seem “patriotic enough” (an aggressively arbitrary and potentially very dangerous label) would be cut. 

So teachers and students walked out | Follow micdotcom 

A Proposal for a New Internet-Driven, Free-Enterprise System...

          Organizations started as a form of spontaneous order.  One had to undertake a task that was too large for one’s self, so one would associate with others who could help achieve that task.  Alternatively, one would perform a task out of enjoyment or necessity that would somehow grow and evolve to the point that it required organization to perform effectively.  The former became larger as the scale and scope of economic and political activity grew.  States were required to create large infrastructural projects or to build armies.  Voluntary associations or organizations were insufficient for the task; mercenaries, for example, could fight wars but lacked the continuity and consistency provided by paid organized soldiers.  Similarly, infrastructure projects required people to perform tasks for indefinite periods of time; such a task was better accomplished through organization.  The latter became the libertarian notion of free enterprise as the driver of the capitalist system.  In this view, individuals – left to their own devices in a competitive marketplace – will provide the services needed by a society and will associate with one another when necessary to achieve this task. 

          What libertarians ignore is that such a system builds inequalities because in the absence of government control some organizations – or the individual interests they represent – grow large and impose their will on others.  Moreover, without a law (whether by public consent or enforced from above) that recognizes free enterprise as a right (or at a minimum, a license), free enterprise cannot even emerge.  The fear is as old as the Federalist Papers, where Madison railed against the dangers of association and majority influence on the nascent American nation.  But the fear is even older than that, harkening back to Adam Smith’s recommendation that governments should ban the printing of industry lists for fear of collusion.  And the fear has been a continuous current in American society through the concerns over the late 1800’s robber barons to the 1920’s concerns of Schumpeter about the ultimate concentration of power that unbridled economic activity produces (and Weber’s and Michels’ similar fear about the emergence of oligarchy from democratic origins), which in his view was the same whether the impulse was socialist or capitalist.  More recently, we see the fear in the behavior of civil libertarians who seek to protect citizens from unbridled corporate power.  The fears were shown to be real in the empire where corporations such as those in South Africa, India and elsewhere were able to build compounds that were labor prisons for all effects and purposes and, in many instances, to build armies that oppressed entire colonial societies.

          There is some truth to these fears.  Foucault spoke about how the state evolved organizations as it needed to tackle more and more functions over time, including the maintenance of a productive society to achieve the state’s needs.  To this end, as organizational scholars have noted, the state established organizational (and later, corporate) charters to engage in war, first and foremost, and to manage economic activities and the requisite infrastructure needed for such activities to thrive.  For without infrastructure, there is no transportation, and for that matter, there would be no communication or power provision for there would be no common standards for providing such services over large populations.  As Olson’s thesis on collective action suggests, individuals living in a libertarian-democratic world would encounter extraordinary difficulties to organize collective action for the provision of such public goods, especially across large numbers of people.  Without systems for transportation, power or communication to occur, it is hard to envision how the benefits of the capitalist system could be achieved. 

          Once the notion of charters was codified into an incorporation code in Victorian Britain, all individuals in principle were given the opportunity to organize.  I say “in principle” for in practice there were a set of moral and legal codes that precluded certain persons – particularly those varied from the norm in terms of their status characteristics – from owning property or establishing enterprise.  Of course, informal organizations have always existed, most notably, sects and secret societies.  What changed was that the state was now recognizing the right – or at a minimum, providing a license – for people to pursue free enterprise.  Libertarians rail against the welfare state that later developed, which was to “oppress” free enterprise through taxation, regulation and elsewhere.

          What exists in our society today is a debate between those who want to restore the freedom of enterprise whether to a degree or to its pure utopian sense and those who believe that the free enterprise creates inequalities that require the state to intervene to correct them.  What has been lost in this debate is the following:  in the case that the state is overly oppressive, how to help individuals in spite of these measures overcome their effects to achieve the full potential of the free enterprise system; and in the other, how to enable the state to correct these inequalities without requiring active state intervention, i.e., by enabling the people themselves to police and intervene to correct these inequalities.  (Some argue that the role lies in civil society, perhaps only implicitly for developed countries but certainly in an explicit manner for developing countries.)  The former requires some form of organization as does the latter.  The question is what form of organization is required.  

          Assuming for a moment, as transaction cost economists do, that state intervention increases the costs of starting business by means of complex filing and taxation requirements, then even in a world where all individuals had equal legal access to incorporation some would incorporate and others would not.  In such a world, not all individuals would have the requisite knowledge of how to incorporate, thereby granting those who by means of superior inheritance (e.g., father teaching a son how to do it), experience, or education an advantage. Such specialization of knowledge creates barriers for the generalist individual, or even for the individual who lacks such specialized skills, and thus serves to increase the transaction costs associated with starting a business.  

          Incorporation, in practice, also works to increase legitimacy, which means simultaneously that those who do not incorporate are de-legitimated.  Examples abound in our society of the pervasive influence of such de-legitimation.  An incorporated organization receives preferential treatment from the state and the media, which view such entities as the only legitimate ones for conducting business.  Informal grassroots organizations experience the pressure to incorporate in the form of a state that will prosecute for regulatory reasons, particularly taxes, as such organizations refusing to incorporate would sap revenues from the state, and in the form of a media apparatus that will provide limited coverage unless the voluntary association of people provides a legitimate corporate name that reflects their actions.  This situation is the same whether we speak of a limited liability partnership such as an LLC, a formally corporate entity such as an INC, or a non profit entity such as a 501c(3) or (4).  While the right to associate is guaranteed by the constitution in theory, the right to form associations – and furthermore, organizations – is not.  One is a right, the other a license.  The former should not be subject to government regulation, the latter by definition is.  Unfortunately, the legitimation the state provides to the corporate status through licensing results in the de-legitimation of free association and organizing as a right.

          One way for libertarians and liberals to find common ground would be for the libertarian to acknowledge that the elimination of state regulations on business is utopian, even when reducing regulations may remain a worthwhile pursuit, and for the liberal to recognize that other forms of non-state intervention could be used to correct inequality, perhaps even more effectively.  Under such circumstances, a consensus could be reached that reducing the costs of business by means of civil society solutions could be a worthwhile goal as well.  Again, it is important to remind ourselves why free enterprise as a right is important:  First, organizational scholars tell us that society as we know it would be impossible in the absence of organization for there would be no economic or political security.  Second, in a neoclassical economics sense, a limited number of organizations translates into limited competition, which leads us into the distopian world of monopoly and oligarchy that so scared Smith, Madison, Schumpeter, Weber, and Michels, among others.  And third, as if the first two reasons were not enough, our constitution warrants such a system, so a state of affairs where free enterprise can only be attained in a legitimate fashion through incorporation should not be tolerable.

          At this point, one may be tempted to suggest that this is a libertarian line of reasoning (the varying political views of the aforementioned cadre of scholars notwithstanding), so it is important to remind ourselves the important function government serves:  helping to direct public attention to those areas where economic or political security can be enhanced through collective action.   It has proven difficult to build large infrastructural systems in the absence of state intervention undoubtedly because state power has often preceded these projects historically but also – as mentioned earlier – because collective action is so difficult in the absence of third-party intervention.  There is no reason to assume, however, that the state is the only third party that can solve the collective action problem.  There have been plenty of instances in our society when in spite of all concerns to the contrary industry has organized for good to create the appropriate standards needed for large-scale collective action.  In such circumstances though, the question is always whose interests are being represented and to what effect.  That is, government can rightly make a claim to the public interest when it is democratically elected and subsequently pursues large-scale collective action in the name of those who elected it.  Industry, on the other hand, cannot make such a claim.  The local provision of electricity in the early 20th century United States worked because neighbors banded together to provide this public good.  Some would say anarchosyndicalist cooperatives in civil war Catalunya and Aragon worked to some extent because of this public consent.  The question then is how to enable such public consent to work at a larger scale without the liberal requisite of government intervention. While difficulties exist in pinpointing the exact cause of the transformation from a primitive to a modern (or some would say, post-modern) society, one can undoubtedly acknowledge that improvements in communication played a role.

          Along with effective transportation, improvements in communication enable larger groups of people to become connected whether in a virtual or real sense (which psychologically speaking, can be the same thing), thereby growing the size of markets and providing more opportunities for free enterprise to make a difference in people’s lives.  As our experience with capitalism over the last couple hundred years suggests, the larger the free enterprise system, the more goods and services exist.  The larger the possibilities for free association and the more goods and services that exist, the greater the likelihood for people to be Simmelian individuals, i.e., differentiated and unique.  To further this point, consider a person in primitive society.  His or her role in society was dictated by place of birth and position of birth.  For example, if you were born in feudal Russia, chances were you were a peasant.  But one could say with all certainty that you were a peasant if your father had been a peasant.  In a democratic social capitalist system, more opportunities for differentiation exist based on free association since you no longer need to associate only by family and class and based on production-consumption patterns since you can now define your individuality based on the larger number of goods and services available, thereby providing a wider array of choices and activities available at your convenience.

          (As an aside, these choices affect you not only as a social individual but as a biological one too because, according to extant research, your particular consumption and activity patterns influence the activation of genes from an overall predetermined gene pool.)

          One of the most fundamental changes in communication in our society has come from the implementation of mathematics via computers to build new systems such as the Internet.  By using logical rules, the routine and ordinary activities of human beings can be codified into programs (hence, the term computer programming) and beckoned to perform complex tasks at the spur of the moment.  It has become a cliche to state that the Internet has changed society in fundamental social, economic and political ways.  But it is true that the Internet in its current embodiment has reduced the transaction costs of business by creating a global communication system where programs can be  collaboratively built and shared, often at the expense of and sometimes leading to the eradication of existing systems of capital and labor.  Yet in the rush to use programming to improve the effectiveness of existing businesses, few have actually explored how programming could reduce the transaction costs of free association.  And it is true that programs have been used to build systems to help individuals connect with others and enrich their social settings, but few have actually explored how programming can be used to enable people to connect with each other for new productive ends outside of specific specialized settings.

          More specifically, programs could be used to build a system that enable individuals to organize by conducting many of the functions of legally incorporated enterprises without having to engage in actual incorporation.  While the financial costs of incorporation would not be eliminated, the system would provide a legitimate way for people to associate, while circumventing the state intervention associated with incorporation.  Systems have been developed for organizations to incorporate, pay taxes, and abide to other government regulations.  But there is currently no system in place for enabling people to connect with others, start an organization (and an industry by extension), manage budgets and track finances, and conduct marketing and advertising, product supply, and the other functions of business, all in one place.  In so doing, the system could overcome the inequalities imposed by specialized knowledge.  The system would have the potential of enabling a single person to become an entire organization, or even for a large group of people to work for the organization without requiring any one of them to be subjected to a strict hierarchy or impervious boundaries.  People could trade places in the everyday management of the organization in the same way that anarcho-syndicalists once attempted, or they could simply discontinue their involvement in the organization should another organized enterprise housed in the system catch their fancy.  The growth of the system could also provide for a ready-made network for collective action, or lobbying, to reduce the costs imposed by state intervention on free enterprise.  In fact, considering that many of our laws have resulted from everyday practices, it is possible that the evolution of such a system with the force of collective action could lead to the changing of laws of incorporation, thereby restoring the right of free association to its rightful place of legitimacy in society, while reducing the need to engage in the financial cost of incorporation. (I admit, however, that there is a complex issue at work here, as it is unclear whether Internet usage today is a right or a license, even though the Internet is a product of government policy.)

          If we look around us, we can already see the desire of people to participate in such a system.  Emergent mobilization is all around us.  People routinely organize spontaneous campaigns in favor or against the issues they care about.  However, it is my experience from conducting research on the subject that people find themselves reinventing the wheel every time.  Once the effort is off the ground, the activists have to figure out how to market and advertise it.  If they begin to receive any form of remuneration for their activities, they need to figure out how to manage their budget and conduct finances.  If they need to begin manufacturing products, they need to figure out the best source of raw materials, and the best place (and way) to sell these products.  If they want to expand their operations, they then need to figure out potential customers to target.  In the process, many activists become frustrated by the scale of the project, and put simply, quit.  These are people who are perfectly capable of managing such projects to fruition but who may lack the experience, connections, and social support to see it through.  In other words, their tolerance to risk is low and the transaction costs are so great that these activists refuse to commit to such an uncertain project.  Thus, specialized knowledge rears its ugly head: In the absence of specialized knowledge, people are less likely to undertake the required risk.  There are many individuals who have a low risk tolerance who still pursue uncertain ventures because their specialized knowledge creates the illusion of low risk.  But people may choose to give up even when their knowledge is quite specialized.  For example, an artist may be remiss to start up a new venture even when her knowledge of art is quite specialized because she may lack the specialized knowledge associated with starting up that venture and not know where to get it.  To put it simply, people are more likely to undertake risk in the presence of a system that reduces the transaction costs related to acquiring the specialized knowledge needed to create a successful organization.  In the context of such a system, people could easily find experienced people willing to help them, either free or for a fee.  They could easily connect with potential stakeholders such as possible employees or customers.  They could also receive the social support needed to undertake the requisite risk.  In other words, they could find the human and material resources needed to see the venture through.  It is often stated by economists who study entrepreneurship that information is more important to success than money; the proposed system implements this vision. Of course, such a system would not be free, except in its basic functionality.  But as we have learned from the growth of capitalism, quite diversified goods and services at competitive prices are obtained as systems of free enterprise grow.

          So while a person may not be able to afford the best specialized knowledge for building their enterprise at first, they will be able to obtain more specialized knowledge for free than they would be able to obtain in the current system of incorporation.  The system would have at its disposal experts that provide basic advice; beyond that, a veritable free market of goods and services would be available, in some cases supplied by the very people who may access the system for their own needs.  Thus, people will enter the system looking for specialized knowledge and find they too have specialized knowledge they can share, thereby fostering the growth of a competitive ecosystem of specialized knowledge.  In this way, the system has the seeds for its own growth and generates the feedback effects needed for it to become self-reinforcing.  Through reputation subsystems, the system can also police itself.  As long as the system is organized as a non profit a la Wikimedia or Mozilla Foundation rather than as at profit-driven commercial system, such a system can remain free and provide a civil society-based alternative to the current state-centered incorporation system.

About the Author:  Yosem Eduardo Companys is a PhD student in engineering at Stanford University and a coordinator for the Program on Liberation Technology at Stanford University.  He may be reached at companys[at]stanford[dot]edu.

anonymous asked:

can you elaborate a bit on why Basic Universal Income is a shit idea?

In summary, it demands a strong, central state and it bolsters the wage system, which I want to see abolished. Employers have been externalizing the cost of wages for a long time. A universal income would help justify employers exploitation of the market for their own profit. I can see universal income leading to more employer resistance to cooperation between employers and employees.

I don’t shame people fighting for more fair wages. Organize for better pay. I find liberal struggles, though, to be anti-class struggle. A universal basic wage would reinforce economic classes, reinforce the myth of social mobility that fuels so much employment in capitalism, even consumerism. Universal income will not do anything to encourage more dedicated and organized struggle against the things that cause the need for it in the first place.

Something like that. I mean, I’ve heard the fans of capitalism argue against it because it might disincentivize work. That’s a laugh. It’d make work more foundational and more elite. Likely it’d lead to more employees competing for even better pay. Employers love that shit because it’s competition that can be used to glean more surplus value from more workers.

Already, we have a routinely denigrated class of unemployed poor people who can’t work for all sorts of reasons, and denigrated because they are a burden. That won’t change. And I can’t see how it would change the amount of people who “choose” to work. Please see my earlier post about the free market is a social organizing force and how we don’t/can’t volunteer to live this way.

You know what is exciting? New music from Adam Young comes out on Monday. And it’s going to be free. I’m a starving student who can be a cheapskate with myself at times, so a part of me is thrilled at this. The thing is, I love his music so much that the rest of me is going

Originally posted by yourreactiongifs

What can I say; I like being able to vote with my dollars. 

“ It’s 90% of the time your fault that you aren’t rich.

So stop letting your envy get the best of you and get a job please.”

This submitter clearly has NO understanding of how capitalism works. Capitalism by its very nature produces a small elite of rich people and a vast majority of poor people - it’s absolutely impossible for a pure free market and profit-oriented system not to produce ridiculous levels of economic inequality. Yes, capitalism does generate wealth, but for whom? Since the capitalist world switched from a mixed-market economy to a free-market neoliberal one in the 1970s immense amounts of wealth have been generated but this wealth has not “trickled down” to the lower classes. Instead the income gap between rich and poor has merely swelled to ridiculous proportions. “Get a job” is all well and good, but have you not noticed how many jobs are disappearing? Have you not noticed university graduates are having to get jobs at McDonalds increasingly often? And have you not noticed many people do have jobs, but because of unfair taxes that target the poor, slashing welfare benefits and a ridiculously low minimum wage, they’re still not surviving? This isn’t a matter of envy, it’s a matter of survival. And by the way, is the submitter not familiar with the fact that the vast majority of unemployed people have had jobs before and are actively looking, and that most people on benefits actually are in jobs - just low-paid jobs that can’t provide for them? Economic inequality is not deserved, and it's not the natural order of things. It’s the inevitable result of a purely Darwinian dog-eat-dog system like free-market Capitalism, and has been shown time and time again to lead to all manner of social ills as most academics will tell you (read The Spirit Level!)

Capitalism can be great - it encourages competition and increases productivity and efficiency. But it’s only a tool - it’s not an ideology. Allowing people to own things, compete in the business world and make a profit is great! - within limits. I’m not saying we should do away with capitalism and replace it with something else - especially not communism! Communism has proven time and time again to not work, to inevitably lead to a stagnant economy and a tyrannical single-party Stalinist state. And all capitalism’s problems are shared by communism - under capitalism there’s a small elite of rich people who own most of the wealth and power, while under communism there’s an even smaller elite - the communist party leadership - who own all the wealth and power and have the gall to say they’re doing it democratically on behalf of the people! And it doesn’t work. The USSR and all its satellite states abandoned communism, after all! But that said, there’s something very warped from a moral standpoint about an economic system that inevitably leads to an unfair gap between rich and poor, allows people to go homeless or unemployed, doesn’t provide fundamental human rights that apply to every person like food, clean water, medicine, education and a place to sleep at night and in fact has a lack of said rights built in to the system.

The problem with both capitalism and socialism is they’ve been abused into rigid unbending ideologies. One leads to inequality, poverty and the undeserving being thrown out of work. Another leads to tyranny, loss of individuality and a stagnant economy. Both have their benefits, but both if applied rigidly as an ideology have their serious flaws. So my opinion is this: Capitalism and socialism need to be applied as tools in different circumstances to solve different problems, and neither one should ever be clung to as a rigid, perfect ideology that must never be questioned (as in the USA and USSR respectively).

anonymous asked:

What's this net neutrality thing??

John Oliver explains all

Here’s some ways to help:

Even if you just say “Net neutrality is classist and oppresses not only the idea of the free market system, but freedom of speech itself” - that’s helping. Saying anything is helping. Use your voice to speak out, even in the smallest and most incoherent of ways, because THIS FUCKING MATTERS. SEND EVERY CALL, LETTER AND EMAIL THAT YOU CAN. STOP THIS BULLSHIT BEFORE IT STARTS

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate each other to deal with one another and help one another.
—  Milton Friedman


SUMMARY: Resource-rich settlements with minimal defensive emplacements detected in the mid-rim, flagged for immediate acquisition. Primitive but sufficient levels of technology and culture, native currency is the “Bell,” which is equal to an unknown or arbitrary unit of value. Figurehead governmental form exists but society is arguably archano-libertarian and fully controlled by unregulated free market systems as series of capitalist fiefdoms. Intelligence and comparative economic patterning suggests Hutt Cartel dubiously involved, through contact: “Tom Nook.” Due to extreme inflation and unknown value of native currency, barter systems of resources are widely used. Relevance of turnips remains unknown.

Highly diverse alien natives are largely receptive to Imperial rule, willingly relinquish government positions, despite how menial or meaningless these figurehead offices seem to be. Extermination deemed unnecessary, subjugation encouraged to proceed immediately.

Assigned officers have been contacted and will report for further briefing. 

Required skills: Diplomacy training, Wilderness Survival training, Finance and Economics specialization, Martial Law management certification, Gardening (?).

Glory to the Empire.