Who Said This?

I want to do the following in this paper: First to present the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. …

Marx … gives a historical account of the emergence of capitalism that makes the point that much or even most of the initial capitalist property is the result of plunder, enclosure, and conquest. Similarly … the role of force and violence in exporting capitalism to the – as we would now say – Third World is heavily emphasized. Admittedly, all this is generally correct, and insofar as it is there can be no quarrel with labeling such capitalism exploitative.

See the answer.

,

81 Responses to Who Said This?

  1. dL March 15, 2018 at 7:08 am #

    Hoppe made it cear that a welfare state is incompatible with a libertarian society. But as long as goverments rob workers to pay for goodies that go to people who do not earn them, he makes is also clear that stopping those who get the handouts from coming into the country is peferable to increasing the burden on those being robbed.

    Well, I see you adhere to the Animal Farm exception RE: government parasites. All parasites are equal, but some are more equal than others. I have no idea whether an immigrant is going to draw from the government trough, but I have 100% infallible certitude that a ICE/BCP thugs WILL. Let’s see, 100K/year salary, government welfare for health and pension, special privileges granted through public union bargaining, qualified police immunity to harass, threaten, detain or kill anyone. There are two interpretations of this nonsense. The most charitable one is extreme cognitive dissonance. The least charitable one is white resentment expropriating libertarianism to plead for a state subsidy.

    • Vangel Vesovski March 15, 2018 at 11:01 am #

      I think that all parasites are parasited. But some of them do not have the power to initiate force and to steal your earnings so that other parasites can benefit. There is no reason to have an issue with those that wish to be parasites as long as they have to act in a free market system where voluntary transactions are the norm. And even you must see that there is nothing voluntary about being forced to give up a portion of your earnings to fund social schemes that you do not support.

      I suggest that you try thinking a bit more clearly. If you did, your postings would be more logical and less emotional.

      • dL March 15, 2018 at 3:23 pm #

        I suggest that you try thinking a bit more clearly. If you did, your postings would be more logical and less emotional.

        More logical and less emotion, eh? Hmmm, I think my version of Spock differs from yours…

  2. Thomas Knapp March 15, 2018 at 11:24 am #

    “But there is no anarchist solution in a welfare state.”

    Right. Which is why anarchists propose getting rid of the welfare state, rather than adopting authoritarian “solutions” to make that welfare state easier to continue maintaining.

    It’s not complicated: Anarchism and authoritarianism are opposites. So when someone says “the solution here is to be authoritarian,” that someone is either a very confused anarchist, or not an anarchist.

    • Vangel Vesovski March 16, 2018 at 9:00 pm #

      “Right. Which is why anarchists propose getting rid of the welfare state, rather than adopting authoritarian “solutions” to make that welfare state easier to continue maintaining.”

      Who is trying to make the welfare state easier to maintain, those that will let more voters who depend on the welfare state into the country or those that want to limit the handouts by preventing freeloaders from putting their hands out and demanding that the working class taxpayers subsidize the goodies that they want?

      “It’s not complicated: Anarchism and authoritarianism are opposites. So when someone says “the solution here is to be authoritarian,” that someone is either a very confused anarchist, or not an anarchist.”

      I think that the confusion is with those that assume that we don’t have a welfare state, don’t have an overburdened taxpayer class, and have no problem with increasing the burden.

  3. Thomas Knapp March 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm #

    Quoth Vangel:

    “I think that the confusion is with those that assume that we don’t have a welfare state, don’t have an overburdened taxpayer class, and have no problem with increasing the burden.”

    There are two ways to address that thought.

    One is with the fact that in the United States, immigrants subsidize welfare entitlements for the native population rather than the other way around. That is, immigrants pay more in taxes per capita and consume less in transfer payments, etc., than the native born. So it is the immigrants, not the natives, who are ” burdened.”

    A second is by noting that even if it was the other way around, the way you get rid of a system that burdens people is by letting them get tired of the burden and shrug it off, not by using authoritarian solutions to try to lighten the load on them to keep your authoritarian system rolling along.

    And the third is by noting that regardless of which way of doing things is right versus wrong, there’s no question concerning which way is anarchist and which way is authoritarian. Limiting the movement of people to save your welfare state is authoritarian, not anarchist. You don’t have to like that fact. It’s a fact whether you like it or not.

    • Vangel Vesovski March 26, 2018 at 2:33 pm #

      “One is with the fact that in the United States, immigrants subsidize welfare entitlements for the native population rather than the other way around. That is, immigrants pay more in taxes per capita and consume less in transfer payments, etc., than the native born. So it is the immigrants, not the natives, who are ” burdened.””

      Are you talking about legal immigrants? I thought that the debate is about illegals.

      • Thomas Knapp March 26, 2018 at 2:38 pm #

        All immigrants, but “illegal immigrants” [sic — the US Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration] more so than “legal” immigrants.

        “Legal” immigrants get tax IDs and can apply for “social services.”

        “Illegal” immigrants get taxes take out of their checks under false Social Security numbers and then never collect tax refunds or Social Security benefits. They’re also ineligible for most “social services,” and avoid many of those they would be eligible for because they’re afraid it might get them caught.

        “Illegal immigrants” are probably the only reason Social Security hasn’t gone bust quite yet.

        • Vangel Vesovski March 26, 2018 at 3:54 pm #

          “All immigrants, but “illegal immigrants” [sic — the US Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration] more so than “legal” immigrants.

          “Legal” immigrants get tax IDs and can apply for “social services.”……”

          I am dealing with a simple statement that you made previously.

          it was, “One is with the fact that in the United States, immigrants subsidize welfare entitlements for the native population rather than the other way around. That is, immigrants pay more in taxes per capita and consume less in transfer payments, etc., than the native born. So it is the immigrants, not the natives, who are ” burdened.””

          My issue is that a statement that may be applicable to a large category may not be applicable to a small subcomponent that differs markedly from the average. I simply do not believe that a decent study to support what you said exists and would expect someone as smart and careful as you are to see it if you are provided such information. There is a huge difference between the typical legal immigrant and an illegal crossing the border to pick fruit.

  4. Thomas Knapp March 26, 2018 at 3:59 pm #

    Yes, there is a huge difference between typical immigrants with permission slips from the ruling gang and typical immigrants without such permission slips. Really, the only things they have in common are that both groups subsidize welfare for the natives while lowering the crime rates.

    • Vangel Vesovski April 15, 2018 at 1:33 pm #

      Permission slips are not important. What is important is the theft component by taking things that others are forced to pay for. In a free society, the immigration issue would not be important. In our society, it has to be.

      • Nathan Byrd April 16, 2018 at 1:46 am #

        If you’re most concerned about the recipients of theft, then you would be more concerned about corporate interests and certain wealthy individuals who receive the lion share of benefit from state intervention. Picking on an undocumented worker who ends up contributing more than they take while worrying less about a billionaire who gains from artificially reduced inputs because of state aggression seems strange. You’re being harmed by the latter, helped by the former, but you can only imagine punishing the former.

        Is that because you think it’s easier to get the state to punish the immigrants than to stop helping the billionaires?

  5. Nathan Byrd March 28, 2018 at 11:51 am #

    https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/Immigration_MythsFacts.pdf

    Skip to page 11 for details on how much undocumented workers contribute.

  6. Vangel Vesovski April 16, 2018 at 2:37 pm #

    I agree that when laws are written those with the best lobbyists write them. Ironically, it is the large corporations that you seem to be so concerned with that want low skill immigrants so that they can have a cheaper workforce. They don’t have to worry about the social costs because those are paid by the general public, mostly in the form of higher property taxes.

    I also do not believe that unskilled immigrants contribute more to the people being asked to pay for the welfare and social programs that they use. Those people can lose even if, on net, we have a social benefit.

  7. Nathan Byrd April 19, 2018 at 8:18 pm #

    “it is the large corporations that you seem to be so concerned with that want low skill immigrants so that they can have a cheaper workforce. They don’t have to worry about the social costs because those are paid by the general public, mostly in the form of higher property taxes.”

    There are two things going on there. The main one is that undocumented workers have little to no legal recourse, so they are especially vulnerable. But why do they not have legal recourse? Specifically because of the way that government controls legal claims. Yes, large corporations exploit that, but they’re exploiting government policies, not acting in their absence.

    The second part is what you mention, and it’s true. But again, the reason this is effective is because of regulation that prevents employees escaping into either the direct competition sector or the substitute markets. So, it’s quite true that large corporations exploit the situation, but the cause of prior government restraint.

    Looking at either case, and recognizing the true source, should never cause someone to go “what we need is further government regulation.” If the government has already punished workers to the benefit of corporations, it seems rather odd to insist that the way to defeat the corporation is to further harm workers. This is kind of like the doctors who would bleed patients and then, when there was no improvement, insist that more bleeding was needed.

  8. Nathan Byrd April 19, 2018 at 8:22 pm #

    “I also do not believe that unskilled immigrants contribute more to the people being asked to pay for the welfare and social programs that they use. Those people can lose even if, on net, we have a social benefit.”

    The only sub-group that I’ve seen having any negative effect was a very small short-term loss by native high-school dropouts. Everyone other group benefited. And of course, the benefit to the immigrants themselves is massive.

  9. Govt Exams Dunia April 21, 2018 at 12:19 pm #

    you have a bit of self-selectivity when it comers to mobility and “welfare benefits.” DHS/ICE/CBP are employees of the state who derive their salaries from “taxpayers.” Hence, they too should be deprived of any mobility

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes