Jump to content

abrasivesaint

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,711

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Everything posted by abrasivesaint

  1. abrasivesaint
  2. abrasivesaint
  3. abrasivesaint
  4. abrasivesaint
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-chicago-auto-mechanics-strike-20210810-yzif4dvrpndr7p5xqky3lreuta-story.html
  5. abrasivesaint
    This is why laws were put in place, to try to stop it before it happens.. Monopoly laws were put in place in 1890, after years of worker strikes that resulted in bloodshed. Plot twist, many of the companies didn't want to supply better wages even though the companies were doing incredibly well, and some held monopolies in their respective industries. These companies used hired guns to break these union strikes that resulted in deaths. Again, look at modern day China, it’s happened. Do you not think this still happens, with or without the state? Mexican cartels do not give a fuck about a state, for example. They kill anyone who remotely interferes with business. I whole heartedly believe US corporations would be doing this much more in the open if they could. Instead they use the state to punish them through other various legal means. Removing the state in the scenario just leaves them at the mercy of the corporations, which has no such mercy. And you think free market corporations would be any different? I don’t know what schools you went to, but i don't remember hearing anything to that effect from my schooling. These are all ideas i’ve concluded on my own. In fact, despite my school teacher arguing against me. Sell their products to billionaires and corporations, leaving us with a worse existence than we have now that you could write a plot for the next Robocop movie with. That wasn’t the point though. You said.. To which i replied that the people who died on the Frontier may disagree with you. They in fact, sometimes fought and died, for a paycheck. Some of the Homestead strikers fought and died, for better wages. The Pinkertons, were hired, and fought and died, for a paycheck. I agree. I will add though, that this means that the laws shouldn’t exist. Yes, currently. Remove the protections from workers and you may no longer have that choice, and we will have slavery.
  6. abrasivesaint
    Ahh i don’t know if i agree with that. You could even argue that it hasn’t happened because of intervention by the state. I can’t imagine the “captains of industry” planned on slowing down anytime soon, and for an example of their use of Authoritarian enforcement, as i’ve previously expressed concern with, see the Homestead Strike. East India Trade Company also comes to mind off the top.. You can also argue that it has happened because of corrupted states, in the case of modern China. I’m not saying the state is the solution, but allowing corporations to become the state is certainly not the solution either. Raytheon and other military industrial complex styled organizations seem to be doing just fine. The folks who died in the frontier building railroads and the like may disagree. As well as the members of various drug cartels, or Somalian pirates. People will do what they have to when desperate. Workers are disposable and replaceable by corporation and government alike. I’m not denying the use of elaborates ruses to gain loyalty and conformity. Corporations are no different than the state here either. It’s called marketing.
  7. abrasivesaint
    This one got me laughing.
  8. abrasivesaint
    Supreme Court overturned the moratorium today, seen incredibly varying numbers of estimates of who will be effected. So i guess we’ll see how it plays out. @Mercer
  9. abrasivesaint
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-special-operations-vets-carry-daring-mission-save/story?id=79670236
  10. abrasivesaint
    As i know you are aware, it is a symbol of Anarchism. I think Free Market Capitalism, and Anarchist-Capitalism ends in one way, a Plutocratic-Corporatocracy enforced through, and by, Authoritarian-Capitalists. (China or Russia, as examples of current Authoritarian-Capitalist systems.) This means business corporations become the State(s), and enforce their own laws and penalties, (Donziger vs Chevron). Tort law penalties can be egregious, Iowa activists vs Dakota Pipeline as an example. Here the pipeline recouped any damages that were caused in less than a day, damages that a human being couldn’t pay back in a lifetime. You are attempting to remove the concept of corruption by taking power from the corrupted, and handing it to those that corrupt. All of this is in contrast to Anarchism. The market is not altruistic, it can be corrupted, and is corrupted, like anything else, by man, and in spite of, or through regulations. Remove these regulations entirely and the corruption will rain from the sky. You hold disdain and no loyalty for a corrupted empire, yet it is through the methods of Capitalism that incentivizes and drives the empire to be corrupt. I don’t believe a free market will be any different. In fact, i think it would be worse. Again, and as i’ve previously said, this does not mean i do not think Capitalism is without merit. I believe Capitalism has a purpose.
  11. abrasivesaint
    This is the point that i’ve been making. That maybe during extenuating circumstances, we must step outside rigid, religious ideology and search for answers where all parties benefit, i.e., create temporary protections or “bail outs” for landlords, as have been provided to tenants, banks, and corporations. The same protections that the state of Massachusetts has implemented, apparently. I respect you Mercer, always have, but jesus christ dude, we’re so far into the fucking weeds here. …. …… So what is it man? Does 100% of black flag flyers harbor disdain for property rights, or do they “generally” harbor disdain? If you are flexing the black flag, are you not part of the 100%, and therefore harbor disdain for the property rights of those with more than you? I think it is clear you do not harbor this disdain, and that you must fall into some grey area there. However, by your own words, there’s no grey area with property rights, they are black and white. Therefore, either support them, or you fly the black flag with the 100% and harbor disdain for them. (Edit: the text in those images is larger because they are screenshots. If there is a way to quote posts from various pages and threads, i dont know how to do it, and had to screen shot.)
  12. abrasivesaint
  13. abrasivesaint
  14. abrasivesaint
    Disagree. You keep harping about theft of one party, where as i am not arguing that whatsoever. I am saying that it seems that there could have been temporary protections implemented in extenuating circumstances where both parties benefitted, as there has been in some circumstances where states imposed such protections. This means LANDLORDS, and tenants. Nobody is being robbed. I think it’s clear we’re not going to see eye to eye on this, at this point. Morality is subjective. The Taliban may disagree on what we may view as right or wrong. IS may disagree with the Taliban. What i may view as wrong, Chevron or Frito Lay may view as simply, business. How is eviction not causing loss of prosperity and loss of life, intentional or not? How is it not favoring the rights of one group, and removing those of another? It is only because housing is not recognized as a human right under this system, yet. Again, this is subjective, as it follows your systemic beliefs. Again, i am not arguing anyone’s rights should have been violated. I have been stating that both parties should/could be temporarily protected. Seems like all the money that was being thrown at Afghanistan could now be repurposed to federally protect the rights of landlords, if the rights of the tenants are being federally protected.
  15. abrasivesaint
  16. abrasivesaint
  17. abrasivesaint
    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/krystal-kyle-friends/id1547098165?i=1000532678381
  18. abrasivesaint
  19. abrasivesaint
  20. abrasivesaint
  21. abrasivesaint
  22. abrasivesaint
    What you may call cognitive dissonance, i would call believing in grey areas. I don’t believe any system, ideology, philosophy, is without flaw, and should be handled with absolutism. Morality aside, i viewed the idea of mass evictions as simply unnecessary. I see banks and corporations getting bailed out, why couldn’t landlords get the same protections? Massachusetts seemed to handle it. I’m sure other states did, or could have as well. I think the idea that mass evictions would have brought in revenue after the evictions is inaccurate, and think loses were inevitable regardless. I think we would just be in the same market that we are now, and those evictions would have been next to meaningless. What i think you’re confusing in my logic is the eviction of a straight up “deadbeat”, and someone victim of circumstance, that being the repercussions of the pandemic, whether it be the landlord or the tenant. Someone not paying rent because they’re putting it up their nose? Evict them. Someone destroying your property because they’re getting hammered or simply constantly pissed off? Evict them. I think the pandemic classifies as a rare and extenuating circumstance that could, and should, be handled differently. I think i have a fair understanding of rent control, construction costs, return of investments, zoning laws, amount of available land, population, and shit like that. I know that i am certainly no “expert”.
  23. abrasivesaint
    This sounds good on paper, but prices have been on the rise for years, pre-pandemic, and from what i’ve read, there were already vacancies during 2020 due to lockdowns, unemployment, and uncertainty. So something’s not adding up. With mass evictions, those vacancies still wouldn’t have been filled in 2020. Maybe this would have decreased prices, but rent rarely seems to ever go down. In fact, i cant recall hearing it ever go down around here. It doesn’t seem like any decrease was or would have been for legitimate lack of demand, but artificially decreasing due to the uncertainty, not demand, because look at the way things are now.. the rental market is insane. Now tack on the additional evicted tenants, the ones that were victims of circumstance, and not the deadbeats. Eventually they would be looking to re-home once they’re back to work, so they can get off of the couch or out of their families house. I think the market would have stayed the same, if not increased, as it has. I think we would still be in the same market that we are today.
  24. abrasivesaint
    10/10 stealing this phrase.
  25. abrasivesaint
    Most folks seem to be absolutely willingly out of work at this point. I just find it hard to argue against a worker milking loopholes in a system for profit when employers, politicians, and corporations do the same. When the latter does it, they’re smart Capitalists. When the worker does it, they’re lazy leaches.
×
×
  • Create New...