What is structural violence?

[FriendlyHacker]

[Wesley]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought I would repeat it here with some minor updates for increased clarity. (Unfortunately I can't view YT videos at work, so I will watch it later.)
 

If scarcity is structural violence and scarcity is a fact of life, then it justifies computer overlords using violence in defense of people against the violence inherent in the world.

 

This is the point of structural violence as a concept: to invent "violence" to justify actual violence in response to the invented "violence".

[FriendlyHacker]

Don't be so sure about scarcity being necessary. I've never seen any official report coming out of The Venus Project advocating any kind of violence.

 

Get rid of structural violence, and you might find there won't even be much violence left to be dealt with.

 

Have you ever seen how starving animals behave? Get some food to two starving animals, and they will kill each other for the scraps, make sure they are always well fed and taken care of, and they will display friendly behavior.

 

We are fighting for scraps here, hence we see each other as the enemy and create wars as a failed attempt to suppress violence. There's only a policeman in front of something people need and have no access to.

 

Have you noticed though that while we fight for scraps, the restaurant across the street is trashing the food they could not sell? And is refusing to give it away, because free food means they are out of the food selling business?

[STer]

 

Have you noticed though that while we fight for scraps, the restaurant across the street is trashing the food they could not sell? And is refusing to give it away, because free food means they are out of the food selling business?

 

This is a good point and something that I think people on all sides of this issue should be able to agree on - reducing waste. Whether you believe the free market is the way to go or are a Venus Project fan, you can't think that there is any morality or sense in wasting resources at the very same time people are in need of them. Perhaps a Waste Reduction project could be a good anarcho-capitalist/Zeitgeister reconciliation point

[FriendlyHacker]

This is a good point and something that I think people on all sides of this issue should be able to agree on - reducing waste. Whether you believe the free market is the way to go or are a Venus Project fan, you can't think that there is any morality or sense in wasting resources at the very same time people are in need of them. Perhaps a Waste Reduction project could be a good anarcho-capitalist/Zeitgeister reconciliation point

 

You can only make a buck from something scarce enough that people will to pay for it. If it starts raining gold, people won't give a shit about gold and scrap all their jewelry. If everyone had access to food, you could not sell food, if everyone had access to housing, you could not sell housing, if everyone had access to basic human rights, there would be no human rights activists.

 

Is it possible to defend human rights, and then start talking about people having to pay for their right to live?

 

If you say money is necessary to control consumption and waste, that is clearly not working. And if you want to use money to control access to resources, use the occam's razor and realize you don't need money at all, if you want to control resources, have your economic system to be based on saving resources and not in made up paper. 

[STer]

You can only make a buck from something scarce enough that people will to pay for it. If it starts raining gold, people won't give a shit about gold and scrap all their jewelry. If everyone had access to food, you could not sell food, if everyone had access to housing, you could not sell housing, if everyone had access to basic human rights, there would be no human rights activists.

 

Is it possible to defend human rights, and then start talking about people having to pay for their right to live?

 

Yes I understand the argument about artificial scarcity. But I think a bridge can be better built just focusing on the concept of waste. I don't see how anyone can morally defend waste. So it could be a way to bring people together.

[PatrickC]

Have you noticed though that while we fight for scraps, the restaurant across the street is trashing the food they could not sell? And is refusing to give it away, because free food means they are out of the food selling business?

 

It's interesting that you bring this up, as I happen to know a few restauranteurs over the years. The thing about waste, is that it actually hurts their bottom line. So it's actually a bit of a myth they are throwing out much unsold food. The mainstay of trashed food is from customers leftovers.

 

However, I will agree that supermarkets can often seemingly trash a lot of unsold food. Although in fairness they sell around 400 times more food than they actually waste. This has more to do with their massive market share, mostly garnered from their privelged corporate status, which means they can absorb absorb losses in a way that smaller businesses cannot.

[FriendlyHacker]

Do you know how that works out on, say McDonald's? I've saw a news article saying McDonald's staff will get fired for giving food away, no idea if that is true though.

 

Here in Brazil, is actually a legal liability to give food away, if anyone gets sick from your free food, you can be sued for it, companies would be too afraid to do it even if they were willing to.

[PatrickC]

Do you know how that works out on, say McDonald's? I've saw a news article saying McDonald's staff will get fired for giving food away, no idea if that is true though.

 

Well sure, it's stealing right.

 

I mean I don't rightly know how McD's work, but I imagine their waste to sell ratio is enormously tight. Of course, they still enjoy the same priveleged corporate status that could make them more suspectible to waste like supermarkets perhaps.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Don't be so sure about scarcity being necessary. I've never seen any official report coming out of The Venus Project advocating any kind of violence.

 

Get rid of structural violence, and you might find there won't even be much violence left to be dealt with.

 

Have you ever seen how starving animals behave? Get some food to two starving animals, and they will kill each other for the scraps, make sure they are always well fed and taken care of, and they will display friendly behavior.

 

We are fighting for scraps here, hence we see each other as the enemy and create wars as a failed attempt to suppress violence. There's only a policeman in front of something people need and have no access to.

 

Have you noticed though that while we fight for scraps, the restaurant across the street is trashing the food they could not sell? And is refusing to give it away, because free food means they are out of the food selling business?

The claim is that scarcity is a fact of nature, not that it's necessary in all cases. But even if you get rid of the scarcity of basic necessities there will still be scarcity because even time itself is scarce. The claim of structural violence is that certain structures are inherently violent, like the free market. It follows that one has the right to self-defense from this violence caused by people trading without coercion. Therefore those those who accept structural violence as a valid concept have a pretext for using coercion to forcibly prevent something like the free-market. This is advocating violence. It's just not explicit.

We are not fighting for scraps. The poor in western society live better than virtually everyone in history.

The analogy with starving animals is not valid as we are not starving animals in a raw state of nature. People in society who have such needs taken care of STILL want more.

There are reasons why a small amount of food gets scraped which you are trying to spin. There's always some waste. Do YOU eat every single scrap of food you buy or cook? It's virtually impossible to calculate the exact amount of food people will use so it's virtually impossible to avoid waste completely. IMO these businesses do quite a good job. They have no interest in wasting anything. Free food would not put these people out of business. First, it would not be free food as someone had to spend time and labor creating it. The food exists in the first place because they made it. Second, if food became basically free then they can take the capital and invest in something else. They idea that they're not giving away free food because it would put them out of business is nonsense. They wouldn't have a business in the first place if they gave away the food and people would simply have to find another way to get food. Your thinking gets everything backwards. 

You can only make a buck from something scarce enough that people will to pay for it. If it starts raining gold, people won't give a shit about gold and scrap all their jewelry. If everyone had access to food, you could not sell food, if everyone had access to housing, you could not sell housing, if everyone had access to basic human rights, there would be no human rights activists.

 

Is it possible to defend human rights, and then start talking about people having to pay for their right to live?

 

If you say money is necessary to control consumption and waste, that is clearly not working. And if you want to use money to control access to resources, use the occam's razor and realize you don't need money at all, if you want to control resources, have your economic system to be based on saving resources and not in made up paper. 

I can make a buck from playing music and music is not scarce so that claim is wrong. 

What does people having to pay for their right to live mean? You offer no proof so other than under the state I can only accept that as bullshit. 

Money is just a medium of exchange that allows for an efficient division of labor. I don't have to spend years building a phone. I can work a few days and buy one. I don't have to gather or hunt all my food. I can go buy it for a fraction of the time and labor it would take. If I buy it at Walmart I can save even more time and labor. If you are criticizing fiat currency (paper) then most people here already agree. I don't know what an economic system based on saving resources is. It seems to me to be of those sophistic tricks of putting anyone who argues against you in a position of advocating an economic system based on WASTING resources. 

[FriendlyHacker]

Well sure, it's stealing right.

 

I mean I don't rightly know how McD's work, but I imagine their waste to sell ratio is enormously tight. Of course, they still enjoy the same priveleged corporate status that could make them more suspectible to waste like supermarkets perhaps.

 

Giving food to a homeless person is stealing? If that happens in rich countries, where people below poverty are richer than the mid class in 3rd world countries, what would happen to the poor on those places?

 

Is easy to say people are lazy and don't want to make a living, when you live in one of the richest places in the world, with one of the best educational system in the world, I've noticed people have a warped idea of what it really means to be poor, and they usually have no idea what it means to live in a place riddled with structural violence, specially if they live in Canada, one the least violent places in the world.

[PatrickC]

Giving food to a homeless person is stealing? If that happens in rich countries, where people below poverty are richer than the mid class in 3rd world countries, what would happen to the poor on those places?

 

Is easy to say people are lazy and don't want to make a living, when you live in one of the richest places in the world, with one of the best educational system in the world, I've noticed people have a warped idea of what it really means to be poor, and they usually have no idea what it means to live in a place riddled with structural violence, specially if they live in Canada, one the least violent places in the world.

 

I also know how those of a leftist mindset feel that stealing another mans property (and labour) to give to another as being moral. Not to mention how little they understand of how individuals build and create their own lives, skills and professions from their actual hard work and not from others.I am used to being lectured and schooled in this manner friendlyhacker, but it doesn't wash with me frankly.

[FriendlyHacker]

I also know how those of a leftist mindset feel that stealing another mans property to give to another as being moral. Not to mention how little they understand of how individuals build and create their lives, skills and professions from their own actual hard work and not from others.I am used to being lectured and schooled in this manner friendlyhacker, but it doesn't wash with me frankly.

 

I would not expect you to understand, because you don't know what you don't know, so you can't see your own privileges.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Check your privilege!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PatrickC]

I would not expect you to understand, because you don't know what you don't know, so you can't see your own privileges.

 

Please, take your leftist garbage elsewhere. It's stinking up the house.

[FriendlyHacker]

I actually do see my own privileges, and understand I'm one of most privileged people in the world.

 

I was raised by my father to be a Scientist/Hacker, in a similar way Richard Feynman's father raised him to be a Scientist/Hacker, so can read in 7 languages, even though I've only ever met one other person who had proficiency in English. Being more educated than the rich in rich countries, only accentuates my responsibility for making a difference, because if I can't do it, who will?

Please, take your leftist garbage elsewhere. It's stinking up the house.

 

I'm not one to give up easily, if I'm damaging your self image of a good Samaritan that cares about people, then I'm actually doing a good job here.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aAH_G5hcAg

[gwho]

 

We are fighting for scraps here, hence we see each other as the enemy and create wars as a failed attempt to suppress violence. There's only a policeman in front of something people need and have no access to.

That structural violence is cause by actual violence. The violence of the state printing, manipulating, granting monopolies to certain people over others, regulations, prohibition, licensure, legal system, etc.What you mentioned doesn't rule out voluntarism and insurance companies / DROs to provide peaceful, stable, game-theory compliant outcomes.

[FriendlyHacker]

Talking about game-theory, if the Free Market is a zero sum game, with winners and losers, where the losers die. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with it? How would a positive sum society look like?

[Guest darkskyabove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aAH_G5hcAg

 

:thumbsup:

 

I assume you all know you're dealing with the latest evolution of the troll species: a mildly informed, pseudo-intellectual, yet extremely arrogant version. So far the bait has done its job. Here's "some guy on the internet" telling people "you don't know what you don't know". :laugh: (Actually, my ribs hurt from laughing so hard at that statement.)

 

I'm undecided. Common sense says to ignore trolls. But, times are slow on the forum. Why not have some fun troll-baiting?

 

I've got a challenge: who can provoke the troll to make the most absurd statement that results in my health insurance deductible rising due to the broken ribs from laughing so hard.

[FriendlyHacker]

:thumbsup:

 

I assume you all know you're dealing with the latest evolution of the troll species: a mildly informed, pseudo-intellectual, yet extremely arrogant version. So far the bait has done its job. Here's "some guy on the internet" telling people "you don't know what you don't know". :laugh: (Actually, my ribs hurt from laughing so hard at that statement.)

 

I'm undecided. Common sense says to ignore trolls. But, times are slow on the forum. Why not have some fun troll-baiting?

 

I've got a challenge: who can provoke the troll to make the most absurd statement that results in my health insurance deductible rising due to the broken ribs from laughing so hard.

 

Hahaha, that was pretty funny. Though does it make sense to call someone a troll because you don't agree with him? I figured you people were into philosophy and open to new ideas and challenges?

 

Or are you people here to agree with each other and never evolve?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Talking about game-theory, if the Free Market is a zero sum game, with winners and losers, where the losers die. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with it? How would a positive sum society look like?

It is not a zero sum game. When my gains are added up and the losses of the person I may be competing against are subtracted they do not necessarily or even often come to zero. The free-market is almost all cooperation and very, very little competition.

Who the hell DIES when they make a loss in the market? If I invest in building a business and it fails I don't DIE. That's a raw state of nature you're thinking of. This along with a view of the market as zero-sum means you are superstitious. Generally superstitions originate in the nonsense we were fed as children. I am willing to bet you're father's views were highly socialist and anti-capitalist.

[PatrickC]

:thumbsup:

 

I assume you all know you're dealing with the latest evolution of the troll species: a mildly informed, pseudo-intellectual, yet extremely arrogant version.

 

When it comes to leftists Darksky, I know what I'm dealing with of course..

[gwho]

Please, take your leftist garbage elsewhere. It's stinking up the house.

 

hahathat being said, if anyone posts arguments, and reasons why, we're more than glad to respond to them directly.People may approach things from different paradigms. In that case, we should intermingle and figure out which one or which aspects supercedes the other.for instance,  privileges vs state is violence. which one trumps? well, let's focus on the approach. privileges are the result of state violence. peopel use state violence to gain privileges unfairely, whereas in a marketplace, privileges are gained from supplying others with what they need most, and the most of what they need. therefore "state is violence" approach trumps the "privileges" approach, which is affected and a result of state violence.Thus we've focused the discussion around resolving different approaches, and talked about particular and core reasons why we should use some aspects over others to reach the truth. This is far more productive and outright intellectually superior to taking two irreconciliable paradigms and just clashing them without trying to integrate or examine them (kind of like using Islam and Christianity to analyze a situation. The first thing should be to resolve the two frameworks, not just bashing over and over "jesus died for your sins!!!!" and "you must pray 5 times a day to mecca!!!!" That gets us nowhere.)

[PatrickC]

Listen, privilege is just a fact of life... attempting to foil an argument with it, is indeed lazy and inept. The idea that there will never be privilege is a leftists wet dream, so long as it happens to anyone else but himself.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Thus we've focused the discussion around resolving different approaches, and talked about particular and core reasons why we should use some aspects over others to reach the truth. This is far more productive and outright intellectually superior to taking two irreconciliable paradigms and just clashing them without trying to integrate or examine them (kind of like using Islam and Christianity to analyze a situation. The first thing should be to resolve the two frameworks, not just bashing over and over "jesus died for your sins!!!!" and "you must pray 5 times a day to mecca!!!!" That gets us nowhere.)

 

Where, exactly is the focus. The goal-posts keep moving. And the two approaches I've seen are: 1. One person telling everyone else what the truth is. (Their personal interpretation of truth.) And, 2. A few members trying to explain how that doesn't cut it.

 

As to the metaphor, I truly hope it was due to lack of a better, because comparing logic vs. bias to authoritarian fantasy vs. authoritarian fantasy doesn't quite connect.

 

I do appreciate that you may have been trying to intercede with the aim of a more conducive discussion. But there comes a time to call things as they are. Mr. FriendlyHacker has made it his mission to lecture the forum on a variety of topics (this is not the only thread where this behavior has occurred). Had the lectures been composed of substance, rather than assertion, I would accept them as such, even if I disagreed. (Reference the constant claims that he would explain, but hasn't the time, followed by more assertions; even assertions that "we" don't understand reality.)

 

I am all for dissenting views, whether I like them, or not. But, dissent requires reasoning, otherwise it's just another appeal to [emotion, authority, etc.].

[Think Free]

FriendlyHacker, most, maybe all famines are because of state intervention. There is not a single country in Africa (where those pictures of famine come from) that has even close to the freedom of the United States, let alone true freedom. They have been mired in statist slavery for at least 100 years--in many cases since the dawn of history. Foreign farm subsidies prevent developing countries from being able to build robust agriculture. Why grow any excess food that others could buy when your local dictator is just going to take it away at gun point (and probably sell it overseas anyway)?

"Famines have not been caused by a lack of food." This is true. But food in California is no use to people starving in Africa. Who's going to move it to Africa? And how are they going to feed their families while they're doing that for free? And who's going to stop the dictators from seizing the food and reselling it? It's easy to provide solutions when you can magically teleport everything from where it is to where it's needed.

[STer]

FriendlyHacker, most, maybe all famines are because of state intervention. There is not a single country in Africa (where those pictures of famine come from) that has even close to the freedom of the United States, let alone true freedom. They have been mired in statist slavery for at least 100 years--in many cases since the dawn of history. Foreign farm subsidies prevent developing countries from being able to build robust agriculture. Why grow any excess food that others could buy when your local dictator is just going to take it away at gun point (and probably sell it overseas anyway)?

"Famines have not been caused by a lack of food." This is true. But food in California is no use to people starving in Africa. Who's going to move it to Africa? And how are they going to feed their families while they're doing that for free? And who's going to stop the dictators from seizing the food and reselling it? It's easy to provide solutions when you can magically teleport everything from where it is to where it's needed.

 

I find this somewhat confusing. You are basically saying states are the cause of famine. I agree that states may be involved in why some places have famine currently. But to say states are the cause of famine overall seems to reverse history to me.

 

My understanding of the rise of civilization is that a main driving reason people set up agriculture, which led to more complex city-states, in the first place was precisely because such structures allowed them to store food and thus be far less vulnerable to famines. Weren't famines far more of a problem before civilization than after? The way I've learned it, you could almost say that the rise of city-states was an anti-famine measure.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I find this somewhat confusing. You are basically saying states are the cause of famine. I agree that states may be involved in why some places have famine currently. But to say states are the cause of famine overall seems to reverse history to me.

 

My understanding of the rise of civilization is that a main driving reason people set up agriculture, which led to more complex city-states, in the first place was precisely because such structures allowed them to store food and thus be far less vulnerable to famines. Weren't famines far more of a problem before civilization than after? The way I've learned it, you could almost say that the rise of city-states was an anti-famine measure.

Here in Ireland we did not have famine and we were to some extent stateless. Then the British state came. We lost 20 to 25 percent of our population in a famine were a million starved to death. That'd be like about 75 million people starving to death in the US.  It's still in the Irish consciousness today. This doesn't prove much but any claim that states were an "anti-famine" measure seems like a load of fucking shite to me.

[STer]

Here in Ireland we did not have famine and we were to some extent stateless. Then the British state came. We lost 20 to 25 percent of our population in a famine were a million starved to death. That'd be like about 75 million people starving to death in the US.  It's still in the Irish consciousness today. This doesn't prove much but any claim that states were an "anti-famine" measure seems like a load of fucking shite to me.

 

Then explain to me why people started using agriculture and setting up more permanent settlements? It's a lot more work to set up agriculture. I've always learned that this was primarily done to protect against famine. If you disagree, then please explain what the reason for doing all the intensive work of setting up agriculture, food storage mechanisms, etc. was. I've always learned that complex governments arose out of the need for a hierarchy to protect the newly stored food and other resources. All of this storage was set up because people did not want to be vulnerable to famine the way they were while being nomadic.

 

If I'm wrong, please correct me. But do so by explaining how that telling of history is wrong. Just saying "Yeah well here is an example where there is a state and it caused a famine somewhere," as you said "doesn't prove much." States could very well have been set up as anti-famine mechanisms and still led to famines as side effects of other things they do at times. I didn't say "States successfully eliminated all famine." I just said "States originally developed out of measures driven by the desire to avoid famine."

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Then explain to me why people started using agriculture and setting up more permanent settlements? It's a lot more work to set up agriculture. I've always learned that this was primarily done to protect against famine. If you disagree, then please explain what the reason for doing all the intensive work of setting up agriculture, food storage mechanisms, etc. was. I've always learned that complex governments arose out of the need for a hierarchy to protect the newly stored food and other resources. All of this storage was set up because people did not want to be vulnerable to famine the way they were while being nomadic.

 

If I'm wrong, please correct me. But do so by explaining how that telling of history is wrong. Just saying "Yeah well here is an example where there is a state and it caused a famine somewhere," as you said "doesn't prove much." States could very well have been set up as anti-famine mechanisms and still led to famines as side effects of other things they do at times. I didn't say "States successfully eliminated all famine." I just said "States originally developed out of measures driven by the desire to avoid famine."

What? Why are you asking me why people started using agriculture? I made no mention of that. I'm sure people started using agriculture because it was better and avoiding food scarcity must have been a primary concern. I'm also pretty sure that settlements formed around the farmland and bad people started initiating force, thus forming states.

I don't see how the rise of states was an anti-famine measure. That is an awfully generous assumption about the motives of rulers. Don't confuse the state with civilization. The state consists of thugs you have to pay off in order to HAVE civilization. 

[STer]

What? Why are you asking me why people started using agriculture? I made no mention of that. I'm sure people started using agriculture because it was better and avoiding food scarcity must have been a primary concern. I'm also pretty sure that settlements formed around the farmland and bad people started initiating force, thus forming states.

I don't see how the rise of states was an anti-famine measure. That is an awfully generous assumption about the motives of rulers. Don't confuse the state with civilization. The state consists of thugs you have to pay off in order to HAVE civilization. 

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I feel like you just contradicted yourself.

 

You agreed that agriculture was used to avoid food scarcity and the settlements that formed were to help protect those scarcity-avoidance entities. This was the origin of states, which are just extensions of that to protect the scarcity-avoidance entities on a larger scale. So the entire development of states revolved around trying to keep in place a way of protecting against being vulnerable to famine. You seemed to have just agreed with that as the history.

 

But then you say the rise of states was not an anti-famine measure?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something so feel free to correct me.

[Think Free]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I feel like you just contradicted yourself.

 

You agreed that agriculture was used to avoid food scarcity and the settlements that formed were to help protect those scarcity-avoidance entities. This was the origin of states, which are just extensions of that to protect the scarcity-avoidance entities on a larger scale. So the entire development of states revolved around trying to keep in place a way of protecting against being vulnerable to famine. You seemed to have just agreed with that as the history.

 

But then you say the rise of states was not an anti-famine measure?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something so feel free to correct me.

 

Hi, STers. My original claim was that recent famines are caused by states. However, I can also address the idea that states were set up to avoid famine.

 

But first I'd like to mention that I think it was the book Why Nations Fail that makes the argument that the earliest settlements were NOT set up to avoid famine, but were set up to allow people to extract taxes from other people. I believe that claim was based on someone else's work, though. I highly recommend Why Nations Fail, in any case, as it speaks to the issue of how modern states cause modern famine.

 

Anyhow, back to the question: There's nothing inherent to agriculture, villages, settlement, food storage, or famine avoidance that requires a state. Sure, states can take advantage of that stability to take control and tax people, etc., but that's an independent issue. It is the agriculture and storing of food, if anything, that prevents famine, not state taxation of that food.

[FriendlyHacker]

It is not a zero sum game. When my gains are added up and the losses of the person I may be competing against are subtracted they do not necessarily or even often come to zero. The free-market is almost all cooperation and very, very little competition.

Who the hell DIES when they make a loss in the market? If I invest in building a business and it fails I don't DIE. That's a raw state of nature you're thinking of. This along with a view of the market as zero-sum means you are superstitious. Generally superstitions originate in the nonsense we were fed as children. I am willing to bet you're father's views were highly socialist and anti-capitalist.

 

Seems you are not aware that people starve to death for not having enough money to buy food. How is that ever a positive outcome?

 

My father is neither anti-capitalist or socialist. In my childhood I couldn't care less about economics, political systems or religion, since none of that made sense to me, so just didn't talk about it.

 

Listen, privilege is just a fact of life... attempting to foil an argument with it, is indeed lazy and inept. The idea that there will never be privilege is a leftists wet dream, so long as it happens to anyone else but himself.

 

Am not talking about privileges here, unless you think basic human rights are privileges, while I view food, access to education, medical treatment and housing, not as privileges but the very minimal necessary for survival. And when you say they can't have it, is like saying Profit is more important than taking care of human suffering.

FriendlyHacker, most, maybe all famines are because of state intervention. There is not a single country in Africa (where those pictures of famine come from) that has even close to the freedom of the United States, let alone true freedom. They have been mired in statist slavery for at least 100 years--in many cases since the dawn of history. Foreign farm subsidies prevent developing countries from being able to build robust agriculture. Why grow any excess food that others could buy when your local dictator is just going to take it away at gun point (and probably sell it overseas anyway)?

"Famines have not been caused by a lack of food." This is true. But food in California is no use to people starving in Africa. Who's going to move it to Africa? And how are they going to feed their families while they're doing that for free? And who's going to stop the dictators from seizing the food and reselling it? It's easy to provide solutions when you can magically teleport everything from where it is to where it's needed.

 

Have you heard about the Chicago School / Pinochet experiment in Chile? Why you think the lesser the government intervention, more people went bankrupt/hungry? And why it was necessary to use a brutal dictator in order to enforce a free market?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

"Seems you are not aware that people starve to death for not having enough money to buy food. How is that ever a positive outcome?"

 

As usual you ignore the other arguments and try to score a point by arguing against a separate argument.  Sorry, people who starve are not those who compete in the market and fail. If they actually STARVE then they they were not competing in the first place. What did they have to compete with? These would be examples of people starving, not examples of businesses or employees competing in a free market. Why the hell would they starve just because someone else is more successful? These examples almost always come from statism or central planning of some sort. Let's compare the levels of starvation in places were more economic freedom is permitted to those were it's denied.

 

"My father is neither anti-capitalist or socialist. In my childhood I couldn't care less about economics, political systems or religion, since none of that made sense to me, so just didn't talk about it."

 

I'll have to take your word for that.

 

 

"Am not talking about privileges here, unless you think basic human rights are privileges, while I view food, access to education, medical treatment and housing, not as privileges but the very minimal necessary for survival. And when you say they can't have it, is like saying Profit is more important than taking care of human suffering."

 

Please tell us how we can can be as good a person as you. It never occurred to us that things like food were necessary for survival. We are truly shamed and will now accept an RBE (even though you are not "affiliated" with that in any way).

 

 

"Have you heard about the Chicago School / Pinochet experiment in Chile? Why you think the lesser the government intervention, more people went bankrupt/hungry? And why it was necessary to use a brutal dictator in order to enforce a free market?"

 

A statist plan run by statists for statists. That was not a free-market. A free market is a market without coercion. That's what it fucking means. If you won't respond to this point will you at least admit that you have acknowledged it?