3 "questions" from Peter 'the structural violence' Joseph.

[fractional slacker]

Suffice to say, if your "questions" are a paragraph in length, you are well beyond the realm of inquiry and safely into the rhetoric zone. Not to mention each question has the PJ word salad ace in the hole use of his favorite NAA adjective: structural included at some point.

If you are a masochist, watch the whole 25 minutes. The best part to me is the last 3 minutes where we get the black is white, slavery is freedom conclusion of: socioeconomic poverty is the number one killer and the free market is the cause of socioeconomic poverty, hence the free market is the number one killer of people.

 

[dsayers]

Isn't posting a video on youtube using the free market to share ideas with others? He's not living his values!

[NotDarkYet]

Faux-chinese communist collarless shirt:  Check

 

Lenin facial hair: Check

 

Professor of Academia suit coat:  Check

 

 

Time to control the world...

 

 

 

Sorry for the low blow, but jeez.

[shirgall]

Hrm, off the cuff response:

 

Question 1: Given the "market economy" requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint, and hence assist the ever-increasing need for improved ecological sustainability in the world today?

 

My answer: No, economic development has come from people exchanging their effort for their needs, either by working the land directly (hunting, farming, or resource gathering) or exchanging labor for what they need. Your definition of market economy had people ONLY exchanging labor for income, and that's not how it works. People exchange their efforts for income, other gains (improvements to resources), diversion, or whatever. It's their effort to allocate. If there was a structural incentive to reduce resource use, people never should have made the effort to improve health as more babies survived to become productive, and people lived longer so they could make more and more impressive achievements. As a result, this question fails on its assumptions long before you get to your own answer.

 

I'm not sure I have the willingness to continue...

[Magnus]

Surprisingly, the first two minutes didn't make my skin itch, which is what all Peter Joseph videos have done to me, from the beginning of time until now.  His definition of "market economy" was straightforward and sensible. 

 

Then, as soon as he got to Question 1, I got that familiar-yet-unpleasant Zeitgeisty skin-crawl sensation:  "Given that the market economy requires consumption ..."

 

BZZZZZZT!  Aaaaannnd, we're already off to a disastrous start. 

 

No, market economies do not require consumption.  Human happiness requires consumption.  I realize that Mr. Nehru Jacket is above all of that, but people like to consume.  Starting with food.  Then clothing.  Then shelter (which is slightly more durable, as a consumption good, so people mistakenly think of houses as an "investment," when they're really just big-ticket consumer items that you can re-sell, usually).  Then all the crap that goes into the shelter.  Then vehicles.  Then all the rest. 

 

"The economy" can't "require" any of this because "the economy" is behavior, not a person.  People require. 

 

See, people are both producers and consumers.  When they produce (i.e., the eeeeeevil "LABOR FOR MONEY" that he goes on and on about), they use capital resources.  But eventually, all production ends with consumption, by someone.  That's what production is for.

 

So, Question 1 is nonsensical crap.

 

Let's go to Question 2: "In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs ("cost efficiency") in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?"

 

I'll start at the end of the question, and work my way back.

 

As to machine automation, it, uh, causes the "jobs" that people do to -- get this! -- change.  Before nitrogen-fixing fertilizer was developed (the Haber-Bosch process), it took huge tracts of land to farm.   Before internal combustion engines (Herr Benz), the ground had to be farmed by hand, or by animals.  Both of these inventions were developed right around the turn of the century.  Before that, most people lived in rural areas.  After them, a minority did, and people started moving to cities, to do different things with their time, instead of agriculture. 

 

That's more or less a constant phenomenon. 

 

So, the "majority of jobs" refers to the jobs that existed before the technology.  New jobs are then available. 

 

And, while we're on the subject, what's the deal with the assumption that these "jobs" are something that can only be doled out by "companies"?  That's clearly not true.  A freer market tends to make larger companies less viable.  The largest companies develop in the most protectionist markets. 

 

And what's wrong with profit?  It means that you're making life better -- that an act of production was, in the end, a net gain, rather than a net loss. 

 

And "competition against other producers" simply means that someone is already meeting other people's desires.  You see, when you make someone an excellent winter coat, the consumer's desire for another winter coat drops considerably.  The niche that Winter Coat occupies, on his list of priorities, goes down, and thus falls below other things.  So, if you want to make winter coats, as your favorite mode of production, you have to satisfy people's need for them better and more effectively than other people are attempting to satisfy them.  It's a competition to see who can best cooperate with consumers.  It's a cooperation-competition. 

 

So, the "structural incentive" for people to engage in production, regardless of what technology may exist, is this -- "the desire that people have to improve their lives, in whatever manner is most important to them at the time (and relative to whatever one's economic condition or status may be prior to engaging in some form of productive activity)." 

 

Next! 

 

Question 3: "In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity ..." 

 

No.  That's not a real question.  It's bullshit wrapped in a neo-Communist word salad.

[Ken Cotton]

Instead of having long debates the entire divide can be summed up simply:

 

Free market enthusiasts are objectively indifferent to structural violence. Free market enthusiasts reconcile this by adhering to the NAP, which does not force action on any unwilling participant, and reasons structural violence to be the result of personal failure. The UPB and peaceful parenting initiative aims to end the ojective indifference toward structural violence by advocating charity and so on.

 

PJ believes that structural violence can be stopped by violating the NAP, and anarcho-capitalists believe that the violating the NAP is unacceptable regardless of net benefits.

 

 

 

I think this opens up an interesting question about self defense, and whether or not the poor are entitled to defend themselves from the rich. If we assume that the poor are simply poor due to laziness, stupidity, bad luck, etc, are they entitled to fight back? Is the runt of the litter entitled to find alternative means to getting the resources if the accepted form of competition will result in their demise? PJ wants to be the even hand that comes down from on high and separates the more competitive pups from the teat and gives the uncompetitive ones an equal amount of resources. In essence, he wants to foster weakness because he cannot bring himself to terms with the reality of struggle - that the weak die and the strong survive.

 

His ultimate goal is to invent unlimited resources and ensure all people win. While this might be possible ( though I'm unsure ) for basic needs like food and water, there will always be another layer of needs to resolve. Sexual partners, happiness, acceptance, etc. There is no reason for PJ's solution to end at labor and money when human suffering exists across every level of needs/competition where there are winners and losers. Therefore, rounding back to the original premise, PJ simply believes that either stasis or dictation of higher authority is more important than individual freedom.

 

 

This is... the same debate that's been going on since the beginning of capitalism vs communism. PJ is just a communist that is going to remove the objection of hard work not being rewarded fairly in the sense of labor by automating labor. The free market enthusiasts are still eugenicists. It's a fundamental divide.

[Wuzzums]

I don't know what's more stupid, his arguments or his shirts? At least he's keeping busy.

[NotDarkYet]

@Ken Cotton

 

If people can't be trusted with accumulating property, then they surely can't be trusted with the ability to TAKE property from others.

 

The debate is not about resources, or who "should" have more of them.

 

 

But let's imagine for a moment that debate really was about who should get more resources.

 

Who would get to be in charge of these property allocation decisions?

 

It's easy to see that suddenly we're in the same position we are in now (the State), ie a group of people get to protect their own interests with laws.

 

The only way out is UPB/Anarchism.

[PGP]

The great irony is that cumulative scientific advancement means creatures such as this survive to adulthood, although adulthood may be the wrong word in PJ's case. 

[Ken Cotton]

I agree threebobs, and that has always been the central fault of any socio-economic structure. Ideally, all of these things work out in a fashion that has either acceptable pros/cons or just generally is to the net benefit and voluntary agreement of mankind. Different people have different... uh... gods that they think will save their system. PJ has this monolithic supercomputer that will one day impartially dictate society to the benefit of mankind, and Stefan has peaceful parenting. I don't say that to be derisive or anything and I'm not saying that those ideas don't have merits, I'm just saying both sides have their own inspirations.

 

I think an unwillingness to concede faults is intellectually dishonest. I understand it, because we're talking to sway public opinion more than the opposition, but it's still there. PJ's computer will discriminate and supersede individual human will. The free market will stratify human beings and is essentially the survival of the fittest eugenics at play. PJ will advocate for some kind of morality programming that stops the computer from committing genocide, and Stefan will advocate peaceful parenting which will advocate charity and other voluntary measures that insulate the uncompetitive from the consequences of failure.

 

I suppose if the two sides worked together they might form some kind of amazing hybrid, but I'm not sure that's possible. People who adhere to principle in the face of consequences are probably going to be unwilling to work with their opposition. Maybe I misunderstand the two sides, but it seems to be that they're both saying that capitalism and communism are more important than human life or human will.

[NotDarkYet]

@Ken

 

You have not made an argument yet.

 

What flaws are inherent in anarcho capitalism?  

 

And please refer to those flaws in reference to their workable (ie not logically contradictory) alternatives.

[NotDarkYet]

@ken

 

And what is this "hybrid" approach you refer to?

 

There is no hybrid possible between violence-is-a-must, and violence-is-wrong.

 

 

And you may say "the existence of poor people" is a flaw in anarcho capitalism.  But it's not, anymore than a person falling down and injuring their knee is a flaw in the theory of gravity.

[Ken Cotton]

Well I'm not god or anything, I don't have the perfect answer to these kinds of questions. My answer can only be another altenative with pros and cons. Let's say I advocated for a more centered position where you had both state control and a measure of freedom, like a liberal democracy or some other system. It wouldn't satisfy the zealots or extremists on either side, not that I say that with disaparaging intent.

 

You mention gravity and falling, which is in essence the core of eugenics. Eugenicists believe that the process of the incapable falling is inevitable and that the capable won't fall. In a vacuum this is survival of the fittest. Eugenics is a loaded term because of the things done by fascists in the past, but it was a fairly commonly accepted field of science before WWII. I'm not saying that eugenics is inherently wrong, I'm just saying that people have different priorities. PJ prioritizes human happiness and survival before truth and freedom. He wants to create a systemic, world-spanning white lie.

[Magnus]

Free market enthusiasts are objectively indifferent to structural violence.

 

Enthusiasts?  Maybe you're trying to be insulting, maybe not.  I'm a motorcycle enthusiast.  I'm a free market proponent.

 

What is structural violence, by the way?

[Ken Cotton]

Enthusiasts?  Maybe you're trying to be insulting, maybe not.  I'm a motorcycle enthusiast.  I'm a free market proponent.

 

What is structural violence, by the way?

If enthusiast offended you I apologize, that wasn't my intention.

 

Structural violence as explained by PJ there is in essence, the consequences of failure or uncompetitiveness. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is generally the way that capitalism works, outside of human empathy. If you just looked at capitalism as a machine it would operate in that fashion which seems to be his source of objection. PJ discounts charity and all that when looking at the economy. As with nature, the strong have better access to resources and grow stronger, and the weak have less access and get weaker.

[dsayers]

Structural violence as explained by PJ there is in essence, the consequences of failure or uncompetitiveness. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is generally the way that capitalism works

 

No, the way capitalism works is the more value you put in, the more value you get out. What you're saying is that the muggers get richer and the victims get poorer. This isn't natural though; it's an effect of the aggression that is in mugging somebody.

 

The problem with the phrase "structural violence" is that structures are inanimate and violence is a behavior. If you blame "the system," then you're not blaming the people actually initiating the use of force. They don't want you to focus on that so that THEY can be the ones to initiate the use of force.

[Magnus]

If enthusiast offended you I apologize, that wasn't my intention.

No problem. The word "enthusiast" trivializes what amounts to a philosophical conclusion by reducing it to mere preference.

 

Structural violence as explained by PJ there is in essence, the consequences of failure or uncompetitiveness.

If you're living by yourself, on a proverbial desert island, and you fail to engage in the manual labor necessary to acquire enough calories to live, or to construct tools or shelter necessary to protect yourself from the elements, is that structural violence?

 

Is the fish that refuses to jump onto your plate denying you the resources you need to live? Is the monsoon committing an act of violence against you?

 

If you are living on an island with a companion, and he fishes laboriously, and uses his skill and industry to build a sturdy hut, and you want to enjoy all of these things but without contributing to the economic productivity of your island life, is it structural violence for him to deny you the fish he catches and the hut he has built?

 

I'm not sure I understand the objection to economic productivity. Because of markets, we now enjoy a quality of life that is far removed from foraging for fish and grubs and hiding from monsoons in a lean-to. But the basic need for productivity, to maintain our lives (or perhaps even improve them) is an essential feature of existence.

 

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is generally the way that capitalism works, outside of human empathy. If you just looked at capitalism as a machine it would operate in that fashion which seems to be his source of objection.

No, it isn't. No, it doesn't.

 

PJ discounts charity and all that when looking at the economy.

I don't understand.

 

As with nature, the strong have better access to resources and grow stronger, and the weak have less access and get weaker.

The ethic of free markets has no preference for strong or weak. It is actually the reverse -- it holds as unethical the overpowering of weaker people for any reason (except in self-defense).

[Ken Cotton]

That's... not entirely true.

 

You can put a lot of value and effort into something that just doesn't work out. A lot of product lines and businesses fail. It can be something as simple as cultural trends, like clothing styles. Structural violence is just the fact that when you fail, you have less resources because you invested resources into a failure.

[Magnus]

That's... not entirely true.

 

You can put a lot of value and effort into something that just doesn't work out. A lot of product lines and businesses fail. It can be something as simple as cultural trends, like clothing styles. Structural violence is just the fact that when you fail, you have less resources because you invested resources into a failure.

I take it you've never gone fishing.

[MMX2010]

I take it you've never gone fishing.

 

Nor dated anyone.

 

Nor attended a college course.

 

Nor cooked anything, because "what if it burns?" or "what if I don't like it?"

[Magnus]

Nor dated anyone.

 

Nor attended a college course.

 

Nor cooked anything, because "what if it burns?" or "what if I don't like it?"

Yeah, I've always gotten a strong "something for nothing" vibe off of PJ.

 

It has the feel of an adolescent whining about his stern, old-fashioned father who's threatening to cut his son off if he doesn't get a real job.

 

"You have all the resources, Dad, and it's deeply wrong that you don't give them to me just for being me. I deserve to be materially supported, just for breathing, regardless of what I do with my time."

[Ken Cotton]

I take it you've never gone fishing.

 I've been fishing lots of times. I don't really get what you mean.

 

I think it's important to remember that I'm not siding with PJ and his insane idea of a supercomputer running the world. I'm just explaining what he's talking about. Generally speaking capitalists concede that those who fail suffer the consequences of failure.

 

To put it a different way, a drug user suffers the consequences of using drugs. PJ's design seems to be an apparatus that will let people use drugs without suffering the consequences of drug use. Your typical eugenicist or capitalist will say that the realities of life dictate that drug users must suffer the consequences of drug use. PJ seems to be arguing that by overriding personal freedom an apparatus can be made that supersedes that reality.

 

 

I think that if you want to be honest, you have to concede that structural violence exists. After that, you can say that you want to work to limit the amount or effects of structural violence. There's nothing inherently wrong with structural violence any more than there is something wrong with gravity making objects fall - it's just a reality.

[Magnus]

I don't concede anything because I don't understand what you're asking me to concede. That it's somehow ethically wrong that people experience the natural consequences of their actions? That's a form of violence? Is my hypothetical monsoon violent? My hypothetical selfish fish?

 

I'm really very confused by your assertions, particularly as to how acknowledging cause and effect makes one a eugenicist.

[PGP]

How many scientific endeavours discover something new that progresses civilisation? Not many.

How many of those that succeed deliver tangible benefits in standards of living and efficiency etc? Not many.

How many people found and run a business that is wildly successful? Not many.

How many people will find their "one true love", whatever that is? Not many.

Life is unfair. Some are born with deformities and diseases etc. Some are smarter or have some advantage in particular conditions. Do we compensate for this?

I haven't watched the video, I don't think I could stomach it. I think PJ wants to live off the "fat of the land" of others. 

I have thought of life decisions and indeed allocation of resources in the free-market as risk management. In general, humans have minimised short-term risk with the cost of qualitatively larger long-term risk. Eat today rather than starve and deal with tomorrow when it comes. The one variable that will allow us to minimise risk in totality is knowledge and technology. 

PJ thinks we have reached a point where if only everything was shared equally, there would be NO risk. ie we have the tech, now robot city paradise.

If he said this straight out, he could be dismissed by any half-rational mind. But he doesn't, he talks in riddles and therefore he has power over the weak-minded. He is the literate priest with an illiterate congregation. I believe him to be dangerous. That is my opinion.

[shirgall]

If enthusiast offended you I apologize, that wasn't my intention.

 

Structural violence as explained by PJ there is in essence, the consequences of failure or uncompetitiveness. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is generally the way that capitalism works, outside of human empathy. If you just looked at capitalism as a machine it would operate in that fashion which seems to be his source of objection. PJ discounts charity and all that when looking at the economy. As with nature, the strong have better access to resources and grow stronger, and the weak have less access and get weaker.

 

Systems where the rich get richer are typically government working in tandem with special interests to erect barriers to entry that end up benefitting the lobbyist already in a market. They are the beneficiaries of structural protectionism. The clue is "structural". Free markets do not have a governing body to structure them, only fictitious "market economies" do because of the broken definition of "market economies" (as I pointed out earlier in the thread).

[Ken Cotton]

Systems where the rich get richer are typically government working in tandem with special interests to erect barriers to entry that end up benefitting the lobbyist already in a market. They are the beneficiaries of structural protectionism. The clue is "structural". Free markets do not have a governing body to structure them, only fictitious "market economies" do because of the broken definition of "market economies" (as I pointed out earlier in the thread).

 

I appreciate the distinction between the free market and current markets. I think the structure that PJ is talking about is deeper than the government structure. I think what he's getting at is the core nature of a consumer market, which presents certain realities the same way that gravity does.

 

My understanding of what he's saying is that if you spend 40 years running a business like a carrier pidgeon business and then someone invents the internet, you're out of luck. You're probably 60 years old or something and can't be competitive by trying to go into an internet messaging market. As a result people stop buying your services/product and you spiral into poverty. And it doesn't have to be something as silly as that. Maybe you're a fur coat salesman and a PETA wave hits society, making fur coats suddenly unfashionable. The idea is that as a natural result of the economy people will be bumped down in socioeconomic status, many into poverty. He also asserts that automation will increase the number of people losing jobs and thus getting into poverty.

 

I think the thing that he's saying is, sure, there are going to need to be mechanics for machines that cut hay. However, you probably only need 1 mechanic to work on that tractor/bailer, and you used to have 100 people gathering that crop. More than that, those 100 people don't have any of the necessary skills or experience to go for that mechanic job. Again, this doesn't mean that we should stop advancing automation, it's just an effect of it.

 

He's proposing an airplane in the face of gravity. I'm not sure its a plane that will work, and I'm not sure of what the consequences of it will be. I think we can agree that people shouldn't be forced to board it, but I don't mind if people voluntarily consent. The only problem with PJ specifically is that as a zealot of this super computer communist utopia he has explicitly global ambitions. He wouldn't really be satisfied with Zeitgeist-land, he'd need his resource gobbling central computer to requisition the world's resources at will in order to feed the out of control population within. ( Or liquidate them, but that seems to against his overall design. )

 

 

TL;DR

 

He wants to build the Matrix. It has pros and cons.

[J. D. Stembal]

I get confused whenever Jospeh speaks because he brings Game Theory into the mix when he defines what capitalism is. What does playing chess have to do with trading goods? In chess, you either win, lose, or stalemate. In free trade, everybody wins otherwise the trade doesn't take place. Applying Game Theory to trade assumes that the players are forced to engage in trade. Does anyone force you to buy products from Walmat? No, you choose where and with whom to trade.

[Ken Cotton]

No problem. The word "enthusiast" trivializes what amounts to a philosophical conclusion by reducing it to mere preference.

If you're living by yourself, on a proverbial desert island, and you fail to engage in the manual labor necessary to acquire enough calories to live, or to construct tools or shelter necessary to protect yourself from the elements, is that structural violence?

Is the fish that refuses to jump onto your plate denying you the resources you need to live? Is the monsoon committing an act of violence against you?

If you are living on an island with a companion, and he fishes laboriously, and uses his skill and industry to build a sturdy hut, and you want to enjoy all of these things but without contributing to the economic productivity of your island life, is it structural violence for him to deny you the fish he catches and the hut he has built?

 

The ethic of free markets has no preference for strong or weak. It is actually the reverse -- it holds as unethical the overpowering of weaker people for any reason (except in self-defense).

 

PJ seems to be of the opinion that yes, denying an unproductive or less productive person resources is an act of structural violence. He seems to be of the mind that if you and your friend go fishing, and you catch 4 and your friend catches 2, the resulting advantage that you have forms structural violence. If you two keep fishing and don't catch anything, your friend is going to starve before you. PJ discounts sharing because he defaults to the assumption that if you share you'll be at a disadvantage, because somewhere someone else won't share. On another island maybe they catch 4 and 2, but the one guy kills the other guy and now has 6/0 to your 4/2 or 3/3 if you decided to share them.

 

Again I want to stress that I'm just interpreting his point of view based on what he put forward in the video.

[Magnus]

He wants to build the Matrix. It has pros and cons.

It's a fantasy that's wholly disconnected from reality.  (I'm referring to both the Venus Project and to the Matrix movies.)

[Ken Cotton]

It's a fantasy that's wholly disconnected from reality.  (I'm referring to both the Venus Project and to the Matrix movies.)

 

Kind of?

 

I'm not entirely sure that's actually the case. There are amazing advances being made in technology, and a strong transhumanist movement. The fictional history of the Matrix is obviously fantastic, but not impossible. For those who don't know the backstory, the idea is that human beings create an underclass of automaton workers. Those workers are bestowed with increasing intelligence until one day an action causes revolt. The machines secede from human kind and form their own city called 01. 01 continues to refine itself and build increasingly awesome technologies and products. Humanity boycots 01 and refuses their entry into the United Nations. Inevitably, humanity and the machines go to war. As the war turns against the humans they decide to blot out the sun. The machines manage to overcome the humans in spite of the tactic.

 

Now, obviously that's a science fiction story. However, it's not an impossible story. If the technological singularity can be achieved and self-replicating/self-enhancing AIs can be created, there's not a lot stopping those kinds of things from happening. Living creatures are essentially cyborgs that can create more cyborgs, if you take the view of life originating from mud struck by lightning. A robot with the ability to make another robot would have the same ability to reproduce as an animal. If that robot was ever bestowed with human levels of intelligence, it would be able to learn how to mine raw materials, form them, then reproduce itself. If it ever learned how to write its own code, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume it couldn't make enhancements.

 

Because human consciousness and will are decidedly physical and exist, there is no logical reason that an artificial equivalent cannot exist. It may only be a matter of time. If human beings can subjugate one another, improve themselves, and evolve, there's no logical reason that artificial consciousness might not be able to do the same.

[dsayers]

My understanding of what he's saying is that if you spend 40 years running a business like a carrier pidgeon business and then someone invents the internet, you're out of luck. You're probably 60 years old or something and can't be competitive by trying to go into an internet messaging market. As a result people stop buying your services/product and you spiral into poverty.

 

Anybody that's savvy enough to run a business for 40 years is savvy enough to prepare for the unforeseen. You're really trying hard to make this fit.

[Ken Cotton]

Anybody that's savvy enough to run a business for 40 years is savvy enough to prepare for the unforeseen. You're really trying hard to make this fit.

Not really. You can run all kinds of things and then smash into unexpected scenarios. People run mills for years, and then one day there's a sawdust fueled explosion. People run ships for years, and then one day there's a leak or it strikes a rock. People run musical careers for years, and then one day the trend changes. The music one is probably the easiest to relate to. If you are a classical artist and one day rap or rock becomes the big thing, you probably aren't equipped to change all your instruments and lyrical structures to the shift in trends.

 

People tend to get old, get distracted, make mistakes. You can definitely run a business casually and be unaware of market changes or other events until its too late. You can also double or nothing and lose. That's not anything against the free market or betting, that's just life. PJ just thinks he can change the rules of life.

[luxfelix]

Suffice to say, if your "questions" are a paragraph in length, you are well beyond the realm of inquiry and safely into the rhetoric zone. Not to mention each question has the PJ word salad ace in the hole use of his favorite NAA adjective: structural included at some point.

If you are a masochist, watch the whole 25 minutes. The best part to me is the last 3 minutes where we get the black is white, slavery is freedom conclusion of: socioeconomic poverty is the number one killer and the free market is the cause of socioeconomic poverty, hence the free market is the number one killer of people.

 

 

Is this going to be on the final exam professor PJ? 

[dsayers]

I wasn't suggesting that people who run a business for 40 years become immune to flat tires. I'm saying that 40 years of profitability provides all sorts of options. From having a nest egg so large you don't need active income, to selling your brand as a consultant with 40 years experience in business management, to things I cannot even think of because I haven't run a business for 40 years.

 

Simply put, if you make a profit for 40 years and then your livelihood blows up and you end up in poverty, YOU made some serious miscalculations that I would describe as atypical.

[J. D. Stembal]

It is far more likely that a forty year business owner will fall on hard times because the federal, state or local government passed a particular regulation aimed at putting him out of business (GMO laws and farmers as one example). If it was just the free market at work and the government stayed out of it, you would be able to do research within your market to get a feel for which way the wind is blowing and make changes to compensate. The power that government has to make laws is so extreme you could be put out of business at any moment.

 

There are some rumblings going on within the Liberty movement recently that the current administration wants to regulate the internet like a public utility in order to squeeze all the independent journalists out there making a buck online. If this does transpire, websites like this one could be in jeopardy.