330 replies to this topic

[valkyrie_ice]

If Anarcho-Capitalists like me would resist a trillion-dollar superpower for violating people's Rights, don't you think we would resist some petty warlords as well?!

Absolutely not, because you define tyranny in a nonsensical fashion. If the majority of people are living in misery, as long as nobody is violating some arbitrary negative liberties this is perfectly acceptable to you.

One of my fears is that technology will enable vertical integration in the extreme. If you have ever gone into a really big Whole Foods store you will notice that they have food courts. WalMart has tried for awhile to get into banking, and are already in a ton of other markets, and most of their logistics and IT are in-house. I once thought... you know what.... Whole Foods should just buy Marriott and create a new company called Whole Life ™. They could create a big indoor Pullman Town and eventually they could start issuing their own currency and pay all their employees only in that currency, to ensure they only buy from the store.

Really this distinction between "public" and "private" is completely arbitrary. A large enough vertically integrated corporation could become as totalitarian as the Soviet Union. I am opposed to all hierarchy, regardless of whether it uses military power or market power. In essence they are the same thing. If you control somebody's food supply, this is no different than holding a gun to their head. In a world where all land is owned it isn't like you can just go out to the woods somewhere and build a f**kin homestead. You are at their mercy, and this is unacceptable.

George Pullman was basically indistinguishable from Stalin. You might want to check out this article for some of the wonders of free enterprise.

There is no way that you could criticize the Pullman Town idea from an anarcho-capitalist perspective.

Good point Progressive. And note, this is precisely the intent behind arcologies. Completely integrated, one building, self contained, Company towns.

Now to everyone else.

Lallante is right, this is pointless, because every time those of you arguing for Randian utopias get cornered into a logical conundrum, you all start trying to twist our words and reinterpret our statements into something your world view has you trained to cope with. Not one of you is interested in debate, you're simply trying to spread your "gospel".

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 24 April 2010 - 05:37 PM.

[Alex Libman]

If the majority of people are living in misery, as long as nobody is violating some arbitrary negative liberties this is perfectly acceptable to you.

You remind me of a caricature of a witchdoctor with a "magical" stick (socialism) who claims that hitting the patient on the head with that stick will cure him, and you accuse the people who question you of being evil and greedy and not caring about the patient, but the more you hit that patient the worse he becomes...

Negative liberties are essential to making on-going economic, scientific, and technological growth possible, with "trickle-down benefits" affecting everyone. Does that mean you can sit on the couch all day, never work a day in your life, and be as wealthy as the top CEO? Of course not! But it means pulling your own economic weight becomes easier than ever before. And then there's private charity.

One of my fears is that technology will enable vertical integration in the extreme. If you have ever gone into a really big Whole Foods store you will notice that they have food courts. WalMart has tried for awhile to get into banking, and are already in a ton of other markets, and most of their logistics and IT are in-house. I once thought... you know what.... Whole Foods should just buy Marriott and create a new company called Whole Life ™. They could create a big indoor Pullman Town and eventually they could start issuing their own currency and pay all their employees only in that currency, to ensure they only buy from the store.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would be more difficult to do in a freer market. What competitive advantages do large vertically-integrated companies have over their more specialized competitors? Relatively few except being able to lobby the government collectively! And transactions inside a single company are not subject to sales tax / VAT.

Really this distinction between "public" and "private" is completely arbitrary.

Um, no, that distinction is rock-solid: "private" market entities are voluntary, while "public" is just a propaganda word for government force. Like I've recently said elsewhere, the difference between "private" and "public" is the same as the difference between "lovemaking" and "rape" - individual consent.

A large enough vertically integrated corporation could become as totalitarian as the Soviet Union.

Any government can become more totalitarian rather easily, and probably will when its power is threatened, but there is a firewall between private market entities and the "divine right of governments" delusion. (See my "would you fight a war under the flag of WalMart?!" speech on at least one other thread.)

I am opposed to all hierarchy, regardless of whether it uses military power or market power. In essence they are the same thing.

No, they are completely different things. Military violence is pretty much the worst thing one human being can do to another. Market pressure is a reflection of economic reality. You might wish that you were born into a universe where all your wishes magically came true and 2 + 2 added up to 5 whenever you wanted it to, but you live in a universe where, though many things are possible, your wishes don't come true automatically, and there are other people whose Rights need to be respected. Damaging a human being or what is rightfully his is crime, refusing to grant his wishes isn't.

If you control somebody's food supply, this is no different than holding a gun to their head. In a world where all land is owned it isn't like you can just go out to the woods somewhere and build a f**kin homestead. You are at their mercy, and this is unacceptable.

Far more people (by a factor of thousands) have starved to death in places where land isn't privately owned, and no one has the incentive to develop it (except perhaps some ideologically motivated sucker who labors and has the fruits of his labor stolen by the idlers, but people who are both competent and mindlessly selfless are in short supply). When land is privately owned then it becomes productive, and there tends to be an overabundance of people willing to trade with you - that's called division of labor.

George Pullman was basically indistinguishable from Stalin. You might want to check out this article for some of the wonders of free enterprise.

Please do not insult the hundreds of millions of people who were killed or enslaved by the regime for which Stalin was a figurehead by making that comparison. Even the worst "sweatshop" in 19th century America was a paradise compared to the Soviet Union, especially because the American "sweatshop" workers were there by choice and could switch to a "sweatshop" that treated them better, save their money, and have the hope of being able to work for themselves someday.

There is no way that you could criticize the Pullman Town idea from an anarcho-capitalist perspective.

It can't be criticized from the Anarcho-Capitalist legal point of view, but I probably wouldn't invest in a company that wasted money building its workers a collectivist paradise town - that venture was mostly motivated by benevolence, with the profit motive coming second. Workers should be paid in accordance to what their time is objectively worth (supply and demand) - paying a penny more is a penny that is better deserved by another worker who can earn it on merit. This encourages optimization, with workers striving to better themselves to earn more money, which they can then individually spend on their own private property "paradise" however they see fit.

Edited by Alex Libman, 24 April 2010 - 05:42 PM.

[thughes]

What competitive advantages do large vertically-integrated companies have over their more specialized competitors? Relatively few except being able to lobby the government collectively!

Well large companies with a range of products have a fair amount of extremely harmful abilities in general, for example:

- The ability to drive smaller specialized competitors out of the market by selling below cost for a period of time. Large companies have enough resources to accept losses in some sectors to set up long term monopolies, or to crush the majority of competitors in the short term. Many products require a fair amount of initial investment, with such products this can be particularly effective. Not like this hasn't been done. In fact, you don't even have to sell below cost to make it impossible for a smaller competitor to compete, even one with a superior product. Just close enough to cost that only large companies with other income sources can profit in the short term.

- The ability to deliberately tie up (or drive the price up on) scarce resources long enough to bankrupt smaller competitors.

They don't get where they are solely by lobbying government.

- Tracy

[Alex Libman]

Well large companies with a range of products have a fair amount of extremely harmful abilities in general

I agree that large companies have obvious efficiency advantages, but they have competitive handicaps as well, the biggest one being a growing willingness by all but the poorest consumers to pay more for local products. Large corporations just aren't very "hip".

- The ability to drive smaller specialized competitors out of the market by selling below cost for a period of time.

Selling below cost is great for the consumers, especially the poor, and it's a Hail Marry Pass that worked when it was new at the dawn of modern economic history, but it no longer works so well. Driving someone "out of the market" is also something that comes from times of less agile business practices: most of today's and tomorrow's companies can turn on a dime, especially in a truly free market with no patents and other government-imposed barriers to competition. As soon as the large competitor starts slacking or raising prices, the competition will pop back up quickly enough. At worst there might be a gap of a few weeks for new products (a few months for new cars), which is why it's always a good idea to invest in rock-solid essentials (ex. strategic oil reserve, local food security, etc), but for everything else the transition can be fairly smooth.

- The ability to deliberately tie up (or drive the price up on) scarce resources long enough to bankrupt smaller competitors.

That's also something that was easier to do in the past, and all examples I can think of involved companies protected by broad patents. You can buy up all sources of something in a small European country at a time when most people don't know iron ore from a turnip, but gaining this position in the age of asteroid mining and space manufacturing just doesn't seem possible.

They don't get where they are solely by lobbying government.

Government corruption aside, successful businesses "get there" by providing value and innovation for their consumers. If they stop providing those things, they decline.

[bobdrake12]

If Anarcho-Capitalists like me would resist a trillion-dollar superpower for violating people's Rights, don't you think we would resist some petty warlords as well?!

Absolutely not, because you define tyranny in a nonsensical fashion. If the majority of people are living in misery, as long as nobody is violating some arbitrary negative liberties this is perfectly acceptable to you.

One of my fears is that technology will enable vertical integration in the extreme. If you have ever gone into a really big Whole Foods store you will notice that they have food courts. WalMart has tried for awhile to get into banking, and are already in a ton of other markets, and most of their logistics and IT are in-house. I once thought... you know what.... Whole Foods should just buy Marriott and create a new company called Whole Life ™. They could create a big indoor Pullman Town and eventually they could start issuing their own currency and pay all their employees only in that currency, to ensure they only buy from the store.

Really this distinction between "public" and "private" is completely arbitrary. A large enough vertically integrated corporation could become as totalitarian as the Soviet Union. I am opposed to all hierarchy, regardless of whether it uses military power or market power. In essence they are the same thing. If you control somebody's food supply, this is no different than holding a gun to their head. In a world where all land is owned it isn't like you can just go out to the woods somewhere and build a f**kin homestead. You are at their mercy, and this is unacceptable.

George Pullman was basically indistinguishable from Stalin. You might want to check out this article for some of the wonders of free enterprise.

There is no way that you could criticize the Pullman Town idea from an anarcho-capitalist perspective.

Good point Progressive. And note, this is precisely the intent behind arcologies. Completely integrated, one building, self contained, Company towns.

Great point, 'valkyrie_ice'!

The "too big to fail" policy as well as the impact of the lucrative lobbying and campaign financing by the international corporate oligopolies, appear to be leading us in this direction.

A free market needs effective competition to work for the consumer.

These international corporate oligopolies do have an impact on our legislation. And because of their avertising dollars, these entities have major clout with the Corporate Midia in addition to our political system. The legislation that is politically sold to the public isn't necessary the actual legislation we are getting.

Take the recently pased Heathcare Bill as an example:

o This Billl is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.

o The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint VP. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

Edited by bobdrake12, 30 April 2010 - 08:46 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Government Releases New Numbers on Obamacare Showing Costs Will Skyrocket

The federal government released a new report on the cost of Obamacare and the results are troubling. Medical costs will skyrocket. Millions will be left without insurance. And millions more will be may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system.

Source

The results from the HHS report that was released more than a month after the vote were devastating for Barack Obama and democrats. It is not likely they would have been able to ram their health care bill through Congress if the American public knew the bill would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on Americans.

The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries predicted that medical costs will skyrocket, rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance and millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.

[RighteousReason]

Government Releases New Numbers on Obamacare Showing Costs Will Skyrocket

The federal government released a new report on the cost of Obamacare and the results are troubling. Medical costs will skyrocket. Millions will be left without insurance. And millions more will be may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system.

Source

The results from the HHS report that was released more than a month after the vote were devastating for Barack Obama and democrats. It is not likely they would have been able to ram their health care bill through Congress if the American public knew the bill would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on Americans.

The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries predicted that medical costs will skyrocket, rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance and millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.

Ah great post bobdrake. This has been in the news for a couple weeks now.

Yeah what a big surprise, they lied about the costs which would inevitably skyrocket out of control.

And I'm sure it will come as an even bigger surprise a few years down the road when prices start breaking through all estimates we are making today -- this is what virtually always happens with government programs.

[bobdrake12]

Government Releases New Numbers on Obamacare Showing Costs Will Skyrocket

Source

The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries predicted that medical costs will skyrocket, rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance and millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.

Ah great post bobdrake. This has been in the news for a couple weeks now.

Yeah what a big surprise, they lied about the costs which would inevitably skyrocket out of control.

And I'm sure it will come as an even bigger surprise a few years down the road when prices start breaking through all estimates we are making today -- this is what virtually always happens with government programs.

Thank you, RighteousReason!

And per the article:

On Monday the American Spectator reported that a damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. Sebelius and the Obama Administration reportedly hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress.

Edited by bobdrake12, 01 May 2010 - 05:40 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.marklevin...-insurance.html

Published: April 30, 2010
Updated: May 3, 2010 4:18 p.m.
Michael Tanner: 'Fearmongers' were right about Obamacare (excerpts)

The ink was barely dry on President Barack Obama's signature before the RAND Corp. released a report concluding that, not only would the hard-won health care package fail to curb health insurance premium increases, but the bill itself would drive premiums for young people up as much as 17 percent.

And, of course, during the health care debate, no presidential speech was complete without a promise that "if you have health insurance today, and you like it, you can keep it." But the Congressional Budget Office now says that as many as 10 million workers will lose their current insurance under Obamacare. Some of those workers will have to buy new insurance through the government-run exchanges. Millions more will be thrown onto Medicaid.

In addition, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies reports that half of seniors currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program will lose their coverage under that program and be forced back onto traditional Medicare.

And how many times did President Obama criticize the United States for having the highest health care spending in the world? Well, late last month the government's chief actuary released his report on the bill, showing that the bill will actually increase health care spending by $311 billion over 10 years.

At the same time, the report warned that promised future spending cuts, particularly those for Medicare, are unlikely to occur. "The longer-term viability of the Medicare reductions is doubtful," wrote Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid systems. What cuts do occur could have a severe impact on the quality of health care. As many as 15 percent of hospitals and other institutions could be forced out of business, according to the report, "possibly jeopardizing access to care" for millions of Americans.

The most recent estimates suggest that the taxes already in the bill will likely end up costing middle-class workers and small businesses an extra $1,000 per year.

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 May 2010 - 09:53 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Bloomberg Speculates Times Square Bomber Was Protesting Healthcare Law‎
http://talkradionews...healthcare-law/

(yes he was a muslim. what a shocker!)

Pro-immigration violence escalates - Tea Party pacifism contrasts favorably to liberal arrests
http://www.washingto...ence-escalates/

Edited by RighteousReason, 05 May 2010 - 11:18 AM.

[bobdrake12]

http://thehill.com/b...rning-away-sick

Health law risks turning away sick (excerpts)
By Julian Pecquet - 07/01/10 07:13 PM ET

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

[meursault]

Bloomberg Speculates Times Square Bomber Was Protesting Healthcare Law‎
http://talkradionews...healthcare-law/

(yes he was a muslim. what a shocker!)

Yes, your post has racist overtones. What a shocker!

[CuringTheSane]

I think when these people on the right stop quoting Levin, Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Malkin, and the rest of these nut cases on topics they have no knowledge of i.e. economics, are capable of constructing arguments from facts instead of fishy statistics pulled out from under a blog from some high school dropout, people will start to take what you have to say seriously. Until then, I hate to say it, but you're all going to be labeled tea baggers, domestic terrorists, and budweiser drinking trailer park hillbillies. It's really ridiculous the polemic that has been created in this country. Obama is a communist, and McCain is what, the next Adolf Hitler? This bill has nothing to do with a government take over, in fact what was passed accomplished the exact opposite of a government take over of health care by cutting medicaid by billions of dollars and forcing people to buy coverage from private insurance companies. So clap your monkey hands, Obama is a corporatist just like you folks! Can you believe it? All this time I thought he was a reptilian communist from planet x, coming to enslave us with the annunaki, but it's so much plainer than that.

[meursault]

The idea that Obama is seeking to execute serious socioeconomic reform is ridiculous. The past 60 years of American political history shows the abandonment of that type of liberalism as soon as the defense industry became a major force in our political affairs. If you want to be technical, "Obamacare" is a government takeover; but we live in a corporate state, and so the distinction between the corporate and governmental power is currently rather meaningless.

[RighteousReason]

Don't you realize by your own admission that there is no collective? That there is no collective hand holding the gun, only individual hands, and there is no collective brain to decide to point the gun, there are only individual brains, there are no collective thoughts -- there is no collective will -- there is no collective consciousness -- there are no collective rights -- there is no collective responsibility. Only individuals have hands, brains, minds, rights, responsibility.

The "collective" is neutral -- it is solely a descriptive tool for what is happening out there among individuals, in the same sense that "evolution" is neutral and only a description of what is happening among species -- evolution does not literally have a will to change one thing or another. To believe otherwise is to suffer from Anthropomorphism ... read how Yudkowsky (a collectivist leaning person himself... I would think) talks about anthropomorphism in AI and evolution and compare it to our conversation about collectivism.

Creating Friendly AI http://www.singinst....FAI/anthro.html
Chapter 2: Beyond anthropomorphism

Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk http://www.singinst....igence-risk.pdf
Chapter 1: Anthropomorphic bias

-- This has far too much relevant, extremely high-quality content to quote here, this is merely the conclusion of that particular chapter:

Anyone seeking to reduce anthropomorphic bias in themselves would be well-advised to study evolutionary biology for practice, preferably evolutionary biology with math. Early biologists often anthropomorphized natural selection - they believed that evolution would do the same thing they would do; they tried to predict the effects of evolution by putting themselves "in evolution's shoes". The result was a great deal of nonsense, which first began to be systematically exterminated from biology in the late 1960s, e.g. by Williams (1966). Evolutionary biology offers both mathematics and case studies to help hammer out anthropomorphic bias.

Found a beautiful phrase today for this...

John Locke (like Ayn Rand) believed that all rights belong to individuals. There are no special "group rights" that exist in addition to individual rights. The rights of all groups (including the group that calls itself a "government") must be based on, and in some way derived from, the rights of individuals.

I call this approach political reductionism, because it maintains that the sovereign rights of a (legitimate) government are reducible to the rights of individuals. Political reductionism stands in opposition to political emergence theory, which argues that at least one right (usually the right to enforce the precepts of justice) does not originally belong to individuals, but emerges only in civil societies under government.
http://heim.ifi.uio....-anarchism.html

[Lazarus Long]

John Locke (like Ayn Rand) believed that all rights belong to individuals. There are no special "group rights" that exist in addition to individual rights. The rights of all groups (including the group that calls itself a "government") must be based on, and in some way derived from, the rights of individuals.

So you would agree with the need to remove the "Rights of Individual Liberty" (Corporate Personhood) that have been granted to corporations and have been the basis for providing such things as First Amendment protection to said groups, as well as liability shielding for corporate executives?

By the way, this extension of individual rights to corporations was granted by judicial activists in the early 19th Century and upheld by the Supreme Court various times all the way into the late 20th Century but never Congress. The most recent example of it actually is the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision and the result is unfettered and protected ability to make corporate political donations and not disclose contribution sources that is not even granted to individuals.

This protection is not spelled out in the Constitution and is not even consistent with the outline of the Constitution. It is however an example of exactly what you seem to object to, groups being granted rights that belong to individuals exclusively, not groups. It is also an interesting example of the historical aspect of the Supreme Court reinforcing its own will since they are not upholding a law or legislative decision but in fact imposing one that Congress never authorized and blocking legislation that moves in the direction of limiting this legislative oversight.

[EmbraceUnity]

This protection is not spelled out in the Constitution and is not even consistent with the outline of the Constitution. It is however an example of exactly what you seem to object to, groups being granted rights that belong to individuals exclusively, not groups. It is also an interesting example of the historical aspect of the Supreme Court reinforcing its own will since they are not upholding a law or legislative decision but in fact imposing one that Congress never authorized and blocking legislation that moves in the direction of limiting this legislative oversight.

Excellent point!

Though there are some consistent libertarians. David Friedman wrote that while the US is on the surface a free market, it is "“largely populated by indigestible lumps of socialism called corporations.”

A primary target of scorn for any consistent libertarian must be corporations, and until such time, I hope you'll excuse the rest of us who are forced to assume you are inconsistent.

[RighteousReason]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

[Rational Madman]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

Although I disagree with your decision to inappropriately call Edward an idiot, I do sympathize with your exhaustion with the weak causal relationship between corporate size and behavior, and with macro economic outcomes. So, I voted your post up, but let's try to refrain from name calling in the future.

[RighteousReason]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

Although I disagree with your decision to inappropriately call Edward an idiot, I do sympathize with your exhaustion with the weak causal relationship between corporate size and behavior, and with macro economic outcomes. So, I voted your post up, but let's try to refrain from name calling in the future.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is Edward and when did he ever say that corporations are fundamental to the problem?

[david ellis]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

Although I disagree with your decision to inappropriately call Edward an idiot, I do sympathize with your exhaustion with the weak causal relationship between corporate size and behavior, and with macro economic outcomes. So, I voted your post up, but let's try to refrain from name calling in the future.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is Edward and when did he ever say that corporations are fundamental to the problem?

I voted this post down for lack of respect for other posters, myself included.

[Rational Madman]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

Although I disagree with your decision to inappropriately call Edward an idiot, I do sympathize with your exhaustion with the weak causal relationship between corporate size and behavior, and with macro economic outcomes. So, I voted your post up, but let's try to refrain from name calling in the future.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is Edward and when did he ever say that corporations are fundamental to the problem?

You seem to have an uncommon gift for alienating those that make the evident mistake of partially defending you. Anyway, to answer your question, I was referring to the member that immediately preceded your comments, and whom I assumed was the target of your sulfurous response.

[RighteousReason]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

Although I disagree with your decision to inappropriately call Edward an idiot, I do sympathize with your exhaustion with the weak causal relationship between corporate size and behavior, and with macro economic outcomes. So, I voted your post up, but let's try to refrain from name calling in the future.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is Edward and when did he ever say that corporations are fundamental to the problem?

You seem to have an uncommon gift for alienating those that make the evident mistake of partially defending you. Anyway, to answer your question, I was referring to the member that immediately preceded your comments, and whom I assumed was the target of your sulfurous response.

You know what they say. When you assume...

[Rational Madman]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

Although I disagree with your decision to inappropriately call Edward an idiot, I do sympathize with your exhaustion with the weak causal relationship between corporate size and behavior, and with macro economic outcomes. So, I voted your post up, but let's try to refrain from name calling in the future.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is Edward and when did he ever say that corporations are fundamental to the problem?

I voted this post down for lack of respect for other posters, myself included.

I voted this post up because it was unfairly targeted.

[Rational Madman]

If you think "corporations" are somehow fundamental to the problem you are an idiot.

Although I disagree with your decision to inappropriately call Edward an idiot, I do sympathize with your exhaustion with the weak causal relationship between corporate size and behavior, and with macro economic outcomes. So, I voted your post up, but let's try to refrain from name calling in the future.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is Edward and when did he ever say that corporations are fundamental to the problem?

You seem to have an uncommon gift for alienating those that make the evident mistake of partially defending you. Anyway, to answer your question, I was referring to the member that immediately preceded your comments, and whom I assumed was the target of your sulfurous response.

You know what they say. When you assume...

Well, if anyone cares, why don't you clarify your comments then?

[david ellis]

I voted this post up because it was unfairly targeted.

I am puzzled why you think it was unfairly targeted. "What the hell" is not a neutral beginning to a statement. No smiley faces to signal joking. Just an unpleasant response to a very neutral statement. Without mutual respect dialog is impossible. And not unexpectedly your request to refrain from name calling was answered by a demeaning statement intimating that you are an ass. This is the behavior of a bully.

[Rational Madman]

I voted this post up because it was unfairly targeted.

I am puzzled why you think it was unfairly targeted. "What the hell" is not a neutral beginning to a statement. No smiley faces to signal joking. Just an unpleasant response to a very neutral statement. Without mutual respect dialog is impossible. And not unexpectedly your request to refrain from name calling was answered by a demeaning statement intimating that you are an ass. This is the behavior of a bully.

No, I was in agreement with your statement, and in response to another member voting it down a position, I voted the post back up. So to be clear, I voted to increase your reputation.

Edited by Rol82, 17 December 2010 - 10:18 PM.

[david ellis]

I voted this post up because it was unfairly targeted.

I am puzzled why you think it was unfairly targeted. "What the hell" is not a neutral beginning to a statement. No smiley faces to signal joking. Just an unpleasant response to a very neutral statement. Without mutual respect dialog is impossible. And not unexpectedly your request to refrain from name calling was answered by a demeaning statement intimating that you are an ass. This is the behavior of a bully.

No, I was in agreement with your statement, and in response to another member voting it down a position, I voted the post back up. So to be clear, I voted to increase your reputation.

Thanks, I don't know much about voting down and up on posts. Seems kind of chicken to vote down without saying why.

[Rational Madman]

I voted this post up because it was unfairly targeted.

I am puzzled why you think it was unfairly targeted. "What the hell" is not a neutral beginning to a statement. No smiley faces to signal joking. Just an unpleasant response to a very neutral statement. Without mutual respect dialog is impossible. And not unexpectedly your request to refrain from name calling was answered by a demeaning statement intimating that you are an ass. This is the behavior of a bully.

No, I was in agreement with your statement, and in response to another member voting it down a position, I voted the post back up. So to be clear, I voted to increase your reputation.

Thanks, I don't know much about voting down and up on posts. Seems kind of chicken to vote down without saying why.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I take ownership of each vote now.

[niner]

Seems kind of chicken to vote down without saying why.

Anonymity can be viewed as encouraging honesty, in that we might not want to vote down someone who was perceived as capable of harming us in some way. The system actually keeps a record of who makes all votes, but opinion was fairly unanimous that this information should remain private. I guess anyone with Admin access could see it if they know how, but such access is rare. Moderators and most directors don't have it, for example.

Post voting systems such as ours are intended to be used frequently, so that a lot of statistics are gathered. Unfortunately, we aren't using it very much here, so individual votes, whether warranted or not, carry more weight. I appreciate the sentiment behind owning one's vote, although I'm concerned that it generates a lot of extra posts, with the human costs that entails.