Tags

, , , , , , ,

Wow, it’s been a while since I did a series that went this long. Good grief. Still, we must shine truths up on lies and smack roaches with shoes it seems. We journey into the depths of Raging Rhyd’s The Death of Liberal Democracy?

Which, by his own definition would should actually read “The Death of Investment Democracy” which I guess is the natural enemy of “Democratic Socialism.” Because when people are free to invest their money, and themselves, by their own free will, they resist the forces of Marxism and Socialism which would invest their money and their lives for them against their will.

memes-arachnid-gentleman-starts-the-week-with-class

The Dance of State and Capital

Liberal Democracy is ‘classically liberal’ precisely because of its stance on freedom–that is, the State should guarantee the freedom of the people it rules in order to continue governing.  And while freedoms such as the Right to Free Speech or the Freedom of Religion are definitely worth keeping around, other freedoms such as the Right to Private Property are the foundation of Capitalism and directly curtail the freedom of others.

So Rhyd, what you’re saying is that it is alright (for now) for me to speak my mind and believe what I want to.

But it is morally wrong for me to own my home, my car, my phone, my computer, my clothes, or any other privately own property. And it is a morally superior situation if all property is owned communally, to be taken and used by any person, at any time, regardless of who made it, who bought (oh, sorry, we wouldn’t be allowed to buy things would we?), and who earned it.

I’ve talked about this before, so I’ll leave this here. But what Rhyd is arguing for is the selective enforcement of rights as being a more moral option than the unilateral enforcement of civil rights because  “it hurts others.”

Which just goes to show me that Rhyd has absolutely no idea what a Civil Right is or how they bloody work.

dumb ass

Private Property, of course, doesn’t refer to the socks on your feet or your personal electronics; rather, it refers to the right to own land and be the sole person who may use it as you will.  Unlike other rights like religion or speech, Private Property is founded upon a pre-requisite that is not available to the majority of humans in the world: wealth.

FUCKING BULLSHIT, RHYD!

That is exactly what private property refers to. From the socks on your feet, to the computer on your desk, to the home you live in. If you have to buy it or make it, it is your private property, no matter how large or small. You lying piece of regressive, backwards looking, troglodyte excrement.

Yes, it is partially a pre-requisite that you be able to buy the shit you own. Because having bought that shit, you own it. It is yours. Be it a toaster oven or a mansion. You worked, you earned it, you have the right to dictate it’s use according to your will. As Above, So Below, Rhyd. It’s basic alchemy and basic philosophy. As is unto the smallest, so unto the greatest.

The Civil Right of Private Property is not about “Everyone Gets One” but about “If you have it, you get to keep it.” But you, in your pathetic, petty jealousies cannot stand the fact that some people have more wealth, more success, and more power than you do and all you can think of is “I wanna tear them down.” Which tells me you’re probably compensating for a lot of things.

Private Property requires money to purchase. More so, it also requires exclusion.  Unlike Freedom of Speech (which doesn’t require other people stay silent) or Freedom of Religion (which doesn’t require other people be excluded from religion), Private Property is a guarantee that the government will protect your right to keep other people from using your property.  More so, you are free to own as much of it as you like and never sell it, thus taking away the ability of other people to own property, as land is a limited resource.

Right, so we’re just gonna…make a few corrections.

Private Property requires money to purchase. More so, it also grants exclusive rights to the things you own.  Like Freedom of Speech (which doesn’t allow other people to silence you, but instead allows you to speak your own mind) or Freedom of Religion (which doesn’t allow other people to force you to belong to a religion, but rather allows you to believe as you will), Private Property is a guarantee that the government will protect your right to keep other people from forcibly using or seizing your property that they have not earned themselves.  More so, you are free to own as much of it as you choose to purchase and sell it as you please. A Right afforded to every citizen who obtains properties via the funds gained through their labor.

Though framed as an individual right, Private Property is a guarantee only to a specific class of people within Liberal Democracies: those with property or the money to purchase it.  Though apparently meant to protect people who own small bits of land where they might subsist or live, the right to Private Property instead favors those who use their property to derive more wealth from it and therefore gain more property.

Theft Rhyd. You are actually arguing for Theft.

You are arguing that because “some people have more” you and your friends should have the right to come in and take things that you a) did not work for, b) do not own, and c) have no legal or civil right to possess.

You are saying that because a person owns a thing, and uses that thing to successfully make money, that they have thus sacrificed all right to that thing they own and the wealth they have gained from it. Be it a farmer with a large plantation, a blacksmith with a forge, or an industrialist with a factory. Because they make money with the things they own, you want to argue that they are evil and they deserve to have those things taken away from them because money.

I own my car Rhyd. I use that to get to my job. I am using my private property to make money. You wanna come take that away Rhyd. Your argument states that because it is property I privately own and that I have an exclusive right to, that I’m using to make money, I do not have a right to own my car and it should be taken away, because by owning my car (a limited resource, there are a finite number of cars out there) I am preventing someone else from owning that car. And thus you and your friends should have the right to come strip me of my property so you can “give it to someone else.”

middle finger

That is, the right to Private Property is a protection of Capital.

What interest might a State have in protecting Capital, though?  The primary argument of Liberal Democracy for the protection of Capital (and therefore Capitalism) is that the rich ‘generate’ wealth for others by paying others to work for them.  The poor who have no property have no other way to survive, and because hungry people are likely to steal or revolt, the poor need access to food. Capitalists pay their workers, who then use the money to buy food from other Capitalists who pay their workers, who then use the money purchase other goods from other Capitalists who pay their workers, etc..

And here we have it, people. The most evil thing in the world According to Rhyd.

People being compensated for their labor.

You know Rhyd, I would think having grown up in “poverty” that you would realize there is not magic cupboard. Food, clothing, etc does not just magically appear. It has to be created. But apparently, somewhere along the way, you decided that everything should be free simply because you’re a human being and you “need” stuff.

And so you advocate for slavery. You advocate that everyone should be forced to create the things you need, and then that they be provided with the things they need. But that they should have no right to own what it is they make, they should have no right to use or keep it as they please, and that in desiring the right to own the results of their personal labors they are immoral monsters who exploit people.

But it is not a free person who lacks these rights. It is a slave. A Slave’s labor is taken, a slave’s labor is controlled, and a slave’s productions are seized. In return, the slave is housed, the slave is fed, and the slave is clothed, but even these things the slave does not own. And you would argue this slavery is in fact the moral way to live because it denies exclusivity and does not prevent others from possessing things they didn’t create or obtain.

marx 1

In an ideal version of such a system, everyone is fed and can get access to what they need, and thus the government doesn’t need to use violence to sustain its existence and doesn’t need to use its resources to keep its citizens alive.

No, the ideal version of the system is that everyone has the right to work as they please, for those who hire them as they please, for an amount that pleases both, to reward each other for the labors enacted, so that you can then go and buy what you either can or will with the rewards of your labor that you privately own. In the hopes that if you buy wisely and work with strong will, you can have an ever better lifestyle for yourself and your family.

Of course, that’s not how any Liberal Democracy has ever functioned, but because we accept the idealised situation as the way it ‘should’ function and see exceptions as aberrations, Liberal Democracy and Capitalism continue mostly unchallenged. But there’s another reason why Liberal Democracies safeguard this system–taxes.

Without money, a government can do nothing. It cannot pay its soldiers or police, its representatives or chancellors or presidents or judges. And because Capitalism is predicated on individuals and groups being free to act without interference by the government, Liberal Democracies cannot generally make money outside of taxes, unlike State-Communist governments or so-called Petro-States.

Did you just…

Wow, Rhyd has actually just made the case for a Totalitarian Government because then the government can make money outside of taxation.

Why you little——-

technical difficulties

So, all the governments of Europe, North America, and much of the rest of the world rely primarily on tax revenue for their income.  Without active (and inflationary) economic activity, there is less of a resource pool to tax.

And yet they tend to be the wealthiest, most powerful governments in the world, where as governments like North Korea or Cuba, who can make more money outside of taxation, tend to be some of the poorest and weakest countries in the world.

I mean, look at North Korea vs South Korea. One is a Marxist dictatorship, and one is by all accounts a liberal democracy.

korea-5ac0a6353ba0201b5cb2fcf37552aee89ee4a258-s6-c30Huh, will you look at that. A nation that can only power its governments through taxation is lit up like the milky way and the nation that can power its governments through any method it chooses is as dark as a black hole. But I guess that’s what happens when you allow geese to lay golden eggs rather than cut them open.

Liberal Democracies tend to glean their taxes from exchange (sales, VAT, wages/income) and static wealth (land, houses). If an economy is inflationary (that is, always growing), a government can have a constant and increasing access to taxes without raising tax rates.  And fortunately, taxes on static wealth (land, housing) help insure that economies become inflationary and more Capitalist.

Oh no, the economy is growing and a nation’s population are leading wealthier, healthier, and more successful lives because their Government is only taking a small portion of their wealth.

Clearly, this needs to stop and the government needs to take all the wealth. Because  all this inequality is inexcusable. It’s better if no one has any lights in their house than, the Gods Forbid, some people might have more lamps than others. After all, for example, the people in North Korea are some of the happiest people in the world! You’d know that if it was pitch black.

This latter part is particularly interesting, and rarely addressed by urban activists concerned with gentrification. When taxes on housing increase, landlords can either take less profit from the rents they charge their tenants, or increase the rent. Increasing rents then reduces the amount of money the tenants have after their income, so they must either work more, spend less on other things, or find a cheaper living situation.  Pressured in such a way by government taxation, the tenants (who are usually workers and already paying income taxes) ,then either demand higher wages (increasing income-tax revenue), work more (again, increasing income-tax revenue), or reduce their spending (causing the government to raise property taxes to increase revenue, thus causing Capitalist property owners to seek more profits and increasing the cycle).

North Korea Best Korea.

kim_jong_un_fat_meme_i11You know, Rhyd talks about all this like it’s a bad thing, but America and most capitalist countries have some of the lowest homeless rates in the world. And as a rule, those who have lower than we do typically reach that number by killing their homeless people.

Alright, we’ll finish this up in the last part.

 

 

Bellona Invicta

Advertisements