#walkaway

[Doctor Cringelord]

Im at work, but I'll reply what I've gleaned from this.

If I reduce this down to its simplest form. Neo-Liberalism is essentially perfect market vs worker rights, and worker rights preventing a perfect market.

I think you are overexaggerating its affects, like we all suddenly become chinese sweatshops if Neo-Liberalism wins. That isn't the case at all. Not much would change, and there are many positives too, like deinflation, and more emphasis on individual responsibility. (Putting away your own retirement/health care) You've been convinced you can't have vacations, and days off without workers rights under neo-liberalism. That isn't the case at all, because you still get to choose where you work. Companies will still offer the same benefits to compete, even in a perfect free market, because it can't go backwards. People won't work in sweatshop enviroments unless there is literally zero jobs, they'd just go on welfare instead.

I think free markets are good, and deregulation good. But I also support workers rights too, but I think entitlement and hand holding is an issue. I don't think its black and white, and both are important. Unions are obsolete in my opinion, the moment federal workers rights were a thing. All they've turned into, is a parasite that benefits the union administration more than the workers in it. I also think insurance is a scam/money laundering scheme that once again just funnels all the money into administration and not actual workers like doctors and teachers.

I think the government should not regulate the market, but how buisnesses obtain assets, and use money in certain ways. For example, the USA has a massive issue with monopolies, posing as two entities who do not actually compete which ramps up prices (Like ISPs) and never change in quality. The government should step in and say "If you don't improve your business quality in 5 years, you pay x fine." Then do a cost/benefit analysis of how it is run, where their money is going etc. So the ISPs will scramble to improve their service, and stop paying the CEO and administration insane amounts, and having to higher more people to improve their infastructure. ISPs haven't updated their infrastructure since the 60s, just FYI.

It’s hard to reconcile free markets with worker’s rights. I don’t know if it’s even possible to have both simultaneously. Not to mention consumer rights.

 

[Maou]

It’s hard to reconcile free markets with worker’s rights. I don’t know if it’s even possible to have both simultaneously. Not to mention consumer rights.

The problem isnt either, but corruption between corperations and government regulations. This corruption is prevalent in both insurance and health care especially. Its essentially hyper inflation designed to benefit the highest people in administration, while fucking over employees. It's a very elaborate money laundering scheme, using the economy.

 

[Vendrah]

If I reduce this down to its simplest form. Neo-Liberalism is essentially perfect market vs worker rights, and worker rights preventing a perfect market.

I think you are overexaggerating its affects, like we all suddenly become chinese sweatshops if Neo-Liberalism wins. That isn't the case at all. Not much would change, and there are many positives too, like deinflation, and more emphasis on individual responsibility. (Putting away your own retirement/health care) You've been convinced you can't have vacations, and days off without workers rights under neo-liberalism. That isn't the case at all, because you still get to choose where you work. Companies will still offer the same benefits to compete, even in a perfect free market, because it can't go backwards. People won't work in sweatshop enviroments unless there is literally zero jobs, they'd just go on welfare instead.

I haven't said anything you say I did say (specially in bold). I did not said anything about vacations or "chinese sweatshops" (it would be more like Paraguayan sweatshops if I would say something like that).
I think you had diverged a little hehehehehhehe. I explained why right neoliberalism gives them a right to mistreat Mc Donald's employees - actually, why it does encourage them to do so. I did all of that inside the framework of neoliberalism, and none of my assumptions are exaggeration, but rather their exaggeration: The market perfection and the merit assumption basically says "the market tells your worth fairly", these are common and automatic neoliberalism assumptions.

And secondly, "perfect market vs worker rights" is actually a manipulation trick of using fake dichotomies or very doubtfully dichotomies as if they were certain, common trick. I don't think that this really has any support (think on MBTI terms... For example, Intuition vs Sensing has the support that there is a negative correlation between how sensor you are and how intuitive you are... A fake dichotomy would be, for example, "you can be either An Intuitive or a Feeler"), but if still, there are perhaps dozens or thousands of things that are versus the perfect market in realistic terms. This is more like "neoliberalism/'libertarians' vs worker rights". But I know by the other parts of the text that this is actually not really coming for you - one of the sources that you read frequently common use this dichotomy. They probably just say a bunch of bad things about the worker rights, say the Unions and workers rights are corrupt, and try to make you imply that the market isn't (if one side of dichotomy is corrupt, then the other should not be corrupt - that is how the trick works, not me really saying it), and basically they say a bunch of bad things from one side of dichotomy to make you imply that the other side is good (this is the general form of the trick).

And third, even though this is already me joining a little bit of the derail, the assumption that works are really free is actually false. There is always unemployment - the common capitalist measure for unemployment is positive, % of unemployed, and not % of job vacation. Employees must have a job to survive. So, they are not really that free to choose - if every employer abuses, they must pick one of them, and in places like my country you should even be thankful that you have a job and thank your employer even if the job is shitty (just as an example of how the market can suck with people).

I think free markets are good, and deregulation good. But I also support workers rights too, but I think entitlement and hand holding is an issue. I don't think its black and white, and both are important. Unions are obsolete in my opinion, the moment federal workers rights were a thing. All they've turned into, is a parasite that benefits the union administration more than the workers in it. I also think insurance is a scam/money laundering scheme that once again just funnels all the money into administration and not actual workers like doctors and teachers.

I think the government should not regulate the market, but how buisnesses obtain assets, and use money in certain ways. For example, the USA has a massive issue with monopolies, posing as two entities who do not actually compete which ramps up prices (Like ISPs) and never change in quality. The government should step in and say "If you don't improve your business quality in 5 years, you pay x fine." Then do a cost/benefit analysis of how it is run, where their money is going etc. So the ISPs will scramble to improve their service, and stop paying the CEO and administration insane amounts, and having to higher more people to improve their infastructure. ISPs haven't updated their infrastructure since the 60s, just FYI.

Well, this is already a little bit of derail since this does no longer has anything to do with my reasoning about why neoliberalism in the right wing does encourage their followers to mistreat Mc Donald's employees.

 

[Vendrah]

It’s hard to reconcile free markets with worker’s rights. I don’t know if it’s even possible to have both simultaneously. Not to mention consumer rights.

Well, that depends on what you understand as free market, what are the worker and consumer rights you are talking about.
Neoliberalism demands a lot of things before they say the market is free, so there is a lot of things that are hard to reconcile with neoliberalism.
Some worker rights and consumer rights are or can be quite abusive on the other side, or hyper extensive, to the point that they can become hard to reconcile with a lot of things as well.

I do believe these things can be integrated simultaneously on an optimized path - but the real issue is to finally get directly into the question of "what to optimize?", which the answer can be efficiency (GDP Per Capita/Hours worked), general GDP, HDI, lots of things actually... But things that are direct measures of "performance", not something as "minimize state" or "maximize market" that is not at all related to any sort of "performance", but then we are really talking more of my own ideology then anything neolib.

 

[Maou]

This is the guy who founded #walkaway, and I can't believe no one posted his #walkaway lol. So here you go.

Also, yeah some of the #walkaway stuff is fake. I also know where they originated from. But it's like, not uncommon. In fact, there is a lot of propaganda online, on social media especially. But not all of it, and you shouldn't discount the real ones.

 

[anticlimatic]

It’s hard to reconcile free markets with worker’s rights. I don’t know if it’s even possible to have both simultaneously. Not to mention consumer rights.

It's hard to give workers any rights (that cost money) if their company isn't profitable and able to survive long term. Free markets make that happen. You can kind of do both halfassedly. But profit has to take precedence in the balance, hard pill to swallow though it may be.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's hard to give workers any rights (that cost money) if their company isn't profitable and able to survive long term. Free markets make that happen. You can kind of do both halfassedly. But profit has to take precedence in the balance, hard pill to swallow though it may be.

I truly believe worker owned business is the best way to go. The emphasis on profits isn’t overshadowed as much as it would be with heavy union or government intervention. The idea here is you actually do get something close to the self regulating markets that ancaps and right libertarians want; but at the same time, workers will be more likely to consider “the little guy” but without doing so at the expense of prosperity and the bottom line. It’s a win-win and the closest we can get to having our cake and eating it too

 

[Red Memories]

I truly believe worker owned business is the best way to go. The emphasis on profits isn’t overshadowed as much as it would be with heavy union or government intervention. The idea here is you actually do get something close to self regulating markets; workers will be more likely to consider “the little guy” but without doing so at the expense of prosperity and the bottom line

Please run for office I'd vote for you kthxbye

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Please run for office I'd vote for you kthxbye

That’s the only hard part though. You can’t force companies to sell to their workers. But we could at least implement strong incentives like tax breaks for companies that decide to go that route. Were I in government, all I could really do is make the case to other elected officials and try to get bipartisan support to pass strong incentives into law

I’ve seen arguments that it would kill productivity and profits, and yet there are more and more examples of successful worker owned businesses popping up. proponents have aargued that workers tend to take a more active, productive role when they have a greater stake in the company’s planning and direction

 

[Red Memories]

That’s the only hard part though. You can’t force companies to sell to their workers. But we could at least implement strong incentives like tax breaks for companies that decide to go that route. Were I in government, all I could really do is make the case and try to get bipartisan support to pass strong incentives into law

I’ve seen arguments that it would kill productivity and profits, and yet there are more and more examples of successful worker owned businesses popping up. proponents have aargued that workers tend to take a more active, productive role when they have a greater stake in the company’s planning and direction

Dude you should see how people flock to the Winco's here, which are employee owned sort of type like this, and the employees actually feel more respected and more drive to do the work there. It's kind of amazing to see honestly. XD

 

[anticlimatic]

I truly believe worker owned business is the best way to go. The emphasis on profits isn't overshadowed as much as it would be with heavy union or government intervention. The idea here is you actually do get something close to the self regulating markets that ancaps and right libertarians want; but at the same time, workers will be more likely to consider "the little guy" but without doing so at the expense of prosperity and the bottom line. It's a win-win and the closest we can get to having our cake and eating it too

As someone who owns his own buisness I concur that ownership is the best way to go. Oddly enough I seem to want the same thing you do, though I more focus on things that incentive small buisness (1 to a handful of workers/partners). Socialism works very well in microcosms- even and especially the most conservative types employ it with their groups or families. I think it can only work if you can see and care about the people involved. My business is a three way partnership split with my two brothers, all of us just working for what's best for all of us, never nitpicking about who earns more. It's easy when you can see and interact and know very well the people in your group. Once facelessness sets in, after the group reaches a certain size, the intimacy required to fuel the engine of socialistic buisness inverts- and people retreat into feelings of isolation, and needing just to take and defend resources before someone else does.

Why do we need a few behemoths when we could instead have many small options?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

As someone who owns his own buisness I concur that ownership is the best way to go. Oddly enough I seem to want the same thing you do, though I more focus on things that incentive small buisness (1 to a handful of workers/partners). Socialism works very well in microcosms- even and especially the most conservative types employ it with their groups or families. I think it can only work if you can see and care about the people involved. My business is a three way partnership split with my two brothers, all of us just working for what's best for all of us, never nitpicking about who earns more. It's easy when you can see and interact and know very well the people in your group. Once facelessness sets in, after the group reaches a certain size, the intimacy required to fuel the engine of socialistic buisness inverts- and people retreat into feelings of isolation, and needing just to take and defend resources before someone else does.

Why do we need a few behemoths when we could instead have many small options?

Yes. I concede socialism won’t work well on a massive scale like the USSR, with a remote central authority. I like the idea of localized socialism, mutualism, and bottom-up government founded on anarchist principles. Any central authority should be very limited, any President or leader limited in their reach. Caribbean Pirates of the early 18th century elected captains. Captains usually didn’t make decisions without majority support (out of fear of being stranded at the next desert isle), except during battle. I think the founders had something similar in mind but it was never executed all that well.

Shared power between local and federal government is still a good idea, but I’d split the states up more, they’re still mostly too large to effectively meet the needs and wants of a majority. Take California or a Texas for instance. Too many competing interests and regions in such massive states. I’d split most of the states up into much smaller administrative regions, so the people in each region maintained maximum possible sovereignty and authority. I’d model my ideal system partly after the Iroquois system. We could retain larger administrative zones so long as the central authority of each were severely limited and held accountable to each of the smaller districts. Technically we already have this, but it’s so broken and often a central authority is still calling shots without full support of or consideration for all of their constituent districts. My ideal system would make it much harder for external interest groups to influence government at the national level without overwhelming majority support of citizens

 

[anticlimatic]

There is nothing more empowering than standing up for what you believe in. Don't let people take away your power. Don't get the government tell you you're oppressed. Don't let people tell you you're wrong. Scrolling through facebook is hard, it's hard to see the hate from people. And this campaign is where I come at the end of the night to scroll through other people's stories, because it gives me hope- that there aren't such terrible people out there. Everyone here is so accepting and so loving and so kind, and those are the people I choose to have around me.

 

[Jonny]

The Republican party is betraying its constituents and refusing to help #stopthesteal. A clear message must be sent that those who refuse to support the rightfully reelected President Donald J. Trump will be punished.

I think Trump supporters should form their own political party.

#walkaway

Pro-Trump Attorney Urges Republicans Not to Vote in Georgia Runoff | Newsmax.com

 

[Maou]

The Republican party is betraying its constituents and refusing to help #stopthesteal. A clear message must be sent that those who refuse to support the rightfully reelected President Donald J. Trump will be punished.

I think Trump supporters should form their own political party.

#walkaway

Pro-Trump Attorney Urges Republicans Not to Vote in Georgia Runoff | Newsmax.com

Totally agree with them forming their own party, but like with many things, and the reason it doesn't happen. Is financial backing and media support. Sanders is a failed good example of what would happen. By failed, I mean his primary against Clinton was probably fraudulent. Trump supporters on the other hand, either go pure Lib, or pure National Justice party. Neither of which are viable and will destroy Republican base.

 

[Dreamer]

Welp, WalkAway was just obliterated from Facebook with associated group leaders having their personal accounts removed too.

I remember a time when the Internet was the bastion of free thought and exchange of ideas, welcome to China part deux.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Welp, WalkAway was just obliterated from Facebook with associated group leaders having their personal accounts removed too.

I remember a time when the Internet was the bastion of free thought and exchange of ideas, welcome to China part deux.

As silly as I thought the movement was, and as disingenuous as I thought some of the people were, I think that's a bit much. I don't usually vocalize my stance on speech and social media because people assume I'm right wing for my position. Private companies, yes, I get that, but they operate largely in the public sphere, so they have a certain responsibility, especially since they are essentially virtual public forums. My position on it is actually coming more from a classically progressive (i.e. Theodore Roosevelt stance) on business.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Dreamer]

As silly as I thought the movement was, and as disingenuous as I thought some of the people were, I think that's a bit much. I don't usually vocalize my stance on speech and social media because people assume I'm right wing for my position. Private companies, yes, I get that, but they operate largely in the public sphere, so they have a certain responsibility, especially since they are essentially virtual public forums. My position on it is actually coming more from a classically progressive (i.e. Theodore Roosevelt stance) on business.

Totally! I completely understand if people want to throw out the news as silly or whatever because while it’s not a Trump focused organization, there is certainly some overlap, but ultimately, it sets a very bad precedent and message to everyone IMO, that’s why I felt I had to post the message.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Totally! I completely understand if people want to throw out the news as silly or whatever because while it’s not a Trump focused organization, there is certainly some overlap, but ultimately, it sets a very bad precedent and message to everyone IMO, that’s why I felt I had to post the message.

At this point, IDGF. I um utterly sick of these people's shit. They have politics that is based on nothing but being as asshole. I had to listen to these fuckwads for four years talk about how people were overreacting to the election and they would never get upset if they lost an election. They're dumb fuckwads who showed me what exactly they wanted the past four years; there is no way I can possibly give any of them the benefit of the doubt from here on out.

BTW, I never saw you act so horrified during the Tree of Life shooting. Very telling that this is the most upset I've seen you during the past 4 years.