Why I will protest next Wednesday


Protest against the raising of tuition fees to £9000. Protest against the cancelling of Educational Maintenance Allowance. Protest against the 35 business leaders who signed the letter of support for Cameron and Osborne. Protest against the cut to childcare credits. Protest against the loss of an estimated 500,000 thousand jobs. Protest against David Cameron using £80,000 of taxpayers money on his second home mortgage interest repayments. Protest against cuts to surestart. Protest against the Liberal Democrats becoming Tories. Protest against David Cameron putting his stylist, his wife’s stylist, and his photographer on Parliamentary payroll. Protest against the CBI supporting public service cuts whilst saying nothing about the FTSE 100 directors giving themselves a massive pay increase. Protest against David Davis’ hopelessly moronic idea that transport workers, firefighters, gas and electric workers, and NHS shouldn’t be allowed to strike. Protest against the empty rhetoric of “We’re all in this together“. Protest against the idea that business leaders are a credible source on economic matters and actually give a shit about any of us; they don’t. Protest against the “big society” bullshit. Protest Baroness Warsi stating that this government “does God“. Protest against Osborne’s £4mn offshore trustfund he stands to inherit yet did fuck all to earn. Protest against big business getting away with obscene tax avoidance whilst benefit fraud is treated like a crime worthy of capital punishment. Protest against the immigration cap. Protest against the jubilant Tory backbenches who jumped up with joy and swung their Parliamentary papers in the air filled with glee the moment Osborne had finished condemning millions to the dole queue. Protest against the constant “Due to the legacy left to us by Labour” bullshit in an attempt to justify every piece of disastrous legislation and cuts they introduce. Protest against a culture of debt. Protest the fact that for some odd reason, Boris Johnson is Mayor of London…… still. Protest against Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, and Nick Clegg. Protest against the cuts to policing and fire protection. Protest the obvious attempt to part privatise the NHS. Protest against the miserable private sector that has reduced our lives to big business bitches and brain dead consumers. Protest against the cuts to the BBC. Protest against the cosying up to the Murdoch family. Protest against the appointment of Philip Green. Protest against the Tories. Protest in support of widespread union action. Protest to get noticed. Protest for common human decency. Protest for everything……

Advertisements

20 Responses to Why I will protest next Wednesday

  1. Black Flag says:

    Keep protesting until someone raises a chicken for you, kills, dresses it and cooks it for you – so that you can steal it from them under the guise “caring government”.

    I’m sure you will eat well.

  2. Sean Moore says:

    When people feel as though their voice won’t get heard and protesting won’t get anything done then I just need to divert them to this article. Makes you think twice at bowing down and letting this Condem government wash over us.

  3. Charles says:

    Private sector has failed, we need a bigger public sector to take its place or people will find themselves unemployed forever.

  4. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    The Private Sector is the only reason you are able to post your comment.

    The “Public” -which really means “thieving by a group”- is unsustainable as it is destructive to social order.

    Labor is just another economic good. When the prices of labor is too high for the service it provides, others will not pay it.

    This will cause labor to be in less demand -we call this “unemployment” from the labor’s point of view- and will last as long as labor refuses to adjust its price OR move to where labor is in more demand.

    Refusing to lower your price and refusing to move to where there is demand – yes, you will suffer a sustained unemployment.

  5. Charles says:

    “The Private Sector is the only reason you are able to post your comment.”

    Sophistry..

    “The “Public” -which really means “thieving by a group”- is unsustainable as it is destructive to social order.”

    Your opinion.

    “Labor is just another economic good. When the prices of labor is too high for the service it provides, others will not pay it.

    This will cause labor to be in less demand -we call this “unemployment” from the labor’s point of view- and will last as long as labor refuses to adjust its price OR move to where labor is in more demand.

    Refusing to lower your price and refusing to move to where there is demand – yes, you will suffer a sustained unemployment.”

    In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Keynes overthrew
    Say’s law and demonstrated the possibility and the likelihood that market systems do not
    tend to fully utilize resources, even under competitive conditions, due to insufficient
    effective demand. Keynes criticized the neoclassical theory of saving and investment,
    arguing that traditional loanable funds theory holds income constant when looking at
    savings and abstracts from expectations when analyzing investment. If aggregate saving
    is primarily a function of income, not interest rates, and investment is determined by the
    expected profitability of investors and lending institutions, then saving does not
    determine investment through variations in the rate of interest, and the economy does not
    automatically tend to full employment. Instead private investment determines savings
    through changes in income, but there is no reason to expect that the full employment
    level of investment will always be undertaken. Keynes’s analysis takes place in historical
    rather than notional (or logical time). The past is unchangeable and the future is
    unknown and unknowable. Money must be understood as an institution for dealing with
    radical uncertainty. The result is that capitalist economies tend to operate with excess
    capacity and unemployment. It is therefore unlikely for a capitalist economy, on its own,
    to attain full employment.

    But capitalist economies have problems maintaining full employment, even if it
    could be attained, due to ongoing structural and technological change, such as changes in
    labour supply and the supply of natural resources, labour- and capital-displacing technical
    change, and changes in the composition of final demand. An economy running at full
    capacity and full employment would be unable to respond to such changes, and sectoral
    imbalance is here added to aggregate imbalance as a further cause of unemployment.
    Bottlenecks and rigidities mean that full employment is likely to be inflationary.

    Structural change will soon result in unemployment, as technology displaces workers in
    one sector and fails to absorb them in another, the formation of real capital fails to keep
    up with the pace of a growing labour supply, or declining demand in one sector fails to be
    offset by demand for new products. Work such as Pasinetti’s (1981) and Lowe’s (1976)
    offers structural models that demonstrate the great unlikelihood of capitalist economies
    maintaining full employment, even if it could be attained.

    The effective demand problem and the structural change problem are economic
    causes of unemployment. But Post Keynesians such as Kalecki ha ve noted that there
    may also be political obstacles to full employment. Since unemployment in Keynes is a
    negative by-product of capitalism, it is viewed as serving no purpose in the capitalist
    system and so is clearly undesirable for all. Kalecki, Steindl, and others, however, have
    highlighted that unemployment may be functional in capitalism, an insight that is drawn
    from Marx’s analysis of the reserve army of labour.
    In Marx, unemployment serves several functions. First, it provides the system
    with a pool of available labour from which to draw when the pace of accumulation
    increases. Second, unemployment serves to discipline workers, who may not fear being
    laid off in an environment of full employment. Third, unemployment holds down wages,
    since one of the ways in which unemployment disciplines workers is to decrease their
    bargaining power and thus keep wages from rising. Thus, in this view, unemployment is
    not only a natural by-product of capitalism, it is essential to its smooth operation.

    Source: – Mathew Forstater, University of Missouri—Kansas City WP20-Forstater.pdf.

  6. Black Flag says:

    “The Private Sector is the only reason you are able to post your comment.”

    Sophistry..

    Your reply is irrational.

    The fact is that private industry has provide you your computer and the Internet for you to do so.

    “The “Public” -which really means “thieving by a group”- is unsustainable as it is destructive to social order.”

    Your opinion.

    Your reply is irrational.

    The fact is, what you DO mean is a group of people who vote themselves a justification for theft.

    Fact: Theft is destructive to social order.

    Thus, fact: the “Public” – in the context you are using – is destructive to social order.

    In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Keynes overthrew

    Say’s law and demonstrated the possibility and the likelihood that market systems do not
    tend to fully utilize resources, even under competitive conditions, due to insufficient
    effective demand.

    Keynesian economics – which is what I posted to futile in the Sparks video – has been wholly refuted. I am not interested in posting the volumes of work that have already been published – you can search them out yourself.

    Pointing to Keynes, then, is …pointless…

    If you were correct, Charles, then there would be no unemployment right now. However, the facts again are against you.

    It would be much better if you argued your own position then your continuing fallacious “appeal to (false) authority”

  7. Charles says:

    If had read it, you would not have posted the following.

    “If you were correct, Charles, then there would be no unemployment right now. However, the facts again are against you.”

    What was posted is there can never be full employment because its impossible and even if there where full employment it would be imposible to maintain. The real problem with unemployment is not the unemployed but the system itself. Even in the boom year the system could not create full employment. Why this is so is outline in my post.

    “Your reply is irrational.

    The fact is that private industry has provide you your computer and the Internet for you to do so.”

    But public owned inductry could too, thats why its sophistry.

    “Your reply is irrational.

    The fact is, what you DO mean is a group of people who vote themselves a justification for theft.

    Fact: Theft is destructive to social order.

    Thus, fact: the “Public” – in the context you are using – is destructive to social order.”

    Again your opinion…

    “Keynesian economics – which is what I posted to futile in the Sparks video – has been wholly refuted. I am not interested in posting the volumes of work that have already been published – you can search them out yourself.

    Pointing to Keynes, then, is …pointless…”

    Keynes still overthrew Say’s law…

    “If you were correct, Charles, then there would be no unemployment right now. However, the facts again are against you.”

    My position is that unemployment is caused by capitalism…

    “It would be much better if you argued your own position then your continuing fallacious “appeal to (false) authority””

    The universal declaration of human rights was agreed by the all members states of the UN. One member state was the UK and the UK’s lawfully elected government acted on my behalf and signed. These are how my lawful rights and as by article 30.

    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

    This is not appeal to authority, this is true because it is a part of UK law, the laws of the country I live in. These are my rights because they had been given to me and they cannot be taken away.

    For those that want to know appeal to authority takes more or less two basic forms…

    1) The first form of the appeal to authority is when a source presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area.

    Note this does not fit my arguement, this document is the reference for the subject matter.

    2)The second form, citing a source who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct.

    Note I appeal to the authority of no person on the subject.

    Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

    A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

    1. A makes claim B;
    2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
    3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.

    The first statement is called a ‘factual claim’ and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an ‘inferential claim’ and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

    I make no claim that there is a person A in my arguements that has above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter as this. I do not claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association with A. I reject the claim of Appeal to authority. My source is the correct source and I do not maintain my position is true because someone else considered as authority maintains my arguement. I sight a document agreed to by all the governments that have joined the UN, including the lawful government of the UK in which I live.

  8. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    What was posted is there can never be full employment because its impossible and even if there where full employment it would be imposible to maintain.

    I retract my statement directed at you.

    My point:
    Labor is an economic good, just like any other economic good.
    It obeys all the same laws of Economics.

    The solution to unemployment is the same solution to any goods in over-abundance and/or low demand.
    It’s price must fall OR be delivered to another market in higher want of such goods.

    Those are the only two solutions – any political solution will be temporary and -in the long term – destructive to labor and the economy.

    The real problem with unemployment is not the unemployed but the system itself. Even in the boom year the system could not create full employment. Why this is so is outline in my post.

    As you correctly said, but probably for the wrong reason, full employment can not exist in a free market – no more than a good/service can be consumed to exhaustion in a free market.

    As labor is consumed (unemployment drops), labor price rises. As it rises, the demand drops.

    This chaotic (that is, no equilibrium or stability exists) negative feedback loop (that is, dynamic self-correcting) is ongoing, sustainble, and natural to human action. No politics is required.

    But public owned inductry could too, thats why its sophistry.

    No, your statement actually is the sophistry.

    Why?

    One, it did not provide your computer nor the Internet. Thus a claim “well -it could” is the direct example of sophistic statement.

    Two, you have failed -again- to provide any argument to how government owned industry can make economic decisions – when the decisions of government owned industry are NOT based on economic decisions – but political ones!

    Without profit/loss as a measure of economic success, government owned business have no economic metric to judge economic outcomes.

    Thus, the use political metrics – such as “favorable or dis favorable” to the voter “wishes” – and that which is consider favorable to voter are called “good” and those that are not are called “in need of more funding”.

    Thus, economic outcomes are ignored in favor of political outcomes which when one ignores economic measure and outcomes it will ALWAYS lead to economic collapse.

    “Your reply is irrational.

    The fact is, what you DO mean is a group of people who vote themselves a justification for theft.

    Fact: Theft is destructive to social order.

    Thus, fact: the “Public” – in the context you are using – is destructive to social order.”

    Again your opinion…

    No, it is a line of reason from principle and immune to opinion.

    You either must disagree with one (or more) of these statements:

    Do you agree or not that the People vote themselves property of other people?

    Do you agree or not that theft is destructive to social order?

    Do you agree or not that an involuntary taking of property from one who owns it is an of theft?

    If you agree to all three – then my statement is true, even for you – hence, cannot be MY opinion.

    If you disagree with any of the three statements, I await your arguments.

    “Keynesian economics – which is what I posted to futile in the Sparks video – has been wholly refuted. I am not interested in posting the volumes of work that have already been published – you can search them out yourself.

    Pointing to Keynes, then, is …pointless…”

    Keynes still overthrew Say’s law…

    Ah, no he didn’t.

    Say’s Law remains irrefutable, and its manifestation is the very experience you are suffering economically.

    You can attempt to resist gravity by jumping – does not mean gravity no longer exists. It simply means – you will be coming back down shortly.

    My position is that unemployment is caused by capitalism…

    Unemployment is caused by supply and demand.

    You can certainly have 100% “employment” by putting everyone on the government payroll – just as you can have all the bread and milk owned and distributed by the government. However, if the latter is your wish, then you will suffer massive shortages of economic goods – as labor is misdirected by Central Planning to areas of the economy that are ineffective.

    Thus, by supply and demand, you can cause extreme shortages of labor, causing a massive increase in its prices and a substantial lowering of its demand. If government, however, prevents the lowering of demand, the cost of labor will remain every higher – and the demand for labor ever lower – with a continuing and never ending requirement of government to prevent such a lowering. Eventually, government has all the labor, and no economy.

    “It would be much better if you argued your own position then your continuing fallacious “appeal to (false) authority””

    The universal declaration of human rights was agreed by the all members states of the UN.

    What part of “appeal to authority” just blows past you?

    One member state was the UK and the UK’s lawfully elected government acted on my behalf and signed.

    But it did not act in my behalf, nor did I sign.

    Now what do you think about that?

    This is not appeal to authority, this is true because it is a part of UK law, the laws of the country I live in. These are my rights because they had been given to me and they cannot be taken away.

    I asked before:
    Since the UN did not exist before 1945, do you claim no Human Rights existed before 1945? Why or why not?

    If the UN dissolved tomorrow, would so your Human Rights? Why or why not?

    For those that want to know appeal to authority takes more or less two basic forms…

    1) The first form of the appeal to authority is when a source presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area.

    Uh, yeah it does apply.

    The are not an authority TO ME or ON ME. So pointing to some jokers in a closet and claiming what they write on a paper is somehow binding on me HAS NO AUTHORITY.

    So try again.

    2)The second form, citing a source who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct.

    Note I appeal to the authority of no person on the subject.

    You are appealing to authority of persons – who do you think the UN is made up of? Cats?

    I do not claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association with A.

    You are guilty of this in all parts.

    You cannot argue human rights without referencing a document – written by men – describing some human rights. You use this document as an attempt to prove that it is the existence of THAT document that creates rights – where it is merely a document DESCRIBING some human rights that all humans always had.

    You further extend your fallacy this way:
    (1) Show Document that DESCRIBES some human rights.
    (2) Claim (out of thin air) that document created those human rights.
    (3) Point to said document writings that erroneously and fallaciously claim other things are human rights.
    (4) Point to claim (20 again, claiming that those must be human rights because the document says so.

    No where do you justify by argument and reason that this document is the creator of rights or determiner of rights or where these rights derived.

    You point ONLY TO THIS AUTHORITY as if it magically dispelled these questions.

    I reject the claim of Appeal to authority.

    I reinforce my claim of fallacy.

  9. Charles says:

    “I retract my statement directed at you.

    My point:
    Labor is an economic good, just like any other economic good.
    It obeys all the same laws of Economics.”

    Labor is people they are not an economic good like any other, there is a difference. There are three schools at least for the laws of economics which one if any of them do you say the laws of Economics come from.

    “The solution to unemployment is the same solution to any goods in over-abundance and/or low demand.
    It’s price must fall OR be delivered to another market in higher want of such goods.”

    Wages cannot drop bellow the level a person can reasonably live from. Wages are so low in some countries that if wages where to drop to that level in the UK people would strave to death. There is no way anyone here on minimum wage here can be expected to live on any less.

    “Those are the only two solutions – any political solution will be temporary and -in the long term – destructive to labor and the economy.”

    Another is change the economic system, to something else.

    As you correctly said, but probably for the wrong reason, full employment can not exist in a free market – no more than a good/service can be consumed to exhaustion in a free market.

    “As labor is consumed (unemployment drops), labor price rises. As it rises, the demand drops.

    This chaotic (that is, no equilibrium or stability exists) negative feedback loop (that is, dynamic self-correcting) is ongoing, sustainble, and natural to human action. No politics is required.”

    “As labor is consumed (unemployment drops), labor price rises. As it rises, the demand drops.”

    The labor price rises and demand to employ people drops. This will always mean that there can never be full employment, if there was, wages would increase greatly. As say above, “Bottlenecks and rigidities mean that full employment is likely to be inflationary.”

    “Your reply is irrational.” Nope.

    “The fact is, what you DO mean is a group of people who vote themselves a justification for theft.”

    Theft is the unlawful taking of property, taxes are not unlawful and if redistribution is voted for by the people it is lawful.

    “Fact: Theft is destructive to social order.”
    Statement…

    “Thus, fact: the “Public” – in the context you are using – is destructive to social order.””

    Fallacy, people can vote for the system they want to live under, if a government is elected to redistribute the wealth (taxes being one way), then it will be lawful.

    Ah, no he didn’t.

    “Say’s Law remains irrefutable, and its manifestation is the very experience you are suffering economically.

    You can attempt to resist gravity by jumping – does not mean gravity no longer exists. It simply means – you will be coming back down shortly.”

    The implication of Say’s “law” “is that a free-market economy is always at what the Keynesian economists call full employment. Say’s law is part of the general world-view of laissez-faire economics, i.e., that free markets can solve the economy’s problems automatically. Here the problems are recessions, stagnation, depression, and involuntary unemployment.”

    “What part of “appeal to authority” just blows past you?”

    Its not appeal to authority that your problem, its a common agreement between all government and is now law. The law of any land cannot change it, it is a list of rights that cannot be changed by anyone.

    “But it did not act in my behalf, nor did I sign.
    Now what do you think about that?”

    The governments of the world gave you and me those rights and yes they did indeed act on our behalf on the people that vote for them at the time. This is true for the UK, say you personal do not agree with them and they are thus invalid is not a strong argument for change.

    “I asked before:
    Since the UN did not exist before 1945, do you claim no Human Rights existed before 1945? Why or why not?”

    UN list of human rights is what was agreed to by all governments for membership of the UN. All states are required to meet them as best they can, this is simply the realality we find ourselves in.

    “If the UN dissolved tomorrow, would so your Human Rights? Why or why not?”

    As far as I know not in the UK as it is a part of UK law but it is very unlikely that the UN will dissolved tomorow with basically 100% membership.

    “Uh, yeah it does apply.

    The are not an authority TO ME or ON ME. So pointing to some jokers in a closet and claiming what they write on a paper is somehow binding on me HAS NO AUTHORITY.

    So try again.”

    It is a part of UK law, as I am giving a source. Appeal to authority is when I say because a group is respected or person is, that must make it true. This is not my argument you can say appeal to authority all you want but you undermine yourself in doing so. This is a case of a voluntary argeement, sign by the lawful government of the UK. Lawful government I mean elected legally by the people in the UK.

    “You are appealing to authority of persons – who do you think the UN is made up of? Cats?”

    You are just trying to desperately trying to make my argument fit appealing to authority. I am not appealing to authority of any one person, just pointing out a legal agreement.

    “You are guilty of this in all parts.”

    I am not guilty of even one part.

    “You cannot argue human rights without referencing a document – written by men – describing some human rights.”

    It just a common agreement of what rights should be, all countries have agreed. Not everyone will agree on everything but that is the nature of a voluntary argeement between a large and very different groups of people.

    “You use this document as an attempt to prove that it is the existence of THAT document that creates rights – where it is merely a document DESCRIBING some human rights that all humans always had.”

    While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights” appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.

    “You further extend your fallacy this way:
    (1) Show Document that DESCRIBES some human rights.
    (2) Claim (out of thin air) that document created those human rights.
    (3) Point to said document writings that erroneously and fallaciously claim other things are human rights.
    (4) Point to claim (20 again, claiming that those must be human rights because the document says so.”

    “No where do you justify by argument and reason that this document is the creator of rights or determiner of rights or where these rights derived.”

    This document just defines what the rights are and every government of the world has agreed to this, and oddly agreed again in 1993. Whats the problem with pointing to an accepted international standard.

    “You point ONLY TO THIS AUTHORITY as if it magically dispelled these questions.”

    It better than making rights up to fit my own narrow arguments. I could just use the right to life under The Human Rights Act 1998 in the Uk and the The European Convention on Human Rights as well, all give the right to life.
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/human-rights-making-sense-human-rights.pdf

    A person has the right to have their life protected by law is an absolute rights, whereas:

    Qualified rights – rights which require a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the wider community or state interest. Include Article 1 of Protocol 1: Protection of property.

    A person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Public authorities cannot usually interfere with things people own or the way they use them, except in specified limited circumstances.

    The government can legally tax you in the UK as this is not against your human rights or UK law. Taxing people cannot be seen as stealing or theft under UK law.

    “You cannot argue human rights without referencing a document – written by men – describing some human rights. You use this document as an attempt to prove that it is the existence of THAT document that creates rights – where it is merely a document DESCRIBING some human rights that all humans always had.”

    Referencing the legal documents of my country, EU and UN. Remember that my government is voted into power by the voluntary action and argeement of the people of the UK.

    “You further extend your fallacy this way:
    (1) Show Document that DESCRIBES some human rights.
    (2) Claim (out of thin air) that document created those human rights.
    (3) Point to said document writings that erroneously and fallaciously claim other things are human rights.
    (4) Point to claim (20 again, claiming that those must be human rights because the document says so.”

    I have now given a source that shows that human rights under debate are also the law of the UK, the country I live in.

    Both the ECHR and human rights act 1998 allow the UK government to do the following.

    Quote human-rights-making-sense-human-rights.pdf page 11
    “The Convention recognises that there are situations where a state must be allowed to decide what is in the best interests of its citizens, and enables a state, or public authority acting on behalf of the state, to restrict the rights of individuals accordingly.”

    Individual rights of ownership can be restrict if they come before the best interests of all citizens in the UK.

    “No where do you justify by argument and reason that this document is the creator of rights or determiner of rights or where these rights derived.”

    UK law created by the lawfully elected government of the UK, The European Convention on Human Rights by the EU (UK is a member)and Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN (UK is also a member).

    I can show that under UK law property is not an absolute right. page 9 http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/human-rights-making-sense-human-rights.pdf

    “You point ONLY TO THIS AUTHORITY as if it magically dispelled these questions.”

    You don’t want to accept anything that does not give you absolute right to everything you own. The truth is in the UK you do have the right to own things but your right to own something can be taken from you in best interests of all UK citizens. The right to property is limited but the right to take life can only be acceptable under certain very limited circumstances, ie self-defence. A person has the right to have their life protected by law, in the UK.

  10. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    Labor is people they are not an economic good like any other, there is a difference.

    Please explain the economic difference between an economic good and an economic good.

    There are three schools at least for the laws of economics which one if any of them do you say the laws of Economics come from.

    Please refer to Austrian School of Economic and its theories.

    Wages cannot drop bellow the level a person can reasonably live from.

    Of course it can!

    How many people make stone axes?

    Wages are not attributed to people, but to the EFFORT of the people.

    You trade your effort for other people’s goods. If people do not value your effort, they will not trade.

    Thus, you can most certainly effort in a field which can fail to supply you with an wage.

    Therefore, if you find yourself unable to earn sufficiently, the answer is NOT to steal the difference from your neighbor, but to change your effort to something more valuable, so to be able to trade for goods.

    There is no way anyone here on minimum wage here can be expected to live on any less.

    Then move to where your effort is found to be more valuable, or change your effort.

    But the choice of stealing goods from your neighbor should never be a choice.

    Another is change the economic system, to something else.

    The laws of Economics are immutable, as are any law of Nature. You can try to change your system of politics as a means to change the laws of Nature however, Nature always wins.

    The labor price rises and demand to employ people drops. This will always mean that there can never be full employment, if there was, wages would increase greatly.

    Again, you are correct – but do not understand why you are correct, thus, provide an irrational “what if”.

    There never will be full employment, for that will mean total exhaustion of the economic good called “labor”, which will push the cost of labor toward infinity, and no one will pay for it. Thus, the economy would not exist.

    But an economy always exists – thus, the laws of Economics will enforce itself is such a manner to reverse any and all attempts at exhaustion of economic goods – including labor.

    As say above, “Bottlenecks and rigidities mean that full employment is likely to be inflationary.”

    Inflation is not caused by the increase or decrease in the price or availability of labor.

    Inflation is completely caused by the artificial increase in the money supply. Period.

    The CONSEQUENCES of this artificial increase MAY impact the supply and demand of economic goods – including labor.

    “Your reply is irrational.” Nope.

    “The fact is, what you DO mean is a group of people who vote themselves a justification for theft.”

    Theft is the unlawful taking of property, taxes are not unlawful and if redistribution is voted for by the people it is lawful.

    Fallacy as it is circular. Legal is what government says is legal.

    By your claim, thus, the slaughter of the Nazi of the Jews and others was perfectly legal.

    Your attempt to redefine words destroys your argument.

    Theft:

    taking of another person’s property without that person’s freely-given consent.

    Thus, you have agreed that the People vote themselves the property of others with a JUSTIFICATION (as you have demonstrated – by calling it “legal”).

    Check One

    “Fact: Theft is destructive to social order.”
    Statement…

    Yes, called a FACT

    Check Two.

    “Thus, fact: the “Public” – in the context you are using – is destructive to social order.””

    As you have agreed to (1) and (2), (3) must be true.

    people can vote for the system they want to live under, if a government is elected to redistribute the wealth (taxes being one way), then it will be lawful.

    You are in serious logical error.

    I did not say anything about “legal” – I pointed to the fact of theft and its destruction of social order.

    It matters no one wit that you declare this destruction of social order “legal”, just it matters not one wit whether you declare the slaughter of Jews legal – Social order is destroyed by theft (and murder) – “legal” or not – and worse, faster and more severe if such a theft (or murder) is declared legal for there is a prohibition against free men from PREVENTING this theft (or murder) by the force and violence of government.

    The implication of Say’s “law” “is that a free-market economy is always at what the Keynesian economists call full employment. Say’s law is part of the general world-view of laissez-faire economics, i.e., that free markets can solve the economy’s problems automatically. Here the problems are recessions, stagnation, depression, and involuntary unemployment.”

    Let’s review what Say said:
    “…products pay for products…”

    General Analysis (Wiki):
    “the means to increase purchasing power is further production of valued resource.”

    …in other words, to become wealthy, you need to produce more value or more valued goods……

    And your error, re: Keynesian Theory and his mistake:
    … Say’s Law did not posit that (as per the Keynesian formulation of Say’s Law) “supply creates its own demand”…..

    Say never said this at all – it was Keynes who was erroneous in his understanding of Say, and the same error you carry now.

    Because of your error, your analysis is wholly faulty – and thus, equally, your conclusions are disastrous

    Mises proved that Bubbles – and thus Recessions – and thus Depressions are a complete consequence of Central Bank (and Government) intervention into the market place by the creation of artifical money and credit.

    As Keynes is the proponent of massive intervention into the market place by government (central bank) effort, the Boom/Crack up scenarios are wholly their consequence and feature.

    It is impossible to have a Recession/Depression in a free market – the proof of Mises has never been refuted.

    “What part of “appeal to authority” just blows past you?”

    Its not appeal to authority that your problem, its a common agreement between all government and is now law.

    Agreement between force of evil do not create my rights.

    Your continuing assertion that others who you CLAIM are an authority can determine my rights continues your fallacy of “Authority”

    The law of any land cannot change it

    If a human made a law, a human can change a law.

    Therefore, depending on government law for you rights, freedom, health and wealth is a fool’s game.

    The governments of the world gave you

    You cannot give to me what I already have.

    and me those rights and yes they did indeed act on our behalf on the people that vote for them at the time.

    Whether they act on your behalf is irrelevant. You agree to it then.

    Your agreement is not MY agreement, nor binding upon me

    This is true for the UK, say you personal do not agree with them and they are thus invalid is not a strong argument for change.

    I do not seek “change”.
    I seize freedom.

    And, Charles, it is the ONLY VALID ARGUMENT that a man is not bound by the agreements (or disagreements) of others.

    Since the UN did not exist before 1945, do you claim no Human Rights existed before 1945? Why or why not?”

    UN list of human rights is what was agreed to by all governments for membership of the UN. All states are required to meet them as best they can, this is simply the realality we find ourselves in.

    As you did not answer the question, I ask it again:

    Since the UN did not exist before 1945, do you claim no Human Rights existed before 1945? Why or why not?”

    I know you will not answer this question – since the answer you give will destroy your position. Either rights existed before the UN, and the UN is redundant, OR you claim the UN is the deliverer of Human Rights, and no Human had rights before the UN (which is wholly and factually untrue).

    “If the UN dissolved tomorrow, would so your Human Rights? Why or why not?”

    As far as I know not in the UK as it is a part of UK law but it is very unlikely that the UN will dissolved tomorow with basically 100% membership.

    Again, you did not answer the question – and I understand why.

    I am not guilty of even one part.

    Yes, sir, you are. Your proclamation of innocence of this “crime” of fallacy does you no good.

    This document just defines what the rights are

    No, it does not.

    It THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS — is a declaration, not a definition.

    Try again, Charles.

    It better than making rights up to fit my own narrow arguments. I could just use the right to life under The Human Rights Act 1998 in the Uk and the The European Convention on Human Rights as well, all give the right to life.

    No human has a right to life as the Universe provides no such capability.

    Thus your argument here begins with a false assumption, and thus cannot be true.

    A person has the right to have their life protected by law is an absolute rights, whereas:

    Law does not create rights, Charles as already proven above.

    I have now given a source that shows that human rights under debate are also the law of the UK, the country I live in.

    And thus, continue to committ fallacy (2) – pointing to a DESCRIPTION of SOME rights as a DETERMINER of ALL rights.

    You cannot seem to avoid your error.

    “You point ONLY TO THIS AUTHORITY as if it magically dispelled these questions.”

    You don’t want to accept anything that does not give you absolute right to everything you own.

    You erroneously leap to MY conclusion where you have made no argument to justify it.

    I do not accept strange men in a room writing word on paper that claim they bind me to their words.

    Again I ask you:

    If I write word on a paper, will you submit to them? Why or why not?

    The truth is in the UK you do have the right to own things

    I have the right everywhere on Earth and everywhere in the Universe – such is a Human Right.

    but your right to own something can be taken from you in best interests of all UK citizens.

    A lie.

    You cannot claim stealing from some for the benefit of some is a good for ALL.

    SOME of the People can justify their evil in any manner they chose – it is still an act of evil. And yes, they can ask the State to do the vile act on their behalf – for theft is profitable and when these People find easy profit in plunder, there will be a substantial and ever-increasing demand of such plunder.

    However, the society will begin to crumble around them as men who create and earn begin to withdraw their goods and services as a method of reducing their loss, and -eventually- these men will revolt against the plunder and great violence will overcome the society.

  11. diarygirl13 says:

    Did you protest in the end ? What uni did you go with?

  12. Black Flag says:

    Hope Futile avoided the pillaging….

  13. I did protest!
    Demontfort Uni. How about you?

    As much as the violence was deplored……… seeing socialist leaflets get thrown from the top of Conservative Party HQ, and fall in their thousands like rain, was a little bit poetically beautiful.

  14. Black Flag says:

    The irony,

    Your protest was futile OR it will be successful.

    Either way, it will be futile.

  15. diarygirl13 says:

    Yeah I protested with my college for my sister 🙂
    Brilliant, I was going to try and find you on facebook only to realize that I didn’t even know your name :$
    Yeah the way you wrote it was rather poetic too 😀

    ps. who is this black flag person?

  16. Black Flag says:

    I am a curmudgeon who plagues Futile with reason, logic and ethics whenever he strays.

  17. He is a relentless market fundamentalist who believes police, roads, fire, health, education should all be private.
    I disagree with him.
    Like he says, a plague.
    My facebook: http://www.facebook.com/presidentjamie

  18. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    Actually, I am a freedom fundamentalist, which has a consistent consequence of believing that free men in voluntary trade is the best economic organization for mankind.

    As such, using a gun to force free men to pay for your stuff is revolting (pun intended).

  19. Dingo250 says:

    Protest or not to protest but do go to TheGreaterReality.com for higher consciousness.

  20. No commercial advertising on my blog, thanks 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: