: I must admit I'm not knowledgable as to the McDonalds case, the site updates on it occasionally but it isnt something that interests a great many people. If McD's is lying and trying to coerce/ threaten with violence the people criticising it then to hell with them. If they have a case (that the criticism is false in some way) then there is the lengthy case.But shouldn't I have the right to bad mouth something if I want provided I'm not causing harm to anyone or inciting it my angst should be a God given right, natural right, prole right etc.
Corporates and businesses, the big money interests, arent people anyway.
: "damn that state it wants to take away our rifles" - thats funny.
: By the way - whats worse? McDonalds lying about itself to a largely disinterestd public (sadly or whatever you may feel about the apathy), or a government that systematically seeks to deny the right to self defence, and to place all other rights at the provisional behest of the state?
McDonalds does exactly all the things you have accused the state of Gee and then some, for instance employing union busters to prevent people organising in self defense against their employers, who are the real tyrants.
The "right to self defense" isnt something I love, we have it here in sudden death mode where paramilitaries make pre-emptive or retalitory strikes against people who are totally innocent and who's only crime is not fitting with their evil vision, it's happening in your country to with the White Power fanatics defending themselves against illusionary enamies by machine gunning jewish playgrounds etc.
: : The non-aggression principle? You mean the non-competition principle. The ability of one set of people to defeat another in a fight etc. or kill them is competition like any other. Facist competitiveness is nothing more than the philosophy of capitalism taken to a fanatical extreme.
: Killing eachother is an anathema to any kind of libertarianism and a real profit killer to any kind of capitalist. it is the foodstuff of warring tribes and nation states thogh.
In your philosophy, there's more things in heaven and earth than in your philosophy, competition leads to more savage competition, what your saying is that by choice people should restrict this competition, if that's your line fine, restrictions good, I'd prefer abolition but restrictions good.
: : Sounds a bit rehtorical, what about the captured loot that Microsoft etc. has acquired?
: Who did they steal what from? Did they engage in industrial espionage and break other intellectual rights?
No but I do see that prefer low cost nations in the third world or second world for production, this is blackmail on the Labour friendly nations or those who dont love servility, to the workers involved that's theft, theft of a higher wage, theft of better working conditions, theft of days off because they make regulation impossible.
Besides I see they are being investigated for trying to monopolise the internet. Microsoft is a government in exile Gee wake up, I credit you with more sense.
: : So what kind of organisation would you suggest? strikes are about preventing work, if scabs get in then the whole exercise is pointless,
: What you call scabs are normal people. If the 1000 employees go on strike and find that another 1000 are eagerly waiting at the door the enxt morning then it would be useful to rethink their demands in the light of the other 1000 finding conditions good enough to work in.
Rethink their demands?! Why do you empathise with business?! Why are they right?! For christ sake when the unions arent operating to a political agenda (like trying to establish a stalinistic republic or something, which they dont any more) but are trying to improve material conditions can you feel no empathy with them?
:In other words, when it comes to work, if you dont like it you odnt have the right to stop others from doing it.
You do. What about when it comes to work you dont have the right to monopolise it's provision as every corp and big money interest group has prevent every decent government from doing this century.
: : My thought exactly they arent ken on tax evasion like the rest though and they have used tactical exchanges of shares etc. to try and sabotage some bastard businesses etc. so I'm not as hard on them as all that. Again socialism isnt voluntary poverty.
: The so called 'ethical trusts' tend to perform less well than the usual ones. Thats ok if you want to perform worse and destroy potential wealth, but if someone wants a nice retirement and is forced to have 'ethical funds' managed by self appointed high horses of the market then their basically being robbed to the extent they could have invested elsewhere.
Well they all live well and are satisfied, as one of them says money does bring happiness but after a while it just brings more money.
Read about the case of a man who was convicted for major, major fraud in the US and his excuse was that he couldn't stand the dishonour of being only tenth richist and most powerful person in the world, that kind of selfishness and lack of scrupiles disgusts me and it's idealised by so many market hacks like you.
: Hence you can choose to have it or not have it.
Well if you please the king he is bound to reward you with prestige in his court. Obey, Conform, Consume.
: : Demand equals power no? They shouldnt be allowed to use this to their advantage, for instance, the police are in demand because they give the illusion of order when as the socialist Tom Paine suggested the vast majority of order exists not because of the state, maybe even in spite of it.
: I would agree there. People are not avoiding murder and mayhem because they might get arrested, the police cannot stop a crime from happening in any meaningful way, people simply dont do it anway, in general
Read Tom Paine Gee, he's a Libertarian Socialist.
