New Yorkers who are relatively apolitical tend to vote Democrat just because that's the culturally normal thing to do there. As more and more of them witness the disaster of illegal immigration, I see two possible outcomes: either 1. they start to vote for conservatives, or 2. they pressure Democrat leadership to abandon their pro-illegal policy, and start deporting all of these criminals.

tend to vote Democrat just because that’s the culturally normal thing to do there

Do you have evidence to support this? Because that is an incredibly simple explanation for something very complicated.

they start to vote for conservatives

Democrats just don’t do that. The GOP is way to extreme for that to happen.

they pressure Democrat leadership to abandon their pro-illegal policy, and start deporting all of these criminals.

Seems to me that they are more than willing to do what is needed to help those in need. I truly find it bizarre how helping people is seen as a bad thing. And I find it bizarre how dehumanizing them is the norm.

Do you have evidence to support this?

Just my personal impression from having lived in urban leftist areas. I'm not including anyone who's keyed into politics, just the other 80%.

Democrats just don’t do that.

The Democrat Party is a coalition. Democrats who believe strongly in political ideals, and who believe Republicans are evil (or close to it) would never vote Republican, sure. But I'm not talking about them. Many Democrats vote as they do just because that's what their friends and families do, and they've never been given a reason to question it. Those are the folks I spoke of, and there's a ton of them.

Seems to me that they are more than willing to do what is needed to help those in need. I truly find it bizarre how helping people is seen as a bad thing. And I find it bizarre how dehumanizing them is the norm.

We're talking about illegals here, not normal immigrants. The distinction is crucial.

When somebody's very first act on American soil is to break the law, that person is a criminal with no regard for civility. Compassion is appropriate when they remain in their home countries, fighting against their oppressors. Compassion is inappropriate for criminals who invade our country with the express purpose of breaking our laws.

Legal immigrants, who I hope have been carefully vetted for American values, are welcome to share our blessed home and our Judeo-Christian values and rugged individualism. Illegal immigrants, otoh, are by definition not.

Just my personal impression from having lived in urban leftist areas. I’m not including anyone who’s keyed into politics, just the other 80%.

It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.

We’re talking about illegals here, not normal immigrants.

There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.

When somebody’s very first act on American soil is to break the law, that person is a criminal with no regard for civility.

It’s a misdemeanor, and most often they do so because America has destroyed their country and are seeking refuge. If civility was important, perhaps the U.S. should have thought twice about destabilizing Latin American countries and destabilizing entire ecosystems.

Compassion is appropriate when they remain in their home countries, fighting against their oppressors.

That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.

Legal immigrants, who I hope have been carefully vetted for American values, are welcome to share our blessed home and our Judeo-Christian values and rugged individualism. Illegal immigrants, otoh, are by definition not.

Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation for a family who has nothing but the clothes on their backs, and are actively being hunted by cartels, loan sharks, etc?

It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences. It's important to be transparent that an anecdote is just an anecdote, but there's nothing unwise about basing an argument off one, provided the anecdotal source is transparent.

There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.

There's a world of difference.

A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they're a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe "liberty or death" — American values. They are the kind of people who are law-abiding, and patriotic.

Illegals are a different type altogether. They're willing to break the law either because they're hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.

I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don't own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that's actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that's your perspective, you don't see a difference because you're not an American at heart.

It’s a misdemeanor, so you are severely exaggerating the severity of the crime.

Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel. I don't care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you're absolutely wrong.

[…] because America has destroyed their country […]

Cry me a river. I don't support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.

That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.

I have some Jewish ancestors who died in the holocaust. If they'd been armed, and fought back, they'd have died respectable deaths, and there'd have been no concentration camps. I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn't fight like a man.

Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation […]

If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.

Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is moral. Jesus knew that.

I offer you Romans 13:1-2:

Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Now to be fair, there's also Acts 5:29, which says:

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.

But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I'd advocate for asylum. I've never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there's a non-zero chance it could happen.

Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences.

And that’s good for day to day living, but not for policy. The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.

A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they’re a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe “liberty or death” — American values.

That applies to most migrants that cross illegally. And not all legal immigrants are christian. A lot of them are non-christian, about 40% to be exact:

pewresearch.org/…/the-religious-affiliation-of-us…

They’re willing to break the law either because they’re hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.

As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.

I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don’t own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that’s actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that’s your perspective, you don’t see a difference because you’re not an American at heart.

This is just a sweeping generalization, to the point that it’s almost a joke.

Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel.

I’m not seeing any real point here, so I will move on.

is the bottom of the barrel. I don’t care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you’re absolutely wrong. (Edit: I take it back in the case of resisting tyranny.)

So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.

Cry me a river. I don’t support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.

Families are not soldiers.

I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn’t fight like a man.

And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.

If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.

This has to be a troll, lol

I offer you Romans 13:1-2:

That doesn’t dismiss my point.

But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I’d advocate for asylum. I’ve never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there’s a non-zero chance it could happen.

It’s not worth my time to aim for such a ridiculous goal post.

The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.

I do agree with that.

about 40% to be exact

Wow, that's super interesting. About halfway down the page it says:

Of the approximately 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2011, an estimated 9.2 million (83%) are Christians, mostly from Latin America.

So USCIS exhibits values that misalign with my own, but that's not entirely surprising. What is surprising, to me at least, is that my personal values are more closely aligned with illegal immigrants than legal immigrants. I'm going to have to digest that fact for a while.

As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.

Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.

So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.

Sorry, no, that's not what I meant. I meant:

• Breaking the law is generally a bad thing to do, whether it's a misdemeanor, felony, or whatever.
• Breaking into a country to break that country's law is what I called "bottom of the barrel".
• Breaking the law to resist tyranny is where I make an exception, and side with the American founders that "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God".

Families are not soldiers.

All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the militia, according to 10 USC §246. Now I understand we're discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that's one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.

And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.

How's that a problem? It's built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed. It also recognizes that we all fail in life, while some of us are motivated to learn from our personal failures and turn them into stepping stones to success.

This has to be a troll, lol

I wasn't trolling, honest. I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme, and acknowledging that I wouldn't want any individual to set policy by personal preference. I meant it, honestly.

That doesn’t dismiss my point.

How doesn't it? The words of God are the words of God.

Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.

What do you want me to tell you? The people there aren’t hardened criminals. The crime rate between the U.S. and Latin American countries is about the same once you take into account the effects of poverty and organized crime. Most Latin Americans are law abiding christians.

Sorry, no, that’s not what I meant. I meant:

I understand what you meant, but what you mean is self contradictory, hence the lack of sense. People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.

Now I understand we’re discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that’s one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.

Not every situation is one you can stand up to. Fighting for your family, for your women and children, it often involves simply moving them out of danger.

How’s that a problem?

Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.

It’s built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed.

And it fails to address the fact that there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.

I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme

What you’ve said is beyond extreme. And also shortsighted given that immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:

www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/

cbpp.org/…/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-ec…

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117

The people there aren’t hardened criminals.

Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference. What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited? It's like people who break into houses, who usually make the news when the homeowner shoots them. Who does that? Who thinks it's a grand idea to go break in where they don't belong?

People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.

Oh, so do I understand correctly that you mean US immigration laws are tyrannical? Please explain.

it often involves simply moving them out of danger.

Well, yes, that's a decision many people do indeed make. I view it as cowardice. It's honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it's dishonorable to flee.

Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.

I do agree with this. I just don't think it applies to people who are outside of our society, or to people who broke into our home.

there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.

I reject that premise as certified hooey. There's no systemic anything. It's absolute nonsense, rooted in a deranged rejection of western civilization. Sorry, I know that's rude, and I'm not trying to offend you personally. I appreciate how generally respectful this interaction has been. I just reject this notion out of hand.

immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:

Maybe they lay low because they're afraid of getting deported? Honestly I don't care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don't count the slaves as people. So it's not an argument I find compelling. Some things are good for the economy, or great for the economy, and yet I still oppose them. (There are other things in this category, like Chinese imports.)

Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference?

I would not describe one. They’re the same people. The former are just the people who still have the means to get by, the latter are the ones who do not.

What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited?

It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can. And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs through legal methods of travel, as in, people overstay their welcome when traveling but were otherwise granted legal access into the country.

It’s like people who break into houses

People who break into houses do so because they are greedy. People who break into countries (generally) do so because they are trying to escape or provide for their family.

It’s honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it’s dishonorable to flee.

It’s not a battle, it’s suicide. Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them. Even if you somehow successful destroy one another will fit its place overnight because of how incredibly profitable it is. Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.

There’s no systemic anything.

Why not? When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?

Maybe they lay low because they’re afraid of getting deported?

It applies to all kinds of immigrants, legal and illegal. So reducing the influx of people who commit fewer crimes than the general population is short sighted.

Honestly I don’t care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don’t count the slaves as people.

These are people. And they are making the choice to move here and set up businesses of their own free choice. Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.

They’re the same people.

That strikes me as an overly broad generalization, but maybe you're right.

It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can.

I suppose I understand that. But that doesn't excuse the behavior.

Say you were starving, and you encounter a man with food. You ask him to share it with you, and he rudely declines. Are you justified in slaughtering him to take his food? Of course not. What if it's to feed your family? No, that's still murder.

Now we're not really discussing murder here, but my point is that an immoral action is inherently immoral, and no amount of suffering or danger can justify an immoral action, nor warrant sympathy for one who commits it.

And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs […]

I did know that! It's an interesting fact. And I wish it was more common knowledge. It's why building the wall is absolutely not enough, though I'd like to see it built anyway as a preliminary baby-step.

Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them.

Some major things like what? I'd love to know how to end market demand, but that's a very hard problem to solve.

Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.

I dunno. If one dude goes up against a cartel army, sure, that's suicide. But if an entire country organizes into a strategic war on the cartels, I think the ensuing bloodbath would be the end of all cartels in that country.

When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?

Racist behavior is despicable, and I think we agree on that. But the word "systemic" generally means invisible and imagined. You gave a great example of actual racism, and that sort of thing hasn't happened in a very long time in the US. Today's so-called racism is "systemic", meaning you have to have a rather active imagination to believe it exists.

Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.

Yeah, I didn't mean it like that. I meant the argument that it's "good for the economy" doesn't convince me, just as someone could argue that slavery is good for the economy, and many economists argue that Chinese imports are good for the economy. I don't care. We can tank the economy for all I care. I don't find the argument compelling.

Some major things like what? I’d love to know how to end market demand, but that’s a very hard problem to solve.

OK, so to end the market demand for these drugs you first have to understand why they’re used at all. Everybody knows they are harmful and addictive, nobody starts using them without knowing that it will harm them. So why do they use them? Primarily it is because of isolation and poverty, which are the two biggest indicators of crime and drug use. Humans have a built in need for socialization, and without that we have to cope in some way. Poverty is very similar, when we do not have stability in our life, a good source of food and shelter, when our well-being is in bad shape, just like with isolation we need some way to cope. Often times that method is drug use.

So if we can tackle the things leading to this isolation and poverty, it can go a long way towards reducing people’s drug use. So lets look at the first of these source problems, and some solutions.

Isolation - Nowadays people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining communities. Part of that is poverty, but the largest part is how we structure our society. Here in the U.S. we don’t have any semblance of work-life balance. We are the most productive we have ever been and yet we work more than we have in almost a century. How can somebody be reasonably expected to have a social life when they must work two jobs to make ends meet? We also get far less time off than other developed nations, in large part because we have no guaranteed minimum time off. Other countries on the other hand get weeks of time off at a minimum. There is also the physical structure of our society, the city planning and infrastructure. Everything in the U.S. is car dependent. Do you want to go hang out with friends? Do you want to go to church? Do you want to volunteer? Doesn’t matter what activity you want to do, you are required to get their by car because no other valid options exist. We don’t have the freedom to travel to places through other means because all cities everywhere are built for cars and only cars. It is also just dangerous to travel by foot or by bicycle in the U.S. because so little thought is put into the safety of pedestrians. Even if something is technically within walking/biking distance, there may be no sidewalk, pedestrian barriers, or trees. We also do not have the density or mixed use zoning that is needed to allow people to make strong communities in our neighborhoods. Everything is built too far spaced out when it could easily be built with community in mind.

So to fix the isolation we need:

• More mixed use & higher density zoning
• Better public transportation support
• Better pedestrian safety
• Minimum time off requirements
• U.S. GDP/Productivity rates need to be inversely tied to quantity of working hours without effecting wages

So that more or less covers the easy part, isolation. Poverty is a whole other monster.

Poverty - So this is a two part issue, a wage issue and a price issue. On the wage side of things, we as a society simply are not paid enough. Productivity rates have grown massively, but wages have not. And all that extra wealth that is being created is going directly to the rich. As a result people are impoverished. CEOs, company owners and shareholders take home extreme levels of wealth while your average Joe takes home crumbs at best. CEOs currently get paid somewhere on the order of 670 times as much as the lowest paid workers. CEOs are not working 670 times harder than any other worker out there. Our country has plenty of wealth to make sure everybody has a stable food source and secure housing, but the wealth is distributed such that it always goes to the rich. Part two of the poverty issue, is the price issue. Whether it is for pharmaceuticals, college, housing, or just groceries, the prices of everything have gotten completely out of hand. And that’s not because these things take much more to manufacture/maintain. The cost to manufacture insulin is about $6 a vial yet it is sold for $300 at least for example. Colleges waits shit loads of their money on administration and sports. Housing is intentionally kept scarce to keep prices up, etc. Corporations and landlords are extracting every single ounce of wealth out of us as they possibly can, and it has immensely damage our society through poverty.

There is a lot more to it than that, but I think you get the gist. So to fix this, some of the things we will need to see is:

• Wages need to match productivity rates
• Minimum wage should return to being a living wage as it was originally intended to be, and to keep it that way it needs to be tied to inflation
• Regulation must stop CEOs & the rich from being paid at such high rates. I think a limit of 10 to 1 would be reasonable, as in for every 1 dollar the lowest paid employ is paid, the highest can only be paid 10. And that should include all methods of payment/benefits.
• Regulation for price gouging needs to be tightened to stop pharmaceutical companies from continuing their robbery of our citizens
• Housing needs an overhaul, I’d personally recommend georgism, massive investments in market rate housing construction, and zoning overhauls to allow for higher density housing & mixed use zones
• Education needs an overhaul as well. We ought to catch up with the rest of developed nations to have free higher education, but that is also it’s own massive topic.
• Healthcare, same as education, we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world to have medicare for all. Our for-profit healthcare system has utterly failed us, again it’s own massive topic.

And so that covers largely the source reasons why people start drug use in the first place. But there is still more to it. The third main category of fix for the cartels would be ending the war on drugs. It’s been ~50 years of trying to get rid of drugs and we are no closer to doing so. Drugs are more potent, dangerous, and available than they ever have been. If we were to decriminalize use of them we would save billions of dollars that could instead go towards the above fixes, and it would also reduce the profitability of the cartel’s trade. If somebody is addicted to a drug, they should have a harm reduction program to help them through it. If the drugs on the street are more expensive, dirtier and riskier than what a free prescription can get them, then cartels would evaporate as they would have no customers. Other nations have tried this approach, and study after study shows that it is the most effective way to help people stop using drugs off the street, and to stop using drugs all together.

I find it frustrating and disappointing that kbin didn't notify me of this reply, particularly since you put so much effort into writing it. I'm glad I noticed it.

Thank you for your well thought-out reply on this. We are certainly coming from opposite perspectives, and I disagree with you on almost every point you made, which is really saying something, because you made a lot of points.

My perspective FWIW is that regulations of business are always bad. America is supposed to be the land of the free, meaning all regulations of business should be prohibited, IMHO.

To my view, a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision. Because when we treat our bodies as God's abode, and when we strive to be sober, drug abuse isn't an option. And as kids have grown up without prayer, we've seen secularism continually rise along with depression and drug abuse.

That being said, I recognize that drug abuse existed before '62, and indeed has existed since time immemorial. And I recognize that even though I disagree with most of your points, isolation and poverty indeed may be underlying causes, in conjunction with secularism.

I don't have much more to say on the topic, but thank you again for that very well thought out reply. I looked up Georgism and learned what it's all about, so thank you.

I disagree with you on almost every point you made, which is really saying something

I suspected as much.

My perspective FWIW is that regulations of business are always bad.

A government must regulate businesses or else they become monopolies, price gougers, environmental disasters, etc. A truly free market will always result in monopolies. A free market is a competition, but competitions have winners, and winners are monopolies.

America is supposed to be the land of the free

How can we be free if we are slaves to corporations?

a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision

Punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts does nothing to help them, it just makes it worse. If you truly want to help people and to make society healthy, you have to help people where they are at.

Because when we treat our bodies as God’s abode, and when we strive to be sober, drug abuse isn’t an option.

That simply isn’t an effective way of dealing with drug abuse.

And as kids have grown up without prayer, we’ve seen secularism continually rise along with depression and drug abuse.

Correlation does not imply causation.

, in conjunction with secularism.

Secularism is not the problem here.

I looked up Georgism and learned what it’s all about, so thank you.

You are welcome.

I suspected as much.

So what are you doing in a conservative place? Did you come here just to pick a fight? I do enjoy our dialog, but the thing is called "conservative", so I expect everyone here to be some variant of conservative.

or else they become monopolies

Entirely false. Monopolies are always created with government assistance, erecting barriers to entry for competing startups.

slaves to corporations

Do you really believe that? We're all free to start our own companies, as I and most of my friends and family have at some point in our lives. That's the whole point of being an American. If you don't like your job, you're free to get another, and once you have some experience you can go into business for yourself. Nobody's a slave to a corporation. That's patently absurd.

Punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts does nothing to help them

Yeah but where did I ever suggest we should do that?

Correlation does not imply causation.

True. It's a multifaceted set of problems for sure. I do think the elimination of school prayer was a root cause, but that hunch is impossible to prove.

Secularism is not the problem here.

Secularism is always a problem, wherever it exists.

In the context of drug (including alcohol) abuse, the only method of treatment we have that's 100% effective is salvation. The only reason it's not universally offered as a known cure is because so many people are afraid to advocate for Christianity. But it works, and it works astonishingly well.

So what are you doing in a conservative place?

I’m here because I like talking with people I disagree with, I enjoy debate, and because this place would otherwise be an echo chamber. And echo chambers are a big part of why our country is so fucked right now.

Entirely false. Monopolies are always created with government assistance, erecting barriers to entry for competing startups.

That’s one of the ways that monopolies are created, but not the only way.

Take a look at what Walmart did in the 90s and early 2000s. Walmart intentional set profits below the cost to produce their items, and in doing so the local competition could not beat their prices due to differences in business size, and so countless small businesses died. Then once all those businesses died Walmart drove their prices up.

Another way they become monopolies is by buying out the competition. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple are good examples of this. Any time another tech business looks like it will become profitable or a competitor, they buy it up. From their they either kill it, or they incorporate it to get a wide monopoly. Either way they accomplish their goal of destroying competition.

Then there is the tall monopolies where the entire production chain is all owned by one company, from raw material to finished and sold product. Amazon is a good example of this. They used to only be a book marketplace, then an everything marketplace, and now they are a manufacturer as well. The Amazon Basics bran is replacing load s of items on their store.

None of the above monopoly strategies involve government regulation. It’s all just capitalism. Now I will grant you that government regulation can also be a source of monopolies, but it is far from the only source.

Do you really believe that?

Absolutely. We cannot have freedom if corporations control everything, which they basically do. They control the politicians, the regulation, what you can buy, where you can buy, what jobs are available, what housing you can live in, etc. And they spend every day doing everything in their power to expand that influence.

Not everybody can start their own company. That takes thousands of dollars, a lot of luck, and a lot of business skills.

And our freedom to move to another job is severely limited, and often moot. If a slave can choose their slave owner, but is still a slave, then they are still a slave. Choosing another corporation to effectively own you doesn’t make you any more free when they are stepping on your neck at company A, B, C, all the way to Z.

Yeah but where did I ever suggest we should do that?

You said that “a major reason for the drug problem comes down to that same '62 SCOTUS decision” so I assumed you were talking about Robinson v California being a mistake, and that we should indeed punish addicts for being addicts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.

Secularism is always a problem, wherever it exists.

Secularism is the lifeblood of our country and modern, developed nations. Without it we would have a whole extra level of oppression to deal with on top of the existing stuff.

In the context of drug (including alcohol) abuse, the only method of treatment we have that’s 100% effective is salvation

Do you have any scientific evidence to verify this?

Because the closest thing I can think of is the 12 step program, which has highly religious connections, often times outright christians ones, and yet their success rate is no better than chance.

The only reason it’s not universally offered as a known cure is because so many people are afraid to advocate for Christianity.

I would suspect it is instead because proselytizing to people who are not in a healthy state of mind and are vulnerable is not an ethical solution, and so medical professionals generally avoid it.

I’m here because I like talking with people I disagree with

I think you're looking for some kind of political debate forum. I can't speak for the moderator or anyone else here, but coming from reddit I expect this to be a place for conservatives to come together and build upon a shared perspective of the world.

None of the above monopoly strategies involve government regulation.

Completely false. Walmart and Amazon are both Delaware corporations, which means they're governed by Delaware's particular corporate law. Both are publicly held, which additionally obligates them to follow the strict rules of the SEC, including quarterly earnings reports. Moreover federal international trade agreements and laws regarding imports and exports, including tax laws, deeply impact both Walmart and Amazon. A proper reply would be book-length, but suffice it to say every single decision made at Walmart and Amazon are deeply entwined with government regulations.

We cannot have freedom if corporations control everything, which they basically do.

Corporations are people. They are literally people. Have you never worked in a corporation? They're not some kind of mythical beast. They're just every-day Americans working for a living.

Not everybody can start their own company. That takes thousands of dollars, a lot of luck, and a lot of business skills.

Hogwash. You can do it with less than $1 and entrepreneurial spirit. There are so many rags-to-riches stories that define our blessed country, and more appear every day. It sounds like you're just not trying hard enough. Maybe you don't want it bad enough. And if so that's fine, but don't pretend it's impossible.

If a slave can choose their slave owner, but is still a slave, then they are still a slave.

You have absolutely no clue what slavery is. That's bizarre. Normal commercial life in a free market is about as far away from slavery as possible. You can become a billionaire or a beach bum, or anything in between. It's completely up to you, and nobody's going to come around and whip you to death if you don't get back to work.

when they are stepping on your neck

What on earth are you talking about? You sound like you've never had a real job, but you've spent years reading Marx. This is delusional.

I assumed you were talking about Robinson v California being a mistake, and that we should indeed punish addicts for being addicts. Perhaps I have misunderstood.

The two relevant cases are Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).

Secularism is the lifeblood of our country and modern, developed nations. Without it we would have a whole extra level of oppression to deal with on top of the existing stuff.

Wow, no. What? Secularism is the lifeblood of depraved satanists who are diligently working to destroy everything we hold dear. Through Christ alone can we receive freedom from sin, and indeed the entire purpose of American freedom is to worship God and do His will. Oppression happens when we lack that freedom. You have it precisely backwards.

Do you have any scientific evidence to verify this?

Well, a web search turned up this as the first result:

[…], we conclude that the value of faith-oriented approaches to substance abuse prevention and recovery is indisputable. And, by extension, we also conclude that the decline in religious affiliation in the USA is not only a concern for religious organizations but constitutes a national health concern.

I haven't read that whole study, and I don't know their methodology, so they may well cite an efficacy below 100%. Personally I arrive at 100% by deduction: those who are saved evidence their salvation by being shielded from temptation to abuse drugs, while anyone lacking that evidence is clearly not yet saved.

Whatever the methodology, though, claiming that "their success rate is no better than chance" is a lie based on a downright anti-Christian bias.

I would suspect it is instead because proselytizing to people who are not in a healthy state of mind and are vulnerable is not an ethical solution, and so medical professionals generally avoid it.

It is the sick who need a physician. Medical professionals (like most other people) generally avoid proselytizing to everyone under all professional circumstances.

I also needed to split this up, so this is part 1.

I think you're looking for some kind of political debate forum.

I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.

Walmart and Amazon are both Delaware corporations, which means they're governed by Delaware's particular corporate law. Both are publicly held, which additionally obligates them to follow the strict rules of the SEC

every single decision made at Walmart and Amazon are deeply entwined with government regulations.

While true, that doesn't change anything. Corporations can still be monopolies while being legal if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies.

Corporations are people. They are literally people.

Corporations are organizations of people. But regardless of what you define them as, people or organizations, you cannot have freedom if corporations control everything. Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).

Hogwash. You can do it with less than $1 and entrepreneurial spirit.

You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.

There are so many rags-to-riches stories that define our blessed country

And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery. Sure people win the lottery all the time, but that doesn't mean everyone will.

Maybe you don't want it bad enough. And if so that's fine, but don't pretend it's impossible.

I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.

You have absolutely no clue what slavery is.

I am using hyperbole. I am not stating that what we experience in America is literal chattel slavery. The point is that you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive. You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?

What on earth are you talking about? You sound like you've never had a real job, but you've spent years reading Marx. This is delusional.

I am talking about how jobs control when you work, how you work, what you say, what you do. They control the law, politicians, what we buy, how we buy it. They control the media and therefore the narrative. Corporations have such an immense control over american life. We are not ranked number one in the world freedom index for a reason, we aren't actually even in the top 10. The top 10 is mostly comprised of European countries.

And I'm not going to address the "real job" part because that is a true scottsman fallacy waiting to happen. I will tell you this, I have never read Marx, I do not label myself a marxists, and I have had several jobs over the years at this point.

The two relevant cases are Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963).

Ok, then I take back what I said when I though you were referencing Robinson v California/punishing drug addicts for being drug addicts. I should have clarified which decision you meant first. I think we already know where we both stand on religion in schools, so I will move on.

Secularism is the lifeblood of depraved satanists who are diligently working to destroy everything we hold dear.

Secularism is what allows us to have the freedom to choose a religion. It is the wall between church and state that prevents religion from destroying people's freedoms, and it is what prevents the government from imposing on religions. It is one of the core founding principles of our country as evidenced by the first amendment establishment clause, and everything the founding fathers have said about the nature of the state/church.

and indeed the entire purpose of American freedom is to worship God and do His will

The purpose of american freedom is for the sake of freedom itself. No part of the constitution mentions god or worship. And the only mention of religion states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Reply to "just my opinion", Part 1 of 2:

I find such forums to usually be low quality, but that's just my opinion.

I thought the Capitalism vs Socialism subreddit was pretty great, though I didn't spend a ton of time there, and I was mostly a lurker. But on several occasions I was impressed by the level of discourse there.

Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.

if the law is insufficient to prevent natural monopolies

Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural. In practice, though, there's not many of them. Usually they're owned by a municipality, such as water supply for urban folks who lack their own wells, and waste processing for the same folks who lack septic tanks. Physical constraints make competition difficult in these markets.

Most large corporations are groups that grow vastly larger than their natural size due to government assistance and encouragement.

A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses. Consider our founding culture in the Eighteenth Century; the big multinational companies were the Dutch East India Trading Co and the East India Co, both of which were state-chartered monopolies. By contrast, the nascent US flourished with only tiny businesses and family farms. That is our natural business culture, to which we should strive to return.

Just as a dictator (person) prevents freedom, so too can companies (people).

Apples and oranges.

• A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.
• A company offers products and services for sale in a marketplace, which people are free to buy if they want, or not to buy if they don't want. A company may employ people in a voluntary arrangement where employees sell their labor to the company for a fair price, and are free to seek employment elsewhere for a better price if they so choose.

When you picture a company, think of a man with a fruit cart selling fresh fruit at a farmer's market — that's the quintessential company. His family are back home picking fruit on the family farm, while he heads to market to compete against the other vendors. Customers are free to compare which fruit vendor offers the freshest fruit, and buy a little, or a lot, or none at all.

The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor, who offers you a fresh apricot for 7¢, to a blood-thirsty dictator who proclaims "everyone must placate those afflicted with gender dysphoria, on penalty of death" is a strain of the imagination. A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.

You can definitely do that but your chances of success are not high.

True, but so? You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.

And those stories have the same chances of winning the lottery.

It's fundamentally different. The lottery is pure chance, while building a business is a measure of one's intelligence and drive to succeed.

I'm not pretending it's impossible. I am stating the fact that it is unreasonable for everybody to just create a new business and live in la la land. Sometimes fantasies come true, but they don't always.

It's hardly a fantasy. It's the American way. And it's hardly "la la land". Have you never started your own business?

you can't just move to a different job to escape abuse when basically all american jobs are abusive.

What do you mean by "abusive"? Big bad boss man said you need to show up on time, or else you'll get fired? No jobs are abusive. They're voluntary agreements for the sale of one's labor. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can't just have freedom against buying from walmart when walmart is the only store within a 4hr drive. Does that clarify where I am coming from better?

It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.

Why don't you start you own? Establish your own rules, and set your own culture. I know such things can be difficult to get off the ground, but maybe it's worth a try.

I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.

Well it's theoretically impossible (or extremely hard) to prevent natural monopolies, which is why they're called natural.

It's definitely hard, but not impossible.

A tiny government naturally coincides with tiny businesses.

Historically that is not true. What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.

A dictator says "everyone must obey me," and sends out armed forces to disarm the people and enforce the dictator's laws.

Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.

And armed forces aren't the only way authoritarians control the people, they also do so through law, which the corporations control.

The fact that you're comparing a fruit vendor

I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations. Google, microsoft, amazon, meta, etc.

A company is a collective of practitioners of freedom.

When the United Fruit Company toppled governments in latin america, they were in fact not practicioners of freedom. Companies are just as capable of subverting the will of the people and destroying freedoms as dictators.

You keep trying and failing until you succeed. That's the American way.

You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.

Have you never started your own business?

I am already struggling to pay for rent, food, and utility bills, and soon my student debt will add to that. I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.

What do you mean by "abusive"?

I'm talking about violations of labor laws that go unpunished, workplace injuries, poverty wages, excessive hours, repetitive strain injury, wage theft.

https://www.greenamerica.org/choose-fair-labor/us-companies-exploiting-workers

https://apnews.com/article/how-companies-rip-off-poor-employees-6c5364b4f9c69d9bc1b0093519935a5a

https://hbr.org/2020/06/times-up-for-toxic-workplaces

Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.

It doesn't, because I live in one of the most rural places in the country, and I barely ever shop at Walmart.

Then it sounds like you're lucky.

I really just don't have as much free time as I'd like. I have a full time job, a disabled girl friend, ~3 active friend/family groups, etc. At best I get an hour or two a day to myself and I'd rather do something else other than moderating.

That makes sense. But then how do you find this time for long-form arguments with strangers on the internet?

What you're describing is laissez-faire capitalism, and every time it has been tried it has been an objective failure. It doesn't result in tiny businesses, it results in huge ones that create corporate towns.

Fiddlesticks. Look at Hong Kong until China annexed it. Small and medium-sized companies flourished. There are a ton of similar examples. I challenge you to point out a single huge multinational corporation (historical or present day) that grew without government assistance.

Companies do just the same when given the opportunity. They just hire mercenaries and assassins, and that's where the term "bannana republic" comes from.

Yeah no. Read the wiki on banana republics. From the intro:

[…] thus, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, […]

Their governments instigate and enable their problem.

I'm not talking about small family owned businesses, I am talking about mega-corporations.

It seems we're in general agreement that small family owned businesses are far preferable to mega-corporations. (After all, we're both here in the Fediverse.)

Our only differences on this topic seem to be that I view small businesses as the essential heart of American market economics, and I view mega-corps as mutants resulting from government bloat.

You keep failing until you starve to death, the medical debt collectors come, etc. The american dream has long been dead because we do not live in a society with social mobility.

Again, you focused on negativity to the exclusion of truth. The American dream is alive and well, and there are numerous success stories all around us. The idea that it's "dead" (let alone long dead) has no basis in reality.

A good example is Donald Trump, who took a small loan of a million dollars … (I'm joking, but my above point is true.)

I do not have anywhere near the amount of money to start one.

Depending on the type of business, you really don't need any money, or perhaps just a few dollars. Going back to my fruit cart example, it doesn't cost any money to pick fruit and sell it. And there are a ton of sub-$100 sweaty-startup ideas out there. You may not have the time or the drive to start one, but you certainly have the money.

Not all companies are bad ones to work at, but my point is that not everybody can just up and move to a new job when there are so many companies that are like this.

I have no doubt that some employees who hate their jobs feel trapped. But I contend that's just their feeling, and they're not really trapped at all. Especially in the post-covid epoch, when there's such a labor shortage that you could walk into just about any business and get an interview.

Then it sounds like you're lucky.

"Lucky" is not the right word. I didn't grow up here. I've lived in a bunch of places, from urban to suburban, and now rural. I moved here because I like the area and the people here. And there are plenty of local small businesses I support as much as I can.

That makes sense. But then how do you find this time for long-form arguments with strangers on the internet?

I usually don't lol. It's very rare for me to get into a conversation as much of a tangled mess as this one.

Fiddlesticks. Look at Hong Kong until China annexed it. Small and medium-sized companies flourished. There are a ton of similar examples.

Hong Kong is an incredibly niche place. To point to that city state as a good example to extrapolate the effects of government policy is a bad idea/methodology.

I challenge you to point out a single huge multinational corporation (historical or present day) that grew without government assistance.

I think you missed my point, I am not stating that all or even many corporations become monopolies without government assistance. Usually what happens is that a corporation gets so big that they gain so much control that they can alter government policy, and therefore they grow with government assistance that they themselves implemented. Most if not all monopolies follow this pattern. First the start small, then they get big, then they push out competition, then they buy out the politicians, then they set the laws that make them even bigger.

Their governments instigate and enable their problem.

Instigate? No. Enable? Absolutely.

Our only differences on this topic seem to be that I view small businesses as the essential heart of American market economics, and I view mega-corps as mutants resulting from government bloat.

The mega-corporations are the natural result of capitalism. You can't have one without the other.

The American dream is alive and well, and there are numerous success stories all around us.

There are also numerous lottery winner stories around. That doesn't mean that everybody should buy lottery tickets as a means to success.

The idea that it's "dead" (let alone long dead) has no basis in reality.

Nowadays people are too poor to reasonably afford a home, food, and the basic necessities. The retirement age keeps getting higher. The majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It absolutely has been dead, and for a while.

good example is Donald Trump, who took a small loan of a million dollars

Inheriting wealth is not a means for being successful for the overwhelming majority of americans.

Depending on the type of business, you really don't need any money

The success of a business is directly tied to the starting investment.

I have no doubt that some employees who hate their jobs feel trapped. But I contend that's just their feeling, and they're not really trapped at all.

If you don't feel like you are free then what is the point? Regardless, it's not just a feeling, because objectively, vertical mobility is not doing well in the united states. Horizontal mobility is not true mobility.

Especially in the post-covid epoch, when there's such a labor shortage that you could walk into just about any business and get an interview.

"Just about any business" does not equate to a livable wage, because just about all businesses have employees who are being paid below a livable wage. And like I said, horizontal mobility is not true mobility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

I usually don't lol. It's very rare for me to get into a conversation as much of a tangled mess as this one.

I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable, though I agree it's a tangled mess. Yet if you'd find it prudent to quickly wind it down, I won't be offended.

Instigate? No. Enable? Absolutely.

Well then we're close to splitting hairs. My contention is governments should be too small to enable companies to grow huge. I get that we don't completely see eye-to-eye on this, but I'm not sure it's worth our bickering over the details.

The mega-corporations are the natural result of capitalism. You can't have one without the other.

I mentioned the importance of definitions recently. Among people who disagree over capitalism, I find we are often operating on different definitions. What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about freedom that inherently gives rise to mega-corporations. They didn't even exist until relatively modern times.

There are also numerous lottery winner stories around. That doesn't mean that everybody should buy lottery tickets as a means to success.

No kidding. When you hold a race, there's one winner. You might give out medals for second and third place, but most competitors are losers. And that's great. Everyone goes home and tries again tomorrow. In the end, some people are never able to win at all, due to lack of drive, technique, or what-have-you, and that's fine. Life isn't fair, and we wouldn't want it to be. All that matters is that everyone's able to compete, fair and square.

Nowadays people are too poor to reasonably afford a home, food, and the basic necessities. The retirement age keeps getting higher. The majority of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It absolutely has been dead, and for a while.

Okay, now I really wonder where you live. Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America I know and love.

Inheriting wealth is not a means for being successful for the overwhelming majority of americans.

Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.

The success of a business is directly tied to the starting investment.

No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.

If you don't feel like you are free then what is the point?

The point is always God. And God, incidentally, is the source of our freedom. People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God. That's hardly the fault of corporations (although you could make a good case that any corporation propagating secular culture is indirectly at fault.)

"Just about any business" does not equate to a livable wage, because just about all businesses have employees who are being paid below a livable wage. And like I said, horizontal mobility is not true mobility.

What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase. It wasn't long ago that many of us lived in single-room log cabins that we built ourselves, hauled our own water without plumbing, used outhouses, lacked electricity, had a horse and cart instead of a truck, and grew most of our own food. And we were happy. Because we had God, and in the end that's all we've ever needed. If you're defining a "livable wage" in terms of anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable.

I'm flattered. Thank you. I find the conversation enjoyable...

I am enjoying it too, and it's quite alright. I'm (so far) able to keep up.

Well then we're close to splitting hairs.

I'll move on then from this part.

What if we just talk about free markets? There's nothing about...

Even the term "free markets" is incredibly vague. And depending on what you count as "modern times", even capitalism itself hasn't existed until modern times. So it would kind of not make sense to expect to see mega corps in an economic system that doesn't permit the kind of corps we see today.

And I hate to repeat myself, but core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners. And therefore the freedom you speak of inherently gives rise to mega-corps. They buy each other up and kill off competitors until they become mega-corps.

Any given loser of a competition under capitalism may not immediately die, but each loss forces a company closer and closer to dying.

everyone's able to compete, fair and square.

We unfortunately don't have that though due to inheritance discrepancies, and the burden of entry that corporations put in place through their control of politicians, and through the inherent difficulty of starting a business in an economy as specialized as ours.

For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.

Is it a West Coast city? What you describe is absolutely not the America...

I actually live on the East coast, in a mid to large sized city, I think mine is 3rd in pop for my state. And as for your second bit here, I haven't made anything up.

Majority of citizens living paycheck to paycheck

Housing is increasingly unaffordable with an 18% hike in prices I don't know about you, but my wage has never increased anywhere close to be able to match that. Grocery prices are no different

The retirement age is going up

Yeah, it was a joke. I explicitly said I was joking.

Sorry, I am a very argumentative person if you couldn't tell already lol

No, not usually. Its rate of scale is directly tied to the starting investment. It's eventual success is only tied to that certain kinds of tech startups, where a ton of work is needed before there's anything to show for it. For most businesses, success is tied to vision and execution.

This is another one of the issues that I wish I had more data on, but unfortunately do not. The closest I was able to find was this:

https://www.luisazhou.com/blog/startup-failure-statistics/

And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.

People may feel a lack of freedom resulting from estrangement from God.

So this is similar to the drug addiction/true christian inverse correlation that I've been talking about in one of the other threads. I know you don't quite agree with the freedom index I've been using, but freedom is not in any way correlated with christianity.

What's a livable wage? That's a mighty subjective phrase

Sure, it's a subjective phrase, and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen

As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.

I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.

And we were happy. Because we had God...

I don't think that was the reason, I think the reason was because life was literally simpler and more connected to nature. If you compare the cost of living vs average pay in today's time against the great depression, we get paid less than we did during the great depression. And that lines up with the fact that so many americans are living paycheck to paycheck. You can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.

anything more than that standard, it's unreasonable

I'm not saying a livable wage is one in which you will be able to afford anything fancy. It should be a basic wage, but enough so that you can have a family without worry

core principle of capitalism is competition, but competitions inherently have winners.

This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.

For instance if somebody wanted to start up a new business to compete with google, at a minimum they would need several billion dollars to have a reasonable chance of success. Google has such a huge market share and is so well established that it would take decades for any new company to put an actual dent in google's market share.

Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg, who started a Google competitor in his basement with a $0 investment, which now earns $25 million annually.

And the most frequent cause of failure is lack of cash, which definitely ties into what I've been saying.

It's true, but most successful entrepreneurs learn from previous failures, so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.

Sure, it's a subjective phrase ["livable wage"], and I would personally like to see it added and defined within a new amendment to the constitution, though it probably would never happen

I've occasionally thought it would be nice to have a website where anyone could post "bills" they wish were actual laws, and other users could vote on them. It'd be fun. Not that I really think we need any more laws. I just wonder what people would come up with.

As for an actual definition, a living wage should be defined as a wage that is sufficient to raise a family on, with adequate housing and food. A living wage should be a basic but decent wage for a family.

You'd struggle to transform that into a legally reliable definition. Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line? Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?

I would also like to point out that you seem to have missed my point about the lack of freedom through vertical mobility.

I didn't miss it. I just skipped the reply. Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well. You can deny it all you'd like, but there are so many rags-to-riches stories. Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.

Also you can't be happy if you can't afford food and shelter.

Jesus could.

This is false. A broad class of competitions do not have winners. Only zero-sum games have winners. The economy is not a zero sum game. Every participant adds value.

This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.

Oh yeah? May I introduce you to Gabriel Weinberg

An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.

so many of those failed companies generally result in eventual success.

Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.

I just wonder what people would come up with.

I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.

Does it include iPads for the kids? How about the cost of pet grooming? Vacations for the whole family to the Bahamas every couple of months? Where exactly do you draw the line?

None of that crap.

Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.

However much each of these end up costing, calculated yearly, added up, should be a reasonable start.

Again, it was commonplace for most people to grow their own food in the not too distant past, and we lived simple lives. Isn't a living wage, then, $0?

If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.

And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.

Because I see plenty of evidence that vertical mobility is alive and well.

I can't remember if I posted this link elsewhere, but I'll do it again just in case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

We are #27. We could be doing far better.

Maybe you don't hear about them much because they're mostly Republican.

I don't hear about them because I don't really care for lottery winning stories, and avoid the news sources that show them. I want news with more substance than that.

Jesus could.

We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.

This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn't change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can't expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.

I'm not formally trained in economics or game theory, but this doesn't seem right to me. Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.

An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn't really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.

Again, entrepreneurs usually need to fail, and build upon those failures, before finding success. It's normal.

The fact that he's an MIT grad doesn't mean much. Anyone can start a Google competitor, but the kind of people who do are the same kind of people likely to want to attend MIT.

Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.

Almost everyone can, though not everyone wants to. It's stressful and time-consuming, though also rewarding in a variety of ways. Even if it fails.

I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of "socialist" policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don't really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.

Thanks! I wouldn't be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive. There'd be a ton of things like "Free ice cream for everyone!" As a serious policy proposal it would be objectionable, but as a playful idea it's fun to imagine. As for legalese and complications, you could make suggestions to improve someone else's idea.

Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.

What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare? Cosmetic surgeries for pets? It's very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.

If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren't free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that's not how things are.

You can make your own fertilizer with compost. You can haul your own water up from the stream. You can chop your own wood for heating. Property taxes are a racket. Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that's unrealistic for everyone. But it's entirely possible for some.

I love those videos too. I try not to spend much time on YouTube, but on occasion I can easily lose an hour or two to My Self Reliance.

But to your point about a "living wage", it's going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think what the upper bound of that range is.

And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn't generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.

True, but as I mentioned I think economic efficiency is overrated.

We aren't all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.

We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it's not easy, but there's so much value in trying.