Philosophy with teens (Vol.3)

[RickMason]

Quoted from Wikipedia:
Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.
...and I believe he had something to tell:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Your thoughts?

[sunnieseason]

I've heard about this guy before...who can forget a name like Smedley? Anyway I think he was talking about war profiteering right? Is there like a question or something to discuss?

[RickMason]

I've heard about this guy before...who can forget a name like Smedley? Anyway I think he was talking about war profiteering right? Is there like a question or something to discuss?

Well, some people have trouble believing his statement. I would like to hear more and understand why... However, any other thing to discuss is welcome as well.

[sunnieseason]

I can believe that people make lots of money off of war. War costs insane amounts of money like more money than all the richest people in the world have. I still don't really understand what you want...can you pose a question?

[RickMason]

I can believe that people make lots of money off of war. War costs insane amounts of money like more money than all the richest people in the world have. I still don't really understand what you want...can you pose a question?

Well, it is not really a question it is a topic to discuss. If I had to pose a question it would be something like this: Do you believe his statement? And if so, do you approve this phenomenon? If not, what do you propose has to be done to eradicate it? How far do you think the consequences go?... I guess I haven't made myself clear enough about my intentions, I'll make an attempt to fix it in the future.

[Vlerchan]

Do you believe his statement?[1] And if so, do you approve this phenomenon?[2] If not, what do you propose has to be done to eradicate it?[3] How far do you think the consequences go?[4]..
[1]: Sure.

[2]: Generally no.

[3]: Short of overthrowing capitalism I don't think it can be eliminated. Best people can do is critique and hope to neuter it.

[4]: I don't understand this question. I'm sure it has been positive for Westerners but not so much for everyone else.

[sunnieseason]

[3]: Short of overthrowing capitalism I don't think it can be eliminated. Best people can do is critique and hope to neuter it.

Only governments can create war. Wars are extremely expensive in both money and lives. Free market businesses can't tax people to pay for wars, they can't draft people into the army. The only thing they can do is profit off of the government's drive towards war. Oh, private companies can't create debt ceilings and print money to fund wars either. They can't take kids for 12 years into schools talking about how great it is to be a part of that company and how that company is worth dying for.

[rogoshtalmour]

Not entirely accurate. Governments aren't the only things that can start wars. People in general can start wars. Governments are just better at fighting them typically. But there are civil wars all the time. And you still have warlords roaming around in africa trying to gain superiority. The problem with War is people. This leads many people to believe humans are a blight on this world. I don't really believe that. Do we do some bad horrible things? Yes. But we also do some great things like Love. Near as we can tell no other animals on the planet love the way we do. Love i think is the greatest thing any being can ever do.

[1]: Sure.

[2]: Generally no.

[3]: Short of overthrowing capitalism I don't think it can be eliminated. Best people can do is critique and hope to neuter it.

[4]: I don't understand this question. I'm sure it has been positive for Westerners but not so much for everyone else.

as for you.... you're a moron. For thousands of years there were monarchies everywhere that fought wars. They were not capitalistic societies. The King owned everything others just worked it for him. The idea that overthrowing capitalism would end all war is just silly.

Please use the 'edit' button and do not double post. ~Typhlosion

[Vlerchan]

Only governments can create war.
I see the state as an integral component of working capitalism.

---

I also realise that stateless variants have been theorised. I collectively call these "unicorn capitalism" because I don't think they are workable models.

Wars are extremely expensive in both money and lives. Free market businesses can't tax people to pay for wars, they can't draft people into the army. The only thing they can do is profit off of the government's drive towards war. Oh, private companies can't create debt ceilings and print money to fund wars either. They can't take kids for 12 years into schools talking about how great it is to be a part of that company and how that company is worth dying for.
I never said the firms themselves went to war with each other.

Rather countries operate in the name of corporate interests because it suits their agendas to work in the name of these corporate interests. Like outlined in the quote.

---

as for you.... you're a moron.
Lol.

For thousands of years there were monarchies everywhere that fought wars.
Ok. I never said that capitalism was the sole cause of war.

---

I'd still argue that pre-capitalist wars had a strong economic dimension to them. But that's not to do with the topic.

The idea that overthrowing capitalism would end all war is just silly.
Ok. I never made this claim either.

[Capto]

But there are civil wars all the time. And you still have warlords roaming around in africa trying to gain superiority.

Those are between governments, by the perception of the administered peoples.

The King owned everything others just worked it for him.

That's just not how feudalism works at all.

As for the original topic, I think that war makes a fantastically obvious medium for profit.

[Gamma Male]

I'm not sure I can post anything that wouldn't be obvious or redundant. Yeah, the MIC exists, it's bad, wars are mostly motivated by profit, etc etc. Don't we all pretty much already know this?

[sunnieseason]

I see the state as an integral component of working capitalism.

I also realise that stateless variants have been theorised. I collectively call these "unicorn capitalism" because I don't think they are workable models.


I never said the firms themselves went to war with each other.

Rather countries operate in the name of corporate interests because it suits their agendas to work in the name of these corporate interests. Like outlined in the quote.
.

You're not making arguments again. You're just saying nonsense. It's as if you believe that just saying something is "mythical like a unicorn" is the same thing as really refuting an argument.

A corporate state relationship is not the fault of the corporations. the corporations are the result of the state's existence in the first place. The state is like the gate keeper who just creates his own existence out of thin air and then demands that all people live by his rule. There isn't a single state in the history of humanity that ever existed by the consent of all that it ruled over.

They make the rules so they control who is allowed to do anything. This means that everyone who wants to get ahead needs to bribe the state gate keepers. if there was no gate keeper, in a truly free society, then there would be no way to gain special favors by getting in bed with the rulers.

corporations don't go to war cause they don't have the political gate keeping power to tax, imprison, create money out of thin air, propagandize children in schools, etc. In stead the state goes to war to gain more power and the corporations just feed off of the system.

[Vlerchan]

You're not making arguments again. You're just saying nonsense. It's as if you believe that just saying something is "mythical like a unicorn" is the same thing as really refuting an argument.
I'm not going to give an indepth analysis of theoretical political models in a thread that has nothing to do with it.

I wasn't making an argument too. I was stating that I'm just considering realised models of capitalism in the analysis I gave.

A corporate state relationship is not the fault of the corporations.
How much do corporations spend in political lobbying each year?

If the answer is >0$ then I see corporations as guilty.

the corporations are the result of the state's existence in the first place.
I would suggest you read a foundational economics text book before starting with the Austrians. Barriers to entry exist beyond regulation despite what Laissez-Faire capitalists might believe.

Here's a long-ish post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2920619&postcount=11) I wrote Korashk when he made similar points.

The state is like the gate keeper who just creates his own existence out of thin air and then demands that all people live by his rule. There isn't a single state in the history of humanity that ever existed by the consent of all that it ruled over.
I understand this. I don't have a problem with it.

They make the rules so they control who is allowed to do anything. This means that everyone who wants to get ahead needs to bribe the state gate keepers. if there was no gate keeper, in a truly free society, then there would be no way to gain special favors by getting in bed with the rulers.
I'm not going to argue with this because I don't want to derail the thread.

corporations don't go to war cause they don't have the political gate keeping power to tax, imprison, create money out of thin air, propagandize children in schools, etc. In stead the state goes to war to gain more power and the corporations just feed off of the system.
You seem to just dance around the idea that states go to war on corporations behalf here.

[rogoshtalmour]

Those are between governments, by the perception of the administered peoples.



That's just not how feudalism works at all.

As for the original topic, I think that war makes a fantastically obvious medium for profit.

Feudalism-the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

turns out feudalism is like what i described. Notice the nobility held lands from the Crown (meaning the crown owned them but sorta gave them the land to watch over for them for military reasons)
Keep in mind of course nobles often turned on the crown but that doesn't mean the crown didn't own the land it just means ppl revolted.
Take a poly sci class then get back to me.

[sunnieseason]

@ Vlerchan,

First of all, you shouldn't pose an unchallenged idea in a thread and then when someone challenges it just dismiss it and say that discussing it will derail the thread.

Corporations spend money on lobbying because lobbying is a form of bribery. The state is the ruler, they get to determine who gets special privileges. Corporations pay bribes to the state to either get special favors or to punish their enemies. Again, the state is the ruling power.

"Corporation" is a special privileges from the state. They exist as organizations that shield executives from damages if the company fails, makes mistakes, or act's in a bad way. So by their very nature exist only because the state existed first and held all the power first.

It's easy to dismiss someone by telling them they are young and naieve and should go out and read textbooks first. Funny tho, u complain about corporations but then you want me to go and read books written by economists who are all in bed with the state writting books on how to best serve the state's interests.

[Vlerchan]

First of all, you shouldn't pose an unchallenged idea in a thread and then when someone challenges it just dismiss it and say that discussing it will derail the thread.
As always you are free to create a separate thread.

Corporations spend money on lobbying because lobbying is a form of bribery.
I agree. Which is why I support laws against it.

I also don't see how using terms like "bribery" to describe it dismisses my point.

The state is the ruler, they get to determine who gets special privileges. Corporations pay bribes to the state to either get special favors or to punish their enemies. Again, the state is the ruling power.
OK. I'm not sure why you think this defeats the points I made.

Feel free to explain.

"Corporation" is a special privileges from the state. They exist as organizations that shield executives from damages if the company fails, makes mistakes, or act's in a bad way. So by their very nature exist only because the state existed first and held all the power first.
Investors lose their investment if the corporation fails.

I also understand your argument now. I thought you meant corporation as in "big firm" as opposed to "legal persona". I'm not sure what the arguments worth though. Big firms could still do what big firms do without their current legal persona.

---

Please not that the corporate model is replicatable without state interference. It'd just be messier.

It's easy to dismiss someone by telling them they are young and naieve and should go out and read textbooks first.
No. I think people should understand mainstream economic theory before branching out to more radical elements of it. It stops smart people looking stupid.

I also used that link to an older point to dismiss what I thought was your point.

Funny tho, u complain about corporations but then you want me to go and read books written by economists who are all in bed with the state writting books on how to best serve the state's interests.
Lol. It's a conspiracy is it?

The economic theory within these books is still sound.

[Capto]

*Historian pants are coming on*

Feudalism-the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

turns out feudalism is like what i described. Notice the nobility held lands from the Crown (meaning the crown owned them but sorta gave them the land to watch over for them for military reasons)
Keep in mind of course nobles often turned on the crown but that doesn't mean the crown didn't own the land it just means ppl revolted.
Take a poly sci class then get back to me.

Au contraire.

No, feudalism is absolutely nothing like what you described. They are, in fact, rather opposites.

What you described was where, verbatim, the "King owned everything". This is explicitly false in regards to European mediaeval feudalism. In a great number of mediaeval feudal societies, it is very apparent that various manorial, and in fact sub-royal [here referring to the royal house; royal divisions are best expressed by looking at the various Hapsburg domains] demesnes did not fall under the express direct control of the incumbent monarch. This is, of course, specifically regarding the monarch as highest head of state and taking into account Westphalian sovereignty, as under the previous definitions of what a monarch entailed, we could see perhaps the various duchies under the de jure French crown and the various Germanic petty kingdoms, duchies, counties, and principalities in the Holy Roman Empire especially prior to, but also after the conceptual consolidation of translatio imperii (these states including, of course, the non-Germanic portions of the Empire, in particular the Iron Crown, Lotharingia, Bohemia, and arguably Habsburg Burgundy, though the concept of the state was already rudimentarily developed by this point in time). Let's take a look at the archetypal mediaeval nation: the Kingdom of France (we'll ignore the Holy Roman Empire due to its anomalous status during this time as a political entity). The entity that we define to be the Kingdom of France after the rise of Capet (let's just take a mid-mediaeval form of it, France under the first reign of Henry I, for instance) consists of in addition to the de jure and de facto extent of the Kingdom of France (essentially the French royal demesne) various counties, including but not limited Flanders in particular, Nevers, Toulouse, Anjou, Champagne, and Maine, as well as a great number of Duchies, of whose politics and histories most historians are actually well versed in, and a great number of which have regional specialists as well: Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy (distinct from the Burgundian royal domain), Aquitaine, and Vascony. By contemporary definition, and from contemporary examples, we notice that the royal demesne was really centralized around Paris and Île-de-France, and the surrounding demesnes were not in fact directly under royal charter and rather under the rule of vassals of the king, which contradicts your purported direct complete rule idea. On the opposite end, if we were to take a theoretical example of a nation where the "King owns everything", this is, by definition, a nation where the royal demesne encompasses the entire de jure kingdom, and thus follows your suggestion. This kind of all-encompassing direct rule would be, given mediaeval court structure and the undeveloped and uncoalesced relatively free hand that many monarchs had with fiefdoms to curry and maintain favor, nearly impossible to sustain. There would always, by the fact of the very existence of an aristocratic class itself (which I'm sure Vlerchan might be better able to talk on, given my relative lack of knowledge on anything regarding economics or economic influence on societal structures), be competition for higher status, for 'glory', if we want to use Underwood's anachronistic but very appropriate reasoning, which would necessitate climbing the social ladder. In a complete direct rule monarchy, any opportunity, given the prohibition of fiefdoms and the lack of vasslage and feudal titles, would be completely impossible to attain.

Next, given that your historical specialty appears to be, from what I have quoted, England, let's also take a look at English manorialism as a particularly notable example of feudalism in a late mediaeval society. The lordships that are attributed to English manors were ubiquitous, and assigned by fief to local intermediary lords. One needs to look no further than the usage of 'custody' and 'patronage' in the most common translation of the Magna Carta to recognize the decentralization in feudal English society. Despite the Magna Carta being relatively anomalous (excepting maybe Dušan's Zakonik, þings to some degree, the proceeding of Catalan courts, and perhaps a few Golden Bulls)

The only examples which I can see that follow your definition to any minute extent would be the military monastic orders that were seen to maintain order under subjugated holy war-derived areas, particularly the Livonian, Teutonic, and Hospitaller Orders (though it is important to notice the particularly autonomous status the Teutons accorded the Livonian Order and its masters to the extent of a religiously recognized autonomous order, ipso facto a distinct state by contemporary terms, and also to notice the distinction between the Livonian Order and the various bishoprics of mediaeval Livonia, which are generally accepted to be relatively autonomous entities, and which in fact mimic the status of the Free and Imperial Cities in the Holy Roman Empire), as well as these Free and Imperial Cities, which, being directly part of the demesne of the Holy Roman Emperor and associated titles, and being distinct from the express Royal Domain of the Holy Roman Empire as it stood in the 'free' part of the Free and Imperial Cities, expressly lacked any sort of hereditary lineage in addition to any intermediary ruler by contemporary definitions, and in addition lacked the sort of social strata chain that allowed for the presence of vassals in regards to nobility and non-economic aristocrats.

Even if we do go with the definition that you pulled up (being from a dictionary, it naturally and understandably ignores much of the subtleties accorded to it by proper historical analysis), we note that the simplified definition is also inconsistent with your claim that the "King owns everything". If we were to go by the hypothesis that the "King owns everything" we can again note the by-definition conflict this has with the apparent and recorded existence of vassals and sub-units of feudal monarchies and the textual evidence of fiefs and feoffees. In addition, you offer a few self-contradictory statements. First and foremost, "that doesn't mean the crown didn't own the land it just means ppl revolted". First of all, as has been established, the nobility that existed as vassals to the greater de jure crown, whichever it may have been, existed under the prerequisite that to, by value of the title alone, be in a landed relationship under the monarchy, did exist as sole proprietors of the property which they had been accorded by the monarchy or by some intermediary from the monarchy. Second, and this is the most troubling statement, "Keep in mind of course nobles often turned on the crown". This ability to renege upon the explicit agreement that was cooperated upon by the monarch and his or her vassal is a direct result of the holding of some property within the indirect ruling of the monarch. And herein lies the heart of your fallacy. "Notice the nobility held lands from the Crown (meaning the crown owned them but sorta gave them the land to watch over for them for military reasons)". No. In the definition we note that "the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service," and this denotes the contract that bound a liege to his vassal and vice versa. As per a great majority of the binding contracts, and has been continually stated above, the holding of Crown lands by definition and by the wording of these fiefs transfers direct ownership, facilitation, and maintenance of territories no matter what the scale (including sub-vassals as can be seen by succession processes in high intermediary vassals) from the monarch or presiding higher vassal to a lower vassal or noble. Given that you admit the existence of vassals as distinct entities that govern relatively autonomously and their status of holding former Crownlands, as it is impossible for vassals and lieges to maintain at the same time control over the same land (no, condominia do not apply and are not contemporarily feasible), I find it difficult how you can continue to maintain that it is in any way possible for a complete direct monarchy to exist in tandem with a strong aristocratic class. Such a feat has never been seen in history to my knowledge outside of sufficiently small territories (I understand that Liechtenstein, due to its historical size and escaping the direct annexation of neighbouring states, may serve as a historical example, though I have not taken a look in Liechtensteiner legal codes in quite some time).

And finally, the analysis of historical governing methods doesn't really fall under the umbrella of 'poly sci' as you call it, with our American definition of the term. This is political history, in which I consider myself to be particularly well-versed, though obviously not to the extent as one would if they had studied the subject in depth for any particular amount of time.

Though that being said, my particular areas of expertise regarding history are in fact Scandinavian history (more emphasis on post-Napoleonic Denmark and Sweden, though still well-versed in the Swedish Empire and Kalmar-era times) and Japanese history (to an extent, Ashikaga to Meiji is my most comfortable time period), so this post is likely not as in depth as some other people I know would be able to make it. Nonetheless, I hope that this is in some way informative to those that may not have the same interest or will to study history in the sad way I do. :P

I think it would also be fantastic if people would take up the effort to learn more about history. It really is quite the most fascinating subject.

Also, I'm no orator or debater or anything like that. At any rate, I doubt that these interpretations of history are up to much debate, except for perhaps various translations of distinct texts and separate ideals and propositions on the classification and hierarchy of fiefs and fiefdoms in courts.

Sources available upon request, though I lack direct quotations and may have accidentally skewed some ideas due to it having been a long time since I have read these books.

I also just realized that I forgot to write anything about the first estate but fuck it. And I also haven't edited it or really reviewed it past a cursory read through, so if there is anything out of place please let me know.

And now, to synthesize this with the entire point of the thread, and to negate this tangent, or perhaps view the topic with a historical tint, I guess we can compare the utilisation of war as a means to gain profit throughout the entirety of history. I dunno, it doesn't take much more than looking at the Sun King or the spectacular rise of the Swedish Empire or anything like that to note that war leads to profit for some party.

[rogoshtalmour]

somewhat well written though i felt you rambled a bit. Answer me this if a King legally (not pratically) did not own things how is it the Kings were allowed (when able to enforce it anyway) to strip nobles of their lands? And appoint new nobles over those lands? And remember we are just speaking in legal terms. I acknowledge the fact that many times Kings could not actually enforce these decrees although usually in those cases the King just didn't issue such decrees in the first place.

[Capto]

somewhat well written though i felt you rambled a bit. Answer me this if a King legally (not pratically) did not own things how is it the Kings were allowed (when able to enforce it anyway) to strip nobles of their lands? And appoint new nobles over those lands? And remember we are just speaking in legal terms. I acknowledge the fact that many times Kings could not actually enforce these decrees although usually in those cases the King just didn't issue such decrees in the first place.

Of course I 'rambled'. The best way to argue a historical point to one who has a flawed or incorrect point of view is to repeat the veracity of that point several times.

And I already answered this. And your final statement is honestly a tad irrelevant.

As I said, this was under the terms of a mutual contract, a fief. The mutuality of this charter is what allows one party to reciprocally revoke, in the context of mediaeval court legal systems, the contract. Summarily, it is in the royal or ducal capability of a liege to revoke the contract that was offered on his or her part to the vassal without the territories accorded to the vassal being under the legal jurisdiction of the royal or ducal demesne directly reigned by the liege.

[benj2]

I never heard of this