5 ms·

I'm not in the US, but it's great that people are feeling passionate enough to get together and help each other out like this towards a worthy common cause. I

I'm not in the US, but it's great that people are feeling passionate enough to get together and help each other out like this towards a worthy common cause. I know I'm dreaming, but I like to think that activities like this may become more common and become so important, perhaps more important than street demonstrations, that the people in power must take notice. E.g. next target -> a "free market capitilism" that mainly works for the rich. Another free take away from this story is: if you want/hope/expect your site to get lots of visitors, make sure beforehand that you can quickly enable services like CloudFlare should you need to.

tokenadult 13y ago
I agree with you that it's commendable that hackers are helping out efforts like Restore the Fourth. I participated in my city's Restore the Fourth protests. (My family, with two participating adults and two participating minor children, made up about 3 percent of total attendance at the Minneapolis protest.) But when you write E.g. next target -> a "free market capitilism" that mainly works for the rich. I have to respectfully disagree. You need to travel more if you think that the next issue that needs world attention is "free market capitilism" [sic]. If that becomes the agenda of activists associated with the Restore the Fourth movement (and there were some disturbing signs that that was the real agenda at the Minneapolis protests), then the movement will die a well deserved death. Free-enterprise economics is a force for human liberation all over the world, as the alternative is always economic control by the rulers, under whatever ideological name it uses from mercantilism to socialism to communism.
- untothebreach 13y ago
  I agree that "free market capitalism" isn't the proper target, but I the _implementation_ of "free market capitalism" in the U.S. has not resulted in "human liberation," but instead has resulted in "economic control by the rulers", where rulers = "the ultra-rich".
  - jamesbritt 13y ago
    the _implementation_ of "free market capitalism" I.e. not actually free-market capitalism. So why refer to it as such? I'm puzzled by the number of people who call the economic system of the US free-market capitalism. It's corporatism, or state capitalism, or a mixed economy, or something else. But not free-market capitalism. Much like people point to the state of health care and health insurance in the US and say that it shows the failure of the free market. It's anything but.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism. Capitalism has enough of a history to counter the claim that it (if by 'it' you mean 'free-enterprise economics') is a force for 'human liberation'. It appears that perhaps you are talking about ideas, instead of actual implementations of free-market capitalism. If so, then let's limit criticism of opposing economic policy to their ideas, as well. And by that measure, capitalism cannot hardly offer 'human liberation all over the world' to compete with socialism and communism. If rulers are the worry (and, still talking in the realm of ideas), then capitalism fails at providing the greatest possible equitable division of rulership. Communism and socialism both offer a far more expansive systemic build of ownership of the means of production and the exercise of that power. If you want to discuss implementations, on the other hand, then that is the point where we get to bring up history and the facts, and we can draw out a nice chart of pros and cons with all the various competing economic ideologies for the purpose of determining which one offers the most 'human liberation'. When we're done with that, then let's factor that back into the discussion of ideas, pinpoint where the implementations fail the ideas, and figure out how to correct the implementation deficits in whichever idea was found to possess the highest 'human liberation' factor.
  - tokenadult 13y ago
    Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism You are welcome to define the terms, with references to show that your definitions are mainstream, if you like. On my part, I will simply squarely disagree with you. For one thing, capitalism is not an ism. There was never an influential Capitalist Manifesto to serve as a foil or point of departure for Marx's Communist Manifesto as a statement of an ideology. Communism and socialism both offer a far more expansive systemic build of ownership of the means of production and the exercise of that power. This statement is contradicted by worldwide immigration patterns and by the comparison between systems I could observe with my own eyes when I visited Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China beginning in 1982. More freedom and more ownership and more desirable aspects of daily life occur in places that practice free trade and free enterprise, and immigration lawyers are well aware of this. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea... What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States? A concrete answer to that question might be a start on making this discussion more informative. AFTER EDIT: Replying to the kind reply below, I notice that it is even less concrete than the previous comment from the same commenter, and as I type this edit to my comment, the question "What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States?" has yet to be answered. I refer to immigration statistics, of course, because they are a response by actual living human beings to where the trade-offs for living are best. As an American who has lived overseas for six years of my life, I know it is never easy for anyone to leave the country of birth to go to a new country, possibly a country with a different language, a different climate, a different cuisine, different laws and customs, and separation from childhood friends and relatives. But when people make the hard decision to emigrate from the country of birth and immigrate to a new country, they often move to the United States. To be sure, throughout this discussion no discussant has even made the explicit claim the United States exemplifies a "free-market capitalism" approach to economics, but suggesting that for the sake of discussion, it occurs to me that people who have considered the trade-offs like free-market capitalism just fine, and are more eager to leave the other systems than to endorse them.

tokenadult 13y ago

I agree with you that it's commendable that hackers are helping out efforts like Restore the Fourth. I participated in my city's Restore the Fourth protests. (My family, with two participating adults and two participating minor children, made up about 3 percent of total attendance at the Minneapolis protest.) But when you write E.g. next target -> a "free market capitilism" that mainly works for the rich. I have to respectfully disagree. You need to travel more if you think that the next issue that needs world attention is "free market capitilism" [sic]. If that becomes the agenda of activists associated with the Restore the Fourth movement (and there were some disturbing signs that that was the real agenda at the Minneapolis protests), then the movement will die a well deserved death. Free-enterprise economics is a force for human liberation all over the world, as the alternative is always economic control by the rulers, under whatever ideological name it uses from mercantilism to socialism to communism.

untothebreach 13y ago
I agree that "free market capitalism" isn't the proper target, but I the _implementation_ of "free market capitalism" in the U.S. has not resulted in "human liberation," but instead has resulted in "economic control by the rulers", where rulers = "the ultra-rich".
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  the _implementation_ of "free market capitalism" I.e. not actually free-market capitalism. So why refer to it as such? I'm puzzled by the number of people who call the economic system of the US free-market capitalism. It's corporatism, or state capitalism, or a mixed economy, or something else. But not free-market capitalism. Much like people point to the state of health care and health insurance in the US and say that it shows the failure of the free market. It's anything but.
bobwaycott 13y ago
Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism. Capitalism has enough of a history to counter the claim that it (if by 'it' you mean 'free-enterprise economics') is a force for 'human liberation'. It appears that perhaps you are talking about ideas, instead of actual implementations of free-market capitalism. If so, then let's limit criticism of opposing economic policy to their ideas, as well. And by that measure, capitalism cannot hardly offer 'human liberation all over the world' to compete with socialism and communism. If rulers are the worry (and, still talking in the realm of ideas), then capitalism fails at providing the greatest possible equitable division of rulership. Communism and socialism both offer a far more expansive systemic build of ownership of the means of production and the exercise of that power. If you want to discuss implementations, on the other hand, then that is the point where we get to bring up history and the facts, and we can draw out a nice chart of pros and cons with all the various competing economic ideologies for the purpose of determining which one offers the most 'human liberation'. When we're done with that, then let's factor that back into the discussion of ideas, pinpoint where the implementations fail the ideas, and figure out how to correct the implementation deficits in whichever idea was found to possess the highest 'human liberation' factor.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism You are welcome to define the terms, with references to show that your definitions are mainstream, if you like. On my part, I will simply squarely disagree with you. For one thing, capitalism is not an ism. There was never an influential Capitalist Manifesto to serve as a foil or point of departure for Marx's Communist Manifesto as a statement of an ideology. Communism and socialism both offer a far more expansive systemic build of ownership of the means of production and the exercise of that power. This statement is contradicted by worldwide immigration patterns and by the comparison between systems I could observe with my own eyes when I visited Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China beginning in 1982. More freedom and more ownership and more desirable aspects of daily life occur in places that practice free trade and free enterprise, and immigration lawyers are well aware of this. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea... What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States? A concrete answer to that question might be a start on making this discussion more informative. AFTER EDIT: Replying to the kind reply below, I notice that it is even less concrete than the previous comment from the same commenter, and as I type this edit to my comment, the question "What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States?" has yet to be answered. I refer to immigration statistics, of course, because they are a response by actual living human beings to where the trade-offs for living are best. As an American who has lived overseas for six years of my life, I know it is never easy for anyone to leave the country of birth to go to a new country, possibly a country with a different language, a different climate, a different cuisine, different laws and customs, and separation from childhood friends and relatives. But when people make the hard decision to emigrate from the country of birth and immigrate to a new country, they often move to the United States. To be sure, throughout this discussion no discussant has even made the explicit claim the United States exemplifies a "free-market capitalism" approach to economics, but suggesting that for the sake of discussion, it occurs to me that people who have considered the trade-offs like free-market capitalism just fine, and are more eager to leave the other systems than to endorse them.