The Real Price of Amazon's Free Shipping

Drug trafficking, human trafficking, murder, none of these things are right. No matter how low you get it takes a certain amount of malice to resort to them. I don't have it.

I'm not arguing that you can't do that. I have all the empathy in the world for the workers, but the fact is we are in a terrible economic state and we don't have money to spending on social programs to help them. We need to leave them alone, let Social Darwinism run its course.

 

I found this interesting when I looked on the wikipedia article on Social Darwinism:

Also:

I've read most the article, and I can't see proper justification for simply letting conflict between ultra rich and extreme poor to continue and even grow. Darwin gathered his results from the natural living world, he noted that there were societies within certain animal social structures, but the work of Social Darwinism predates Darwin's own work. The term is loosely connected to Darwin's ideas, mainly it concerns Franics Galton the man who created the idea of eugenics.

The theory concerns itself too much with believing our human society is perfect and flawless. It says that if we are diagnosed insane we are bring the species down if we breed, but I dispute this claim, since it believes that pre-existing we have a society that can perfectly diagnose people with disorders without fault, that a doctor's opinion of the problem will always be right compared to that of her patient's. We live in societies that are at fault, we have people whether the fittest of our species or not, who are at fault. It should not be our opinions that decide who is worthy of being called fittest, that is the duty of nature, not of man, but whether or not we are fittest or not we need to protect other people. We need to protect our species.

 

Yeah, they're not. But we're not really talking about everyone who murders or does human trafficking or theft. They were driven to those circumstances. I'm not saying it's a correct path to take or that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. But heck, we're talking about the kid who was neglected and abused so much that he resorted to robbery to sustain himself. The mother who gave her daughter away because she couldn't keep her.

And then it went on so far as to evolve into something bigger like drug/human trafficking. Murdering for money, ect.

I can't judge them. I've had a stable economic life thanks to my parents. I don't know what it's like to fall so low. And I hope I never do, but damn. Compassion. I'm not altruistic. But if I have enough, I'll gladly help my neighbor.

And I realize we're talking about something much more large-scale. But changes are scarcely made overnight.

/too idealistic

Well...I somewhat have to agree. Alone there's not a lot one individual can do without enough determination. And the truth is no one is willing to sacrifice and dedicate themselves for the sake of others anymore. The days of changes seem long gone. We're too conformed, too afraid.

I still don't like it.

 

I don't tolerate slavery one bit.

However, is there really slavery behind this or is the media just making it seem that way?

 

For some reason Social Darwinism was given negative connotations after Hitler, even though his acts were based on just plain Darwinism, not Social Darwinism. He did things like killing cripples to get them out of the gene pool. That is not Social Darwinism. If a cripple can make enough money to sustain himself, Social Darwinism has no problem with him.

The underlying belief of Social Darwinism is not that society is perfect, but that it takes something to be successful. If someone is working for Amazon and hates it, it's because they literally lack the ability to do better for themselves. Now the president of Amazon? He has that ability that the shipping guy lacks. And no amount of social programs is going to change that. You see, we don't decide what it takes to be fit enough to decide, but our circumstances do. You need the ability to adapt to those circumstances. If you don't have it, you'll die.

 

I see no way for a monopoly to rise without state intervention through patents or investing in special interest groups, such as starting companies that will get a leg up on the competition and then get patents to make sure that no one can try to make their products better than they can. In a society without government intervention, people will choose to buy the best product for the lowest cost, and that will decide which company wins out. Because people will have different tastes and other companies will try to match the leading ones, even if and when one wins out, it will not be by a great margin; just enough to make them the best in the industry. Not enough to make them powerful in a political sense. That is true capitalism, as I define it. You will not have the kind of ridiculous monopolies that we have today without the state intervening with things like intellectual property and giving 'important' companies breaks if they agree to work for state ends, or agree to give the state something in return.

How is it a weak argument? If a system is harmful to you living a 'lawful' life, then in order to pursue survival, you would be far more willing to choose an unlawful one. If the laws and the lawmakers decrease your chances of living instead of increase them, then it is failing as a worthwhile system, and ruling out breaking those rules as an option is very silly. There is no such thing as right and wrong in this world, only what is most profitable. The point of law is to increase the profit for the individual, and if it increases the profit for the majority, then it is doing its job. It is not, then a life of crime is a logical step for the majority to take.

 

We're on the same page with this one. I agree with you completely.

This is where I disagree. If you are unable to survive in a decently governed society, you are the problem, not the law. If you are too stupid for anyone to hire you, it doesn't give you the right to fuсk everything up for everyone else. The only just path those people can take is to starve and die. And for those who'll break the law and fuсk everyone else, that's what the law is for.

 

Then you should be able to see why I have a problem with what is happening right now. Might does not make right; the most profitable outcome is the best one.

This implies 'rights' and 'justice'. They do not exist. The law is a concept that was invented to prevent and recover losses, and increase the profits for all. Not to protect some notion of rights and justice. The concept has been warped, so that people associate an emotional value to it when they should not. The law becomes unfit for following when it decreases profits, or causes losses. That is all.

 

The problem is not with the corporations themselves, but with the government for allowing monopolies to rise in the first place. The corporation is taking advantage of the governments flaws to get a leg ahead of the competition. Why would I hold that against them? That's capitalism. The corporation earned their place by doing what nobody else would.

First of all, I disagree with that but I'm going to go with it for the sake of argument.

So, the law exists to increase profits and reduce losses. But surely, it's impossible to create a law that does this for every single person, correct? Especially when there exists cases like Down's Syndrome and generally unintelligent people.

In that case, you can only fairly judge a set of laws based on the ratio of how many people are surviving to how many aren't. So if people around you are surviving while you starve, how is it fair to blame it on the law? If someone with similar conditions to yours can survive and you can't, the problem is you.

 

I see a government as a corporation, a corporation claiming a monopoly on the service of defense. It should be treated as any other corporation has been, such as a mafia organization. A corporation is only as good as its results are, regardless of the status and name that you give to it.

I agree, but that is not the case here. No one owes you your survival, but monopoly does not just refuse to hand it to you, it forces you into working for it or dying. It is coming to a point where the only people who can 'survive' are those working under monopolies. This is a minority of people, and the rest are dying out both economically and literally. We already have a certain measure of a prole based society, with the monopoly managers looking down and herding us. If we do not work for the pay that they assign us, then we die. If we try to compete, they pull a patent or copyright on us, and we die. A life of crime increases my standards of living greatly, so it is more profitable for me and others like me than a lawful life of substandard living. It is up to the concept of law to make a lawful life a happier life for me than a life of crime, and if it does not then it has deviated from its purpose.

 

Yes we do decide what we do in society. Sure it's not all in our control, things such as elitism put pressure on lower classes to stay in their place, but we all have the potential to change our social class.
Education, experience in the workplace, career opportunites are all factors that can affect our social standing and 'worth' as it were. We are not pinned to one thing in society, we have opportunities that mean we have oppotunities galore.

And the workers at Amazon likely don't wish to stay in that career for the rest of their lives, some may have experience in other jobs, some may have university degrees, but during times of survival we have to take any option we have. And likely they will move from that position if they can, to something closer to home, something that pays better, and of course something that has less workplace stressors in place.

To think they are worth less then ypu is effectively believing in elitism. I wouldn't have thought you would believe such a thing, but then again you being a Social Darwinism was surprising too.

 

I did. It greatly had Socialist and Communist ideals. I said they would never work.

Dude... if everyone whos life sucked did that, the entire economic system would collapse, as well as the government. The result? Anarchy. A sad state of life where everyone turns on everyone and everyone only cares about themselves. The result? Someone will eventually step out of the shadows and take over the power vaccuum. Usually with a hostile takover. This new person becomes a despot, and pretty much enslaves everyone, anyone who opposes his might, is executed.

And we know despotism is such an effective government.

Our economy is flawed. But what you are reffering to is called fuedalism. Its basically slave labor in the name of the rich land owner. IT IS MUCH MUCH WORSE! There is no comparison.


My final thought: A majority of you are suggesting anarchy. That is stupid.

 

I do not see any communist ideals involved, and I see no reason to split it up into two polar opposite spectrums. When you do that, you can just pick a side that you think it is leaning on and make a straw man argument against it based on the principle of the extreme example.

This is what leads me to believe that you do not know what you are talking about. Anarchism is a philosophy as much as communism is; you cannot have a commune without the majority of people being communists, and you cannot have anarchy without the majority people being anarchists. Anarchism is not a society without a body claiming the name of government, but it is a society that outlaws governing other people on principle. Defense and enforcement of this law are taken care of by private defense agencies or the like, so do not try to argue that you cannot have law and order without a 'ruling' body. You will only do yourself a disservice and contradict your claim of having read enough on the subject. Kindly respect my philosophy and I just may respect yours.

There is indeed a comparison; in fact one could argue that most any state claims a sort of feudalism over any land within its state-defined borders. What is property tax if a state is not trying to rent you land that it thinks it owns? Why is one of the main arguments against dissenters in a country, "If you do not like it, then you can leave"? States generally claim to own the land that they govern over, and exercise this by enforcing property taxes and exacting eminent domain on people within their self-proclaimed territory. The biggest difference is how they decide who owns the land, but feudalism is still very much alive today, and it will be until these concepts are revoked.

What did I say about respecting my philosophy...

 

It did have communist and socialist ideals. Anything which requires a large ammount of regulation is socialist ideology. Also, I never once said it was wrong. Only it wouldnt work in our society. The fact that your so defensive over it suggest you have doubts.

Wait... you believe anarchy is a good solution? Ok, its been a while since I talked to a confessed anarchist. How would such a regulated economy work in an anarchist society? The only economic structure which could survive is -pure- capitalism.

Seriously, would it be a nationwide anarchist society? Would each city function independantly? I am curious. How do you envision anarchy. Because apparently, we are failing to see the same vision. I don't see it working. How would someone who wants a government be treated? I mean, lets be honest, no one can ever be in 100% agreement. And further, with no one "ruling" over another, how would crimes be punished? How would ones views on racism be treated? And back to our initial discussion, how would there be any regulation of the economy? Would there be employees and employers? Or would everyone be forced to work independantly?

Taxation is always the product of a government. It is simply a way for the government to raise money to fund basic neccessities a government is required to run. Such as police, fire, and mail services. Unfortunatly, not every citizen agrees with how each is spent. In fuedalism, its only for the benefit of the local lord. If he chose to provide any services it was at his discretion.

The reason the "if you dont like it leave" arguement is so popular, is there are litterally hundreds of economic and political styles of government. Some succesful, some failing. All flawed in some shape or form.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt now. I had no idea you actually believed in anarchy being a possible solution. I was just assuming it was an unintended suggestion by many in this thread. I'm all open minded as to what you have to say.

 

Correct; I am not certain, and I will not take your word for it. For instance, why do you think that it requires regulation?

No economic structure can survive. I only seek for the most ethical choice of action at any given time. Better to live free and die young than prolong a life based in suffering. I will choose ethics over self-perpetuating suffering. I hold that anarchism is entirely compatible with true capitalism as long as that capitalism applies to defense as well, because true capitalism can only exist if no purchase is compulsory, and making an action compulsory is unlawful according to anarchist ethics. People will willingly buy defense from the best company, and if no company is satisfactory, then they will defend themselves by way of community watches. See what I had to say earlier for true capitalism.

This is not the kind of discussion that we are having, sadly, and I would rather not discuss it so thoroughly at the moment. Look over my other posts and it should become clear to you. If you cannot work out these problems on your own, then I cannot help you. Or rather, I will not help you. If you find yourself unable to imagine anarchism without me, then you will have trouble with me. If you truly want to think about it, then find an answer for yourself, as an individualist should do. When it comes to anarchism, as with any philosophy, I would rather discuss is as a search for truth rather than as a debate of opposing sides; that is why I posted this in the Discussion section and not the Debate Corner. Please read some anarchist literature if you want to understand it, because that seems to be what you have based your notions of other philosophies on; literature from that perspective. Am I wrong?

I will at least try to answer your basic questions, however.

In order to answer your first question, you have to ask, how big does something have to be to be a 'nation'? Nations are defined by states, no matter how small they are. Anarchism can exist across as wide an area as people are willing to live anarchist lives. There is no limit on scope or the basis of social structure and where people live; in fact, under anarchy, centralization causing cities would weed out and the countryside would become more populated while the city evened out a bit. Depending on the sensibilities of those living in an anarchist society, yes, they would be split up into cities, or something of the sort. Ostracism is one of the most powerful tools that an anarchist has, and it would be the driving force behind making people form their own mini-societies that were run with their own internal anarchist structure. A good example might be primitivist anarchism versus anarcho-capitalism; an Amish versus a consumer or inventor. And so on.

Someone who wanted to live under a state would be trying to commit the only crime in an anarchist society, and that is coercing someone else into trading with you. If someone wanted to live under a state in anarchy, which is unlikely, as it would have a very minimal level of violent crime and no unfavorable factors such as sexism or benefits granted by law, then they would be ostracized, and people would not trade with them. But they would also not stop them from leaving and moving to a state where their views were supported; in anarchy, there would be no borders, and no trespassers unless on private property. The same thing would happen with racism and other forms of bigotry. People would not trade with you if you did not like them, and you would be forced to either live peacefully or leave, not by violence, but by nature of having been an ******* and not having anyone to take care of you.

As for crimes being punished, I went over this earlier. But, for argument's sake, let me work out what kind of court system I would pay for, personally.

If someone violated the non-aggression principle which is the basis of anarchy, by either stealing from me or otherwise causing me a material loss, of my time, property or currency, then I would have a private defense agency bring them in like I would a police service, only I get a choice in whether I pay for it or not. Once reeled in, me and my offending party would each pay for a judge, kind of like lawyers in today's court hearings. Detectives and other services might be provided by either a court building that I am paying for that day or the private defense agency, which I would prefer, and a verdict would be reached if the judge that he chose and the judge that I chose could reach a consensus. If they could not, then those two judges would instead be forced to reach a consensus on a third judge who would then preside over the hearing. If he could not come to a verdict, then he would choose a fourth one, and so on. The 'law' that would be applied here, and the purpose of it, would be that governing, or causing another person a loss by means of coercive trade is outlawed, and the purpose of the hearing would be to recover my loss. How you plan to calculate that loss in things other than stealing is somewhat beyond me, and would probably vary from city to city, or from hearing to hearing. After all, the judges are each chosen consensually by their respective parties, and the 'punishments' or compensation that they decide on would be up to them. Because each side chose their own judges, they could not complain about the verdict, so it would be important to choose your judges wisely. That is how I would do things.

There would be no 'regulation of the economy' other than people choosing to trade however they wanted. Capitalism would be the obvious choice, but anything would go as long as all parties consented. Regulation is defined as a coercive trade, and it was outlawed by the principle above, so trying to stop people from consensually trading with each other is wrong.

False... Theft is theft. It is only after generation upon generation of systematic theft that people will stop asking why someone jacked their car and start asking what they were doing with it. In feudalism, lords would give out benefits that seemingly justified the theft, just as you are suggesting, and they gave out the same services, too. You are being clouded by wording and loyalty. If you do not get a choice in whether or not your money is taken, then the result is that how it is used is not up to your discretion. If the lord takes your money and then asks you what he should do with it, that is at his discretion. If you told him that you did not want him to do anything with it, he would still take it regardless. Because he takes it regardless, any service that he does is at his discretion, even if he asks your opinion on and takes it into account. You are at the mercy of his willingness to take your suggestion, and any notion of how he has to spend it is faulty. You are at the mercy of his good will in any case where he does not give your money back upon asking. The same is true of any state that does not give you the option of buying nothing at all. They are functionally the same, and loyalty is the only thing that separates your name from them.

The reason why it is popular is irrelevant if it is not a valid argument in the first place.

Thank you for that, I had not expected better of you. I am too used to people rejecting my ideas ethically because the system that they were raised in has taught them to think that way. If you read my posts throughout the section and elsewhere, it would become obvious that I strongly dislike it when people misuse the term anarchy as if it is no kind of philosophy at all.

 

Ok Makaze, out of respect for the thread, ill back off. Were way off topic. If you wish to discuss anarchy and political structures, ill discuss elsewhere. Pm me if your willing.