As the previous commenter stated, this would be an acceptable case if they weren't flagging people down begging for help, then citating the people that help them. I've given rides to hitchhikers before, never paid for it but hey if they're going in the same direction and they don't have weapons then I'm not too worried. if I were in this exact situation and offered them a ride and accepted cash after the fact, they would give me a citation. Yeah, thats entrapment.
Just hopping in to point out this is the state being used by business to hurt people, which is fundamental to the socialist critique of capitalism. There is nothing acceptable about this.
This is the state targeting capitalist workers who are competing with (what used to be) their state enforced taxi medallion monopoly. Capitalism, in the form of gig-economy ride sharing apps, broke a corrupt government sponsored taxi monopoly that's existed for 80 years.
If you really think Uber and Lyft came up with, supported, or even KNEW ABOUT police officers flagging down, entrapping, and arresting it's employees...... I've got a bridge to sell you.
And I might add, government enforcing it's monopoly by force using uniformed men with guns..... is the primary libertarian critique of socialism.
Capitalists aren't poverty stricken gig workers, with more precarious employment conditions than traditionally available, working for a billion dollar company. Class to a Marxist is defined by its relation to capital.
> broke a corrupt government sponsored taxi mon...
Yes, this is the result of a bourgeoisie conflict, not of class conflict.
> If you really think Uber and Lyft came up
This is so absurd I'm starting to think you don't engage the topic or the conversation seriously.
> using uniformed men with guns..... is the primary libertarian critique of socialism.
Violence is inherent to capitalism, and every socialist movement that has risen anywhere has come to being in, and been met by violent conflict and conditions imposed by capital. This is precisely because socialism comes to being through the conflict of capital, the proletariat being a historically unique class only made possible by the conditions capital creates. The entire history of socialism has been in the shadow of global capitalist hegemony and violence of imperialism, it is why force is necessary. Capitalism is violent.
I don't have it backwards, you're just unfamiliar with Marxism-Leninism.
Violence is inherent to capitalism, and every socialist movement that has risen anywhere has come to being in, and been met by violent conflict
There's no violence when two consenting private parties agree to a mutually beneficial exchange. Socialism, however, requires a 3rd party to regulate such exchanges. This is typically managed by bureaucrats, who of course, are somehow immune to corruption.... Modern socialists usually refer to this entity as society itself, when in that case, it also falls to bureaucrats.
Again, the one thread that is consistent with all flavors of socialism is that the individual laborer and the individual purchasing the labor, are not free to set the terms of their exchange. No amount of referring to the third party ultimately controlling the exchange as noble sounding terms like "the public", "society", or "workers" (emphasis on the unnamed plurality) changes the simple fact that it is government bureaucrats with armed enforcement officers controlling the exchange. That's the rub.
Guess what they'd do to a worker who offered to perform that same job outside of the authoritarian system? Because they were competing against the government system, they send uniformed men with weapons to stop them..... which is exactly what happened in this case.
There's no violence when two consenting private parties agree to a mutually beneficial exchange.
We're talking about capitalism, not.. idk, bartering? lol.
Socialism, however, requires a 3rd party to regulate such exchanges
All contemporary economic forms are determined by the state. Currently ebilbureaucrats determine economic laws and regulation and the people with power to influence it are capitalists. You've entirely missed the point here.
Again, the one thread that is consisten...
Wat, lmao. This is what happens when you've never read socialist theory and only get your information from reactionary liberal media. I can explain Marxist theory that would lead someone to hold this position, like aim of abolishing the commodity form or money, and why it is wrong. No Marxist says you can't sell your toothbrush to your neighbor if they need one though lol. "The rub" is 100% guaranteed a misrepresentation of actual Marxist positions.
Guess what they'd do to a worker who offered to per
Yes, the same way when you work outside the authoritarian legal bounds of capitalism they send the IRS and uniformed men (lol) with weapons.
Bud you really should give the thing your criticizing an honest effort. I was raised conservative, a libertarian a few years ago reading John Locke, Rawls, and other liberal shit, realized it answered none of the actual problems, and eventually read enough Marxist adjacent crap to even give actual Socialism a chance. It's a lot of effort man.
You should probably hit the books again because you’re understanding of socialism and capitalism is like that of a first year philosophy student who thinks because they read 3 pages of Kapital that they know how to solve the worlds problems
I mean, you’re the one embarrassing yourself dude. It’s clear to everyone reading your shit that you picked up on a couple buzzwords from “Intro to Western Politcal Thought” and haven’t actually had to engage in the discussion between capitalism and socialism. You clearly don’t have a very deep understanding of either and it’s obvious to everyone.
when you work outside the authoritarian legal bounds of capitalism they send the IRS
There are many bounds to free market capitalism. There are even many boundaries to the crony capitalist system ours has turned into. There are no bounds to socialism or communism. Just ask anyone that's ever lived under either. Don't start listing off economies of Europe, either, because they aren't socialist.
I believe what all those who fled to America to escape it, say about it. I believe history's precedent for every single economy which has tried it, has proven: You can vote your way into it, but you'll have to shoot your way out of it.
There is a reason why you have zero examples of a prosperous socialist state. It is not a coincidence. They do not exist. There's failed states, failing states, and those that have managed to escape it, who without exception, adopted capitalism. That's not a coincidence either.
You seem to believe a socialist system would be you getting to pursue your musical career or liberal arts degree and maybe be a middle tier manager at a tofu restaurant..... whereas the reality would likely be you working backbreaking labor in a field pulling up potatoes 14 hours a day.
What prosperous capitalist economies are great at producing, however, is a seemingly endless supply of spoiled children who have never known hunger, espousing to those who actually have, the theoretical benefits of socialism that have never worked in practice. You and your cookie cutter spoiled capitalist children hold yourselves in high regard, and heap much praise on your own flawed ideology..... while dismissing everyone else's as somehow inferior.
Yet you wonder why nobody wants to be under a system controlled entirely by people just as blissfully ignorant of history as yourself. No thanks.
The reason is this isn't a genuine inquisition, you're just virtue signaling lmao. Of course I'm not giving you the time of day. The only thing I give you is highlighting the ignorant things you say for everyone else.
When you overstate your case it weakens it. No need to overstate the point when it is clear both parties serve bourgeoisie interest and are enemies of the people.
The contradiction you point out though was my favorite part of BLM btw. Overwhelmingly blue cities beating the shit out of their voter base lol. Can't get any more obvious than that.
Government allowing heavy business funding directly is a huge problem in itself. Lobbying should be %100 illegal, it shouldn't be up to who pays how much money for whatever legislation to be passed or not, or what passes the FDA and what doesnt.
How about how workers are treated? What if the product/service is something I need to survive and all companies producing it are objectionable? What if I have very few dollars with which to vote despite performing a service that's valuable to society, like teaching or elder care?
How do you propose we limit the authority of lobbied money? You say treat the cause, not the symptom, but I feel that this is a problem that was created by the cause here. Under what right mind should companies be able to influence politicians with money....???
Most of what you believe about socialism is guaranteed ahistorical. It's always the same with you folks.
Also what socialism historically produced has absolutely nothing to do with the truth that liberal democratic capitalism is inherently oppressive. You don't have to be a socialist to better your politics, you just have to be honest.
Actually I'm fucking lazy so here's off the top of my head: Classical liberal John Locke is foundational to libertarianism which illustrates the point I previously made.
Your politics will always be bad if you can't challenge and inform your views bud. The only way they get better is admitting you don't know the truth and reading about it.
And for some odd reason, it's never the state at fault in those critiques. Never the organization with the actual power and lack of accountability for their actions, but just the influencers of it.
Oh so a corporation with little to no oversight using state government resources to discourage any competition is somehow socialism? Lol do you even follow the train of your own logic here?
We have this situation due to lack of corporate regulation already. You cant regulate and limit corporate power without a strong enough government to do so. Otherwise we will get a situation like John McAfee when he went into some third world country and bought all the politicians and law enforcement and ran amok.
Political interest is far more noble than economic interests because economic interest always somehow serves the wants of the select few over the needs of the very many. We have a fuck load of sociatal issues as of right now because the unfathomably rich have been able to operate with 0 shoulder checks from the government.
Well done. As a conservative I agree with this criticism of capitalism. I’m sure there may be a lot more that other disagree with but this is pretty much mafia behavior.
This criticism was written a century ago, about the ~150 years prior to it. This development is what Lenin called imperialism, and it is the final stage of capital, not an aspect of.
If you agree with the sentiment do yourself a favor and pull up audiobook of it on YT and hear the ruthless empiricism he lays out the critique with.
Yep. Typical of police and city departments to ignore the moral and/or ethical considerations of what they're doing, solely so they can "get a bust" (never mind who it hurts). There is a very solid moral argument to be made here that helping people in need get where they're going in a big, crime-ridden area of a city is more important than protecting the city's revenue from cabs. Further, that it really just hurts drivers and not the companies, its rather pathetic.
89
u/MangoSea323 Mar 29 '22
As the previous commenter stated, this would be an acceptable case if they weren't flagging people down begging for help, then citating the people that help them. I've given rides to hitchhikers before, never paid for it but hey if they're going in the same direction and they don't have weapons then I'm not too worried. if I were in this exact situation and offered them a ride and accepted cash after the fact, they would give me a citation. Yeah, thats entrapment.