Nevada bill would allow tech companies to create governments

[Edge-]

Detroit went to shit, because it relied too heavily on a single industry. That's what happens.

What do company towns rely on, again?

[Endus]

Nobody needs to die, that is not my analogy. A business going bankrupt means people need to find new work. A business relocating, for any reason, means people either choose to follow, or they choose to find new work. This happens all the time.

And in many cases, those people can't afford to move to where the jobs are, and/or can't find a replacement job.

That's a simple fact, which you're refusing to acknowledge to be true. There are not enough jobs for everyone to be employed, let alone productively employed in a profession and at a position they find satisfying.

[Machismo]

To add more to this, @Machismo - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-p...h-savings.html

Bruh, moving costs a lot more than $1,000, and like, a crapton of Americans can't even afford the $1,000.

Then. Don't. Fucking. Go.

God damn, that was easy. You are blaming me, because people aren't responsible. Those fuckers were poor long before this ever became a possibility.

- - - Updated - - -

And in many cases, those people can't afford to move to where the jobs are, and/or can't find a replacement job.

That's a simple fact, which you're refusing to acknowledge to be true. There are not enough jobs for everyone to be employed, let alone productively employed in a profession and at a position they find satisfying.

Many companies pay to relocate.

I acknowledge it, and we've discussed it in a dozen threads a dozen times. This is about foresight. If someone doesn't have the money for contingencies, that's on them.

[Monster Hunter]

Company towns can fuck off, kkthxbai.

This is kind of a step beyond that.

Company towns used to be basicly the default at least here in the UK in victorian times.

All those rows of Tennant houses were built specifically to house factory workers by the factories.

But even back then the company didn't set up any form of its own local goverments.

[Machismo]

What do company towns rely on, again?

Detroit isn't a "company town."

[Sunseeker]

It means you are offered a choice. Nobody is forcing you to go.

Nobody.

Except the basic capitalist necessity to have money and ya know, not die in the street.

And here we are again stuck in the "Libertarian argument loop."
You say "Well you don't have to go."
I say "But our capitalist society requires you to be have money and thusly be employed."
and you say "But you can just get a new job!"
and I say "You're not guaranteed a new job, so leaving your job poses very serious risks."
and you say "But you don't have to go!"

Because you are not arguing honestly. Because you, like every other "libertarian" are arrogant of your own opinions and ignorant of everything you're talking about.

We tried "company towns", they didn't work. Other countries have "company towns", they still don't work.

Why are you incapable of recognizing a failed idea? You're happy to bitch about how Socialism has failed, but...

Oh, wait, silly me I forgot! It's because you're not arguing honestly.

Anyway, whatever, speaking of "things I don't have to do." one of them is see your posts, so, bye-bye!

[Monster Hunter]

And in many cases, those people can't afford to move to where the jobs are, and/or can't find a replacement job.

That's a simple fact, which you're refusing to acknowledge to be true. There are not enough jobs for everyone to be employed, let alone productively employed in a profession and at a position they find satisfying.

Depends, if its moving from a jigh cost area like cali to some where lower cost then thats a different thing,

[Endus]

Then. Don't. Fucking. Go.

God damn, that was easy. You are blaming me, because people aren't responsible. Those fuckers were poor long before this ever became a possibility.

People are "irresponsible" for not going into debt to move to a hypothetical company town to labor for an exploitative company that does not have their interests in mind?

Why are we subjugating ourselves before corporate interests, again?

You're making it real clear your issue with government isn't that it controls people's lives, since you clearly don't have any problem with a corporation doing so, even when said corporation would have absolutely no reason to have any concern for the welfare of those human resources, any more than a mining company wants to ensure that the ore it's extracting is comfortable about the extraction process.

[Fugus]

I know plenty of dudes who joined the military for a paycheck, or because they didn't have better options. Most of them... in fact.

I moved to another state to better support my family. Shit, I did it twice. That's a choice I willingly made.

So, telling me I have no clue shows you to be ignorant.

- - - Updated - - -



This is literally the choice everyone faces when their company moves, or their employer goes out of business.

And what do you think their options are when they are forced to "decide" to move to a company town just for a paycheck?

And if you DECIDED to move to a new location for a job even if you didn't need to for work, that is great for you. Many don't have that choice, they either move, become a criminal, rely on welfare or die.

And the fact you can't figure this out shows more about your lack of knowledge on this subject than mine. I joined the armed services to survive, I moved out of town and when things got bad I was forced to live off one meal every THREE days for over 6 months just trying to keep a roof over my head as my alternative was to "Choose" to move to an area I wanted to go to even less. And guess what, I ended up having that choice made for me anyways because you need money to survive.

[Machismo]

Except the basic capitalist necessity to have money and ya know, not die in the street.

And here we are again stuck in the "Libertarian argument loop."
You say "Well you don't have to go."
I say "But our capitalist society requires you to be have money and thusly be employed."
and you say "But you can just get a new job!"
and I say "You're not guaranteed a new job, so leaving your job poses very serious risks."
and you say "But you don't have to go!"

Because you are not arguing honestly. Because you, like every other "libertarian" are arrogant of your own opinions and ignorant of everything you're talking about.

We tried "company towns", they didn't work. Other countries have "company towns", they still don't work.

Why are you incapable of recognizing a failed idea? You're happy to bitch about how Socialism has failed, but...

Oh, wait, silly me I forgot! It's because you're not arguing honestly.

Anyway, whatever, speaking of "things I don't have to do." one of them is see your posts, so, bye-bye!

Does this mean you want to argue no companies should ever be able to relocate, or close down?

Asking for a friend.

I want to make sure we have it on paper, that this is what you are arguing.

[Orange Joe]

Where did I say that?

This is about a first attempt at voluntary governance. They could form a socialist utopia in one of them, for all I care.

So if that is voluntary governance, just because people can choose to move there. How is the current government not voluntary? People have the same choice to move to another government of their choice.

[Endus]

Detroit isn't a "company town."

Because there were plenty of other companies working in and around Detroit.

A state that wouldn't be the case with a company town. Or at least, would only be through partnership with that company. If you're working in Fordtown, you're not going to be able to pick which fast food joint you grab lunch at; Ford's only partnering with Burger King, so your only choice is Burger King.

Detroit's collapse was because its economy was not diversified enough, and when the auto sector collapsed, it took the city with it.

A company town isn't the same, it's way worse.

[Machismo]

People are "irresponsible" for not going into debt to move to a hypothetical company town to labor for an exploitative company that does not have their interests in mind?

Why are we subjugating ourselves before corporate interests, again?

You're making it real clear your issue with government isn't that it controls people's lives, since you clearly don't have any problem with a corporation doing so, even when said corporation would have absolutely no reason to have any concern for the welfare of those human resources, any more than a mining company wants to ensure that the ore it's extracting is comfortable about the extraction process.

People are irresponsible for not planning for contingencies, such as a company moving, or their employer going out of business.

I've made it real clear that I prefer limited government. I've also made it clear I prefer voluntary government. If people want to voluntarily enjoy a socialist government, then more power to them.

Voluntaryism is about freedom, freedom of choice.

- - - Updated - - -

So if that is voluntary governance, just because people can choose to move there. How is the current government not voluntary? People have the same choice to move to another government of their choice.

I wasn't able to choose to move to the United States, I was born here. This is uninhabited land, meaning everyone is going there.

[Endus]

Does this mean you want to argue no companies should ever be able to relocate, or close down?

Asking for a friend.

I want to make sure we have it on paper, that this is what you are arguing.

It isn't what they're arguing, and it's pretty willfully dishonest for you to pretend they are.

Their issue isn't with the idea that a business can relocate, it's with the idea that citizens are chaff to be milled by corporations for profit and should be used up and cast aside without a second thought.

[Fugus]

Does this mean you want to argue no companies should ever be able to relocate, or close down?

Asking for a friend.

I want to make sure we have it on paper, that this is what you are arguing.

No one has made that claim but you projecting it onto others. We are pointing out that many of the people choosing to go to those places won't be actually choosing to as they need to survive and their necessity forced that decision where they had no other actual options and that company towns are a horrible situation which are easily and historically abused.

[Machismo]

Because there were plenty of other companies working in and around Detroit.

A state that wouldn't be the case with a company town. Or at least, would only be through partnership with that company. If you're working in Fordtown, you're not going to be able to pick which fast food joint you grab lunch at; Ford's only partnering with Burger King, so your only choice is Burger King.

Detroit's collapse was because its economy was not diversified enough, and when the auto sector collapsed, it took the city with it.

A company town isn't the same, it's way worse.

It wouldn't be the case, which is why you shouldn't go, if you don't want to.

That doesn't mean that this company, and other people, shouldn't be free to do it, if that's what they want.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't what they're arguing, and it's pretty willfully dishonest for you to pretend they are.

Their issue isn't with the idea that a business can relocate, it's with the idea that citizens are chaff to be milled by corporations for profit and should be used up and cast aside without a second thought.

This is a company relocating. Go with them, or not. that's your choice.

[Edge-]

Detroit isn't a "company town."

But what do company towns rely on? A single industry.

Seems like a pretty bad idea, no?

[Orange Joe]

I wasn't able to choose to move to the United States, I was born here. This is uninhabited land, meaning everyone is going there.

You can choose to leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the US, therefor voluntary.

[Machismo]

No one has made that claim but you projecting it onto others. We are pointing out that many of the people choosing to go to those places won't be actually choosing to as they need to survive and their necessity forced that decision where they had no other actual options and that company towns are a horrible situation which are easily and historically abused.

This is nothing more than a company moving to a different area, with a different government (whatever that government may be). You can follow them, or not.

They can survive just as we've done before, get a new job.

[Endus]

People are irresponsible for not planning for contingencies, such as a company moving, or their employer going out of business.

That's only a valid stance if those people are being paid enough to live comfortably and set aside savings over and above that margin, for such contingencies.

Which would put the bare minimum wages at near $30,000/year, so we're clear. With buffers to account for upkeep if things don't work out and their savings don't last long enough.

If you're not going to offer that, you're enshrining a level of human suffering into your system that you see as justified and good, and which you will choose to blame the victims of for suffering, even though it's a systemic creation.

I've made it real clear that I prefer limited government. I've also made it clear I prefer voluntary government. If people want to voluntarily enjoy a socialist government, then more power to them.

There's been a couple threads today where you've brought up "socialism", and in not one have you used the label accurately.