We are all Palestinians, but many of us don't know it yet.

People make me laugh, anytime they face corruption there is a minority ready to revolutionize a perfectly good thing as if the "next thing" has some immunity to corruption or anything actually does.

The reality in regards to American economic issues really doesn't even in this case have as much to do with corruption as it does a failure of the American demographic to take advantage of emerging trends, people cry about low wages, cry about industrial jobs going over seas (and to a real degree they should) BUT the Tech center is thriving, the local gas station has 80 applications to be a cashier atm... programmers in some areas have 80 jobs available for for any singular American applicant who can actually do the work right now...

Lets not fil to mention tech start ups are cheap, it costs 14.99 for a domain name lol, 3-4 people can do anything out of a garage, try to rent retail space your signing a lease for years for 500,000 or more before inventory and stuff... There is a lot of opportunity right now, the average american just ins't prepared... and lots of useless majors still starting life in university 50 G in debt for degrees like "psychology" "Art History" "philosophy" "forestry" "literature" ..... all of which mostly mean you work at Mc Donalds

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Capitalism is the worst form of economics, until you compare it to all other forms of economics.

(nod to Winston Churchill)

It's interesting how the OP's article cries for "freedom" yet endorses an ideology that is the antithesis of freedom.

The author bemoans the "rights" of some, and ignores the "rights" of the unborn.

I would imagine that to embrace this ideal, the Bill of Rights and Constitution would need to be scrapped, so it is not a major concern of mine.

But I am curious.

How would this utopia be established in the US?

The green back and colonial script worked before it was undermined. Were they both not used under the constitution?

I suppose they were used.

As for being undermined, wasn't the undermining a nod towards socialism and a turn away from capitalism?

Not if they were undermined by federal reserve notes.

Who knows if capitalism works? Has it ever been done outside of a borrow/tax system?

I believe that our federal income tax system is relatively "new".

Capitalism does work. But it requires people who want to work.

I'm no economist so it is difficult for me to be succinct on this topic.

That is a bit of a cheap shot. Want to work? Or willing to work in conditions competing with China?

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Capitalism is the worst form of economics, until you compare it to all other forms of economics.

(nod to Winston Churchill)

It's interesting how the OP's article cries for "freedom" yet endorses an ideology that is the antithesis of freedom.

The author bemoans the "rights" of some, and ignores the "rights" of the unborn.

I would imagine that to embrace this ideal, the Bill of Rights and Constitution would need to be scrapped, so it is not a major concern of mine.

But I am curious.

How would this utopia be established in the US?

The green back and colonial script worked before it was undermined. Were they both not used under the constitution?

I suppose they were used.

As for being undermined, wasn't the undermining a nod towards socialism and a turn away from capitalism?

Not if they were undermined by federal reserve notes.

Who knows if capitalism works? Has it ever been done outside of a borrow/tax system?

I believe that our federal income tax system is relatively "new".

Capitalism does work. But it requires people who want to work.

I'm no economist so it is difficult for me to be succinct on this topic.

John Smith coined the term "Work or Starve" every colonist had to work 4 hours a day farming. Boy are we 180 away from anything resembling that concept today.

To many people today think that work is a four letter word. They just don't understand the concept having been handed trophies just for showing up their whole lives.
When everyone is special, no one is.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Capitalism is the worst form of economics, until you compare it to all other forms of economics.

(nod to Winston Churchill)

It's interesting how the OP's article cries for "freedom" yet endorses an ideology that is the antithesis of freedom.

The author bemoans the "rights" of some, and ignores the "rights" of the unborn.

I would imagine that to embrace this ideal, the Bill of Rights and Constitution would need to be scrapped, so it is not a major concern of mine.

But I am curious.

How would this utopia be established in the US?

The green back and colonial script worked before it was undermined. Were they both not used under the constitution?

I suppose they were used.

As for being undermined, wasn't the undermining a nod towards socialism and a turn away from capitalism?

Not if they were undermined by federal reserve notes.

Who knows if capitalism works? Has it ever been done outside of a borrow/tax system?

I believe that our federal income tax system is relatively "new".

Capitalism does work. But it requires people who want to work.

I'm no economist so it is difficult for me to be succinct on this topic.

John Smith coined the term "Work or Starve" every colonist had to work 4 hours a day farming. Boy are we 180 away from anything resembling that concept today.

To many people today think that work is a four letter word. They just don't understand the concept having been handed trophies just for showing up their whole lives.
When everyone is special, no one is.

"When everyone is special, no one is."

Boy is that well said.

a reply to: FyreByrd

There are always alternatives. But the point with alternatives, is the DIRECTION where they lead.

And what comes to choosing socialism as an alternative, that direction leads to unsustainable destruction of both natural and urban environments, as well as declined innovation. Proof: eastern Europe - still re-building.

As barbaric as it sounds, socialism without communism does no good to anybody. Having commie execution squades checking balances really beefs up results and brings sudden urgency in any organisation - Stalin knew that.

So, I would somehow in my sense of self-preservation, try to avoid anything like that, and walk the opposite direction. Paying me lunch with my own hard earned money, and not with somebody else's money has so far kept me away from trouble.

a reply to: beezzer

The United States is far too large for meaningful freedom to exist for everyone in this country. In order for imperialist totalitarianism to work, 49% of the people must sacrifice their happiness to the other 51. A confederation of states does work to provide mutual defense, universal justice and basic human rights for all of its members citizens, but a federal government generally ends up being highly bureaucratic establishing one-size fits all solutions for masses of individuals.

In my opinion, the best path forward is the total disintegration of power, returning jurisdiction of rights into the hands of the individual. Meaning that if someone violates you, you, not a lawyer, not a policemen, have the right to disabuse them of the idea of violating you. Once you have that right, from there, contractual agreements can be established which can build up a truly liberating civilization.

You represent yourself directly on the local level, lending your own authority to the local government that suits your interests optimally. This allows for vastly different cultures to coexist side by side butting right up against each other. One government might only span for a few blocks and its members might voluntarily adhere to the religious laws of Islam, while another government might span for 20 miles, existing as a socialist paradise for the people who opt into that system of governance.

The confederated government, which has a goal of spreading to acquire jurisdiction over the whole of the earth, is only empowered to make decisions which regulate affairs of corporations, universal citizens and travelers so that way no one from outside of your local government interferes with your internal policies and no one from a local government abuses a foreigner who is in their territory for reasonable business, tourism and study.

Personally, I am an economic mutualist, and I do not agree with the atomistic lifestyle that capitalism promotes; however, basic property rights are sensible and some form of capitalism is the ultimate conclusion of those property rights, so if most people want to join together to live in a capitalist territory, that is their right, and who am I to strip them of their liberty? Having said that, if I want to live in a city where the power, water, roadways, ambulance service, libraries, hospitals, and major factories are all mutually owned by the people paying out dividends to the masses as their birthright, why shouldn't I be free to invest my efforts into that kind of lifestyle?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

That is a bit of a cheap shot. Want to work? Or willing to work in conditions competing with China?

There are solutions for having manufacturing back in the US.

Notice how the government shies away from those solutions?

Competing with China becomes a simple matter of trade negotiations.

Notice how the government shies away from anything that resembles an attempt at bringing manufacturing back to the US?

a reply to: Nechash

A lot to take in.

I'm a simple guy. I work, I take care of my family. I understand what my responsibilities are.

I use my freedoms to conduct those responsibilities.

Under a socialist program, however, I feel that my freedoms would be limited.

a reply to: beezzer

Zoar Ohio, where my mother's family comes from was a socialist commune early on in America's history. All of those people were river folk and fur traders. They worked hard and lived a simple lifestyle and up until the colony's failure, they lived a comfortable life compared to many Ohioans at the time. Tuscarawas Ohio was the frontier back in those days and people from Pittsburgh would use that territory as their party grounds. Socialism doesn't have to be the ugly centralized totalitarian nightmare that modern day dictators have transformed it into. At its core it is a voluntary association of people where the working care for the elderly and disabled, not because they have to, but because they value those people and they don't want to live in a society that permits them to become destitute.

My mother's heritage is Prussian and her paternal ancestor came from France into America because he wanted to participate in a socialist dream, which he wasn't free to do in Europe. People forget that freedom isn't just the freedom to live the lifestyle of the status quo, but also to live a lifestyle of dissent. Without counter-cultural forces within a county living out in the open, it does not in fact have a functioning system of liberty.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Capitalism is the worst form of economics, until you compare it to all other forms of economics.

(nod to Winston Churchill)

It's interesting how the OP's article cries for "freedom" yet endorses an ideology that is the antithesis of freedom.

The author bemoans the "rights" of some, and ignores the "rights" of the unborn.

I would imagine that to embrace this ideal, the Bill of Rights and Constitution would need to be scrapped, so it is not a major concern of mine.

But I am curious.

How would this utopia be established in the US?

The author - not yet off to work addresses your 'formulaic' responses.

Utopia's by definition are impossible so your psuedo-question, is irrelevant and distracting.

Avoiding the main question.

Perhaps I should have used the term, "Workers Paradise".

Yep - I do avoid irrelevant and insincere questions.

How would you establish the utopia of your dreams in the US?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Capitalism is the worst form of economics, until you compare it to all other forms of economics.

(nod to Winston Churchill)

It's interesting how the OP's article cries for "freedom" yet endorses an ideology that is the antithesis of freedom.

The author bemoans the "rights" of some, and ignores the "rights" of the unborn.

I would imagine that to embrace this ideal, the Bill of Rights and Constitution would need to be scrapped, so it is not a major concern of mine.

But I am curious.

How would this utopia be established in the US?

The author - not yet off to work addresses your 'formulaic' responses.

Utopia's by definition are impossible so your psuedo-question, is irrelevant and distracting.

Avoiding the main question.

Perhaps I should have used the term, "Workers Paradise".

Yep - I do avoid irrelevant and insincere questions.

How would you establish the utopia of your dreams in the US?

I'm trying right now to live it, despite all the interference of government.

I took some time thinking about a response to the "socialism" doesn't work tone of most of the responses.

First - it clearly does in Western and Northern European Nations.

Second - We have only, up until just recently, seen psuedo Maxist forms of Communism or Socialism.

Three - Those forms, we've heretofore seen aren't truly Communisitic but Authoritarian Centralized Economies.

I've never liked one aspect of what I grew up (though a very narrow western view) knowing about communism and my parents were very liberal socially and rather conservative financially. That was the violent suppression of dissent.

Everything I've learned in life has taught me that growth, progress and wisdom come in the area of dissent, in intellectual conflict and the resolution of the same. It's true in biology as well; a childs bones grow at the area of friction at the ends and joints.

Even speaking with dedicated socialists in this country (the US) they would harp on the need for this 'suppression until a couple of generations had grown up in the new system'. I didn't buy it then.

Now, in South American, the new socialist regimes are allowing dissent. It causes them a lot of trouble but they allow it. This is very promising.

Then, today, I came across an article (the old "ask and you shall receive" meme) that addresses these differences in types/styles of communism and socialism written by a 2nd generation 'lefty'. I'll quote a paragraph latter, it's not an easy read.

MY point is that - in the US particularly - we don't know anything at all about communism or socialism except, for the most part, what is told/shown to us in schools, in the media, we hear from parents that don't know either, etc. There is a whole world of possiblities out there for ways of living, working and growing together.

Not having spent a lot of time on 'political theory', I found this article fascinating:

truth-out.org...

... and here's one paragraph about midway through

And so we, in the 1960s, read Marcuse as a utopian, a socialist and eco-feminist dreamer, perfectly appropriate to a New Left springing not from the Communist Manifesto, but from Hayden's "SDS Port Huron Statement," which called for a left based not on tight vanguard discipline, but on participatory democracy .

In an interview, Hayden described the division of labor between himself and Dick Flacks, a red-diaper sociologist and his close friend in Ann Arbor who knew his Marx: "I was the New, and Flacks was the Left!"

Marcuse, like SDS and SNCC, urged a grassroots left that refused to sacrifice short-term liberty for long-term change , agreeing with Karl Korsch, that the dictatorship of the proletariat should not become a dictatorship over the proletariat .

Do I know how to implement such a system? No and neither do you. It will emerge organically from the intention and action of the people. A social system cannot be designed and imposed from above it must evolve from the bottom up. Everyone deserves a voice, regardless of status or birth.

a reply to: FyreByrd

"First - it clearly does in Western and Northern European Nations. "

I would have to take into consideration the taxes involved to create a sustainable base in which to pay for the entitlements offered by the government. For example Denmark being the highest with excellent benefits albeit at the cost of those working is 60.2%.

"Second - We have only, up until just recently, seen psuedo Maxist forms of Communism or Socialism."

Even as early as James Town socialism didn't work, John Smith coined the phrase "Work or Starve" colonist had to put in 4 hours a day farming, just to "Survive".

"Three - Those forms, we've heretofore seen aren't truly Communisitic but Authoritarian Centralized Economies."

Just what would the difference be? Sounds PC by the description. I am wondering if the Russians consider this discription accurate.

One thing is for sure just about everyone from a communist country is trying to figure a way to get to the US. I have a Russian friend that explained how the financial system worked in Russia. When a bus driver makes as much as a doctor and government officials come by and check on you when you don't go to work, the US system looks pretty good by comparison.

"Do I know how to implement such a system? No and neither do you. It will emerge organically from the intention and action of the people. A social system cannot be designed and imposed from above it must evolve from the bottom up. Everyone deserves a voice, regardless of status or birth."

This is a dangerous concept of government design IMO when the receivers of entitlements design government and it's conceptual implementation you have what is a dangerous situation that we are close to having now. The takers of society outnumber the makers and they will always do the same thing. That is reelect the providers to enact laws and tax systems to keep the takers in a modicum of a life style at the sacrifice of the makers. Hardly a bottom up equity system of government, the government should benefit everyone equally since we are talking utopia.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

I do enjoy being instructed by my betters. I do so enjoy arrogant bombast.

What revelence is the amount of taxes - people in those countries are generally (not universally).

What one man said a couple of years ago isn't 'TRUTH' any more then what you or I say.

As for other forms - look around you, I gave current examples; what the future holds, who knows.

originally posted by: beezzer


I'm trying right now to live it, despite all the interference of government.

Great avoidance. You have no idea do you?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I do enjoy being instructed by my betters. I do so enjoy arrogant bombast.

What revelence is the amount of taxes - people in those countries are generally (not universally).

What one man said a couple of years ago isn't 'TRUTH' any more then what you or I say.

As for other forms - look around you, I gave current examples; what the future holds, who knows.

I can see you're not open to a equitable discussion I will move on... Thanks

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Right. Equitable discussion.