It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?
page: 11share:
reply to post by For(Home)Country
So who are you going to appoint the arbiters of anti whatever?
Where do you draw the line on free speech?
This is the basic tenet of freedom, to make your own choices.
If you feel that advertising can force someone to purchase something beyond their own free will, you must really see mankind as abysmal.
If harm is caused, or if harm to someone's Life, Liberty or Property is caused by another, that is crime. Period.
All else is enforcing your will on someone else for either your morals or your supposed security. If harm is not done, there is no crime.
I don't care what platitudes about say someone jaywalking across the road could cause an accident. Was their an accident. All of these punishments to people that have not caused harm are filling the prisons. How is that working for society?
All of these are about control. Period.
So who are you going to appoint the arbiters of anti whatever?
Where do you draw the line on free speech?
This is the basic tenet of freedom, to make your own choices.
If you feel that advertising can force someone to purchase something beyond their own free will, you must really see mankind as abysmal.
If harm is caused, or if harm to someone's Life, Liberty or Property is caused by another, that is crime. Period.
All else is enforcing your will on someone else for either your morals or your supposed security. If harm is not done, there is no crime.
I don't care what platitudes about say someone jaywalking across the road could cause an accident. Was their an accident. All of these punishments to people that have not caused harm are filling the prisons. How is that working for society?
All of these are about control. Period.
reply to post by ventian
Never thought of that component.
Take it to the extreme, no advertising whatsoever. No labels on clothes. No ads anywhere.
That would be very weird. It would declutter things a lot though. My browser would load pages a lot quicker.
Never thought of that component.
Take it to the extreme, no advertising whatsoever. No labels on clothes. No ads anywhere.
That would be very weird. It would declutter things a lot though. My browser would load pages a lot quicker.
reply to post by endisnighe
I don't mind the clutter as I refuse to fall for it. On that note, I got a decent internet connection along with a gaming computer (aside from the e2200) and ad based is awesome. Subscriptions are the only other models I know of in media, and I can't stand those. Always had problems forgetting to close that damn WOW account.
Point is, if you fall into advertising traps then that is your problem. Manipulation cannot hurt you, only people and your own stupidity can. The tech is here to block bad channels and it falls on the parents. I am tired of saying it but one more time won't hurt.
The government is here to provide basic security and a justice system for criminals that do hurt people. Aside from that, it is up to the individual to protect themselves. We currently have a nanny state and rapes, murders, and theft occur constantly. Our prison system is sold to the highest bidder. Let the government control basic security and you take care of yourself. The initial reaction would be very bad, after awhile though, things would calm down and the following would happen. You would have to take care of your own (you have to anyways), you wouldn't be abandoning your family as you would need them, and you would be taxed much less with a system that has you in mind, not money.
Tuition rates would fall, when government stopped shelling out all that money.
Welfare would be left up to the family and the community.
You would take care of your own when they got old or disabled.
Medical costs would decrease when the government stopped paying all that money.
Government screws you right now and doesn't even have the courtesy of giving you a reach around. Freedom in this country has been dead for a long time now, and the only reason people are afraid of it, is because they don't understand how it works, because they have been trapped in this system of oppression for so long.
I don't mind the clutter as I refuse to fall for it. On that note, I got a decent internet connection along with a gaming computer (aside from the e2200) and ad based is awesome. Subscriptions are the only other models I know of in media, and I can't stand those. Always had problems forgetting to close that damn WOW account.
Point is, if you fall into advertising traps then that is your problem. Manipulation cannot hurt you, only people and your own stupidity can. The tech is here to block bad channels and it falls on the parents. I am tired of saying it but one more time won't hurt.
The government is here to provide basic security and a justice system for criminals that do hurt people. Aside from that, it is up to the individual to protect themselves. We currently have a nanny state and rapes, murders, and theft occur constantly. Our prison system is sold to the highest bidder. Let the government control basic security and you take care of yourself. The initial reaction would be very bad, after awhile though, things would calm down and the following would happen. You would have to take care of your own (you have to anyways), you wouldn't be abandoning your family as you would need them, and you would be taxed much less with a system that has you in mind, not money.
Tuition rates would fall, when government stopped shelling out all that money.
Welfare would be left up to the family and the community.
You would take care of your own when they got old or disabled.
Medical costs would decrease when the government stopped paying all that money.
Government screws you right now and doesn't even have the courtesy of giving you a reach around. Freedom in this country has been dead for a long time now, and the only reason people are afraid of it, is because they don't understand how it works, because they have been trapped in this system of oppression for so long.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
First off, I must give you a star for your excellent, thorough, and well thought out post. Indeed, I agree with many of your stances, however, I suppose I take a more cynical viewpoint on society. Societies are easily manipulated. Although large populations of the earth are more educated than ever before, there are still vulnerable masses.
History has shown us how easily the masses are manipulated: Hitler, violence in religion, just to name two. Joseph Goebbels was a master of propaganda as I am sure you are aware, and he was right when he insisted that all you need to do is repeat a simple message many times for the masses to cling to, and eventually they will believe it. This is the unfortunate state of humanity.
It is hubris that is the source of folly, not freedom.
I very much agree with this statement, although hubris can be interpreted as an extreme form of pride. Regardless, one person thinking that they are god-like can be an issue and cause extreme conflict. To manipulate people for your own selfish gain is a terrible thing to say the least. Unfortunately, humanity is plagued with examples of this.
First, it is necessary to recognize propaganda, and once recognizable, it becomes necessary to reveal it to all who will listen, as propaganda.
Yes, if the masses had the ability to do this, then it would be an ideal way to allow freedom to flourish and negative manipulation to diminish. Unfortunately, that is a big "if" clause. Perhaps it is accurate to say that the masses do not have the necessary tools to recognize such "propaganda"?
One may rightfully argue that blame is irrelevant and unproductive, but I see it another way. To (properly) place blame on someone or something, if done correctly, it pinpoints the source of the problem. If the source of the problem is identified, it can be eliminated. It's better to kill the sickness than to let it live, and take Advil or Tylenol to relieve the symptoms.
Even so, blame is irrelevant, even if the fault belongs with us, how does blame fix that problem?
We can aspire to inspire all of humanity to greatness, or we can endeavor to convince all of humanity that they can never be free, are powerless, and others need to be protected from them. One effort is based on love, the other is fear based.
It could be logical to put it that way, but I look at it this way. A parent sets boundaries and rules for the child because the child is not well fit enough to make decisions for themselves. Does the parent do this out of fear for the child's well being, or out of love? Or perhaps fearing for the child's well being is part of love?
Freedom is the only logical answer to peace. All other solutions, are merely that; solutions. A salt solution is salt and water, and is not any answer to a problem, merely a solution. We need answers, and the best answer I have ever found is freedom, and love. I know of no better answer. Learn to love, and your compassion will arm you against the fear that any propaganda may bring. Learn to be free, and you will find it much easier to love.
I do subscribe heavily to biblical scripture, and love is the basic premise that should be the motive of all actions. Love is patient, love is kind. Love is willing, and love is caring. However, I don't particularly see love as the main agenda of Libertarianism. Instead, (and perhaps I am wrong), I see liberty and freedom as merely a way of people politically classifying their selfish impulse and desire to be free from all social and lawful restriction.
Regardless, all my thoughts are purely my own, and I just wish to discuss them. To further explain them would take time, and it's late. However, I do enjoy discussing them with you.
reply to post by For(Home)Country
I very much enjoy discussing this with you as well, and your thoughts and opinions are every bit as valid as my own. Take your time in explaining your thoughts and do so at your convenience. Together we will, through time, come to better understand each other, and perhaps find the truths we are looking for.
Cynicism is easy when you are looking for things to be cynical about, but finding beauty and correctness can also be easy if this is what you are looking for. The phrase "the girl next door" comes to mind. It engenders a sense of knowing someone for quite sometime before finally recognizing the beauty they possess. I grew up in the desert, and it took me several years to recognize the beauty of that girl next door, but the desert has a quiet beauty all its own, and is no less beautiful than the majestic mountains, or breathtaking coastlines with pristine beaches. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what we behold is what we get.
People are easily manipulated, societies are merely the collection of people and nothing more.
Is this true? That large populations of the earth are more educated than ever before? Years ago, when I first became a libertarian, I would often listen to people dismiss the intent of our Founders, as being primitive and from an age not our own, and that the Founders couldn't possibly predict what our society has become. Always, whether implicit or not, the belief was that those who were dismissing our Founders knew more than they did. I began, at some point, asking these people if they thought they were better read than Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington. I have never yet met a soul, willing to lay claim to being better educated than these men.
This is important to consider, for surely today we have more access to information than they did then. So, why is it that so many are reluctant to claim a better education than our Founders? In part, I believe it is because most of us inherently understand we have been the victims of propaganda. Propaganda is bad news, no doubt. However, creating legislation that would erase this propaganda couldn't even be popularly passed without first relying on propaganda itself to do so. Further, once we begin erasing freedoms, the same eraser can easily be used to erase even more freedoms. It is better to defend freedom, and learn to identify propaganda for what it is, and learn how to find that data which is information, and distinguish it from that data which is disinformation.
History has shown us how easily people are manipulated, and when people are manipulated en masse, the lessons of history that come with that, should be to instruct us on how dangerous it can be for individuals to go into agreement with collectivism. The masses is a dehumanizing term, often used by Marxists, who have no love at all for freedom, and the demon becomes the individual, where the collective is held high as a saint. Collectives can not exist without individuals within them. Individuals can exist without collectives. Society is neither the individual, nor is it a collective, it is merely the collection of people.
By collection, I mean to distinguish that from collectives, in that simply because a town has managed to collect people, that town need not be any form of collective to flourish and prosper, and I would argue that this town is more likely to flourish and prosper when the individuals in it are left to their own devices, as individuals are who address problems, where collectives will waste their time forming committees to form committees that will discuss how to form a committee on how to fix a problem, and once agreed upon which committee will discuss this, then there is the matter of forming a committee to actually fix the problem.
What other gain is their than selfish gain? Selfishness is nothing more than a chief concern for ones own interest. Although the lexicographer's will tell you otherwise and insist that selfishness is a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others; what word then exists to define a chief concern for ones own interest without any qualifications? If you do not have a chief concern for your own interest, who do you think will? Isn't it fair to conclude that if you will not claim your own interests as your chief concern, that others will come to the conclusion you have no interest in yourself? Are you beginning to see how insidious and pervasive this propaganda is? There is nothing at all inherently wrong with selfishness, and it is a collectivist mind set that has endeavored to teach you otherwise.
As to manipulation, I am in total agreement with you. Manipulation is not good. However, there is a fine line between motivation and manipulation. I would hope that my words motivate you, if they are guilty of manipulation, then I should be called on that. The primary concern for all people should be ethics. What are ethics? They are the good that all things aim towards. What is the good that all things aim towards? The greatest good to the greatest amount. This is ethics. When we commit our actions to this simple ethic, the greatest good to the greatest amount, we are being ethical. Yet, even so, it is just not that simple, and yet, it is.
The complication comes in how we perceive. A cynic, for example will view the greatest good to the greatest amount differently than an optimist will. Before I continue on this thought, it would be good to bring your own words into the mix and discuss them while discussing this problem of ethics and how we perceive:
First, I must keep stressing that the masses is nothing more than an inhuman way of describing a mass of individuals. Individuals do have these abilities. While we all deal with the quantum mechanics of "if" on some level or another, those who are good at taking "ifs" and turning them into "reality" are those who usually understand their own abilities, have a strong sense of ethics, and spend far less time manipulating and much more time motivating and building. When faced with the catastrophe's of disaster, wreckage is often left in its waste. Those who are victims will look at this wreckage/waste with despair. Those who understand their abilities and personal power will look at this wreckage and waste, and know what the answer is; to rebuild.
The masses, I have no doubt, do not have much at their disposal, and any individual willing to go into agreement with being nothing more than a subset of the masses, will have a harder time recognizing their own abilities and personal power than will an individual who wants nothing to do with "the masses" and only wants to build a family, a neighborhood, a town, a city, a state, a nation, a world, a universe. Can you see the difference between the two? The individual who recognizes their own abilities and power is one who has not fallen prey to the propaganda of powerlessness, the masses have. If we are, you and I, to help those "masses" gain the necessary tools to recognize and then defend against propaganda, we must begin by teaching each individual who does not all ready know, that they are powerful and free to build all that is good, and to know that if they build that which destroys, the consequences are not at all pro survival.
I would suggest to you that once we have identified the problem and then fixed that problem, that then blame can have some use, only to discover what caused the problem to begin with so that we might better prevent such problems in the future. Certainly there is crime, and when a crime is committed, blame becomes necessary. But, when Justice is prevailing it is doing so because the law is in place. That law is in protection of individual rights. The consequences of abrogating or derogating ones rights is to demand some sort of remedy to that. That is the answer to justice, and now the problem is fixed, and any crimes that follow, blame becomes useful in keeping the problem handled from not being handled.
When a child spills milk on the kitchen floor and leaves it there for a parent to clean, I have learned from experience that the best way to handle the problem is to clean it up. When doing so, remarkably, and I use spilled milk as a metaphor for all problems children tend to create, the child guilty of the mess, will always own up to it.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Regardless, all my thoughts are purely my own, and I just wish to discuss them. To further explain them would take time, and it's late. However, I do enjoy discussing them with you.
I very much enjoy discussing this with you as well, and your thoughts and opinions are every bit as valid as my own. Take your time in explaining your thoughts and do so at your convenience. Together we will, through time, come to better understand each other, and perhaps find the truths we are looking for.
I suppose I take a more cynical viewpoint on society.
Cynicism is easy when you are looking for things to be cynical about, but finding beauty and correctness can also be easy if this is what you are looking for. The phrase "the girl next door" comes to mind. It engenders a sense of knowing someone for quite sometime before finally recognizing the beauty they possess. I grew up in the desert, and it took me several years to recognize the beauty of that girl next door, but the desert has a quiet beauty all its own, and is no less beautiful than the majestic mountains, or breathtaking coastlines with pristine beaches. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what we behold is what we get.
Societies are easily manipulated.
People are easily manipulated, societies are merely the collection of people and nothing more.
Although large populations of the earth are more educated than ever before, there are still vulnerable masses.
Is this true? That large populations of the earth are more educated than ever before? Years ago, when I first became a libertarian, I would often listen to people dismiss the intent of our Founders, as being primitive and from an age not our own, and that the Founders couldn't possibly predict what our society has become. Always, whether implicit or not, the belief was that those who were dismissing our Founders knew more than they did. I began, at some point, asking these people if they thought they were better read than Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington. I have never yet met a soul, willing to lay claim to being better educated than these men.
This is important to consider, for surely today we have more access to information than they did then. So, why is it that so many are reluctant to claim a better education than our Founders? In part, I believe it is because most of us inherently understand we have been the victims of propaganda. Propaganda is bad news, no doubt. However, creating legislation that would erase this propaganda couldn't even be popularly passed without first relying on propaganda itself to do so. Further, once we begin erasing freedoms, the same eraser can easily be used to erase even more freedoms. It is better to defend freedom, and learn to identify propaganda for what it is, and learn how to find that data which is information, and distinguish it from that data which is disinformation.
History has shown us how easily the masses are manipulated:
History has shown us how easily people are manipulated, and when people are manipulated en masse, the lessons of history that come with that, should be to instruct us on how dangerous it can be for individuals to go into agreement with collectivism. The masses is a dehumanizing term, often used by Marxists, who have no love at all for freedom, and the demon becomes the individual, where the collective is held high as a saint. Collectives can not exist without individuals within them. Individuals can exist without collectives. Society is neither the individual, nor is it a collective, it is merely the collection of people.
By collection, I mean to distinguish that from collectives, in that simply because a town has managed to collect people, that town need not be any form of collective to flourish and prosper, and I would argue that this town is more likely to flourish and prosper when the individuals in it are left to their own devices, as individuals are who address problems, where collectives will waste their time forming committees to form committees that will discuss how to form a committee on how to fix a problem, and once agreed upon which committee will discuss this, then there is the matter of forming a committee to actually fix the problem.
To manipulate people for your own selfish gain is a terrible thing to say the least. Unfortunately, humanity is plagued with examples of this.
What other gain is their than selfish gain? Selfishness is nothing more than a chief concern for ones own interest. Although the lexicographer's will tell you otherwise and insist that selfishness is a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others; what word then exists to define a chief concern for ones own interest without any qualifications? If you do not have a chief concern for your own interest, who do you think will? Isn't it fair to conclude that if you will not claim your own interests as your chief concern, that others will come to the conclusion you have no interest in yourself? Are you beginning to see how insidious and pervasive this propaganda is? There is nothing at all inherently wrong with selfishness, and it is a collectivist mind set that has endeavored to teach you otherwise.
As to manipulation, I am in total agreement with you. Manipulation is not good. However, there is a fine line between motivation and manipulation. I would hope that my words motivate you, if they are guilty of manipulation, then I should be called on that. The primary concern for all people should be ethics. What are ethics? They are the good that all things aim towards. What is the good that all things aim towards? The greatest good to the greatest amount. This is ethics. When we commit our actions to this simple ethic, the greatest good to the greatest amount, we are being ethical. Yet, even so, it is just not that simple, and yet, it is.
The complication comes in how we perceive. A cynic, for example will view the greatest good to the greatest amount differently than an optimist will. Before I continue on this thought, it would be good to bring your own words into the mix and discuss them while discussing this problem of ethics and how we perceive:
Yes, if the masses had the ability to do this, then it would be an ideal way to allow freedom to flourish and negative manipulation to diminish. Unfortunately, that is a big "if" clause. Perhaps it is accurate to say that the masses do not have the necessary tools to recognize such "propaganda"?
First, I must keep stressing that the masses is nothing more than an inhuman way of describing a mass of individuals. Individuals do have these abilities. While we all deal with the quantum mechanics of "if" on some level or another, those who are good at taking "ifs" and turning them into "reality" are those who usually understand their own abilities, have a strong sense of ethics, and spend far less time manipulating and much more time motivating and building. When faced with the catastrophe's of disaster, wreckage is often left in its waste. Those who are victims will look at this wreckage/waste with despair. Those who understand their abilities and personal power will look at this wreckage and waste, and know what the answer is; to rebuild.
The masses, I have no doubt, do not have much at their disposal, and any individual willing to go into agreement with being nothing more than a subset of the masses, will have a harder time recognizing their own abilities and personal power than will an individual who wants nothing to do with "the masses" and only wants to build a family, a neighborhood, a town, a city, a state, a nation, a world, a universe. Can you see the difference between the two? The individual who recognizes their own abilities and power is one who has not fallen prey to the propaganda of powerlessness, the masses have. If we are, you and I, to help those "masses" gain the necessary tools to recognize and then defend against propaganda, we must begin by teaching each individual who does not all ready know, that they are powerful and free to build all that is good, and to know that if they build that which destroys, the consequences are not at all pro survival.
One may rightfully argue that blame is irrelevant and unproductive, but I see it another way. To (properly) place blame on someone or something, if done correctly, it pinpoints the source of the problem. If the source of the problem is identified, it can be eliminated. It's better to kill the sickness than to let it live, and take Advil or Tylenol to relieve the symptoms.
I would suggest to you that once we have identified the problem and then fixed that problem, that then blame can have some use, only to discover what caused the problem to begin with so that we might better prevent such problems in the future. Certainly there is crime, and when a crime is committed, blame becomes necessary. But, when Justice is prevailing it is doing so because the law is in place. That law is in protection of individual rights. The consequences of abrogating or derogating ones rights is to demand some sort of remedy to that. That is the answer to justice, and now the problem is fixed, and any crimes that follow, blame becomes useful in keeping the problem handled from not being handled.
When a child spills milk on the kitchen floor and leaves it there for a parent to clean, I have learned from experience that the best way to handle the problem is to clean it up. When doing so, remarkably, and I use spilled milk as a metaphor for all problems children tend to create, the child guilty of the mess, will always own up to it.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by For(Home)Country
In continuing, I am going to re-quote your last remark:
Now I would like to continue a bit with my spilled milk analogy. When my child sees me cleaning up his mess, he can't stand this, and does not see himself as being spoiled, nor does he view me as his maid. He may have avoided cleaning up the mess himself, but I suspect this is only because he wasted milk and his guilt demanded he get caught for this waste. Thus, he left the milk to be seen so that he may get caught for his "crime". When he sees me cleaning up the milk without complaint, he comes to help me and when I tell him that it is not necessary because he was not to blame for the mess, he corrects me and informs me that he was to blame. Kids are remarkable people and if we can avoid teaching them to lie, they remain honest for much of their lives.
Of course, Sun Tzu say's all warfare is based upon deception, and when we are tragically engaged in war, it is prudent to know how to lie, but you know what? Learning to lie is not nearly as difficult as learning to recognize lies told by others. War is stupid, and while Sun Tzu has offered much wisdom in how to be victorious when engaged in such stupidity, it is best to avoid war. Never at all costs, but certainly when there is no cost, then why go to war? I am asking rhetorical questions at this point to address my strategies with my son, and how by finding a more peaceful way this has taught both he and I the power we both have, and the natural ethics instilled in us, seemingly inherent, as my sons ethics are his, and not instilled by me.
Now back to your point of sickness. If the masses are to blame, do we simply kill them to handle the sickness? Are you so sure the masses are to blame? What if, after killing the masses, the problem still exists? Indeed, lopping off a woman's breast has not done much to handle the cancer they were inflicted with. A woman certainly doesn't get breast cancer because she has too many breasts. Mastectomy's are indicative of this imprudent rush towards solutions without ever knowing the answer. Certainly we don't take aspirin because we have an aspirin deficiency, nor do we take ibuprofen because we have an ibuprofen deficiency. There is something wrong with us that is causing this pain, and the source of the pain may be what is to blame, but handling that problem is the answer, not simply blaming it.
Further, consider carefully your own words. I do not believe you are advocating we kill off the "masses", and yet read your own statement, and it is cynical indeed. So there are a lot of individual's that you, the O.P. and I have to get through to, so what? Indulge me a few words to discuss the myth of Sisyphus. For whatever reasons, he angered the gods, and the reasons are irrelevant, for surely the gods blamed Sisyphus for something and made him pay. His punishment was to push a rock up a mountain and once this was accomplished the rock would roll back down the mountain and Sisyphus would have to start over, and it was Sisyphus' damnation to do this for eternity.
Why would such a myth survive? What is so inspiring about a man damned to eternal repetition of colossal effort? Here is why; Sisyphus committed fully to this task and would race the rock back down the mountain and wait for it to reach the bottom and then push it back up the mountain with the fierceness of a god. You say it is hubris to believe we are god-like? I tell you we are God! Each and everyone of us, are God! We are all splinters of God! Why else when appearing as a burning bush, would God tell Moses that the name of God is I Am that I Am? Why of all the names all ready ascribed to god in the Bible, would God use this name? Say it out loud, and call out God's name. I Am! Say it again; I Am! You Are! End Is! So Am I!
Myths have survived since time immemorial because they inspire greatness in us all. The inspiration of Sisyphus is not in his punishment, but in his defiance of demi-gods, so weak in their own understanding of what it means to be God, they sought to rebuke a man for being powerful. Sisyphus tapped into his power and for all eternity stands as a symbol of power and defiance to those who use tyranny to prevent humanity from aspiring to remember and tap into their own God or Christ consciousness.
Sisyphus remains a hero, not a tragic hero felled by his own hubris, but an eternal hero who has chosen the higher path.
Children make decisions for themselves from the get go, and depending upon how we as parents respond to their needs, those decisions they make will effect them for much of their lives. Parents do not set boundaries, those boundaries all ready exist. Parents teach their children to recognize those boundaries, and if they are smart they will recognize what their children are trying to teach them. If a parent is parenting out of fear then they will teach their children to fear. If a parent is parenting out of love, they will not have to teach their children to love, I assure you, children do. Parenting out of love only reinforces that child's proclivity towards love. Parenting out of fear only confuses the child, and too often encourages them to abandon love in favor of fear.
This is why today so many of us enter into a relationship with an exchange in mind. I agree to be loyal to you if you agree to be loyal to me. I will tolerate you if you tolerate me. I will obey you if you obey me, and so on and so on. We will call this love, but in reality it is not love, and is merely negotiation. Love is limitless, and unconditional. Whatever comes with conditions, is not love. When we teach our children to recognize the boundaries which will better their survival, we do so out of love, and unconditional love.
Children are liberal in their mindsets and just as Icarus dared to soar with eagles, so will your children, as will mine. Daedalus' great hubris was not that he learned to fly and taught his son how to do to so as well, it was that he did not take the time to properly instruct Icarus. Sure, he warned his son, but what are warnings to a child but simple dares. Daedalus hubris was in his failure to recognize his son would want to soar with eagles, and in understanding this, this brilliant man would have found a way to facilitate this need, without it causing the damage it did. The failure was not that man can not fly, clearly Daedalus lived to tell of his tragic folly, the failure was in not building a better apparatus, and perhaps impatience, and wanting escape more than wanting to fly. Icarus represents wanting to fly, Daedalus, sadly represents wanting escape.
Much like Icarus, people want to soar with eagles. What is wrong with such aspirations? Aspirations such as this have brought us to the moon. Indeed, it very well may be our destiny to spread across the universe and be plentiful. Impulse coupled with desire are usually whims, and whims are dangerous things, which brings me back to ethics. The greatest good to the greatest amount. Such a thing can never be accomplished upon a whim, and often requires great consideration before acting. Even then, Hitler no doubt spent much time considering, and it is likely he believed he was accomplishing a greater good. What villain truly sees themselves as a villain? Iago did not, and saw himself as a victim, and responded accordingly. Hitler too, saw himself as a victim and responded accordingly. How perceive the world is how we respond to it.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
In continuing, I am going to re-quote your last remark:
One may rightfully argue that blame is irrelevant and unproductive, but I see it another way. To (properly) place blame on someone or something, if done correctly, it pinpoints the source of the problem. If the source of the problem is identified, it can be eliminated. It's better to kill the sickness than to let it live, and take Advil or Tylenol to relieve the symptoms.
Now I would like to continue a bit with my spilled milk analogy. When my child sees me cleaning up his mess, he can't stand this, and does not see himself as being spoiled, nor does he view me as his maid. He may have avoided cleaning up the mess himself, but I suspect this is only because he wasted milk and his guilt demanded he get caught for this waste. Thus, he left the milk to be seen so that he may get caught for his "crime". When he sees me cleaning up the milk without complaint, he comes to help me and when I tell him that it is not necessary because he was not to blame for the mess, he corrects me and informs me that he was to blame. Kids are remarkable people and if we can avoid teaching them to lie, they remain honest for much of their lives.
Of course, Sun Tzu say's all warfare is based upon deception, and when we are tragically engaged in war, it is prudent to know how to lie, but you know what? Learning to lie is not nearly as difficult as learning to recognize lies told by others. War is stupid, and while Sun Tzu has offered much wisdom in how to be victorious when engaged in such stupidity, it is best to avoid war. Never at all costs, but certainly when there is no cost, then why go to war? I am asking rhetorical questions at this point to address my strategies with my son, and how by finding a more peaceful way this has taught both he and I the power we both have, and the natural ethics instilled in us, seemingly inherent, as my sons ethics are his, and not instilled by me.
Now back to your point of sickness. If the masses are to blame, do we simply kill them to handle the sickness? Are you so sure the masses are to blame? What if, after killing the masses, the problem still exists? Indeed, lopping off a woman's breast has not done much to handle the cancer they were inflicted with. A woman certainly doesn't get breast cancer because she has too many breasts. Mastectomy's are indicative of this imprudent rush towards solutions without ever knowing the answer. Certainly we don't take aspirin because we have an aspirin deficiency, nor do we take ibuprofen because we have an ibuprofen deficiency. There is something wrong with us that is causing this pain, and the source of the pain may be what is to blame, but handling that problem is the answer, not simply blaming it.
Further, consider carefully your own words. I do not believe you are advocating we kill off the "masses", and yet read your own statement, and it is cynical indeed. So there are a lot of individual's that you, the O.P. and I have to get through to, so what? Indulge me a few words to discuss the myth of Sisyphus. For whatever reasons, he angered the gods, and the reasons are irrelevant, for surely the gods blamed Sisyphus for something and made him pay. His punishment was to push a rock up a mountain and once this was accomplished the rock would roll back down the mountain and Sisyphus would have to start over, and it was Sisyphus' damnation to do this for eternity.
Why would such a myth survive? What is so inspiring about a man damned to eternal repetition of colossal effort? Here is why; Sisyphus committed fully to this task and would race the rock back down the mountain and wait for it to reach the bottom and then push it back up the mountain with the fierceness of a god. You say it is hubris to believe we are god-like? I tell you we are God! Each and everyone of us, are God! We are all splinters of God! Why else when appearing as a burning bush, would God tell Moses that the name of God is I Am that I Am? Why of all the names all ready ascribed to god in the Bible, would God use this name? Say it out loud, and call out God's name. I Am! Say it again; I Am! You Are! End Is! So Am I!
Myths have survived since time immemorial because they inspire greatness in us all. The inspiration of Sisyphus is not in his punishment, but in his defiance of demi-gods, so weak in their own understanding of what it means to be God, they sought to rebuke a man for being powerful. Sisyphus tapped into his power and for all eternity stands as a symbol of power and defiance to those who use tyranny to prevent humanity from aspiring to remember and tap into their own God or Christ consciousness.
Sisyphus remains a hero, not a tragic hero felled by his own hubris, but an eternal hero who has chosen the higher path.
A parent sets boundaries and rules for the child because the child is not well fit enough to make decisions for themselves. Does the parent do this out of fear for the child's well being, or out of love? Or perhaps fearing for the child's well being is part of love?
Children make decisions for themselves from the get go, and depending upon how we as parents respond to their needs, those decisions they make will effect them for much of their lives. Parents do not set boundaries, those boundaries all ready exist. Parents teach their children to recognize those boundaries, and if they are smart they will recognize what their children are trying to teach them. If a parent is parenting out of fear then they will teach their children to fear. If a parent is parenting out of love, they will not have to teach their children to love, I assure you, children do. Parenting out of love only reinforces that child's proclivity towards love. Parenting out of fear only confuses the child, and too often encourages them to abandon love in favor of fear.
This is why today so many of us enter into a relationship with an exchange in mind. I agree to be loyal to you if you agree to be loyal to me. I will tolerate you if you tolerate me. I will obey you if you obey me, and so on and so on. We will call this love, but in reality it is not love, and is merely negotiation. Love is limitless, and unconditional. Whatever comes with conditions, is not love. When we teach our children to recognize the boundaries which will better their survival, we do so out of love, and unconditional love.
Children are liberal in their mindsets and just as Icarus dared to soar with eagles, so will your children, as will mine. Daedalus' great hubris was not that he learned to fly and taught his son how to do to so as well, it was that he did not take the time to properly instruct Icarus. Sure, he warned his son, but what are warnings to a child but simple dares. Daedalus hubris was in his failure to recognize his son would want to soar with eagles, and in understanding this, this brilliant man would have found a way to facilitate this need, without it causing the damage it did. The failure was not that man can not fly, clearly Daedalus lived to tell of his tragic folly, the failure was in not building a better apparatus, and perhaps impatience, and wanting escape more than wanting to fly. Icarus represents wanting to fly, Daedalus, sadly represents wanting escape.
I do subscribe heavily to biblical scripture, and love is the basic premise that should be the motive of all actions. Love is patient, love is kind. Love is willing, and love is caring. However, I don't particularly see love as the main agenda of Libertarianism. Instead, (and perhaps I am wrong), I see liberty and freedom as merely a way of people politically classifying their selfish impulse and desire to be free from all social and lawful restriction.
Much like Icarus, people want to soar with eagles. What is wrong with such aspirations? Aspirations such as this have brought us to the moon. Indeed, it very well may be our destiny to spread across the universe and be plentiful. Impulse coupled with desire are usually whims, and whims are dangerous things, which brings me back to ethics. The greatest good to the greatest amount. Such a thing can never be accomplished upon a whim, and often requires great consideration before acting. Even then, Hitler no doubt spent much time considering, and it is likely he believed he was accomplishing a greater good. What villain truly sees themselves as a villain? Iago did not, and saw himself as a victim, and responded accordingly. Hitler too, saw himself as a victim and responded accordingly. How perceive the world is how we respond to it.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET
Not before 1850 as you proposed, nor after.
This does not stop people from believing in this fantasy, or from pursuing policy to try and create such a system.
Banks survive and fail in a market system, mostly they only effect local economies, but widespread bank failures can shut down an economy. This has been demonstrated. In the fantasy world of the free market you can pretend any number of things will happen.
An SnL is as close to what a true form of a bank should be IMO. Sorry, but SnLs had checking accounts before 1980, and had thrived for decades. Haven't you ever watched the movie, "It's A Wonderful Life" about that darned old savings and loan? While there were numerous reasons to explain the SnL failures in the 80ties, the primary cause was deregulation which lead to widespread fraud.
Do you make this stuff up expecting not to be challenged on the facts? Where ever your sources, I suggest you find new ones.
Only in the land of denial. The Reagan-Bush era's of deregulation, and the twenties as well, all lead to economic disaster. Failure to create an evenly enforced fair set of rules is exactly what creates amplified economic swings.
If you would only carry this thought a little further, you might succeed in exposing the truth to yourself of exactly how much of a con the free market concept is.
Those regulations were made bad on purpose by Gingrich and his fellow free market con artists, in this latest round of economic fraud.
Just because the free market doesn't exist, doesn't stop people from believing in it, and following those who claim to represent it. Look at all the other phony religions out there.
You are starting to get it, we certainly do need a better system to hold people responsible for their decisions.
I guess you would know, didn't you admit earlier that you seriously studied Marx ideology at one time? The whole idea that any type of organization can dictate to people what they can do, is a very perverse idea.
What you state after this, "what a private institution can not do should be the same as what an individual can NOT do" is close, but you need to keep in mind that an institution is not an individual. You are contradicting yourself on this point. A private institution's limitations should be approximately the same as an individual, but it being nothing but a legal construct, means that holding it responsible for its actions is far more difficult than holding a person responsible for their actions, thus this should always be considered.
This last point is to insure that the collective, which is nothing more than a group of people working together, should not be given privileges over the individual. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself here?
The rest of your post degenerates into a tailspin. I suspect at this point you began to realize you had lost it.
The basics on which the U.S. constitutional government was founded was the idea that government is a tool people create to protect their rights. The only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, and this means from institutions and collectives of all kinds as well, which is why we need laws (regulations) to serve this purpose.
To deny the government the power to enforce laws against institutions and collectives of all kinds would be to give these institutions and collectives of all kinds superiority over the individual. As you state, only a Marxist would advocate such a thing, and this is exactly what the free market crowd calls for.
The free market concept is nothing but an advanced form of communism.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by poet1b]
ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET
Not before 1850 as you proposed, nor after.
This does not stop people from believing in this fantasy, or from pursuing policy to try and create such a system.
Banks survive and fail in a market system, mostly they only effect local economies, but widespread bank failures can shut down an economy. This has been demonstrated. In the fantasy world of the free market you can pretend any number of things will happen.
An SnL is as close to what a true form of a bank should be IMO. Sorry, but SnLs had checking accounts before 1980, and had thrived for decades. Haven't you ever watched the movie, "It's A Wonderful Life" about that darned old savings and loan? While there were numerous reasons to explain the SnL failures in the 80ties, the primary cause was deregulation which lead to widespread fraud.
Do you make this stuff up expecting not to be challenged on the facts? Where ever your sources, I suggest you find new ones.
It is regulation that has caused this cleptocracy you accuse others of advocating.
Only in the land of denial. The Reagan-Bush era's of deregulation, and the twenties as well, all lead to economic disaster. Failure to create an evenly enforced fair set of rules is exactly what creates amplified economic swings.
Corporations, being state granted charters, are legal fictions and accountable to the people. That so much crime has happened without any accountability only underscores how bad regulation is.
If you would only carry this thought a little further, you might succeed in exposing the truth to yourself of exactly how much of a con the free market concept is.
Those regulations were made bad on purpose by Gingrich and his fellow free market con artists, in this latest round of economic fraud.
Just because the free market doesn't exist, doesn't stop people from believing in it, and following those who claim to represent it. Look at all the other phony religions out there.
The real answer is not to grant charters at all, then you won't have the problem with corporatism that we have today. Any foreign corporation that wishes to do business in the U.S. will have to operate as a private business, liable for every mistake they make personally, and not conveniently separated from their company.
You are starting to get it, we certainly do need a better system to hold people responsible for their decisions.
Private institutions are private, and only a Marxist would advocate dictating what a private institution can and can not do.
I guess you would know, didn't you admit earlier that you seriously studied Marx ideology at one time? The whole idea that any type of organization can dictate to people what they can do, is a very perverse idea.
What you state after this, "what a private institution can not do should be the same as what an individual can NOT do" is close, but you need to keep in mind that an institution is not an individual. You are contradicting yourself on this point. A private institution's limitations should be approximately the same as an individual, but it being nothing but a legal construct, means that holding it responsible for its actions is far more difficult than holding a person responsible for their actions, thus this should always be considered.
This last point is to insure that the collective, which is nothing more than a group of people working together, should not be given privileges over the individual. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself here?
The rest of your post degenerates into a tailspin. I suspect at this point you began to realize you had lost it.
The basics on which the U.S. constitutional government was founded was the idea that government is a tool people create to protect their rights. The only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, and this means from institutions and collectives of all kinds as well, which is why we need laws (regulations) to serve this purpose.
To deny the government the power to enforce laws against institutions and collectives of all kinds would be to give these institutions and collectives of all kinds superiority over the individual. As you state, only a Marxist would advocate such a thing, and this is exactly what the free market crowd calls for.
The free market concept is nothing but an advanced form of communism.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by poet1b]
reply to post by endisnighe
I don't know what fraud has "to do with a free market failure", but I do know trying to create a free market system through deregulation creates widespread fraud. This has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently with the Goldman Sachs fiasco.
It is as simple as this, when you eliminate the laws that prevent fraud (free market deregulation), you get fraud.
Um, yes, you are chasing your tail, but you are giving yourself too much credit when you claim you are arguing with me.
What do you expect to happen when you elect people like GW and Cheney who plan on using government to rob society blind. What is pathetic is that people still fall for this free market con job, and vote these crooks into office, which makes this widespread fraud happen.
I don't know what fraud has "to do with a free market failure", but I do know trying to create a free market system through deregulation creates widespread fraud. This has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently with the Goldman Sachs fiasco.
It is as simple as this, when you eliminate the laws that prevent fraud (free market deregulation), you get fraud.
Law is law is law!
Um, yes, you are chasing your tail, but you are giving yourself too much credit when you claim you are arguing with me.
If you commit a crime and the government let's you off because you are regulated by the government and they are complicit in the crime, what is that?
What do you expect to happen when you elect people like GW and Cheney who plan on using government to rob society blind. What is pathetic is that people still fall for this free market con job, and vote these crooks into office, which makes this widespread fraud happen.
reply to post by poet1b
Partisan much? You let it leak. Ooops, you had cover.....for awhile. But you just let it slip.
Yep, let me guess, Cass trainee?
Last chance, explain to me what fraud, that is not prosecuted by the government, has to do with regulation? Free markets? Bush? Cheney? Obama? Dems? Repubs? Gold? Oil?
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
Partisan much? You let it leak. Ooops, you had cover.....for awhile. But you just let it slip.
Yep, let me guess, Cass trainee?
Last chance, explain to me what fraud, that is not prosecuted by the government, has to do with regulation? Free markets? Bush? Cheney? Obama? Dems? Repubs? Gold? Oil?
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Did you get this snappy come back from some "idiots who listen to rush" website? Cause it is really pathetic.
I have already pointed out the importance of property rights in Locke's principles.
Yes, from the mangled garbage you put into this post, it is clear that you do not understand law.
First you try to claim that laws should not be written, and this is total nonsense.
Then you claim I am calling for special rights. which is just more right wing spittle. Do you have an original thought?
It is Very relevant what laws (regulations) have been established. Once again you are trying to pretend that government should not do the only thing it is supposed to do.
If laws (regulations) are irrelevant, how can they be enforced?
Who is claiming that people should give up the right to protect themselves? I guess you are going to go through the whole book of right wing talking points.
The concept of the free market is to pretend that there is no such thing as fraud.
Do you really believe "that anyone can compete in that market without gaining permission to do so"? I doubt it.
Should someone be able to practice medicine or law or even construction without having done something to prove their competency? Do we really need to get a lawyer involved in every transaction to make sure nobody is lying?
Or does it make more sense to set up a system of legal standards? It seems to me to be a good idea that doctors and lawyers and truck drivers have to get licenses in order to compete in their markets.
If the owner of some trucking company puts some kid behind the wheel of some giant tractor trailer rig, and the kid kills a bunch of people on the interstate, because he doesn't know how to handle such a rig, the trucking company business owner going out of business is not justice. In fact, without licensing requirements, the company owner can claim that there is no way he could have determined that the kid couldn't drive the truck. Maybe if the publicity is so bad, the company owner might have to change the name of the company, but he will probably stay in business. The family will be dead, and without laws (regulations) in place that require truck drivers to have the proper license, chances are that no justice will be served.
As Ron White says, "you can't fix stupid".
What you propose is stupid.
You need to quit with the false accusation.
I identified Locke's support of property rights long ago.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You need to apologize.
You continually reference Locke, seemingly ignoring that Locke had declared the pursuit of property as a fundamental right. What's up with that?
Did you get this snappy come back from some "idiots who listen to rush" website? Cause it is really pathetic.
I have already pointed out the importance of property rights in Locke's principles.
Yes, from the mangled garbage you put into this post, it is clear that you do not understand law.
First you try to claim that laws should not be written, and this is total nonsense.
Then you claim I am calling for special rights. which is just more right wing spittle. Do you have an original thought?
It is Very relevant what laws (regulations) have been established. Once again you are trying to pretend that government should not do the only thing it is supposed to do.
If laws (regulations) are irrelevant, how can they be enforced?
Who is claiming that people should give up the right to protect themselves? I guess you are going to go through the whole book of right wing talking points.
The concept of the free market is to pretend that there is no such thing as fraud.
Do you really believe "that anyone can compete in that market without gaining permission to do so"? I doubt it.
Should someone be able to practice medicine or law or even construction without having done something to prove their competency? Do we really need to get a lawyer involved in every transaction to make sure nobody is lying?
Or does it make more sense to set up a system of legal standards? It seems to me to be a good idea that doctors and lawyers and truck drivers have to get licenses in order to compete in their markets.
If the owner of some trucking company puts some kid behind the wheel of some giant tractor trailer rig, and the kid kills a bunch of people on the interstate, because he doesn't know how to handle such a rig, the trucking company business owner going out of business is not justice. In fact, without licensing requirements, the company owner can claim that there is no way he could have determined that the kid couldn't drive the truck. Maybe if the publicity is so bad, the company owner might have to change the name of the company, but he will probably stay in business. The family will be dead, and without laws (regulations) in place that require truck drivers to have the proper license, chances are that no justice will be served.
As Ron White says, "you can't fix stupid".
What you propose is stupid.
You need to quit with the false accusation.
I identified Locke's support of property rights long ago.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Locke saw the need for government and laws to protect our liberty and property rights.
You need to apologize.
reply to post by endisnighe
I already explained these things, but you chose to swallow the blue pill, and you are back in the matrix. You can not understand what I am telling you because you have been programmed by right wing talk show propagandists.
It is sad dude, you have been turned into a communist, and you don't even know it.
I already explained these things, but you chose to swallow the blue pill, and you are back in the matrix. You can not understand what I am telling you because you have been programmed by right wing talk show propagandists.
It is sad dude, you have been turned into a communist, and you don't even know it.
Because Libertarian now means a bunch of Middle-American Rednecks complaining about a moderate government.
Because Libertarian now means against Universal Health care , and proper socialism.
The meaning has been lost , and hijacked by the Ron Paul people and teabaggers.
Libertarianism is right-wing now , well , I'm Left , so.. no thank you.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by WXBackdoor]
Because Libertarian now means against Universal Health care , and proper socialism.
The meaning has been lost , and hijacked by the Ron Paul people and teabaggers.
Libertarianism is right-wing now , well , I'm Left , so.. no thank you.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by WXBackdoor]
reply to post by WXBackdoor
Drivel. Labels, attack and no discussion. Typical from a self avowed leftist.
The reason fascists and socialists hate Libertarians is because they cannot stand freedom. They cannot stand that people can make it without a huge tyrannical government to enforce their viewpoint.
And since they cannot allow anyone to seem to be above them, they have to destroy everyone to get them to their level.
Seems to be the game plan, doesn't it?
Admit it, you are enjoying the downfall of the system. Much easier to install the next regime.
Let me tell you something though.
There is one thing the old Saul Alinsky model did not plan for. When you destroy something and then suggest the solution.
Sometimes, someone else may have a plan that gets installed.
Ever think of that?
Drivel. Labels, attack and no discussion. Typical from a self avowed leftist.
The reason fascists and socialists hate Libertarians is because they cannot stand freedom. They cannot stand that people can make it without a huge tyrannical government to enforce their viewpoint.
And since they cannot allow anyone to seem to be above them, they have to destroy everyone to get them to their level.
Seems to be the game plan, doesn't it?
Admit it, you are enjoying the downfall of the system. Much easier to install the next regime.
Let me tell you something though.
There is one thing the old Saul Alinsky model did not plan for. When you destroy something and then suggest the solution.
Sometimes, someone else may have a plan that gets installed.
Ever think of that?
reply to post by endisnighe
You are even crazier and paranoid that i thought.
Teabaggers are rotting the USA , be careful , stay safe kid.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by WXBackdoor]
You are even crazier and paranoid that i thought.
Teabaggers are rotting the USA , be careful , stay safe kid.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by WXBackdoor]
reply to post by ventian
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, we have far too much of a nanny state.
What I see is that government wants to control our lives, while ignoring the real criminals. With our current two party system, we are getting hit high and low.
It is so much more profitable to confiscate the property of drug dealers, hammer people with fines for failing to follow the complex maze of traffic laws, and grab peoples paychecks by tearing families apart. Lets not forget all those jobs created to cater to special interest groups.
What most people don't see is that most of this is done by the state and local governments.
I agree, buyer beware should guide our purchasing decisions.
Lets face it, things aren't always that simple. This GS thing is a good example. Everyone who participated in this scam should have to pay. This isn't an basic or easy problem to solve. The markets aren't going to punish these people. The billions they made from this scam will protect them.
Look at this latest oil spill that is still wrecking havoc. Not only should the corporate executives responsible for this disaster pay, but the politicians and lobbyist who set up this fiasco.
Let the companies go out of business, that should also happen, but this won't clean up this mess, nor will it hold the culprits liable. It is far more preferable that proper standards had been put into place before they were allowed to build these wells.
Who winds up with the final bill after the disaster?
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, we have far too much of a nanny state.
What I see is that government wants to control our lives, while ignoring the real criminals. With our current two party system, we are getting hit high and low.
It is so much more profitable to confiscate the property of drug dealers, hammer people with fines for failing to follow the complex maze of traffic laws, and grab peoples paychecks by tearing families apart. Lets not forget all those jobs created to cater to special interest groups.
What most people don't see is that most of this is done by the state and local governments.
I agree, buyer beware should guide our purchasing decisions.
Lets face it, things aren't always that simple. This GS thing is a good example. Everyone who participated in this scam should have to pay. This isn't an basic or easy problem to solve. The markets aren't going to punish these people. The billions they made from this scam will protect them.
Look at this latest oil spill that is still wrecking havoc. Not only should the corporate executives responsible for this disaster pay, but the politicians and lobbyist who set up this fiasco.
Let the companies go out of business, that should also happen, but this won't clean up this mess, nor will it hold the culprits liable. It is far more preferable that proper standards had been put into place before they were allowed to build these wells.
Who winds up with the final bill after the disaster?
Originally posted by WXBackdoor
reply to post by endisnighe
You are even crazier and paranoid that i thought.
Teabaggers are rotting the USA , be careful , stay safe kid.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by WXBackdoor]
Yeah right, this coming from the poser who claims that libertarianism is now:
Because Libertarian now means a bunch of Middle-American Rednecks complaining about a moderate government.
Moderate government compared to what? Fifty years ago? One hundred years ago? Do you sincerely believe anyone buys your crap? It should be clear why you hate a free market, you couldn't sell air conditioners in hell. You couldn't sell heaters in Alaska. You couldn't sell sex to a nymphomaniac. Even so, you continue with your silly rant:
Because Libertarian now means against Universal Health care , and proper socialism.
Typical of the Fabian's they assimilate all into their collective, and rewrite history to make it appear as if Libertarian once meant a bid for "universal health care, an proper socialism". I suppose the etyomologists got it all wrong, and only radical left wingers such as yourself hold the truth.
The meaning has been lost , and hijacked by the Ron Paul people and teabaggers.
Okay, let's pretend as if there isn't a Libertarian Party in this country and now there is only Ron Paul, a Republican, and the Tea Party. While we're at it, let's pretend that unicorns are outside and there's a pot of gold for everyone at the end of the rainbow. Be honest, it is you who is attempting to hijack the Libertarian Party, and oddly, retroactively.
Libertarianism is right-wing now , well , I'm Left , so.. no thank you.
Libertarianism is about free will, but that is something you wouldn't know much about, unless your party has given you some useless platitude to claim free will is a left wing tenet. You stay safe your self old feller.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by poet1b
ONCE AGAIN, A BLACK MARKET UNDERMINES YOUR CLAIM! WHO REGULATES A BLACK MARKET?
I never made any such proposal, so stop lying.
Either governments will create the free market in the form of a black market, or they will butt the hell out and let people do business as they see fit, either way, the market place will always struggle to be free.
Banks, banks, banks, blah, blah, blah. Banks have nothing at all to do with free markets, and the market place would survive just fine without them, who can't survive without them are people like you who need a demon to point to so they can name it "free markets" and hope to rally the troops.
You willful myopia is astounding. I guess everyone is wrong but you:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.answers.com...
www.tempobank.com...
www.google.com...=history+of+S%26L+and+checking+accounts&hl=en&client=gmail&rls=gm&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=EebuS46LNITYsQODy bHFDw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEwQ5wIwCg&fp=d059ab474882bfe2
All of this is wrong according to you, and only your precious marxist website gets it right, or maybe you imagine John Locke wrote about the flourishing checking accounts of S&L's in his seminal book A Second Treatise on Savings and Loans. You're a real piece of work, my friend.
I certainly have watched that movie, is this where you are getting your information from? Which scene would you point to that demonstrates that old George's S&L issued checking accounts?
Let's talk about the reality of that film for a second, and its left wing bent. We're supposed to believe from that movie, that if George weren't around to save the day, mean old Mr. Potter took the weeks deposit that the doddering old fool Uncle Billy left behind. One weeks deposit, stupidly entrusted to an idiot, and this is enough to destroy that S&L, as if that institution didn't all ready have problems to begin with. We're further expected to believe, that with George Bailey out of the way, mean old Mr. Potter can now own the entire town, filled with nothing more than pawn shops and seedy brothels and saloons. Of course, how or where mean old Mr. Potter is getting all this money, since it is clear that the rest of the townfolk have none, is not so clear. I guess we're supposed to believe that people come from out of town to visit Pottersville, because God knows everybody loves a town filled with pawn shops, seedy brothels and saloons. Of course, why wouldn't we believe this, after all, we're supposed to believe Clarence is an angel who will ring a bell once he gets his wings. Yeah, now I understand where you're coming from.
You love to attack anyone who disagrees with you as being nothing more than parrots for "right wing talking points" but read your own words for Christ's sakes! How is this above not left wing talking points? First, the 1920's were fine, and the stock market crash of '29, at the end of that decade, since you seem to be more than a little confused, did not lead to the Great Depression. It was the horrid fiscal policies of contraction in the early '30's by the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression. As to Regan's era, whatever recession that followed his administration had nothing to do with your tired mantra of "de-regulation" which is the con game played to make people think they're getting their free markets, and recessions are a natural cycle in any economy regardless of what system is set in place.
This stupid remark is in response to my assertion that crime has run rampant with regulation in place. Somehow your myopic reading attempts to turn that assertion into the revelation that "free markets" are a con game. You need to lay off of both the red and blue pills, pal.
Gingrich is a fraud, and that man is no free market advocate, he is a politician, and before that he was an academic. Academic's, particularly historians' make horrible politicians...of course, politicians make horrible politicians' but even so, academic's are the worse, just look at Woodrow Wilson.
Precisely because black markets thrive and operate in full defiance of government policies, people recognize this and understand fully that free markets do work, and wonder why people like you are so desperate to convince them otherwise. What's in this regulated market for you? What do you gain by suppressing people?
Starting to get it? Do you ever stop pretending?
I love how you phrase that, as if seriously studying Marx is a crime. Yes sir, I stand here guilty as charged. However, as it seems to be with you, it is hard to find a Marxist who has ever read Marx.
Look, I'm almost out of space and this is just going round and round in circles. I get it, you hate free markets, you'll pretend the black market doesn't exist, you'll begrudgingly admit that Locke was an advocate of private property, and you will prance and preen, and endlessly repeat your sloganeering, but I assure you, the rational thinker will never fall prey to your propaganda.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET
ONCE AGAIN, A BLACK MARKET UNDERMINES YOUR CLAIM! WHO REGULATES A BLACK MARKET?
Not before 1850 as you proposed, nor after.
I never made any such proposal, so stop lying.
This does not stop people from believing in this fantasy, or from pursuing policy to try and create such a system.
Either governments will create the free market in the form of a black market, or they will butt the hell out and let people do business as they see fit, either way, the market place will always struggle to be free.
Banks survive and fail in a market system, mostly they only effect local economies, but widespread bank failures can shut down an economy. This has been demonstrated. In the fantasy world of the free market you can pretend any number of things will happen.
Banks, banks, banks, blah, blah, blah. Banks have nothing at all to do with free markets, and the market place would survive just fine without them, who can't survive without them are people like you who need a demon to point to so they can name it "free markets" and hope to rally the troops.
An SnL is as close to what a true form of a bank should be IMO. Sorry, but SnLs had checking accounts before 1980, and had thrived for decades.
You willful myopia is astounding. I guess everyone is wrong but you:
However, savings and loans were not allowed to offer checking accounts until the late 1970s. This reduced the attractiveness of savings and loans to consumers, since it required consumers to hold accounts across multiple institutions in order to have access to both checking privileges and competitive savings rates.
en.wikipedia.org...
In 1980, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, which looked toward the complete elimination of controls on the interest rates banks and S&Ls could pay and authorized checking accounts at S&Ls, homogenizing what had been a divided banking industry. As the Federal Reserve drove rates ever higher in the fight against inflation in the early 1980s, the S&L industry with few exceptions became insolvent.
A financial institution that resembles a bank but that historically did not offer services such as personal checking accounts and that invested capital mainly in home mortgages. In the late 1970s, Congress passed legislation freeing savings and loan associations (often called S&Ls) from their traditional dependency on home mortgage loans. In response, S&Ls invested their capital, often unwisely, in a range of enterprises, especially real estate. In the late 1980s, hundreds of S&Ls went bankrupt, leaving the federal government, which insured the accounts of depositors, with an enormous bill. Since then they have been subject to tighter regulation.
However, savings and loans were not allowed to offer checking accounts until the late 1970s. This reduced the attractiveness of savings and loans to consumers, since it required consumers to hold accounts across multiple institutions in order to have access to both checking privileges and competitive savings rates.
www.answers.com...
By 1980, ground once held sacred and secure by the banking industry began to breakdown. Interest bearing checking accounts called “Negotiable Orders of Withdrawal” or NOW accounts for short, were authorized for thrift institutions following a successful experiment conducted in the New England states during the late 1970's. Previous service lines of traditional passbook and certificate accounts could now be expanded to include this form of interest bearing checking. Public response to this new type of checking account was such that by 1981, Trenton Savings and Loan was once again feeling the building squeeze and began planning for expansion.
www.tempobank.com...
May 31, 1981 - Then, in 1980, the landmark Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act gave thrift institutions across the nation new powers, including the right to issue credit cards, offer negotiated order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts (checking accounts with inter- est), ...
www.google.com...=history+of+S%26L+and+checking+accounts&hl=en&client=gmail&rls=gm&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=EebuS46LNITYsQODy bHFDw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEwQ5wIwCg&fp=d059ab474882bfe2
All of this is wrong according to you, and only your precious marxist website gets it right, or maybe you imagine John Locke wrote about the flourishing checking accounts of S&L's in his seminal book A Second Treatise on Savings and Loans. You're a real piece of work, my friend.
Haven't you ever watched the movie, "It's A Wonderful Life" about that darned old savings and loan?
I certainly have watched that movie, is this where you are getting your information from? Which scene would you point to that demonstrates that old George's S&L issued checking accounts?
Let's talk about the reality of that film for a second, and its left wing bent. We're supposed to believe from that movie, that if George weren't around to save the day, mean old Mr. Potter took the weeks deposit that the doddering old fool Uncle Billy left behind. One weeks deposit, stupidly entrusted to an idiot, and this is enough to destroy that S&L, as if that institution didn't all ready have problems to begin with. We're further expected to believe, that with George Bailey out of the way, mean old Mr. Potter can now own the entire town, filled with nothing more than pawn shops and seedy brothels and saloons. Of course, how or where mean old Mr. Potter is getting all this money, since it is clear that the rest of the townfolk have none, is not so clear. I guess we're supposed to believe that people come from out of town to visit Pottersville, because God knows everybody loves a town filled with pawn shops, seedy brothels and saloons. Of course, why wouldn't we believe this, after all, we're supposed to believe Clarence is an angel who will ring a bell once he gets his wings. Yeah, now I understand where you're coming from.
The Reagan-Bush era's of deregulation, and the twenties as well, all lead to economic disaster. Failure to create an evenly enforced fair set of rules is exactly what creates amplified economic swings.
You love to attack anyone who disagrees with you as being nothing more than parrots for "right wing talking points" but read your own words for Christ's sakes! How is this above not left wing talking points? First, the 1920's were fine, and the stock market crash of '29, at the end of that decade, since you seem to be more than a little confused, did not lead to the Great Depression. It was the horrid fiscal policies of contraction in the early '30's by the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression. As to Regan's era, whatever recession that followed his administration had nothing to do with your tired mantra of "de-regulation" which is the con game played to make people think they're getting their free markets, and recessions are a natural cycle in any economy regardless of what system is set in place.
If you would only carry this thought a little further, you might succeed in exposing the truth to yourself of exactly how much of a con the free market concept is.
This stupid remark is in response to my assertion that crime has run rampant with regulation in place. Somehow your myopic reading attempts to turn that assertion into the revelation that "free markets" are a con game. You need to lay off of both the red and blue pills, pal.
Those regulations were made bad on purpose by Gingrich and his fellow free market con artists, in this latest round of economic fraud.
Gingrich is a fraud, and that man is no free market advocate, he is a politician, and before that he was an academic. Academic's, particularly historians' make horrible politicians...of course, politicians make horrible politicians' but even so, academic's are the worse, just look at Woodrow Wilson.
Just because the free market doesn't exist, doesn't stop people from believing in it, and following those who claim to represent it. Look at all the other phony religions out there.
Precisely because black markets thrive and operate in full defiance of government policies, people recognize this and understand fully that free markets do work, and wonder why people like you are so desperate to convince them otherwise. What's in this regulated market for you? What do you gain by suppressing people?
You are starting to get it, we certainly do need a better system to hold people responsible for their decisions.
Starting to get it? Do you ever stop pretending?
I guess you would know, didn't you admit earlier that you seriously studied Marx ideology at one time? The whole idea that any type of organization can dictate to people what they can do, is a very perverse idea.
I love how you phrase that, as if seriously studying Marx is a crime. Yes sir, I stand here guilty as charged. However, as it seems to be with you, it is hard to find a Marxist who has ever read Marx.
Look, I'm almost out of space and this is just going round and round in circles. I get it, you hate free markets, you'll pretend the black market doesn't exist, you'll begrudgingly admit that Locke was an advocate of private property, and you will prance and preen, and endlessly repeat your sloganeering, but I assure you, the rational thinker will never fall prey to your propaganda.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ventian
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, we have far too much of a nanny state.
Well isn't this a Libertarian Principle?
What I see is that government wants to control our lives, while ignoring the real criminals. With our current two party system, we are getting hit high and low.
So what do you want to do, keep the Dems in or the Repubs? Or just maybe, try something that has historical record and significance? Like Libertarianism. You know, the founding of this country and a legitimate framework that worked, until the two party system became a one party system controlled by the cronie fascist/socialist/capitalist.
You know, where real crime is punished. Where those that commit harm to others or infringe on their rights of Life, Liberty and Property. The government has no right to my labor or property. Not one iota of right to it. PERIOD.
It is so much more profitable to confiscate the property of drug dealers, hammer people with fines for failing to follow the complex maze of traffic laws, and grab peoples paychecks by tearing families apart. Lets not forget all those jobs created to cater to special interest groups.
Watch out, you are talking more and more like a Libertarian.
What most people don't see is that most of this is done by the state and local governments.
More Libertarianism needed here. You totally screwed up this one. A strong central government takes rights. It does not protect them. SORRY, WRONG!
I agree, buyer beware should guide our purchasing decisions.
Free market principle.
Lets face it, things aren't always that simple. This GS thing is a good example. Everyone who participated in this scam should have to pay. This isn't an basic or easy problem to solve. The markets aren't going to punish these people. The billions they made from this scam will protect them.
So, was their fraud committed? Was the government complicit in this fraud? Is the government going to actually bring a case of criminal fraud against them?
Look at this latest oil spill that is still wrecking havoc. Not only should the corporate executives responsible for this disaster pay, but the politicians and lobbyist who set up this fiasco.
Did these companies commit harm? Did they commit a criminal act? Is the government going to file criminal charges?
Let the companies go out of business, that should also happen, but this won't clean up this mess, nor will it hold the culprits liable. It is far more preferable that proper standards had been put into place before they were allowed to build these wells.
Again I ask you. Have they committed a crime? Did they cause harm? Is the government going to file charges?
Who winds up with the final bill after the disaster?
If the company or companies, and the government regulators that were supposed to keep an eye on criminal activities were complicit in a criminal activity, who do you think is going to file the criminal complaints?
You know, if I did not know better, I would think you were a Libertarian.
Government should be as small as possible. They should aggressively look for and file criminal complaints against people and others that commit harm against others.
You closet Libertarian.
Or was this just another obfuscational trick to deflect your true beliefs?
[edit on 5/15/2010 by endisnighe]
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As I have already pointed out, black markets are regulated by the gangs and cartels, and they are much more heavy handed than government.
These markets also flourish much better when they are legalized and regulated.
The person you defended did claim that there hasn't been a free market since the mid 1850ties, you backed him up, you are also making the claim. Follow the links back, you are caught once again to play deceptive games.
The market place does not struggle to be free, it is not a person. The market does not struggle at all, it is what it is.
You are the one who brought up banks, and the wiki links prove you wrong and me right. SnL functions began expanding before Reagan, and deregulation under Reagan was the principle cause. Your over analysis of "It's a Wonderful Life" aside, SnLs did very well during that era.
When you stop attacking me by parroting right wing attack points, I will stop making fun of you for these lame attempts.
As far as Reagan's presidency goes, 1984 was his best year, which was as much a result of stiff fiscal policy from the Carter years to reign in inflation, to Reagan's following of classic Keynesian economic theory through massive government spending through creation of debt. After 1984 it was all down hill, with ever increasing deficits, the SnL disaster, on and on.
Regulations worked fine under Clinton, and business thrived. Only under neocon free market admins who do not believe that businesses should be regulated, and who therefore do not regulate, does crime run rampant, Thus proving your wrong.
Gingrich believed in the free market with more religious zeal than you do. You cling to the same ideology as Gingrich, and your pretension otherwise is a sham.
I scanned through Marx communist ideology as a kid, recognized what nonsense it is, and never looked back. You on the other hand actually spent time studying it, and yet you still don't recognize its intentions, which I quickly saw scanning through the nonsense as a kid. This is why you, and so many other students of Marx, now embrace free economics. It is hardly a coincidence.
I didn't begrudgingly admit Locke recognized property rights, it is one of the first and key elements I pointed out.
Your intellectual dishonestly is prime example of the foolishness that embraces free market communism.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by poet1b]
As I have already pointed out, black markets are regulated by the gangs and cartels, and they are much more heavy handed than government.
These markets also flourish much better when they are legalized and regulated.
The person you defended did claim that there hasn't been a free market since the mid 1850ties, you backed him up, you are also making the claim. Follow the links back, you are caught once again to play deceptive games.
The market place does not struggle to be free, it is not a person. The market does not struggle at all, it is what it is.
You are the one who brought up banks, and the wiki links prove you wrong and me right. SnL functions began expanding before Reagan, and deregulation under Reagan was the principle cause. Your over analysis of "It's a Wonderful Life" aside, SnLs did very well during that era.
When you stop attacking me by parroting right wing attack points, I will stop making fun of you for these lame attempts.
As far as Reagan's presidency goes, 1984 was his best year, which was as much a result of stiff fiscal policy from the Carter years to reign in inflation, to Reagan's following of classic Keynesian economic theory through massive government spending through creation of debt. After 1984 it was all down hill, with ever increasing deficits, the SnL disaster, on and on.
Regulations worked fine under Clinton, and business thrived. Only under neocon free market admins who do not believe that businesses should be regulated, and who therefore do not regulate, does crime run rampant, Thus proving your wrong.
Gingrich believed in the free market with more religious zeal than you do. You cling to the same ideology as Gingrich, and your pretension otherwise is a sham.
I scanned through Marx communist ideology as a kid, recognized what nonsense it is, and never looked back. You on the other hand actually spent time studying it, and yet you still don't recognize its intentions, which I quickly saw scanning through the nonsense as a kid. This is why you, and so many other students of Marx, now embrace free economics. It is hardly a coincidence.
I didn't begrudgingly admit Locke recognized property rights, it is one of the first and key elements I pointed out.
Your intellectual dishonestly is prime example of the foolishness that embraces free market communism.
[edit on 15-5-2010 by poet1b]
reply to post by endisnighe
Don't you remember my first post on the thread, or my contributions on other threads? Its like you don' t know me at all.
I just don't hang with this free market nonsense, the term is an oxymoron, and the concept is pure communism. See my previous posts.
You are free to spend the afternoon as you wish, but if you want to participate in the market, you have to have something to bargain with. Rules are established, because without the rules, the market is turned into a bloody bath of gang warfare.
If we are not going to follow the rules, then it should be fine and dandy for the working class in this country to sack New York, and the other enclaves of the rich, killing raping, and pillaging. Fisherman in the gulf would be fully right in doing the same to the super rich oil execs.
Don't you remember my first post on the thread, or my contributions on other threads? Its like you don' t know me at all.
I just don't hang with this free market nonsense, the term is an oxymoron, and the concept is pure communism. See my previous posts.
You are free to spend the afternoon as you wish, but if you want to participate in the market, you have to have something to bargain with. Rules are established, because without the rules, the market is turned into a bloody bath of gang warfare.
If we are not going to follow the rules, then it should be fine and dandy for the working class in this country to sack New York, and the other enclaves of the rich, killing raping, and pillaging. Fisherman in the gulf would be fully right in doing the same to the super rich oil execs.
new topics
-
SCOTUS Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS Ends 2024 Describing His Fears for Safety of U.S. Judges.
Above Politics: 1 hours ago -
How we've changed in 100 years
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 8 hours ago -
US disburses $3.4 billion in budget aid for Ukraine, Yellen says
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago -
Nigel Farage's New Year Message.
Politicians & People: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
I dont understand what i just witnessed
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 12 hours ago, 11 flags -
US disburses $3.4 billion in budget aid for Ukraine, Yellen says
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 11 flags -
Happy New Year from Aussie
General Chit Chat: 15 hours ago, 9 flags -
How we've changed in 100 years
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 8 hours ago, 8 flags -
House republicans prove to be drama queens
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 6 flags -
Nigel Farage's New Year Message.
Politicians & People: 10 hours ago, 6 flags -
The Silent Motion…
Short Stories: 14 hours ago, 5 flags -
SCOTUS Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS Ends 2024 Describing His Fears for Safety of U.S. Judges.
Above Politics: 1 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Strange fog all over the northern hemisphere
General Conspiracies • 37 • : annonentity -
The C.D.C. Says There Was NO INFLUENZA Worth Reporting for the 2020-2021 Flu Season.
Diseases and Pandemics • 56 • : KrustyKrab -
US disburses $3.4 billion in budget aid for Ukraine, Yellen says
US Political Madness • 18 • : Lazy88 -
House republicans prove to be drama queens
US Political Madness • 6 • : rickymouse -
Happy New Year from Aussie
General Chit Chat • 21 • : rickymouse -
SCOTUS Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS Ends 2024 Describing His Fears for Safety of U.S. Judges.
Above Politics • 1 • : BernnieJGato -
How we've changed in 100 years
Ancient & Lost Civilizations • 11 • : JJproductions -
Simulation theory and have we reset before like a game?
Conspiracies in Religions • 35 • : FullHeathen -
Nigel Farage's New Year Message.
Politicians & People • 16 • : LuciusDriftwood -
Outgoing Lame Duck BIDEN Officials and Democrats Voice Their Regrets.
2024 Elections • 29 • : Dalamax