Capitalism… Day Two

I have to tell you all how disappointed I was to not have time to participate in the discussions around the “Capitalism vs. Communism” article last week. Work intervened and I have failed over the last few weeks to maintain that work/life balance thing they way I should. But today I offer article number two around the idea of capitalism and do so with a caveat. I promised a short article that explained where I think capitalism falls short. And that is what I will offer. At the same time, in the comments below, I will try to offer some answers and replies to the comments from the previous article. There were some good points made, and there were also some ridiculous points made. I will attempt to offer what I can to both. So first, A few thoughts from me around where capitalism is falling short.

As we stated last week, and despite some of the folks from the left offering weak arguments against it, the fact remains that capitalism is the best economic system available for growing an economy, increasing wealth, and maintaining as much freedom as possible. That I desire a free market does not in some way detract from that fact. Perhaps a truly entirely free market would not work on the grand scale of a national economy, perhaps it would. But that was not the crux of the argument. The debate was whether capitalism was a better system when compared to communism/socialism/fascism.

So where does capitalism go wrong? After all, it is primarily the system that has gotten us where we are today, despite the fact that the government has interfered massively. And by “where we are today” I am talking about the great position of power and tremendous prosperity of Americans in general as well as the massive corruption, power, and control that exist in the modern American structure. If capitalism is so great, why are we “here”? The answer to that, in my opinion, is that we lost our moral base. We stepped away from liberty and freedom, allowing emotion of the moment and the manipulation of people to erode a sound moral base.

The first aspect of where capitalism went wrong is that we accepted the concept that the pursuit of money trumps all else. That is an awfully broad statement, I know. But we moved completely away from demanding that our economic system be used in the proper way, for the proper reasons, and with the proper results. Let me offer some thoughts to clarify.

Charlie loves to bring up the $2.4 million an hour guy (forgetting that some freakish anomaly is not a reason to punish the other 300 million Americans). While he is absolutely wrong to use it as an impetus for change, he is right that it points to a problem in our moral structure to accept this type of thinking. Wall Street as it exists today is a perversion of the concept of a morally based capitalistic society. I use Wall Street loosely because there are some aspects of it that this does not apply to. The underlying thought I am pursuing here is this: The question for me is not whether someone has the “right” to make $2.4 million an hour. I most assuredly believe that they do. However, the means that are used to gain that wealth are subject to intense scrutiny.

What a major part of Wall Street has become is little more than the manipulation of money and capital. A vast amount of “government allowed” transactions are meant to do little else other than manipulate wealth. A man who does little more than “play the market” in order to create wealth from nothing more than transaction trickery is not contributing to society in some way and most assuredly is pursuing money rather than pursuing growth or advancement. This should not be accepted in a moral society. It goes against, or undermines, the spirit of what capitalism is intended to accomplish. Much like the blatantly destructive activities of the Federal Reserve, the man who manipulates the market in this way is creating money from nothing.

The wealth was not generated by the production of a good. It was not generated as a result of the work of someone at all. It was generated by manipulating the system, trading this piece of paper for that one. It is, essentially, false productivity. The wealth appeared out of thin air, and thus is fragile and fleeting. Where Charlie falls down in using this example is that this wasn’t done on the back of the worker. It wasn’t done on the back of anyone. It was done through the manipulation of pieces of paper to show wealth that is not backed up by anything other than promises on a different piece of paper. This is not beneficial for society, not beneficial for the market, and not beneficial for any other man than the one who did the manipulating.

Where Charlie and I differ in this situation (and you can correct me if I am wrong CS, I am not trying to misrepresent you), is that Charlie is focused on the action taken by the man after he earns it, while I am focused on HOW he earned it. I believe that Charlie would be absolutely fine with a man making $2.4 Million an hour if that man turned around and gave all of it to feeding the poor. I, on the other hand, am not OK with it because it isn’t real wealth. It goes against the concepts of supply, demand, productivity, and price that are fundamental to making the market work. Meanwhile, BF supports it because it is in the interest of freedom to allow a free man to earn whatever another free man wants to pay him (you can also correct me if I am wrong BF, I don’t want to misrepresent you). But in this case I don’t think the free men argument applies.

Why does this type of activity cause capitalism to fail? Because by its very nature the activity defies the laws of the market. Smarter economists than I have attempted to help people understand that the forces of the market are immutable. You can attempt to “control” them if you like, but you will fail. Demand will still increase when prices are low. Prices will rise when supply is low. There is no way around these irrevocable truths. Capitalism at its heart is meant to use these market forces in the right way. When we allow people to manipulate them, it distorts the market. And this is a key: Regardless of what economic or political system you deem as correct or moral or best serving, the market will correct for whatever distortions you cause whether you like it or not.

Yes, a government, especially a powerful one like ours, can manipulate the market effectively for a very long time. But the only possible result from doing so is that the distortion becomes greater, and thus the resulting correction will also become greater. This is a simple fact that BF has been trying to get people to understand for as long as he has been here. It isn’t about what is moral, what is right, or what is desirable. It is about what simply “is”, whether we like it or we don’t. There is nothing that can stop this from being true. I think that BF sometimes turns people away from this truth because he refers to it as “the universe,” and that makes some of you think he is crazy. But his point should still stand. Call it the universe, call it the big guy in the sky, call it the invisible hand, call it whatever you like. The point is that there are ways that things WILL occur in the world, laws if you will. You can’t stop gravity from naturally being gravity no matter what you believe. And you cannot stop market forces from behaving like market forces.

Politicians today continue to strip rights from the people because each generation desperately attempts to make sure that it is the next generation that has to deal with the correction rather than their own. The pace of this demise of our country quickens over time because the more required to avoid the correction, the more desperate the people become and the more willing they are to sacrifice freedom for security. But I digress…

The point that I think needs to be understood as we relate the actions of these men taking these actions is that they would not be accepted by “the people” as legitimate manipulation if it weren’t for the fact that government has deemed it legitimate. I think this gets lost on a lot of people. BF’s point is often that you cannot stop bad men from being bad men. But you can stop making their bad actions legitimate and legal by the decree of government. And for the record, Charlie, this doesn’t make me a “BF sycophant.” It merely is me attempting to better explain what I believe his position is. Because in this arena, I do believe that he is dead on, not because I worship him, but because he is right. Use agreement with him as a belittlement tool all you like, but I would prefer you instead made some attempt to prove his point wrong.

Capitalism began to falter in practice when we lost our moral way and began accepting that it is OK to crave wealth just for the sake of creating wealth. It was a small step in the sequence, but it was by far the most critical one. One day we accepted that it was OK to create wealth to further industry or to grow the economy. Then we took the fatal step of accepting that it was OK to create wealth simply to create wealth. And that led us to the point where we are today. Wall Street out of control, banks operating on the fractional reserve system, the destruction of the gold standard (or any actual value based standard).

We no longer, as a society, remain steadfast in the belief that wealth must have value to back it up, which is why we see the collapse of the US dollar as possible. When it stopped being back by anything of value, we stopped having the ability for it to retain its value no matter what. When you create wealth via magic, you also create the ability for that wealth to disappear just as magically.

So let’s have at it. Between this article and my comments below I am sure it will be interesting. There will be no article published tomorrow morning so this thread gets a two day stint.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon says:

    Interesting, once again, how you state something, cherry pick a documentation or two and then it becomes fact (as you proclaim it to be). To use a term you prefer, Hogwash.

    Nice general statement meant to dismiss an entire article. If you want to say I “cherry pick a documentation or two” then show where my cherry picked documentation is wrong or inaccurate. What I have done is state something, provide some documentation that backs up what I have said, and proclaim that I am right. You, on the other hand, skipped any other step and merely jumped to the last step doing nothing more than proclaim you are right.

    Ultimately, your argument and BF’s is this: If capitalism “appears” to have failed, don’t be fooled by that 20,000 ton elephant in the room, it is government intervention that caused the “apparent” failure. “Truly free market” capitalism (which neither of you have ever pointed to once historically (from fear, I assume, of it be assaulted) — remains the great utopia of the right; “We can’t really show you how it works (although we claim it is responsible for our great stature in the world, including our growth during and after the Civil War when actually slavery was around for another 100+ years–but that too was the government’s fault–so don’t blame capitalism–capitalism is only responsible for the “good stuff”. If only the markets were “truly free” … sweet Jesus … have a good time hunting that Easter Bunny down Sunday.

    First, don’t assume that BF and I make the same argument. We don’t. We agree on some things and disagree on others. Further, you couldn’t more pervert what I have said if you tried. Capitalism has not failed, it has been perverted. Perverted by those who think, like you, that you know better what is good for everyone else and that we should thus follow what you say.

    Fear of it being assaulted? So what you have asked me to do is point to a time in history when government, the antithesis of a truly free market, has embraced a truly free market and made it work? That is a ludicrous request. It is like saying, “show me a time when BMW conducted a radical marketing campaign to help sell more Mercedes Benz.” Once government comes along, they have no interest in a truly free market. Yet, when examples of a truly free market exist around you every day, devoid of government interference, you ignore them. A truly free market has millions of examples every day, but you are too blind to see them.

    And for the record, I have never advocated for “no government”. That you continue to claim I do shows you are not being honest in your evaluations. This fact has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you ignore it and claim otherwise in every attempt to refute my conclusions. Let’s get this straight one more time. I, USW, advocate for a drastically smaller and less intrusive government. I advocate for a government that does little more than protect people’s freedom and liberty, while not protecting corporate interests or allowing the wealthy to exert too much power over the system. However, and this is important so pay attention, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not a capitalist approach is a more effective or more moral approach to building an economy.

    You continue down this simplistic approach to slavery. I will address it more in another comment below, but you really do have to be daft to continue making the claims you do about my position. If you are going to continue to lie about my position, then there is little to be accomplished. I don’t support slavery. I don’t claim that only good stuff comes from capitalism (in fact I said so THREE times in the article above, did you even read it? Did you even notice the entire last paragraph? ). I did not claim that a free market was the cause of our increased stature in the world, I claimed that capitalism was. It would help if you either paid better attention or were more honest.

    USW’s polls … it is interesting how here at SUFA, statements become facts (hogwash makes it so?) … or how after posts discussing how little of the country’s population is politically and/or economically illiterate, polls of the same people suddenly hold credibility (never mind who is conducting them and for what purpose, because polls are as manipulative as minds).

    It is interesting that you believe that one statement has anything to do with the other. Do I believe that many in America are politically ignorant. Absolutely I do. Do I believe that many American’s are economically ignorant? Absolutely I do. That doesn’t take anything away from the fact that your claim that those who believe in a free market capitalist approach are a fringe minority. It was your claim. The poll proves you are wrong. Whether they are economically idiotic or not, it still proves your statement is inaccurate. What YOU believe is the fringe, a small minority. The poll shows it to be true no matter the education level of those polled. They could be dead wrong or dead right. But the fact remains that the point I made (quite clearly for anyone who actually reads it) was that you claim A when B is the truth.

    i.e., hogwash (he says so, therefore it is). So, if you look to America before formal governments were formed and people were acting in a free market state, the American Indian doesn’t count (wipe out an entire nation with one broad stroke because USW/BF says so? Thank God you’re both not writing history books.

    You really are lost. There was a time before “formalized governments were formed” in America? Surely you are not that naive. We were under British rule until we formed our own government. Are you attempting to claim that all slavery and indian theft occurred during the decade or two in between? This is another important point that you seem unable to grasp: Capitalism did not wipe out indians or take there land. Government did. Government armies slaughtered indians. Did you not pay attention? Have you not looked at the pictures and paintings? How did you miss those uniforms and flags during the assaults? At this point I don’t think it matters who writes the history books because you apparently haven’t taken the time to read any of them.

    Again, slavery will be dealt with below.

    Please don’t kid yourself about ghetto girls any longer. I’ve worked in top tier law firms where plenty of middle class men and woman, ghetto or not, weren’t working as hard as your example above (I’m talking about the “ghetto girl”) … but to suggest, once again, that just because you’re willing to be a slave to whatever firm you work for we should all be doing the same (or lump it?) is a bit absurd. Not everybody wants to be USW or BF, guys. There are some of us out here who cherish other aspects of life. Self-motivated workers, inventors, etc., will always self motivated workers, inventors, etc.; the corollary of lazy will always be lazy is also true. Nobody advocates the lazy get away with doing nothing. Us redskies just don’t see the point in someone making $633,000 an hour (while his work force does the actual labor) while people sleep in tent cities. Bill Gates would’ve been Bill Gates under any economic system.

    I don’t claim that everyone wants to be like me. What I do claim is that I am more valuable to the company that employs me than the ghetto girl. It is my choice to work my ass off. And I should reap the benefits of doing so. You falsely (and I believe on purpose because you have no answer to the crux of the argument) attempt to claim that I demand everyone work as hard as I do. I did no such thing. I said I should reap the rewards of my hard work and ghetto girl should do the same. You would have us getting the same reward no matter how hard either of us work. In your world, people like me who do more, do it better, and do it faster will eventually cease to exist. Your claim that self motivated will always be motivated is absolutely false. The motivation to excel will be gone, and thus the productivity will follow. I don’t work this hard because I am just that way. I work this hard to earn a better life than those who don’t.

    What is hogwash is your belief that it is the same government (and its intervention) that has ruined capitalism; but coming after you admit the government is owned by big business make it doubly absurd (or hogwash x 2).

    That statement made no sense. And if I am understanding what you are attempting to say, it only shows how utterly lost you are in understanding my position.

    • You really are lost. There was a time before “formalized governments were formed” in America? Surely you are not that naive. We were under British rule until we formed our own government. Are you attempting to claim that all slavery and indian theft occurred during the decade or two in between? This is another important point that you seem unable to grasp: Capitalism did not wipe out indians or take there land. Government did. Government armies slaughtered indians. Did you not pay attention? Have you not looked at the pictures and paintings? How did you miss those uniforms and flags during the assaults? At this point I don’t think it matters who writes the history books because you apparently haven’t taken the time to read any of them.

      I’m lost?

      Okay, Mr. Sarcasm … let’s rip you a new now.

      Let’s go with the popular 1492 discovery of America. Manhattan was purchased in 1626.

      From the beginning of Virginia’s settlements in 1587 until the 1680s, the main source of labour and a large portion of the immigrants were indentured servants looking for new life in the overseas colonies.

      Ooops, no uniforms …

      • Oops, no government force used, looks like two parties engaged in a contract to me, you know like free market capitalism stuff.

        An indenture was a legal contract enforced by the courts. One indenture reads as follows:
        This INDENTURE Witnesseth that James Best a Laborer doth Voluntarily put himself Servant to Captain Stephen Jones Master of the Snow Sally to serve the said Stephen Jones and his Assigns, for and during the full Space, Time and Term of three Years from the first Day of the said James’ arrival in Philadelphia in AMERICA, during which Time or Term the said Master or his Assigns shall and will find and supply the said James with sufficient Meat, Drink, Apparel, Lodging and all other necessaries befitting such a Servant, and at the end and expiration of said Term, the said James to be made Free, and receive according to the Custom of the Country. Provided nevertheless, and these Presents are on this Condition, that if the said James shall pay the said Stephen Jones or his Assigns 15 Pounds British in twenty one Days after his arrival he shall be Free, and the above Indenture and every Clause therein, absolutely Void and of no Effect. In Witness whereof the said Parties have hereunto interchangeably put their Hands and Seals the 6th Day of July in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Three in the Presence of the Right Worshipful Mayor of the City of London.

        • looks like two parties engaged in a contract to me, you know like free market capitalism stuff.

          Oooops, thanks, Bama, for clearing that up. So, in other words, capitalism promoted free market slavery. That’s been my point with BF all along.

          doth Voluntarily put himself Servant

          Not only does it promote it, it does so voluntarily!

          All that talk of Master and servitude … how cool is that? So, when the Masters on slave ships brought over “those” slaves, were they also under contract? The answer, yes, in fact. And how cool is that?

          That free market stuff sure is good for the massah, huh?

          So, to reiterate … Ooops, no uniforms and voluntary slavery!

          • Indentured servitude is a far cry from slavery. In the former, someone willingly (and temporarily) subjugates himself to another as payment for paying that person’s way to America. The latter, on the other hand, is forced (often permanent) servitude.

          • What a leap even for you. Voluntary servitude is a far cry from slavery. When you commit to a 30 year mortgage you are in effect in “servitude” to the lien holder.

    • Capitalism has not failed, it has been perverted.

      You say tomato … but you still haven’t pointed to that “true free market” have you?

      A truly free market has millions of examples every day, but you are too blind to see them.

      And still you haven’t pointed one out, but it is interesting how truly free market examples can exist in this perverted state of capitalism.

      And you claim I’m confused? Please, pass along whatever it is your smoking, USW.

      That is a ludicrous request. (regarding that truly free market example.)

      It is only ludicrous when you distort the question. See what I posted regarding slaves during the establishment of America from 1492-1860’s … indentures immigrant servants, slaves … so, where was it, this truly free market? Oh, there wasn’t one? So then how can you claim it works when you can’t cite example of it working? Oh, you’re assuming this utopia will exist? But wait, didn’t you say there are hundreds of examples of it every day (suggesting I’m blind)? But wait, don’t those hundreds of examples exist in this “perverted” free market?

      Sorry, fellas, this has gone beyond boring and tiresome. Time to watch some foreign flicks.

  2. USWeapon says:

    Maybe you already realize this-but I think Charlies frustration is brought about by the fact-that people credit capitalism as the source of our growth-while at the same time saying we have never had a truly free market-so nothing that has gone wrong can be blamed on capitalism because we have never really had capitalism-so how can you credit capitalism for our growth . It does seem like a contradiction. And when you figure in that his main complaint is man’s ability to be greedy and not treat his employees fairly-capitalism does give man that ability-but why he doesn’t see that giving this power to the government-makes the problem worse-I do not know.

    VH, you fall into a common misunderstanding. A truly free market and capitalism are two entirely different and distinct things. Capitalism is what made this country great. There is no contradiction saying capitalism made the country great while also saying that a truly free market has not existed. They are two entirely different entities. Capitalism is an economic system. A true free market has more to do with government intervention.

    As for Charlie’s position, he is attempting very hard to make those two different things into a single thing to augment his position. Do not be enticed by it. His contradictions are many on this subject and his inability to see the fact that government in any form is made up by the very same men he despises is what gets in the way of his being rational.

    • Capitalism is what made this country great.

      and then …

      A true free market has more to do with government intervention.

      Like I said 1,000 x’s already … when USW needs to point out the “greatness” of this country, he points to capitalism. When I point out that that “greatness” included slavery and the taking of land violently from its original inhabitants, USW points to government intervention. He sure wants his cake and he wants to eat it too (the effects of capitalism in a nutshull). Honestly, your argument (USW) is absurd.

  3. USWeapon says:

    Capitalism spreads out the power between the many? Maybe at first, but then power winds up being consolidated amongst the wealthy.

    @ Buck: This can absolutely be true. The problem is that every other system that is being heralded as a better alternative STARTS with power being consolidated among the wealthy. Capitalism is the only economic system that has even a shred of hope of stopping this. Can it be done? Maybe not. But I know capitalism is the only one that at least gives us a chance at power being distributed.

  4. USWeapon says:

    Because all you SUFA righties do is declare and proclaim how wonderful the free market system is (never giving us examples because you KNOW we can tear them apart) … so you’re in an assault-free position (i.e., the “truly” free market) … where? As it existed in that laborious tomb by Aynd Rand? John Galt’s utopia. Fiction, my friend … and bad fiction at that.

    I already addressed the BS complaint that “never giving us examples” indicates some sort of fear or belief that you can tear them apart. I show you the basis of the two systems and tell you why your version is ineffective and immoral. Your response is this inane demand, which really sounds like a desperate move from someone who cannot have the debate on the merits of what I offered. This constant belief that we must somehow show a full proof example in history that what we advocate is possible is ludicrous given that what YOU advocate has no historical precedent of positive outcome either.

    However, there is one difference. What you advocate has been tried with government support in the past. And it still failed. What I advocate has never been tried with government support. On the contrary, if government gave the support to a free market attempt in the way that government has attempted to enforce communism or socialism, the free market would exceed every expectation you can imagine. Would it be perfect? No. Would it eliminate wealth disparity or power attempting to control it? No. But it would be way better than what you are advocating for.

    And I still find you and the rest of the left’s fixation on Rand laughable. She wrote a fiction story that, taken as a fictional story that exemplifies a philosophical theory, does a phenomenal job of helping people understand her points. Much like you do with this capitalism conversation, you on the far left attempt to belittle what you can’t debate by making false claims and blanket statements such as claiming that we who liked the message think it was a literal interpretation and want to mirror it. Does the idealistic utopian world of Atlas Shrugged live the in the world of reality? Nope, sure doesn’t. But the story is nothing more than a vehicle to help people understand objectivist philosophy. It is just a side benefit that you and the rest of the far left fall into conniption fits and hysterical babbling any time Rand’s name is mentioned. If only you took your leaders as literally as you take Rand, you may understand how screwed you are by them.

  5. USWeapon says:

    It is a direct bi-product of it, absolutely. It was the cheapest way for Southern farmers to raise their crops (for one thing) or do you deny that too?

    Let’s get this straight. Slavery is not a direct bi-product of capitalism. That is an outright lie Charlie Stella, and you are too smart to not know that it is an outright lie. Slavery has existed in nearly every society throughout history. Every one of them. And it existed thousands of years before southern plantation owners ever reaped a benefit from it. For you to continue to deny this fact shows that you are either not listening, can’t read history, or are intentionally attempting to modify the truth. This is exactly the sort of propaganda from the left that I am talking about.

    Slavery was a horrible stain on history. And in a capitalist society there were men who took advantage of it. It was the cheapest way for southern farmers to raise crops. And whether southern farmers were capitalist, communists, or anywhere in between, it still would have been the cheapest way for them to raise crops so long as a barbaric world accepted slavery as an acceptable practice. Slavery wasn’t a bi-product of capitalism, it was a direct result of ignorance. Mercantilism and Colonialism (look them up since you can’t seem to grasp the concept) are the culprits that made slavery happen, not capitalism.

    Unless you believe that EVERY action taken by men who happen to operate in a capitalist economy are the direct result of being in that capitalist economy, then they statement is ridiculous. You have got to learn the difference between an economic system and a political system. Every time you blame slavery on capitalism, you lose credibility among every person who can think critically and realizes what a ridiculous statement you are making (which are most people). Capitalism doesn’t cause slavery any more than it causes people to hopelessly believe in the Buffalo Bills.

    • It was the cheapest way for southern farmers to raise crops.

      Thank you for proving that slavery was a direct by-product of capitalism (here in the the good old US&A, which, I believe, was what you were defending in your original post about how great our country has become because of capitalism). The problem is you guys can’t stand to have obvious points in your argument attacked or destroyed. My point was that some of the wealth in this country (old money) came from the south pre and post civil war and to deny that capitalism had anything to do with that is to cover one’s head with a very dark hood.

      Just skipped to your shot at my beloved new york state buffalo bills. Ha, I say. Capitalism causes slavery to waves on an ongoing basis throughout history. Right now it is particularly so with so many out of work. Employers get to put workers up against it daily (don’t like it, leave being the mantra) … USA weapon, you think my comments ridiculous … I think yours are absolutely absurd (and proving of your slavery to the system) but just remember that shane conlan (Penn State) was a Bill … 🙂

      • USWeapon says:

        Do you not get the simple fact that slavery has existed throughout time, in every system? Therefore it is not a bi-product of capitalism. Are you intentionally ignoring reality? You haven’t attacked or destroyed anything. You have spouted claims that have no basis in reality and claimed victory. Do not attempt to change the statement with subtle differences. You said slavery is a bi-product of capitalism. In other words slavery existed because of capitalism. Despite the fact that slavery existed thousands of years prior to capitalism.

        • Do you not get the simple fact that slavery has existed throughout time, in every system?

          My friend, do you know what a straw man argument is?

          The fact of the matter is … if one buys the Marxist argument that capitalism makes slaves of the wage earners, then slavery is a bi-product of capitalism. Now, what part of that do YOU not get? The fact your argument has vaulted to various stages of the pasts here the last few days does further dilutes your claims. You quoted me from an argument about whether or not slavery contributed to the wealth of the south then created a straw man (that you failed miserably at proving anyway). In “free market” (true or effect), capitalism in fact created slavery (see other posts from the 1600’s), and it hung around for another couple hundred years because slavery is in fact a by-product of capitalism (without government intervention) … so there goes your argument about the free market along with your sarcasm.

          • So if one accepts a LIE then all lies become the truth?

            That is your argument at its core.

            RE slavery: Charlie, did slavery exist during the feudal times?

            Did Capitalism exist during the feudal times?

            • Once again we’re back to your core argument; that capitalism never existed unless it was making our country great. Did capitalism exist ever? Did slavery ever exist under capitalism?

              • Once again we are back to your core problem of not being able to understand simple words, let alone the concepts they convey.

                You state that Capitalism is the cause of slavery.

                I ask if slavery or capitalism existed during feudal times.

                Those two are related. And in case you didn’t notice I did not make an argument. I asked you two simple questions which you seem incapable of answering.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Yes, slavery existed under capitalism…it was also stopped under capitalism. Capitalism as it was anyway.

          • Charlie,
            Hitsory shows that slavery existed before capitalism. It existed in a free market, even, if you look at it in terms that BF uses that a free market involves a transaction between two parties. What capitalism did not do was get rid of slavery. The idea of freedom and equality did that. The government did not get rid of slavery either. It was the idea, the philosophy of freedom. If government is why slavery is gone, then by your logic it should have gotten rid of it as soon as it was established. It did not do this. Same with caring for workers. Government tried to stop the unions, only when the unions resisted did government change sides. Unions were a free market creation. Government involvement has corrupted them. Slavery was an idea that some men were not equal and could be considered property. The market does not make such decisions, the market is the collective actions of people. When people change, the market changes. So no, capitalism did not produce slavery, it had nothing to do with it. What was needed was a society that did not allow some people to be property, and the market changes, because that is no longer part of the supply, it is no longer a commodity. Demand must be met a different way.

      • Truthseeker says:

        Charlie, as USW pointed out, Slavery existed throughout human history (thousands of years). Capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years, and even then, it was differents forms of it. So how can Slavery be a bi-product of Capitalism? I would agree that Slavery is a bi-product of greed and power, regardless of what economic system is used.

        • Okay, so are we talking about the “true free market”, the “free market” or some “free market effect” now?

          I ask because when I point out that capitalism was the system under which slavery existed in the United States (before and after government), I really don’t want to rehash your inability to point to where a truly free market existed; i.e., you will claim it was government’s fault rather than accept slavery, no matter where else it existed at whatever time, it existed in the united states during a capitalist economic system.

          • Terry Evans says:

            Deflect, by all means don’t answer…

          • Charlie

            Finally some clarity, however brief.

            you: “no matter where else it existed at whatever time, it existed in the united states during a capitalist economic system.”

            Nobody has disputed this fact. BUT Charlie, this is not the point you have been arguing. So now you change the premise to support the previous position, which is entirely different.

            YOU have been arguing that Capitalism “caused” slavery, and/or that slavery was the “by-product” of Capitalism.

            These are entirely DIFFERENT than “slavery continued to exist during a capitalist economic system”.

            • NONSENSE. You guys truly kill me. Stop playing USW’s game of straw man. How many times do I have to restate this?

              USW claims “capitalism made this country great” … I said so long as you’re willing to accept the taking of lands from native peoples by force and the slavery that ensued (and or predated the official forming of a government), you cannot ignore that the greatness of which USW speaks (and points to) didn’t include Slavery.

              As for Marxism: It is a FACT that capitalism is “believed” to cause slavery, but I wasn’t even going there until USW tried to divert what I was addressing.

              Come on with this already. If capitalism made this country great and slavery existed while that was happening (BIG, HUDGE “DUH” HERE), then you have to include slavery in that greatness, yes or no?

              • Terry Evans says:

                You have to include all the good and all bad..yes. Much as the good and bad in your life shapes you, the good and the bad has shaped the US…I agree with you if this is what you are saying.

              • USWeapon says:

                I agree with JAC here. You are now changing your position. Previously you have stated that capitalism caused slavery, on many different occasions saying the statement “slavery is a be-product of capitalism”. Now you change it to “it existed during” which is a claim that I have never disputed. I claim that because slavery has existed through time, it is not caused by capitalism, it is caused by evil.

                I fully accept all the bad that came with capitalism in the past. But we aren’t talking about the past are we Charlie? I said capitalism is the better way forward than your preferred future. I did not say capitalism including slavery is the better way forward. The straw man is one you are putting up, waving slavery 200 years ago and government stealing land from indians 200 years ago as an argument against capitalism being better than communism NOW.

              • No you do not. Capitalism made this country great. Some bad things were still happening, but we still grew to greater power and wealth than anywhere else in the world. We also had the largest middles class, the most opportunity for success, and the least inequality among our population compared to any other nation at the time. We have begun to lose these things as we have lost our capitalist ways to more corrupted corporatist/fascist ways.

                Capitalism does not fix the ills of man. It distributes power and wealth more than any other system. It reduces the effects of evil men by limiting consolidation of power. It tends to be tied to ideas of freedom which DO fix some of the ills of man, like the whole slavery thing, but it is not the cure for all ills.

                The reality is that NOTHING IS THE CURE FOR ALL ILLS. No system will fix everything. Tell me what system is best. Not what you want the results to be, tell me how we achieve those results. Tell me what system will work. Tell me how you will fix all the ill you rail against.

  6. USWeapon says:

    I guess the fact that unions eventually formed to prevent the absolute exploitation of assembly line workers isn’t a very good argument against Ford … that he was reaping the profits off the backs of his workers unfairly until they unionized proves what about capitalism … and, according to USW and BF, by 1913, the government had already destroyed the “truly free market” … oy vey

    Learn your Ford history. Ford paid his workers better than anyone else, so no it isn’t a very good argument against Ford. It was part of what he became famous for. “Henry Ford, the pioneering American automaker, stunned the world in 1914 by announcing that he would pay a minimum wage of $5 a day and share with his employees $10 million in the previous year’s profits. Believing that well-paid laborers are the best consumers, he hiked his employees’ wages from $2.34 for a nine-hour day to $5.00 for an eight-hour day. The move proved to be highly profitable. Instead of constant employee turnover, the most expert mechanics flocked to the company, raising productivity and reducing training costs. Ford called it the “wage motive.”

    Ford had many faults, but reaping profits off the back of his workers wasn’t really one of them. He started the Ford Foundation, which is one of the larger philanthropic organizations in the world. Was he bastard? Probably, but he also revolutionized the world of industry.

    And again with your generalizations. I didn’t claim the government had destroyed the free market by 1913. I have claimed, and correctly, that over time the government has steadily and slowly encroached upon the free market. Each step takes a little bit more away. And that process continues to this day, as folks like you work to be the one who actually puts the nail in the coffin. The “truly free market” never existed. That you try to claim Ford operated in one is ludicrous.

  7. USWeapon says:

    Now it’s a “free market effect”.

    Sweet Jesus. I’m tired of this. Best of luck Buck.

    I can understand how in a world of Charlie, nuances such as the difference between an entirely free market and one that has parts of one are lost. That you cannot understand this concept is baffling. See, things are listed as an “effect” when they are not actually one thing, but are inspired or driven by the idea of that thing. Let me know when you catch up here.

    • Let me know when you catch up here.

      I’ll catch up when you explain where the truly free market existed (the one you run to everytime your free market (without the “truly”) is attacked. But I doubt you’ll ever get there, USW … See, things are listed as “effect” when you can’t explain the foundation of your argument, thus leaving yourself more and more slack to avoid answering a question. It works here but …

      As to Ford, he was a pioneer in an industry that was abusing the crap out of its workforce compared to the abuse only. Pioneer by standards of the time … this is sort of like when you point to the % of taxex paid by 1 & 2%’ers … neglecting the profit and wealthy they accumulate vs. the other 98%.

      Let’s call it the capitlist exploitation “effect” …

  8. USWeapon says:

    JAC,
    The Internet is an example of free-market Capitalism with no government influence?

    The Internet was created by the government. How can it be free of government influence?

    The light bulb was created by Thomas Edison, Todd. Does he still have some effect on how you do or don’t use them? I know that you are way too smart to actually believe the statement that you just wrote.

    • USWeapon,
      You’re comparing the light bulb with the internet?

      The light bulb is an invention created by a capitalist. I don’t know if it was created in a truly free market Capitalist system because no one here has defined when and where a truly free market Capitalist system has existed.

      The internet is an invention created by government. I think by definition that excludes it from being created by a truly free market Capitalist system.

      Please explain how the creation of the internet is an example of truly free market Capitalism?

      • Todd

        Lets review because it looks like your launching on a rabbit hunt again. Although it is partly due to this jumping back and forth from Capitalism to Free Market Capitalism.

        I did not claim that the internet was invented due to a free market. I said the development of the internet. My comment:

        “The latest example was the development of the Internet and computer tech. This “segment” of the system was not regulated, but the “system” is not Capitalism.”

        Now perhaps “develop” wasn’t the best choice as you interpreted that as create, apparently. Where I meant development of the internet as we know it. You know, the world wide web at your desk top. Speaking of which, the expansion of the home computer falls into the same category.

        As with most new inventions in this country it was a free market or essentially free that brought the new innovations to the market place and expanded their use among the population. At the same time raising the standard of living for the country as a whole.

        It was Capitalism that reduced poverty where ever it took root and improved the standard of living for those who participated. Now I will grant you one thing in this argument. One that in fact can be found in the economic texts. You see “industrialization” was the true boon to prosperity. But the million dollar question has always been whether industrialization would have spread and grown under any system other than Capitalism. Many scholars do not think so. I would say that the historical evidence of Russia and China support that hypothesis.

        So if removing part of the pollution from the lake can increase the health of the fish to that degree, why would you think a pollution free lake wouldn’t do even better?

        • JAC,
          Are you sure I’m the one launching the rabbit hunt? You seem pretty determined to prove you’re right. You tend to take this attitude anytime someone disagrees with you.

          And now you’re trying to define terms to fit your answer.

          “Development” covers the entire life-cycle of a technology, so it would include it’s original creation. USWeapon seems to have the same interpretation of “development”, as he went back 150 years for the light bulb.

          Even if you consider only more recent development of the internet, how can something be “truly free market Capitalism” when it’s built on something the government created?

          And that “world wide web at your desk top”? Opps – government again!!

          But let’s also review the question:

          Name one systemic problem Capitalism has solved?

          What systemic problem has the internet solved?

          You know, I could name some systemic problems the internet has created, so maybe I should use that to answer USWeapon’s question…

          • Todd

            I am simply trying to explain what I meant when I used the term “develop”. I admitted it was a bad choice because you obviously thought I included the first invention. I was talking about the commercial expansion of the net and computer tech. So yes, I am right because I know what my intent was as well as the purpose of the comment.

            Which by the way had nothing to do with the question you keep trying to assign to it. At the time I was trying to explain to Buck how free market segments could and have existed within an economic system that is not free.

            The expansion of the net and computer tech are the most recent example I could think of where there was no Federal Govt “regulation” of the market.

            • Sure JAC,
              You just keep “walking this one back” and making up all the excuses you like.

              So yes, I am right because I know what my intent was as well as the purpose of the comment.

              If this wasn’t so arrogant it would be funny JAC. So you make up the rules and get to decide who’s right and wrong? I suppose that’s how you envision things working in your imaginary capitalist society…

              • Todd

                So we have once again arrived at the point where you are going to accuse me of not knowing what I intended to say?

                Is that it?

                You accuse me of arrogance for trying to clarify my intent? Or am I supposed to be arrogant for claiming that I did in fact know what I intended to say, even while admitting I used a bad choice of words. One that I admitted could be taken differently than I intended. Explanation is arrogance? Is that it?

                And on top of this you accuse me of “walking back” my argument because I tried to clarify my meaning.

                Todd, I am know what I meant to say. You took it differently. I could see it was due to the word I used so I was big enough to admit my mistake and try to explain my intent.

                So what the hell?

              • USWeapon says:

                you know, JAC, that has happened to me a lot lately. I try ot explain better and they simply say I am changing my stance. Frustrating as all get out…..

              • JAC,
                Since you continue to insist that the internet was “developed” under a “segment” of the free market Capitalist system that was not regulated, I’ll use it to answer USWeapon’s “nifty little side game”:

                The internet has caused or greatly expanded many systemic problems:
                * Gambling addiction
                * Porn addiction
                * Online gaming addiction
                * Information Overload – including fraudulent/misleading information
                * Social networks where people spend untold hours “connecting” to other people online while ignoring family, real friends, work
                * Blogs – see Information Overload and Social Networks
                * Obesity as people sit at computers instead of actually doing things

                And the list goes on and on…

                This has obviously occurred in the last 100 years.

                Bonus points because the government didn’t actually make this possible.

                Extra bonus points because this is happening in today’s climate.

                And DOUBLE Extra bonus points because this is getting worse in today’s climate.

              • Hey, I finally had time to watch Ray’s video below here!

                It pretty much confirms my negative impacts of the internet – and adds a few…

                How come it always gets so quiet when I answer one of USWeapon’s challenges?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Todd and @JAC – slight diversion here – an interesting RSA piece on the Internet:

    • Al Gore made the internet!

  9. USWeapon says:

    JAC (from above):

    Capitalism, by its very definition, can NOT take away freedom of the individual.

    Really? So then how did it lose out (according to so many of you)? How did get so diluted? Perhaps not everybody relishes YOUR definition of freedom (akin to that wonderful document proclaiming all men are created equal (except slaves)) … but wait, that doesn’t count! That was government intervention. Capitalism can NEVER fail! Why? Because it isn’t “true” capitalism/”true” free markets” …

    See, this is where you once again fail to be able to differentiate between capitalism, and economic system, and the encroachment of government, a political action. Capitalism continues to be hampered by government instead of protected by it. You falsely attribute the failings of a political system to the economic system that happened to be in place. What on earth does the Constitution have to do with Capitalism? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The Constitution established the government of the United States. It did not establish capitalism.

    This whole “capitalism can never fail” nonsense that you are throwing out there isn’t the point of what I wrote at all. Then again I have already pointed this out, so you are well aware that you are attempting to alter the argument by creating false positions for your opponents. It’s the old, “I can’t refute their position, so instead I will assign them a position I feel I can better defeat” effect.

    No wonder the younger generation seems so confused

    Only if they’re following this site, my brother …

    You know, Charlie, over the last couple of weeks this has been a common comment from you. Degrading SUFA as a whole because there are people who you either don’t agree with or refuse to attempt to understand. What I have witnessed here at SUFA is an entire group of people who consistently and patiently attempt to discuss these issues with you in a rational and well thought out way. I have taken the time to dedicate entire articles to the issues that you have brought up. People who are here have defended you on several occasions when they felt you made a good point or were right about something.

    And your reply to all that… you call us all confused. You make statement like everyone at SUFA is a Black Flag sycophant. I know that I personally find that insulting. I respect Bf the same way that I respect you. He has the ability to make good points and the ability to piss me off with his nonsense. What I refuse to do is ignore his arguments because he and I differ on some of the basic starting points (he wants no government and I want limited government).

    • You know, Charlie, over the last couple of weeks this has been a common comment from you. Degrading SUFA as a whole because there are people who you either don’t agree with or refuse to attempt to understand.

      Actually, I’ve been getting along quite well with most here (I think), even in this post of yours until your sought the help of sarcasm. BF calls it ad hominem, but you both shoot for sarcasm. I return with same. You don’t like it? Don’t do it.

      • USWeapon says:

        Oh I am fine with it when it is pointed at me. But I am not when you simply degrade the entire site as a whole.

        • Yet you seem to be the only one taking offense all of a sudden. If you read the posts (probably upset you a bit) between me and Jon and JAC, etc., I think you’ll notice we were quite civil in our arguments. I try only to respond to sarcasm with sarcasm. Sometimes frustration gets the best of all of us, but your original posts are front loaded with it so I respond in kind. And what’s with the protectionism of the site? Where’s the freedom?

          • So this is your rationalization of stereotyping?

            • Excuse me? What are you trying to say, JAC?

              I understand you have to fall in line here, but please clarify your point? Did we not have a civil discussion the other day or not? Suddenly it’s not. Interesting. Feel free, I’m more than willing to swing back.

              Lefties, redskies, red thru and thru, confused, muddled, etc. Put up something in front of the glass your house is made of, brother, before you join the chorus.

              • Charlie

                I was not commenting on the “civility” of discussion or the interaction of sarcasm by the two in the discussion.

                USW pointed out that you often accuse “all of SUFA” as being somehow identical, and quite often ignorant in your view.

                Your response to this was that “gee whiz, I thought we were being civil”.

                My point is that having a civil argument has nothing to do addressing the issue of stereo typing. So by presenting it as such it has the effect of “rationalizing stereo-typing” itself.

              • Charlie

                A perfect example of what USW was pointing out.

                “I understand you have to fall in line here, ”

                Quite dishonest of you Charlie to make such a claim against me.

        • I’ve joked about lovin me some Charlie Stella in the past but all joking aside:

          There have been swipes taken at individual people here without the original swiper being called out..why beat on Charlie for one broad swipe? I find the individual swipes more offensive.

          • There have been a few posts here at SUFA where I am (have been) the honored inspiree … I thought (think) it was/is pretty cool.

            At so-called left wing blogs, one guy wanted to create an “I hate Charlie Stella” blog for my attacks on his Democratic Party and President Obama … how interesting is that (in comparison).

            BF is right! There is a universe and it universally can’t stand Charlie Stella!

            My wife often tells me I’m more annoying than most forms of arthritis …

            It’s all good, but once the sarcastic sparks fly, then yous can’t expect it doesn’t fly back.

            Anita, my love … we’ll have to keep this from Kathy a bit longer …

            Come on, people, lighten up …

          • I actually agree with you Anita with one little caveat 🙂 Charlie likes to stir the pot 🙂 He has said so many times-it is why I think he continues not to answer my question-the communism ruse pushes buttons-and causes an emotional reaction and Charlie gets a kick out of creating that reaction. Don’t you Charlie 🙂

            • Now wait a minute? Which question? Sorry if I missed it (seriously), but you have to realize, I have way many more questions to answer here (being the redsky in the crowd). What was the question again? And also remember, I’m loaded with carpal tunnel and have my dopey books and plays to write … and that dopey blog of mine (where I feature a wingie from the right–the Doc) … You can call me nuts, but I’m a fair nut …

              And yes, I do enjoy stirring the pot. I’m probably a lot more conservative (realatively speaking, of course) than my “red thru and thru” descriptions suggest …

              • Your red thru and thru descriptions have come from your more than occasional red thru and thru posts. And I will give you that many posts are directed at you-specifically. 🙂

                V.H. Says:
                April 23, 2011 at 11:51 am

                “My problem is this gov’t was born of capitalism” Then your problem is with Freedom. Or with the existence of government. Or the existence of business. Or with the fact that money makes power and power makes money. Charlie I listen to you and I understand and share your frustration but you stand and point out the problems, while basically acknowledging there is no perfect answer-so you go from anarchy to communism in your remarks. So I just have to ask-is the problem to much government-or not enough-I am confused? No offense meant but it is pretty easy to just condemn everything.

                V.H. Says:
                April 25, 2011 at 11:39 am

                Many people are trying really hard to get rid of capitalism.
                So someone please enlighten me-especially you Charlie-since you insist on railing against it, while ignoring that other systems lead to no freedom-Are you really against individual ownership? Do you really want to give up that right? Or are you simply for instating some control on the market? There is a pretty big difference between these two things in my mind. So which is it? I find it impossible to speak on your points with out an answer to this question.

  10. USWeapon says:

    They fear this because they do not understand the source of wealth.

    Jon, I appreciate what you’re saying, but … why not assume for once we do understand the source of wealth and happen to take great issue with it coming from 1) an illegally or immorally reprehensible starting point and then blossoming into greater illegal and/or immoral wealth to the point where it owns government on the backs of workers?

    I really do want to believe that you understand the source of wealth. But what I see you consistently do is put forth proposals that fly in the face of understanding. That you continue to think that socialism/communism will not make productivity and wealth creation for the middle class tank in this country tells me that you apparently DON’T understand it.

    Do you get that the majority of wealth that came from that period was done immorally or illegally? But even if it were so, what happened 200 years ago DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON A DISCUSSION OF CAPITALISM AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM TODAY. If all the people with money and power were previous slave owners who garnered their station in life by being an heir to a slave fortune, I might understand your position. But that simply isn’t the case. The fraction of a percentage of those in the power positions who fall into that category makes your position seem misplaced.

    If the starting point required the force BF and others claim is evil (force); the taking of this country from its native inhabitants, how can you justify it in any way shape or form? Unless you are willing (as many here are/some are not) to dismiss what happened and then continue justify what came next (whether you want to cloak it in government intervention or not), how do you expect those of us who don’t buy that paradigm to accept it? We don’t.

    The starting point is no longer relevant. If you were the result of someone raping someone else, do I negate what you are now and what you accomplish simply because the way that you began was immoral? What happened to the Indians was horrible. What happened to slaves was horrible. It was not caused by capitalism. We have covered that already.

    Unless you are willing to forget what happened 200 years and start simply demanding that we move forward with moral purpose and in a way that doesn’t commit the same immoral acts committed in the past. You are too busy living in the past and attempting to place blame for what transpired then to even begin moving forward. You are using faulty logic, faulty premises, and faulty reasoning to make your case.

    In a free society, no amount of wealth can buy you authority, thus one cannot engage in slavery.

    That’s one hell of an assumption that has yet to prove itself. I fear we’re back to that “truly free market” nonsense that none of you can point to.

    Agreed that it is one hell of an assumption to make. But we absolutely know that when your solution is used (big government) it is guaranteed that wealth will buy you authority. I will take a 1% chance of wealth not buying authority in a free society over a 0% chance in your version of the future any day.

    I see authority and influence (as it exists today) being the direct result of capitalism gone awry.

    When authority and influence as it exists today have existed in every single economic and political system in history, why is it that you attribute it as a result of one.

    • what happened 200 years ago DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON A DISCUSSION OF CAPITALISM AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM TODAY

      Except for the fact that wealth created 200 years ago continues to exist (old money) and run the country … which then perpetuates itself and the ill gotten advantages of the past.

      • USWeapon says:

        Show me that it continues to run the country. I would like to see the percentage of the “2%” that are descendants from slave owners. I would like you to show me anything showing that a significant portion of the dark men running the country are what you claim. I bet that percentage will be less than 1% of your 2%. Yet as has become the norm, you will use that tiny fraction as justification to punish everyone else.

        • Took me about a few seconds to find rj reynolds as old money … but … nobody is looking to punish anybody (why do you constantly run to that?). 2% is running the country (owning the gov’t) … one day you seem to have a problem with that yourself, but when push comes to shove (actually sharing the power), you run back to their corner. Ever watch Abbott & Costello … right shoulder arms, left shoulder arms, right should …. “make up your mind!”

          • USWeapon says:

            No I am not “running back to that” and no I haven’t gone into their corner. I have stayed where I always am, on the side of freedom and liberty. OK good, RJ Reynolds. So this one example is sufficient for you to decry the entire 2% nothing but money from slave owners and thus immoral?

            And I didn’t ask for a single example, I asked you to show me the percentage of the 2% that are what you claim they all are.

  11. USWeapon says:

    I’ve thrown this example out before, so I’ll throw it out again. Singapore is an example of a successful social democracy. They have very tight government controls on everything, so I’m not saying I’d prefer Singapore to the USA, but compared to where they started in the 1960′s, and compared to the economies of many of their neighbors, Singapore is a pretty good success.

    They have reduced/eliminated corruption by paying government officials very high salaries. This eliminates the need and the temptation to take bribes, etc. They want to keep their well paying government jobs.

    However, Todd, to create their economic prosperity they have essentially exercised complete control over their people. They administer canings to people for vandalism. It is against the law to chew gum in public. Here is a good list of some of the laws in Singapore:

    • Bungee jumping is illegal.
    • The sale of gum is prohibited.
    • Homosexuals are not allowed to live in the country.
    • Oral sex is illegal unless it is used as a form of foreplay.
    • Pornography is illegal.
    • As it is considered pornographic, you may not walk around your home nude.
    • Failure to flush a public toilet after use may result in very hefty fines.
    • It is considered an offense to enter the country with cigarettes.
    • Cigarettes are illegal at all public places.
    • If you are convicted of littering three times, you will have to clean the streets on Sundays with a bib on saying, “I am a litterer.

    Obviously Singapore is an example of a place where my primary directive, liberty and freedom, are no longer anywhere close to the way government views its purpose. And to top it off, they pay large salaries to their public officials to take their freedom away! Not such a great example.

    • Holland … Holland … Holland …

      • USWeapon says:

        OK tell me why Holland is great and why you think their example will work here in the US. I ask that genuinely.

        • I have already stated numerous times I doubt it could work here because of our size. Why it works is because for all their citizens put into the state over the course of their life, they are rewarded for it in the elder years (healthcare, vacations, housing … dignity). Here, we let our senior citizens rot. Their education system also destroys ours … but you probably wouldn’t like it, they don’t subscribe to Aynd Rand.

          Capitalism, a love story. I think Michael was thinking about you, USW.

          I won’t go back and forth on slavery. You were destroyed on that one early on and never regained your footing (the straw man arguments only work in your mind).

          On the other hand, taking shots at my Bills was uncalled for (and ludicrous) … which team is yours? No matter, the Bills will crush them next season.

          Peace, brother.

          • Bama dad says:

            “Here, we let our senior citizens rot.”

            Funny but my grandparents were not allowed to rot; our family took care of them just as it should be.

    • USWeapon,

      Not such a great example.

      Actually, it’s a perfect example. Because it was in response to Plainlyspoken for an example of a social democracy form of society.

      It’s not suppose to be an example of a place that meets your primary directive.

      In all my posts I’ve pointed out the tight government controls and that I would not prefer to live in that type of society.

      But, as I said before, compared to where they started in the 1960’s, and compared to the economies of many of their neighbors, Singapore is an example of a successful social democracy.

      So once again, do you have an example of a truly free market Capitalist society? Or the one that’s the closest – so we can discuss it’s positive and negative traits?

  12. USWeapon says:

    Here’s the problem USWeapon – what do your free market capitalism and BF’s government-less society (and every other society for that matter) have in common? They both involve people. And if either one of your senarios were to occur, the day after your free market capitalism or BF’s government-less society was created, two people would get together and decide that Mathius and Buck have an unfair advantage. These two people would work to create whatever “government” they needed to stop this unfair advantage. And pretty soon we’re right back where we are today…

    I agree Todd. Which is why what I create is not a society without government, it is a society where one of government’s very few powers and purposes is to not allow what you are talking about to happen. What I think you are not looking at is that in YOUR scenario, two people get together and determine the same thing. The only difference is that in my, and also in BF’s, scenarios, it is not condoned simply because “government said so.” Please tell me that you are getting that. It isn’t that I want a utopia, I simply want people to stop condoning treachery and theft, . I am all for, in the end, helping to make sure that people get taken care of, helping make sure that the poorest among us are not left behind. But my requirement is that we start from a place that embraces true liberty and freedom and work from there.

    You say that what I condone results in right where we are today. Perhaps that would be the case. But it appears to me, and you can correct me if I am misreading this in some way, that where you want to start is further down the same path. You simply want different people making decisions for what should be free people. I want no one making decisions for free people.

    You can’t apply textbook definitions to 300 million (or 7 billion) people.

    You are right, we can’t. Yet Charlie is willing to do exactly that because he believes his textbook definition is better than mine. But here is the thing. I don’t claim I have all the answers. I do claim to have my opinion and I will defend it vigorously (obviously). My position in this article is that capitalism is more effective and more moral than communism/socialism. Not perfect, just better.

    But this is the difference… before I even begin defining what system I think we should be operating under, the first decision that I make is that free men should be allowed to live as free men. Period. Freedom and liberty come first, and everything else flows from there. THAT is directive number one. If capitalism needs to be altered in some way, so be it. As long as you meet directive number one, alter away. My requirement is that whatever we do, we maintain the individual liberty of free men. Show me that whatever you want to do meets that primary requirement first, and I will consider it. Show me that it meets that requirement better than my plan, and I will adopt yours. Why would I do otherwise? It serves my primary requirement better!

    I am not irrational, Todd. I merely have my clear priority: liberty and freedom. And I will not sacrifice those principles for you or anyone else.

    You claim that “all” the problems in our society are caused by government interference and truly free-market capitalism would solve those problems. But your truly free-market capitalist society has never existed, so this is only theory.

    Wrong. I do not claim that truly free market capitalism would solve all those problems. I claim that truly free market capitalism better meets the requirements of directive number one. And since the rights of directive number one are mine at birth, you do not have the right to attempt to create a system that takes them away from me. Anyone that claims any system will solve all problems is a liar and a charlatan.

    You want to solve problems using government? That is fine. I am Ok with that so long as you don’t violate directive number one. Because in my eyes, violating directive number one is not you or anyone else’s right, no matter whether I lose that vote 300 million to one or win it in the opposite spread. No society has the right to get together and vote to take away the freedom and liberty of another man. None.

    Meanwhile, my version of a “perfect” society has existed and been changing and evolving for 225 years. And for all its faults, it’s still a pretty good place. Maybe that’s just me and my rosy glasses…

    You are right it has existed and evolved for 225 years. And my issue with it is that its evolution continues to eat into directive number one. Is it still a better place than anywhere else? It is in my eyes. The reason I fight so hard is because I believe that people like you and Charlie are attempting to make that evolution continue down this same self-destructive path.

    NOTE: As a nifty little side game for those playing along, name me a systemic problem with Capitalism that is CAUSED by the truly free market in the last 100 years. Bonus points if you can find something that government didn’t actually make possible. Extra bonus points if you find something that is even remotely possible in today’s climate.

    Answer: None – because it’s never existed, right?

    Question back at you! Name one systemic problem Capitalism has solved? :)

    Oh you don’t like my quiz and don’t want to play? That doesn’t surprise me. But I am up for it even though you aren’t. But you should come up with a tougher question than that. Here’s an answer:

    One systemic problem in most economies is the inability to increase productivity, increase overall wealth, and grow an economy. Communist countries have struggled with these systemic problems for centuries. Capitalism solved that problem by creating a situation where productivity was rewarded, overall wealth was increased (even if not as evenly distributed as some would like), and where the overall economy grew by leaps and bounds! In fact capitalism has been so effective as a solution for these systemic problems, that many of the world’s largest and most oppressive communist/socialist countries have actually switched to opening their markets up to capitalism and have thus watched their economy grow by leaps and bounds (China as a pertinent example).

    I answered one of these little quizzes about a year ago, and you never responded USWeapon. Any chance you’ll ever respond to that one?

    You brought this up once before a few months ago and I offered then the same answer I offer now: I apologize that whenever you offered it initially that I for some reason did not find the time to respond. I am willing to do so. However, I don’t have the time to go back through a couple hundred articles to search for a quiz you offered. So I will say again that if you want to go and get that question, or if you remember it now, by all means post it and I will do my best to answer it. But to keep saying “you never answered it” won’t do either of us any good.

    • USWeapon,
      I got the impression from your first article that you were advocating for a “truly free market Capitalist” system, vs our current mixed economy, socialism, or communism. You pointed out several times that Capitalism is not the problem – the problem is government’s intrusion and manipulation of the market.

      But you seem to be backing away from the “truly free market Capitalist” system. Now you only want to “start from a place that embraces true liberty and freedom and work from there.”

      Hell, even I can agree to that! But you’ll have to flush out the details of that for me, because it is a pretty general statement.

      I don’t “want to start further down the same path” – if the ‘path’ refers to socialism or communism. This may surprise you, but I do prefer capitalism to socialism or communism. But you seem to lump anyone who does not agree with your version of capitalism and government into the socialism/communism bucket.

      I do not claim that truly free market capitalism would solve all those problems.

      You didn’t claim that out right, but that’s the impression I get from your first article. And it’s a pretty strong impression.

      Oh you don’t like my quiz and don’t want to play?

      I loved your quiz! I think I’m the only one who answered it. But you didn’t seem to like my answer – or at least you didn’t comment on my answer?

      Your answer to my question was “increased productivity, overall wealth, and a growing economy.” Ok, but did this occur in a “truly free market Capitalist” system? Or is it in reference to Capitalism in general? (I know, I didn’t include “truly free market” in my question – damn!).

      If we can answer in reference to Capitalism in general, then I want to change my answer!!!

      Capitalism does tend to lead to an unequal distribution of wealth, although I can’t prove this in a “truly free market Capitalist” system because…well you know, the whole “no example” thingy…

      I answered one of these little quizzes about a year ago, and you never responded USWeapon. Any chance you’ll ever respond to that one?

      I must have missed your response the last time I asked. Here’s a link:

      https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/corporations-dont-pay-taxes-part-deux/#comment-66116

      • Todd

        “Capitalism does tend to lead to an unequal distribution of wealth, although I can’t prove this in a “truly free market Capitalist” system because…well you know, the whole “no example” thingy… ”

        I really have not other way to summarize this continued argument than it is an insult to the intelligence and history of humanity. It is in fact irrational and illogical.

        I can not determine if this fire will cook my meat because I have never seen meat cooked before. Despite the evidence around me and my ability to conceptualize and problem solve, I will just sit here and declare the answer unachievable.

        By the way, the presence of a middle class requires unequal distribution of wealth.

        • JAC,
          Are you serious? So this is your comparison?

          I can not determine if this fire will cook my meat because I have never seen meat cooked before.

          If you had never seen meat cooked before, how would you know a fire would cook your meat? How would you know how close to hold the meat to the fire and for how long?

          Probably thru trial and error, huh? So you’d end up eating many raw and burned meals before you got it right.

          Well, isn’t that just a great recipe for our future economic success! Let’s just let JAC #^$% with the economy until he gets it right.

          No Thanks JAC. But thanks for making my point that you guys don’t know what you’re talking about.

          Got any other “good” comparisons?

          • Todd

            Then take my comment without an analogy. It can stand on its own.

            • JAC,
              Removing your analogy doesn’t help.

              I really have no other way to summarize this continued argument than it is an insult to the intelligence and history of humanity. It is in fact irrational and illogical.

              So, it is “an insult to the intelligence and history of humanity. It is in fact irrational and illogical” for me to question an economic system that has never existed?

              But “it is in fact rational and logical” for you to preach over and over that an economic system that has never exist – or only existed for 8 years in Texas 150 years ago – is the correct system?

              Wow JAC, you must be smoking some good shit!!

              So please explain to me why it has never existed – or only existed for 8 years in Texas?

              • Todd

                Here is why you can’t seem to have a discussion with me without getting off on some tangent.

                Here are your words: “It is in fact irrational and illogical” for me to question an economic system that has never existed?”

                Now find where I said that. You won’t.

                I said it is an insult and irrational to claim you can not “EVALUATE” a system just because it has not existed. I will add, especially when it has existed in part.

                So I was saying just the opposite of what you now claim.

                Now lets address your question directly. The FEDERAL Govt. and its “regulation of commerce”.

              • JAC,

                Now find where I said that. You won’t.

                You posted those words right above here:

                I really have not other way to summarize this continued argument than it is an insult to the intelligence and history of humanity. It is in fact irrational and illogical.

                So now you are changing this to “EVALUATE” a truly free market Capitalist system?

                And when did you use the word “EVALUATE”? I don’t see it.

  13. USWeapon says:

    JAC,

    I haven’t forgot about the national elections, I don’t believe they will occur.

    G-Man, I want to be sure that I am understanding this correctly. Are you actually saying that you don’t believe that the national elections in 2012 will not occur? That is a pretty bold statement. And I would have to say one that I would be forced to ask for some sort of explanation for. Perhaps you could write an article explaining this belief. Perhaps you aren’t interested in explaining yourself on this one. But I have to know if you really believe it to be true. Because I don’t see that as being accurate at all. If I am wrong then God help us all, but I just don’t see it.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      USW, Sorry missed this earlier. The sun came out and I was out sptlitting wood all day. Plainlyspoken reminded me it was here.

      I’m surprised this caught anyone’s attention, but yes, I feel (not believe, cuz I can’t predict the future) that the 2012 National elections will be cancelled or seriously delayed. I’ve felt this way since before I came to SUFA. It may be worthy of an article, of which I will draft up.

      Sorry again for the late answer 🙂

  14. and there were also some ridiculous points made.

    The most ridiculous being your inability to locate a point in time when the “truly free market” existed without either outright violence (taking of America) and/or the exploitation of workers (slavery) that was part and parcel of our great rise in power and stature.

    But I’ve read a few lines down already and see where you’re now back to moralizing for us … oh, boy, this is gonna be good.

    This should not be accepted in a moral society.

    USW … are you now going to give us the ultimate definition of what is “moral” … you bounce back and forth like a pensy-pinky; is the freedom you constantly crave only for those who share your sense of morality? Some of us think it is immoral to earn $2.4 million and hour (and I can’t help but note how many times you ignore my stating $10,000 an hour as well (as equally immoral and impossible), but $.2.4 million an hour works even better for my point–which is show how greed knows no bounds and there’s no doubt in another year or two, that figure will be surpassed, if not doubled).

    the fact remains that capitalism is the best economic system available for growing an economy, increasing wealth, and maintaining as much freedom as possible.

    The only fact that remains is your ability to “state facts” without proving a thing …

    Where Charlie falls down in using this example is that this wasn’t done on the back of the worker. It wasn’t done on the back of anyone. It was done through the manipulation of pieces of paper to show wealth that is not backed up by anything other than promises on a different piece of paper. This is not beneficial for society, not beneficial for the market, and not beneficial for any other man than the one who did the manipulating.

    Oh, really? The worker didn’t pay for the bailouts? Brother, at one point do you put the blinders on and/or take them off? This country, right now, is rolling on the backs of the workers whether you want to kid yourself or not. $700 BILLION to bailout the thieves and bankers (bankers you’ve praised here at SUFA) came from every taxpayer in the country … so they criminals could reward themselves, continue to outsource taxpayer jobs and continue to run the country.

    You can’t stop gravity from naturally being gravity no matter what you believe. And you cannot stop market forces from behaving like market forces.

    And another way to look at it is this: Market forces are as manipulative as is gravity (which jets defy all the time).

    BF’s point is often that you cannot stop bad men from being bad men. But you can stop making their bad actions legitimate and legal by the decree of government … but I would prefer you instead made some attempt to prove his point wrong.

    Okay, show me when men stripped of all government (the “truly free market”) operated without the strong taking advantage of the weak; without exploitation of workers, without one man conquering another (living high while another is forced to live low)? BF’s attempt to keep that question from being assailed (analogous to gravity, really?) is a nice try, but way short of answering the question. Yes, bad men will behave badly, but in a capitalist system, they are permitted to accumulate wealth via bahaving badly on the backs on workers, generate power (owning government) and we’re back to exactly where we are now.

    Capitalism began to falter in practice when we lost our moral way

    here you go again … trust me, USW, our version morality is not close to being the same.

    One day we accepted that it was OK to create wealth to further industry or to grow the economy. Then we took the fatal step of accepting that it was OK to create wealth simply to create wealth.

    Sorry, but I fail to see the difference (in days). I see capitalism as ALWAYS seeking to create wealth (which makes sense if you’re a capitalist), but to control things when there’s nothing left to do with $2.4 million an hour … 🙂

    I’ll look over your other posts/comments as the day progresses but it’s a busy one here at casa stella …

    • “Market forces are as manipulative as is gravity”

      Wrong. Gravity is the same at all times. You cannot change the laws of gravity without creating or destroying mass (which we cannot do on an appreciable scale). When a jet flies, it is not manipulating gravity, it is using the movement of air and propulsion to create a force equal to or greater than gravity.

      When the government interferes with market forces, it is not manipulating the forces themselves, it is attempting to overcome them. They still exist, they are just being opposed.

    • USWeapon says:

      The most ridiculous being your inability to locate a point in time when the “truly free market” existed without either outright violence (taking of America) and/or the exploitation of workers (slavery) that was part and parcel of our great rise in power and stature.

      Are you going to continue to ignore the points and change the argument to whatever you need it to be? Because if so, this really has no future discussion potential. I state capitalism is better than communism. You start harping about “show me where no government works…”

      USW … are you now going to give us the ultimate definition of what is “moral” … you bounce back and forth like a pensy-pinky;

      I don’t think it is a stretch to say that it is immoral to steal from another man. I don’t think it is a stretch to state that it is immoral to take away the freedom and liberty of another man.

      is the freedom you constantly crave only for those who share your sense of morality?

      No Charlie, I advocate for your freedom as much as I do anyone else’s. In fact I advocate for your individual freedom even as you attempt to sacrifice it to the state. That you immorally attempt to usurp my freedom hasn’t stopped me from trying to preserve yours.

      Some of us think it is immoral to earn $2.4 million and hour (and I can’t help but note how many times you ignore my stating $10,000 an hour as well (as equally immoral and impossible), but $.2.4 million an hour works even better for my point–which is show how greed knows no bounds and there’s no doubt in another year or two, that figure will be surpassed, if not doubled).

      And yet you cannot provide reasoning that is rational for WHY it is immoral to make 2.4 an hour. Your only response is it is immoral because it is more than he needs to survive. If having more than you need is immoral, you have a lot to start giving up my friend.

      Oh, really? The worker didn’t pay for the bailouts? Brother, at one point do you put the blinders on and/or take them off? This country, right now, is rolling on the backs of the workers whether you want to kid yourself or not. $700 BILLION to bailout the thieves and bankers (bankers you’ve praised here at SUFA) came from every taxpayer in the country … so they criminals could reward themselves, continue to outsource taxpayer jobs and continue to run the country.

      Tell me how the worker paying for bailouts is linked to the guy who made 2.4 Million. I agree 100% with you on the bailouts and you would find I railed against them then and continue to state they were wrong. If you want to find people who supported the bailouts, you will have to consult with your compadres on the left here at SUFA. And what amazes me is that I agree with the premise that the 2.4 was immoral, but rather than accepting it, you create some false link between the bailouts and this completely separate situation. What he did was create wealth from nothing, which I called a major problem. What he didn’t do is create wealth on the back of the workers…. he created it from nothing but transaction trickery. Does it impact workers everywhere? Yes. Can you find the ability to make the distinction? I am highly doubting that you can.

      And another way to look at it is this: Market forces are as manipulative as is gravity (which jets defy all the time).

      Yes, and government intervention defies the market forces as well. When a plane runs out of fuel, gravity will still be there to take charge. When your government runs out of money and bullets, the market forces will do the same.

      Yes, bad men will behave badly, but in a capitalist system, they are permitted to accumulate wealth via bahaving badly on the backs on workers, generate power (owning government) and we’re back to exactly where we are now.

      And in communism all men are simply denied the opportunity to accumulate any wealth and we are far worse off than we are now. AS I stated before, your willingness to punish the masses for the sins of a few is as immoral as I can comprehend.

      here you go again … trust me, USW, our version morality is not close to being the same.

      You got that right. I will never accept a morality that says it is OK to steal, use violence, or take away freedom.

      • I will never accept a morality that says it is OK to steal, use violence, or take away freedom.

        Unless it comes under the guise of a “free market”. Talk about contradictions …

        Colonists Steal the land, use violence to do so and then create slaves from the people they took the land from … America.

        • Truthseeker says:

          Charlie, how can you direclty quote USW and then add your own “Unless” phrase? USW have never made exemptions to “I will never accept a morality that says it is OK to steal, use violence, or take away freedom.”

          Can you please tell us how a Free Maket, which is simply an economic system, told the Colonists to “Steal the land, use violence to do so and then create slaves from the people they took the land from … America”?

          Charlie, you have used the Free Market many times in your life. Did it force you to steal, cheat and lie?

    • Charlie Stella

      If you want to continue ranting about our economic situation then I suggest you be accurate. Otherwise you will continue to rant at the wrong things.

      First, the bailout was not paid for by the workers. It was in fact not paid for by anyone………………………..YET. And that is a most critical thing to understand.

      Second, our economic situation, including unemployment, was not caused by the bailouts. But the bailouts will be the cause of future sickness and when combined with additional “stimulus” our possible collapse.

      And “stimulus” in this case includes those extended unemployment payments that were made from “borrowed money”.

    • you bounce back and forth like a pensy-pinky

      Ah……what’s a “pensy-pinky”?

  15. Truthseeker says:

    CS, do you even read what is being posted? Or do you just look for a few words and then post a reply?

    Do you realize that it isn’t possible for old money to run our current system? Inflation would make that old money look like a weeks worth of wages. If that old money was just sitting there, it would harldy blossom to billions.

    Also, most billionairs and millionairs worked hard for their money. They didn’t inherit anything nor grow up with a silver spoon. Wealth does not operate in a vacume. This is not a Zero Sum game.

    • Also, most billionairs and millionairs worked hard for their money.

      Yes, the guys who owned the land and watched slaves work it for them were killing themselves, I’m sure. The guy who owned the factories where most industrialization occurred was sweating bullets while workers died from unsafe conditions … the guy who owned the mine in Virginia a couple years ago had air conditioner problems when his men died in the mine .. or the BP execs didn’t like the taste of their bree the morning the Deepwater Horizon exploded and killed a few of their men. Yes, most billionaires work very hard, I’m sure. Even USW agrees the clown pushing paper for $2.4 million an hour wasn’t producing anything (he failed to see how that type of job, after it failed miserably, was saved and reward on the backs of workers). Keep seeking the truth, my man.

      • Truthseeker says:

        CS, so to try and debate my point, you point to something a few hundred years ago? WTH? Then you decide to point to 1 person, who made bad choices (you think his motivation was greed), to automatically mean that everybody else must be the same? How did that mine owner get the mine in the first place? Did he inherit it?

        • Sweet Jesus. Let’s look to The Donald … now there’s a guy who busted his ass to become a rich wealthy, hard working American … oh, wait, he did inherit his wealth. Ooops.

          AS to the mine owner, I have no idea … except however he came to own that mine, whether it was through the advantage of being a white man with some money behind him or a white man with little money behind him, I know damn well he didn’t do it all on his own (saving coins while working 10-12 hour days and eating cornmeal to save his duckets). I’d suggest something in the middle happened, but the fact his workers were the ones who died while he was in the office while he reaped the bulk of the profits from their work/deaths makes me somewhat suspicious of all the hard work so oftne pointed to here.

    • Do you realize that it isn’t possible for old money to run our current system? Inflation would make that old money look like a weeks worth of wages. If that old money was just sitting there, it would harldy blossom to billions.

      Unbelievable … so let me get this straight … the wealthy back in the day didn’t expand their wealth (or did you take “old money” to mean literally static money?). Old money (Like RJ Reynolds) invested and reinvested and rerereinvested … capische?

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Charlie,

    Good morning Sir 🙂

    As I have read along over the course of this chat, I can’t help but wonder what the real problem is. In every economic/political system on earth, we have basically the same business model. Owner + Managers + Workers = Product. The product is sold and provides for wages for the Workers and Managers, profits for the owner.

    How would you change this for the better?

    • Limited Profit for the greater good. I don’t see that as a problem. It doesn’t mean X amount get to freeload. It means Joe can’t be a gazillionaire, maybe just a millioniare.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie “Limited Profit for the greater good.”

        G: My friend, I try hard to understand your point of view. I’ve done well so far (I think). But your statement has far reaching consequences that you may not be seeing. If, as you want, government limits a persons success to a certain point, of which when that point is reached everything above it will get taken and distributed as the government see’s fit (handed out for the greater good).

        Human nature, as in the initiative to succeed, would be destroyed by such a system, thus destroying the system. Example, I finally get a nice 10 point buck with my bow and it’s hanging on the wall. But I know there is a 12 point running around, so I keep hunting for greater success. You would take away that initiative for greater success, I would quit. If I couldn’t keep the efforts of my work, why continue? After a generation of this, the initiative to chase the ten point would wane, because I’m getting what I need and don’t have to chase the ten point, after all, that takes effort. The next generation can get all they need, and noone chases the ten point, and there is no twleve pointers to confiscate to give to the greater good. The system fails completely as nobody get what they need because the human initiative to succeed has been destroyed. Now there are 14 and 16 pointers running around, and nobody knows how to harvest them. People starve because the greater good is thats left, the producers have bailed.

        • But I know there is a 12 point running around, so I keep hunting for greater success. You would take away that initiative for greater success, I would quit.

          Nah, you like hunting too much …:)

          The point being, workers will always work, the lazy will probably always be lazy. Why not have Mr. Gates cut off at say, $500 an hour rather than $633,000 an hour? You think he could live pretty well on that? You really think he wouldn’t be an inventor because he couldn’t own as much as he does? Why not put the excess bucks into health and education and maybe then we could lift some in poverty out of their mess. Why not make sure the elderly can live out their years with some level of dignity? Why is it so important to have such overbearing wealth (that nobody needs) when there is so much good we could do for everyone else? It’s not like Mr. Gates is actually “working” for that $633,000 an hour … I mean, come on, let’s be realistic about that sweat of the brow nonsense.

          • Terry Evans says:

            Charlie, I don’t want to sound snippy, but it sure is easy to determine what to do with someone else’s money…

  17. Maybe I haven’t kept up very well, but…

    What’s the deal with the slavery argument here? I’m pretty sure everyone says slavery is bad. Is it just because slavery existed in this country and therefore our economic system is bad? Are you saying that capitalism only did well because of slavery and therefore we should abandon capitalism?

    Maybe there are lingering effects due to slavery in this country, but what do you expect us to do? Take all money away from rich people, because slavery may have contributed to their wealth?

    Can we stop beating a dead horse?

    • JB, unfortunately, you’d have to go back to the start of this fiasco and see what I did say and what it was in relation to (USW’s straw arguments are effective unless you read everything and I can’t blame you for not doing so–it is tedious). In short, I was responding in general to arguments that capitalism made this country great (wealth, power, etc.). I stated that it was true so long as you are willing to ignore some of what happened over time in this country (how it became great financially includes both the taking of the land from Native Americans and the slavery that ensued). Now, that isn’t saying everybody likes slavery … nor is it suggesting taking money from the rich now because of past slavery. It is just stating a fact of our country’s great wealth and properity over time; that it included slavery and that you can’t argue about the greatness and wealth without ignoring the slavery issue (or the original taking of lands from native Indians–both pre-government or not).

      We can stop beating the dead horse as soon as those who claim American’s wealth was founded from hard work alone … that hard work came mostly from slaves (1400’s-1860’s) …

      • I see your point Charley, but don’t you think it’s a little presumptuous to assume that America’s prosperity is directly correlated to slavery?

        • Not directly correlated to slavery, no. But there’s no denying some of its prosperity is. And especially when looking at the taking of lands from native American Indians (whether prior to government or after). I’d argue that the lust for capital/wealth was what drove manifest destiny expansion.

          What gets tiresome is hearing how government is the root of all evil because it is owned by big business/the very wealthy, yet some of the same people making that claim then claim it is government that ruined capitalism (as if the two are distinct). How can that be if the government is owned by capitalists? That’s when the mercantile nonsense starts … anything to keep “capitalism” sacred and unscathed, it seems. The fact our “greatness” occurred during the taking of lands by force and slavery is immediately dismissed as something other than a result of capitalism (because it was the government owned by capitalists) … oy vey.

      • @Charlie

        See now that is just a falsehood. You outright misrepresented what you said and used the misrepresentation to make me seem like I have a different position than I do.

        You have said, on MANY different occasions, which we can cut and paste here if you like, that “slavery is a bi-product of capitalism.” Are you now denying that this is the statement that you have made many times.

        I will assume that you are not foolish enough to actually attempt to deny what we can all go back and read. So given your statement, we can re-word it by using the definition of “bi-product”: a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon; Therefore, the statement that you have made repeatedly: Slavery follows and is caused by capitalism.

        My argument has been, and continues to be, that slavery was not CAUSED BY capitalism, which is what you claim. You continue to attempt to misdirect the discussion by then attempting to claim that USW won’t admit that slavery played any part in the rise of America, a statement that I have never made, not once. What I have stated, clearly enough for everyone but you to understand it:

        1. Slavery is not a bi-product of capitalism; ie it was not CAUSED BY capitalism. It existed within capitalism as it existed within communism and every other form of government in the past.

        2. That slavery existed 200 years ago is not an argument against my stated premise that capitalism is better than communism today.

        3. That the taking of indian land was not CAUSED BY capitalism. It was a massive undertaking by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

        4. The taking of indian land 200 years ago is also not a valid argument against my stated premise that capitalism is better than communism today.

        5. Evil men exist in each and every system known to man. Given that fact, I favor capitalism because I feel it offers better opportunities to control this and further offers a better prospect for increasing productivity, growing overall wealth, and growing the economy.

        Now that is what I have argued. You can attempt to misrepresent my stance all you like as a misguided ploy to undermine my argument. But what you have still not done is address a single one of my points as to why capitalism is better than socialism or communism. You can continue to attempt to divert the conversation to focus on the evil actions of men 200 years ago as a misguided attempt to NOT talk about the premises that I put forth in my articles as well.

        But at some point you are going to have to own up to the fact that you are first being disingenuous in framing what my position is and second focusing on fringe issues as a means of avoiding the harsh truth about your preferred path forward. Or maybe you won’t. In that case people will simply see what you are doing because I am pointing it out and you will lose credibility.

        • Brother, I’m tired of playing this game. You have danced around this for four days now. Trust me, I’m not concerned about losing credibility here at SUFA. Some of my lefty friends poke in and out and feel the same about your credibility (which to me/us, is going through life with blinders). I commend you for your loyalty, but arguing via never-ending straw men (please notice plural) is just a waste of time. I’ve pointed out more than once that in Marxist doctrine, capitalism is slavery (to wages). My specific mention of slavery here, however, was in response to your never ending mantra that “capitalism made this country great”. I will say it again … sure, so long as you are willing to accept the fact that that “greatness” (please note quotes around “greatnesss”) includes the taking of land from native Indians by force and several hundred years of slavery. Now, I consider those two both byproducts of capitalism (whether slavery existed on the Moon or not before the birth of America); that our “greatness” cannot overlook the fact that profits was made from force (taking of lands) and slavery. You can blame the government(s) all you want (and use “true free market vs. free market, vs. perverted market, vs. true market effect” all you want), but there’s no denying that slavery contributed to the wealth of that same “greatness”.

          That’s it for me. No more on this subject. You lose.

  18. USW

    You: “The first aspect of where capitalism went wrong is that we accepted the concept that the pursuit of money trumps all else. That is an awfully broad statement, I know.”

    JAC: Generality ignored, your statement is false. Capitalism CAN’T GO WRONG. Only Man can create or violate a moral premise. Capitalism is just a system based on a very basic principle of private property. Which of course is part of a moral base but not one that is corrupted by pursuit of money.

    You: ” But we moved completely away from demanding that our economic system be used in the proper way, for the proper reasons, and with the proper results.”

    JAC: The minute you accept the concept that there is some “proper way” for the system to be used you begin to destroy the very thing you wish to have.

    You can not have freedom and liberty and then some imposed view of how free men and women should trade or what they should trade.

    One more glaring mistake in my view. You start out talking about money and then switch to wealth. The father of free market Capitalism wrote a lengthy explanation as to why these are NOT the same.

    • Thank you JAC.

      The minute you accept the concept that there is some “proper way” for the system to be used you begin to destroy the very thing you wish to have.

      Even I have to argue that that is not true FREEDOM. My paradigm (much more gov’t than USW’s) suggests we participate in giving up certain rights/freedoms, but to suggest that morality can be the judge is beyond reasonable. To quote BF: Who’s morality?

      • Charlie

        Don’t congratulate yourself to quickly.

        I am not saying what you think.

        There is a moral basis and USW alluded to it. My point is that to assume some “proper use” of an economic system other than that of the moral base will lead to loss of the base itself.

        Your paradigm is based on the fallacy that the “greater good” can be distinctly identified, planned for and achieved via some type of Govt control.

    • @JAC

      Fair points, however I do have one bit of explanation that may clear up a bit how I feel about it. You said:

      “The minute you accept the concept that there is some “proper way” for the system to be used you begin to destroy the very thing you wish to have.

      You can not have freedom and liberty and then some imposed view of how free men and women should trade or what they should trade.”

      There is a difference between the point I was attempting to make and the point that you received in reading it. I am not advocating that we have the right to tell people what they can and cannot offer in trade to one another. What I am saying is that it is not proper for someone to game the system to create false gains that are not a product of actual production or goods. By not proper I don’t necessarily mean not moral on that statement. What I mean is not proper, as in it goes against the ideals of the system, against the ideals of capital gain. As such it corrupts the system and cause problems.

      Does that make sense? I realize that my article itself may have been too hastily written and thus caused some misunderstanding of my position, a fault of mine, not of the readers, including yourself.

      • USW

        I understood your point and I respectfully disagree.

        A free market capitalism has no right or wrong, or “proper” trade or exchange. It has no specific purpose or “ideal” but freedom and liberty related to trade.

        If free men wish to sell pipe dreams and others wish to purchase them, who are we to say it is the “right thing to do” relative to the “system”?

        Now, if they lie about what it is they are selling or deliberately defraud, then that is a different matter. But the creation of value from thin air is of no concern of the free market if the exchange is made willingly by free men and women.

        The next issue comes when Govt creates an “illusion” of safety in the promises and actually feeds the scheme with printed money.

        Under a free market, those trades that don’t create wealth will die. Remember that actual value must be available to both sides of the trade. If it is a sham then the market place will slaughter the pigs.

        I agree there is a moral corruption. But it is not the selling of pipe dreams. It is in ignoring the ethical principle that supports freedom. That is the prohibition on the initiation of coercive force against the innocent. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  19. Many people are trying really hard to get rid of capitalism.
    So someone please enlighten me-especially you Charlie-since you insist on railing against it, while ignoring that other systems lead to no freedom-Are you really against individual ownership? Do you really want to give up that right? Or are you simply for instating some control on the market? There is a pretty big difference between these two things in my mind. So which is it? I find it impossible to speak on your points with out an answer to this question.

    • VH, My Utopia would negate private property, but I realize it is a utopia. What I suggest is a form of social democracy whereby private property is phased out over time to level the playing field over time. I am against inheritence of private property especially (ducking thrown objects); I see inheritence as a continuation of advantage of one over another whereby the one gifted the inheritence did nothing more than be born (literally, the luck of the draw/the grace of God, whatever you want to call it). I don’t understand how property can be “private” when it was not created by any individual and has been there forever.

  20. Bottom Line says:

    USW – ” . I think that BF sometimes turns people away from this truth because he refers to it as “the universe,” and that makes some of you think he is crazy. But his point should still stand. Call it the universe, call it the big guy in the sky, call it the invisible hand, call it whatever you like. The point is that there are ways that things WILL occur in the world, laws if you will. You can’t stop gravity from naturally being gravity no matter what you believe. And you cannot stop market forces from behaving like market forces.”

    ~ ” And for the record, Charlie, this doesn’t make me a “BF sycophant.” It merely is me attempting to better explain what I believe his position is. Because in this arena, I do believe that he is dead on, not because I worship him, but because he is right. ”

    BL – You get it. I get it. Others get it. Of course BF gets it…

    Some people don’t get it because they haven’t recognized universal truth, nor have they taken the time to think it out from there. Because once you see it, everything starts to line up. Contradictions and confusion begins to vanish.

    Ever seen the movie “Predator” ? Remember the scene where “Mac”(Bill Duke) was hiding under some roots and brush, telling “Dillon”(Carl Weathers) to “shhhhh”, then pointing to the predator resting up in a tree in the distance?

    Sometimes ya just have to point it out in a way that others can see.

    E = MC2 (Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared)

    The C represents the speed of light. Why?

    Because it is premised upon truth. The speed of light is the only CONSTANT in the equation. It is the frame of reference in which the equation is built.

    With respect to life, Freedom is the constant, as nature dictates the inherent will to exist freely. It is an immutable undeniable universal truth. Freedom is to light is to gravity. It is… It just is. You have to accept it and work from there.

    ” We hold these truths to be self-evident(universal truth,C), that all men are created equal(no man has an inherent right above another), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights(natural order of the universe/freedom/natural inherent rights), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness(live life as you choose, live happy and let live happy). ”

    We are all individuals with the natural right to exist freely”.”<—–period

    And since markets are driven by the free decisions of people(demand), markets work the same way. Nature dictates free choice.

    The order of the universe is C in all instances. It is what is.

    Einstein couldn't just say the speed of light is what he wanted it to be to make the equation fit what he wanted it to conclude.

    You cannot make light or gravity or hurricanes illegal.

    You cannot regulate free choice of the individual.

    …You will only manage to create conflict.

    Accept universal truth and roll with it…let go and watch the universe make Order out of Chaos.

    A market MUST be free to thrive.

    • Accept universal truth and roll with it…let go and watch the powerful (monied) eat the weak (poor).

      • “watch the powerful (monied) eat the weak”

        Does that describe Henry Ford or Bill Gates? Many successful people are very careful how they treat the poor(customers), who they hope to keep them coming back, always. But since the poor(customers) have choices, the powerful (monied) have to earn their business for every exchange.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Choice of the individual drives the market.

        Regulation limits choice, thus drive.

        Remove regulation/tax and the market blooms as there is a “redistribution of wealth” from government and the powerful who depend upon regulation instead of product merit and good business practice, back to the market.

        What could you afford if you didn’t have to pay federal, state, local, property, and sales tax, mandated expenditures(insurance), etc..?

        What would happen to overhead/input costs of the average business if they didn’t have government telling them to pay this or that?

        When people have more money, they buy more stuff.

        When business has less input costs, they are easier to start and more efficient, thus fueling competition and a drop in product pricing.

        When the market is fueled and supply meets demand, prices drop and balance.

        Shoes, apples, orange juice, labor, service, manufacturing, etc.. drops in price. Buying power increases.

        Now the poor aren’t so poor as the poor lost 30% of their income for a 60+% increase in buying power.

    • “all men are created equal(no man has an inherent right above another)”

      hahaha

      what a steaming pile that one is…

      • Terry Evans says:

        It is an ideal, not an absolute…it would be great…no?

        • Let me stir it again. that was written “all men are created equal” in a time of flourishing slavery.

          Now tell me how it was the government’s fault that men in this great land of ours thought it perfectly okay to “own” other men and to treat them like animals.

          • Charlie

            And Jesus preached the gospels during a time of slavery, bigotry and oppression. So what?

            The USA Govt did not CAUSE them to “think” that way.

            The USA GOVT ALLOWED them to continue to do it.

            • Ah, actually, it was the US Gov’t that stopped them from doing it, but why let a little fact like that get in the way?

              Let’s not restart this all over again. You are never going to accept that when the “all men are created equal” bit was put down, it didn’t really mean “all men” … and whenever we point to the taking of American from native inhabitants, you’re going to find some other excuse for what happened … as you do over and over when it comes to slavery here in this country (where I don’t believe Jesus was preaching at the time). So, let’s just accept what USW wants to believe: Capitalism made this country great and anything bad that happened in this country had absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Therefore, capitalism wins.

              And THAT is why Michael Moore called it: Capitalism, a LOVE story.

              • Charlie

                How do you know what “all men are created equal” meant to Jefferson? You can not simply rely on his owning slaves as some proof of a person’s beliefs. We know that few humans are willing to live their beliefs to the fullest. Was Jefferson a Hypocrite by our standards? Yep!!!

                But the only way you can be a hypocrite is to act in opposite to your state beliefs. The other option is that of being a liar. One who speaks words they do not believe in.

                In reality Charlie, our ancestors treated the Native American much more as equals than the slaves.

                You see what you forget is that the accepted human norm of the time, both Indian and European, was the rule of conquest. They only differed in the reasons.

                And the FACT is that the US Govt allowed slavery to continue. The Federal Govt could have been formed to abolish it but it wasn’t. A compromise made at the expense of one group of humans in order to preserve the goals of another group.

                I make no excuses Charlie. I only try to explain the facts and relationships in the context they occurred.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Charlie,

                Slavery in the United States of America became a “convenient” issue AFTER the start of the civil war; it became an issue by which the Union could turn the tide of support (think England) AWAY from the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t issued until January 1, 1863. The Civil War began April 12, 1861…which makes the War almost 2 years old before the EP was in effect. And, actually, it was directed ONLY towards confederate slaveowners.

                It is my understanding that a great deal of slave-owners (in the South AND the North) were interested in a “slow” abolishment of slavery. It is also during the late 19th Century that inventions of machinery were becoming more common.

                Was/Is Slavery horrible? Yes!!

                A slave was considered a 1/2 person for tax purposes.

                I AM NOT ATTEMPTING to justify slavery in anyway; throughout history, those who were enslaved were not considered to be equal. Even within their own hierarchy, the “lower” slaves were looked down upon by the “upper” slaves. And, do not forget that it was mainly treachery from within it’s own race that created the North American Slave Trade.

                I do believe that it is the people of this country, wanting to make a better life for them and their own in a somewhat free market it what has made this a great country; the path of socialism that this country is headed down is absolutely destructive to our way of life…

          • Slavery was a contentious issue during the founding of the country. So much so that it was disallowed to even talk about it! Many people were opposed to it, some weren’t. The strife of banning slavery would have meant the definite dissolution of the nation, hence they kicked the can. Call that wrong if you want to.

          • It isn’t OK that anyone thought that. I would prefer if you stopped pretending that anyone here at SUFA has said that it is OK. That it was written when men condoned slavery doesn’t take away the fact that the statement itself is absolute truth.

            Pretend the statement was written yesterday. Do you still claim it is a false statement? You mock the statement because of the hypocrisy of the men who wrote it instead of focusing on the statement itself and assessing it on its own merits. The statement is true regardless of who wrote it or when.

            Some one first said the world is round when every map on the planet said it was flat. Do you now mock anyone saying the world was round simply because at the time it was written down everyone believed or acted otherwise?

            • That it was written when men condoned slavery doesn’t take away the fact that the statement itself is absolute truth.
              I think the point, USW, Matthius was originally making is that the statement was a stinking pile (hypocritical). Once again, lefties find it very difficult to swallow such dedication to a principle when it was turned on its head at its conception. Nice statement? Sure, a beautiful statement. What was it worth? Us eye-talians would say gots’n-gool (i.e., bulldonkey) … unless you were a monied landowner in the great US&A back in the day.

            • Actually, that’s not really what I’m getting at.

              All men are not equal.

              Period.

              Ignoring that they meant white male landowning males, it’s simply not true.

              We are not equal.

              Some are strong, some weak, some fast, some slow, some smart, some dim, some tall, some short, some fat, some thin.. we’re not equal!

              To call everyone equal requires the ability to quantify a person and that simply isn’t possible. We are different. Skew, if you prefer, neither superior, nor inferior, but not equal either.

              BL then went on to infer his own meaning “no man has an inherent right above another” and that’s where I’m forced to laugh.

              In the modern world, in today’s society, the rich and powerful have vastly more freedom/power/influence/control etc over the rest.

              If you are born the poor child of immigrants and, for whatever reason, you butt heads with a white male media mogul, I promise you that it doesn’t really matter what the issue is. The mogul will win. Our society pays lip service to this idea of “no man has an inherent right above another,” but when it comes down to it, it’s nothing but a sham. The elite have “rights” over the non-elites in our society 999 times in 1000.

              For every David vs Goliath story you’ve ever heard, I promise you there are hundreds of stories you haven’t heard where the Goliath stomped on the David and continued on his merry way.

              This is the real America. Equality? What a sad, sad joke.

              • CAREFULL!! Many of us Davids might consider you a Goliath! You have a wonderful hedge fund job. a nice & shiny new Lexus, a home…how dare you! And for all the equalness you want I’ve never heard you say that you’ve done anything personally to make things equal.

              • I keep voting for people who want to tax me to kingdom come..

                I also give heavily to charity.

                Could I do more? You betcha! But that home you just mentioned is kindof a money pit, so once I earn more, I’ll do more. Promise.

              • But you need to earn LESS to make things equal..you’re sucking up the money that could be used to give the poor man a job.

              • Truthseeker says:

                Mathius, just because a rich white guy has a billion dollars, it doesn’t mean he has power over me. It is possible for me to allow him to have power over me, but that would be my choice. If I did make a comment about the rich guy, then I willingly challenged his own power, and then you are talking about something completely different.

                Rich people cannot force you to do anything unless you are wanting to do something (like taking money in exchange for services). However, the Government can force you to do things because they make up laws and you do not want to pay the consequences. Sure, a lot of Rich people help the law makers get into power, however, they only have 1 vote. If people are so ignorant to only vote for those who raise the most money and not on what they believe, then who is to blame? The rich, or the ignorant?

              • Mathius

                The phrase does not refer to physical abilities or intellect.

                But I think you know that.

                So why the deliberate distortion and ridiculous argument?

                I ask this because this has been an argument that was deliberately created by socialist/marxist propogandists in their efforts to discredit the USA and the capitalist system it supported.

                So do you repeat it now out of ignorance or malice? Or perhaps just the sarcasm of youth?

                As for your other……….HOGWASH. Was it not you who pointed out we are a nation of immigrants? How did all those immigrant families sire children who became successful in their endeavors???? Obviously the Goliath media mogul had little effect on their lives.

              • “sarcasm of youth?” I’ll have you know that my sarcasm has nothing to do with my youth. If my father and grandfather are any indication, I’m only going to become more and more sarcastic as I get older. People still talk about my grandfather’s legendary sarcasm. It’s a shame what Parkinson’s can do to a brain – I think he and I would have gotten along pretty well.

                As for the rest of it, yes and no.. a nation of immigrants became a middle class under a system of progressive taxation, with public schools, with welfare. The “nation of immigrants” benefited from a liberal big-government. This is certainly not “pure capitalism.” But stops far short of where it should in order to assure that the underclass has equality.

              • Mathius

                The middle class existed before your progressive taxation and modern liberal govt. More accurately a Fascist Progressive Govt.

                So your argument is HOGWASH.

                Now if you would please answer my previous question:

                “So why the deliberate distortion and ridiculous argument?”

              • Bottom Line says:

                Mathius – ” BL then went on to infer his own meaning “no man has an inherent right above another” and that’s where I’m forced to laugh. ”

                BL – So, some people are born with more rights than others?

                So, rights are derived from money,power, intellect, stamina, etc. ?

                Are you joking?

                Please tell me that you aren’t stuck so deep in your rationalizations that you actually believe that.

    • BL,

      Nice analogy!

      You will have to come on the National Speaking Tour with USWep, JAC, and I!

      8)

      …and we’d bring Charlie as our “foil”!

      • Bottom Line says:

        Thanks.

        Not only would I have the honor of meeting you guys in person and offer something to the world, but it also beats the hell out of painting.

        I’m in!

        …if only it were true.

        🙂

  21. I have an issue with monopolies. AT&T was broken up years ago into the babybells. I dealt with Southwestern Bell for years until I found another provider. Got the same service for 1/4 the cost. SWBell had no competition in my area, so they set excessive prices people had to pay or do without. Now I am watching all the cell phone companies being bought out and combined and wonder if it’s not happening again.

    I think capitalism is the best answer to the most prosperity for the most people. It’s not a theory, it’s what history has proven to work. It does have it’s flaws, which may include corporations. But I do see the need for corporations and limited liability. Maybe if we had a more just legal system, corporations would not be necessary.

    Personal experience, ever been sued? Having sold a new vehicle to a customer, after over 50,000 miles on it, the had a blow-out, people were injured. Said injured parties sued our company, Ford, and the customer who operated the vehicle. Tires were not original equipment. Call it a “shotgun” lawsuit, aim it at anyone who might have money/insurance, pull the trigger, see what falls. We won, or were dismissed from the suit.

    But corporations and capitalism have a long mixed history.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

    The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, tea, and opium.

    The Company also came to rule large areas of India,

    exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits; it effectively functioned as a megacorporation. Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858, when, following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and under the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act. The East India Company often issued coinage bearing its stamp in the regions it had control over.

    The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the British Government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company’s position. Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for over 250 years.

  22. JAC: So again I’ll ask you (without calling you ignorant), how your collectively (stereotype intended) calling Obama a socialist, me a redski, your uses of lefties, lame stream media, etc. is any less stereotyping. Hell, USW can’t get through a post without making sarcastic references to the unenlightened left; how wrong they are, how misinformed, etc.

    So, yes, I do understand your need to fall in line with your conservative brethren. You have to be kidding calling the kettle black. Seriously. Go read the original posts on here. Please.

    • Charlie

      I have periodically presented my definition of “left” and “socialism”, etc, etc,. So when I use the term it means that someone is meeting the definition.

      I have referred to them for your benefit before. So you either ignore them or don’t remember. I know not which. Only that it is aggravating to have to suffer your accusations that ignore these principles and concepts every time you decide to go off on a rant.

      I am NOT a conservative. And if you recall, I put most modern “conservatives” on the LEFT.

      Left = State control.

      Right = Freedom

      I have never called Mr. Obama a socialist. At least I don’t think so.

      I have consistently called him a Fascist Progressive, as opposed to a Progressive Fascist. I could be wrong though as he is beginning to display more tendency towards the latter than the former.

      Now the reality is that the concept of “socialism” is closely related to both Fascism and Progressivism. In fact the Progressive movement helped build Fascism as one evolved to the other. The other characteristic is a heavy tendency towards “pragmatism”. A belief system with no core principle other than the “need to take action” against some “perceived problem”.

      You called yourself a Communist. I don’t think I have called you a redski but it would certainly be appropriate given your confession.

      Lame Stream Media would be an accurate description of our primary media, not a stereo type.

      I am not arguing about what USW has said or defending him. I did not CALL you anything, let alone Black or a Kettle, or even a Black Kettle. My original point, on this topic, was that your argument amounted to a rationalization and NOT a rebuttal.

  23. Did I post this here already? I’m getting senile in my old age and can’t remember…

    Link. This is a poll of “usual Republican Primary voters” in Mississippi..

    Anyway, Q14:
    Do you think interracial marriage should be
    legal or illegal?
    Legal……………………………………………………… 40%
    Illegal …………………………………………………….. 46%
    Not sure …………………………………………………. 14%

    Anyone care to explain this one?

    • Racism!!

      • I knew it!

        Now, I know I’m going to hate myself for this.. but I can’t help myself..

        Check out the 4th crosstab on page 10… I know only 4% of the survey self-identified as “very liberal” and another 4% as “somewhat liberal” (all told 32 respondents), but I’m very interested in the fact that, of them, 20, if math serves, out of 32 said it should be illegal.. that’s a much higher percentage than the 165/372 in non-liberal republicans.

        Now, we all know that liberal in Mississippi does not necessarily mean the same thing that it means for the rest of us, and I know that a self-identified primary voting republican who says he’s very liberal is probably not very liberal by my definition. That said, the break down, assuming I can do basic math, is that 62.5% (VL/SL) vs 44.4%(M/SC/VC) of primary voting Mississippi voting Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal.

        1%, in my opinion, is too high for that view. 44% is beyond belief. 62.5, and amongst “liberals,” defies logic. I suppose that a sample size of 32, self-identified, self-selected, is too small a subset, and the whole liberal piece could just be thrown out and statistically insignificant. The 44, however, has a big enough set to be viable. I’d love to hear some thoughts because I’m just beating my head against the desk trying to process this one.

        And yes, I know “Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.” But also remember that people should know that the answer to this question, regardless of what you actually believe is “no!” This only shows the people who hold this view who don’t care or don’t know enough to lie to the pollster – logically, that should artificially suppress the number, I would think.

        OK, don’t rambling.. your turn..

        • The answers reflect the basic problem with all polls of a similar nature.

          Like you said, what is a “liberal likely voter in Republican Primaries”?

          And 32 respondents is an insignificant number when evaluated alone. Minimum population size for any segregated population is over 50 samples to achieve a 10% sampling error and 2 confidence intervals.

          • Right, so I’m good with throwing out the liberal subset, but that still leaves us with 44% of non-liberal republican primary voters who think interracial marriages should be illegal. I’m simply at a complete loss for how to explain that other than simply calling them racists.

            They gave a margin of +/- 4, I think, but I think it’s skewed low. Let’s be generous and say it’s skewed high and the actual percentage is 40%. How is that even possible? I had to check the calendar three times, just to make sure that, yes, in fact it is 2011.

            • Mathius

              You are talking about the “Deep South” here. Are you really surprised?

              You should rejoice that in this State it was only 44% of the “non-liberal republican primary voters”.

              I guarantee you that number would have been much higher in the early 80’s when the Southern Democrats abandoned their party and started voting Republican.

              That is the benefit of age Mathius. It allows one to see trends more clearly than those with a shorter perspective.

              In fact many of the arguments made at SUFA regarding politics, economics etc are based on to short a time frame. Or even worse, a selected snap shot of time long, long ago and then bringing it forward, as if all the history and progress in between never happened.

              By the way, my daughter traveled the south a couple years ago. She said she never felt real racism until they hit Mississippi and Louisiana, and it was much worse in Louisiana than anywhere else.

              I am guessing a similar poll of “liberal Democrats” in Boston, Philadelphia or Chicago might shock you as well. It might not be about marriage but the racism would still be obvious.

              • Typically, I’m pretty good at taking the log view. But still, the idea that 2/5 republicans (I have no idea what the percent is population-wide) think it should be illegal.. well it simply stuns me.

                I know I come from Cali and live in NY, so I know I’ve always been somewhat insulated from this, but it’s hard to believe that’s what it’s like anywhere in the America that I know in the present decade.

                What similar racism would you expect to find in “Boston, Philadelphia or Chicago”?

              • Mathius

                The ABSOLUTELY MOST RACIST people (individuals) I have ever met in my life were from, in order of WORSE to LESS WORSE.

                Los Angelas, Cal. (They hated everyone but whites, and they were cops)

                Boston, Mass,

                New York City, NY

                Chicago, Ill.,

                Philadelphia, PA.

                During my youth Boston, Mass was perhaps the most racist city in the country, regarding Blacks, outside the Deep South.

                At the same time I have met hundreds of non-racists from the Southern States. Perhaps that is why I react poorly to the lefts characterization of the Tea Party as a “Bunch of Racist holdovers from the Southern Strategy”. This is an evil and destructive stereo-type.

  24. Your red thru and thru descriptions have come from your more than occasional red thru and thru posts. And I will give you that many posts are directed at you-specifically.

    …:)

    Victory!

    VH, I have stated more than a few times that I don’t believe socialism or communism is the answer to all our problems. But I do subscribe to the belief that such disparity in wealth as it exists today (and especially because of how it was accumulated in the past) cannot go on much longer before there is a major catastrophe (in whatever form). Most of you here believe it is the cause of government. I believe it is the economic system that continues to drive the wedge between haves and have nots. And I’ve said it many times in the past that “this” government cannot work (owned by money). I don’t have the answer, except I know this system under this government is an atrocity waiting to happen. My proof is the disparity, the bailouts, the unemployment, globalization that now permits the $2.4 million an hour job and all those who have lost their homes and jobs. You guys don’t accept that. I can’t help it. Nor can I swallow the premise that capitalism made this country great (which, by the way, even Michael Moore agrees with–during the 1950’s and 60’s, etc.), and I refuse to ignore the blemishes on this “great land of ours” (sara palin voice there, please) that happened to occur (which, whether you want to deny it or assign blame elsewhere, occurred under capitalism). Now that really is the last time I’m going to go through it (leaving USW his chance to return with straw man arguments that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt Michael Moore’s premise: It’s a love story.

    • Again before I respond-which is gonna take me awhile 🙂 Are you willing to give up the right to individual ownership?

      • Yes.

      • Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!!!!!!!!!!

        🙂

        • Then you are red thru and thru-you are not just talking about anything-you are talking about stripping us of all our freedoms. And I have nothing to say about that that isn’t rude.

          • I see that as progress, VH. I don’t believe in private property. I believe in the greater good. And I don’t need to be rude about it.

            Then again, I’m charming …

            • Progress-let me put it to you this way Charlie-and rude it is-if I had my way and was one of the elite dictators you would like to control all of us-I would throw you and anyone else who believes as you do out of this country. Isn’t it lucky for you that we are still slightly founded on freedom and rights. And that MY belief in that would keep me from taking away your right to be so horribly and dangerously wrong.

  25. Does anyone have a better word than schmuck for use in describing Sean Hannity?

    Link.

    • Mathius

      I use the phrase “incapable of original thought” most often.

      So perhaps “ignoramous”?

      Or, I offer you “dip stick”.

      • I’m not convinced he’s actually an ignoramus. I think, like many others, that he’s smart, knowledgeable, and deliberate in his borderline-sociopathic deliberate manipulation of his uncritical audience. I think he knows what they want to hear, he knows what will get him attention, and he knows that “fact checking” is rarely as powerful as the initial assertions, no matter how egregious the falsehoods.

        But dip stick works.. how about “blatant liar and complete hypocrite”?

        Can I get a “hell yeah!”?

        • Mathius

          We talking about Obama or Hannity?

          Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          🙂 🙂

          • Well.. yes..

            Both are, but to be honest, I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of a worse example than Hannity’s.. he did a special on liberal media bias – decrying their selective editing, out-of-context-quotes, and spin, etc – while using selective editing, out-of-context-quotes and spin.

            It’s like complaining about moral decay to the guy you’re actively mugging on the street corner.

            • Mathius

              Worse example, because it actually resulted in a public law.

              “There are 30 million uninsured who are dying from the lack of health care.” OK, paraphrased.

              When this number was boiled down there were about 10 million “poor” who were uninsured and wanted insurance.

              BUT, they qualified for SCHIP which they DID NOT sign up for due to reasons only they understand.

              Same for the whole SCHIP debate. Our children are dying, blah, blah, blah. At the same time the States were holding unspent SCHIP funds because poor people would not sign up for the programs.

              I find Hannity repugnant. But the shallow and false arguments of Mr. Obama, Reid and Ms. Pelosi et al, have been much more damaging in recent years.

              Make you a deal. Lets attack ALL B.S. when we see it.

    • Ass Clown describes Hannity fairly well.

  26. Terry: That’s all I’ve been saying all along. If you accept capitalism as the cause of our greatness, you can’t ignore what happened under it’s influence. If you don’t think profit was sought in the taking of land from native inhabitants and/or slavery (as extreme examples of the bad), then you’re wearing blinders. And if you then change it up and claim “but that wasn’t a bi-product of capitalism in this country”, then you’re unreachable.

    Capitalism can be as utopian as communism … and as despotic; I have to assume it depends on which ox you’re gored by.

    • Terry Evans says:

      As I said…you have to take the good…and the bad. It is what it is…we cannot change the past, only strive to not repeat its mistakes.

      • … And your plan for not repeating it is to repeal all the social safety nets we’ve put in place over the years due to the pitfalls inherent in a capitalist society..?

        • NO more SAFETY nets. Let the bastards starve, go ignorant forever. Don’t you know those in the Ozarks love it there? Those in ghettos couldn’t want it any different if there were guns to their heads. Those who lost their homes and jobs deserve it for not being good enough at whatever they did to sustain themselves. Let them all rot! Let employers repeal 8 hour work days … health insurance … social security … if we have too many people doing nothing, let them join the army and we can start a few more wars. We can always find a way to get rid of the surplus population. Hell, we’re America!

        • Terry Evans says:

          It matters not what my plan would be…it is but a fart in a hurricane. If what I had to offer actually did matter, then not necessarily outright repeal of the “social safety nets” but for sure a weaning off of them…

        • Yeah, Matt, that’s what we want. Everyone on this site has said that we should get rid of all social safety nets altogether. Go back and read it, it’s all there, right…

          Oh, wait, no it isn’t.

          Why must this be all or nothing? Why can’t I support welfare, but want it reformed? I support merit pay for teachers. Hence I am an evil anti-union jerk who wants kids to go uneducated. I support reforming Social Security, therefore I want old people to starve. (All arguments with which I have been met by the way)

          • I was being sarcastic.. when in doubt, assume that I’m not being literal.

            I know that not everyone wants to get rid of all safety nets. Likewise, I don’t think it has to be an all or nothing. When people throw the all-or-nothing at me, I call BS on them (ie, if you believe you have to help the poor, you have to give away everything you own to help.. BS). I’m just joking around with my buddy Charlie.

            But, like all good humor, it has a grain of truth at the center.. the safety nets may have overgrown and expanded past their original intent, but they were put in place initially for a reason and we ignore that reason at our peril. Not necessarily you, but some people here say “well we should get rid of SS entirely”.. but they forget that that might well mean millions of broke homeless elderly who can’t afford health care begging for change on the street and dying prematurely of treatable illnesses.

            All things have their costs, and a lot of people here tend to only look at one side of the equation, while writing off the other as “not my problem.” We liberals tend not to see the world that way.

      • Fair enough. And contrary to VH’s fear of being rude on my comments about private property; while I inherently think it a bad concept, I do believe a form of social democracy here (allowing for private property so long as it doesn’t exceed what is reasonable) can work (at least for the time being).

        Now, before I’m attacked for “who defines reasonable”, I’ll point to USW’s inability to define what is “Moral” when determining where capitalism needs to be reigned in. In that instance, I can understand BF’s anarchistic views: why should anyone determine another’s definition of anything?

        That doesn’t mean I agree with BF, just pointing out how a black and white view of freedom dismantles USW’s claims about “morality in the free market”

    • Charlie,

      What about this aren’t you getting?

      When you become rich under a capitalist system, it’s because capitalism is great.

      When you starve to death under a capitalist system, well that sucks for you, but capitalism is still great.

      Why is this so hard for you to understand?

      • I’m an idgit.

      • Same question Mathius-are you willing to give up individual ownership? I don’t take you for a communist-like charlie is-but if one wants to destroy Capitalism -one wants to destroy freedom. Different conversation if you are talking about some controls -totally different if your objective is to destroy capitalism. Just trying to figure out where everyone stands-right now we are capitalism with socialism mixed in-I think too much socialism-you think too little-but capitalism is the basis of our freedom.

        • but capitalism is the basis of our freedom.

          What a fool I am thinking it is reasonable minds that has been the basis of our freedom. The same reasonable minds that eventually realized (albeit a couple of hundred years late) that slavery was wrong.

          Nope, it was capitalism changed all that … oy vey

        • No, I’m medium rare: cooked through, but with a warm red center.

          I like safety nets for those who need (NEED, NOT WANT) them. I like progressive taxation. I like public education. I like the EPA, the FDA, etc.

          I stop far short of Charlie, but I think he gets a hard time here because I think y’all are the lunatic right, so I can only imagine how he feels. 🙂

    • Truthseeker says:

      CS, If you don’t think profit was sought in the taking of land from native inhabitants and/or slavery

      So if I understand you correctly, all profit or wanting to make money no matter what = capitalism and not greed?

  27. 😐

  28. Please don’t assume I think it’s a bad thing (it’s not), but I find it interesting that Charlie and Mathius are driving many of the debates here…

    Props to you guys for making everyone think!

  29. TexasChem says:

    Wish they had let Patton run his plan to fruition at the end of WWII. This entire topic would not even be an issue if he had been allowed to.

    • You could say the same thing about the Mexican American war.

      But I think Patton while right on the future problem would have gotten us into something that would have ended very badly.

  30. Update!

    McDonald’s Perp Was Busted There Before
    Assault suspect was nabbed last year at same Baltimore eatery
    McDonald’s Assault
    View Document
    2010 McDonald’s Assault

    APRIL 25–The Baltimore teenager charged last week with the brutal beating of a McDonald’s patron was arrested last year for assaulting a woman following a dispute in the same restaurant, The Smoking Gun has learned.

    Teonna Monae Brown, 18, was charged with two assault counts for allegedly attacking Danielle Dower, 38, last July. In October, a Baltimore County judge ruled that charges would not be further pursued against Brown, according to court records, which do not further explain that “nolle prosequi” decision.

    [Update: Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger told TSG that the criminal counts against Brown were dropped at the victim’s request.]

    In a handwritten police statement, Dower said that she had left the McDonald’s with her two daughters when Brown confronted her, asking “Did you call me ugly?” Though Dower said she had not, Brown “kept trying to badger us.” At one point, Dower said, the teenager “pushed me in the back.” After Dower pushed back, Brown “took her fist and threw a punch to my face.”

    As the pair scuffled, Dower said, Brown hit her in the back with an umbrella and “pulled my wig off my head.”

    Saying that, “I wanted to get my kids to safety,” Dower went with her children to a nearby shopping center. Brown and her friends, Dower added, followed behind.

    As Dower called 911, two females grabbed her daughter by the hair and dragged the teenage girl across the floor. “I had to stop talking to the operator, get on top of my daughter and protect her while trying to fight off those girls,” Dower stated.

    The fight, she added, left her with “a few cuts to my face” and “my head was hurt from the hair pulling and my leg got hurt. My oldest daughter head was hurting from the girls dragging her across the floor. She suffered cuts to her knee and one to her face, bumps to her forhead and behind her ear.”

    Brown and a female cohort were identified by a cop “from prior contacts from prior incidents,” according to a Baltimore County Police Department report. The pair–and a third suspect, a juvenile–initially denied “any involvement in an assault until after they were identified by the victim.” An arrest report described Brown as a high school student at The Arrow Project of Maryland, and listed her sole tattoo as “chocolate covered cherries.”

    Brown was hit with a pair of misdemeanor assault charges, according to a July 28 statement of charges filed in District Court. However, an October 21 filing shows that Judge Norman R. Stone issued a “nolle prosequi” finding with regard to the two counts (each of which carried a maximum prison term of 10 years). (7 pages)

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/mcdonalds-attacker-prior-bust-908732

  31. I really don’t think this is about capitalism v communism v socialism, v social-democracy even. All will be perverted by men.

    It comes down to – for me – is freedom v enforced servitude.

    Government no longer gains it legitimacy from the people, it legitimizes itself and determines the illegitimacy of society.

    This government and the associated economic system have perverted themselves to the point where the people are incapable of “fixing” them. They have taken on lives of their own and need not one shred of acceptance by or from the people to maintain their control over the very same people.

    Regardless of whether you follow capitalism or Charlie’s ideas of a social-democracy, you’ll get to neither from where we stand now while this beast we have ruling us continues to exist.

  32. Here’s some good communism teaching right from a public university! They are getting more and more brave to be out with their true selves. Quite the “friends” you got Charlie!

    http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/04/25/union-leaders-teach-labor-studies-courses-on-communism-violence-industrial-sabotage-frying-cats/

    • Kathy

      Good find.

      I wonder why our resident lefties never seem to acknowledge that this is going on when you and others post these clips.

      Perhaps they are afraid to admit that Glen Beck told them so??

      Sorry, I just couldn’t resist that one. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. We owe you our gratitude for keeping these ass clowns so occupied there. And in making them mad enough to expose themselves.

  33. How can you not like my charming self? I’m a Glee Geek!

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/04/glee-geeks.html

  34. I claim that because slavery has existed through time, it is not caused by capitalism, it is caused by evil.

    I can’t resist this one (although you did, in fact, claim “Capitalism is what this country great”) … what the hell does slavery anywhere else have to do with slavery here under a capitalist system? You sure it’s that nebulous “evil” you mention or perhaps it is evil born of capitalist greed (like the idea of treating humans like animals to grow cotton for nothing more than room & board … and whippings, lynchings, rapes …)

    • I can’t believe you posted a link to the daily kos on SUFA 😉 . I refuse to even go to that site because of the downright hate that is driven there. When they cheer when people die is when I no longer give them enough credence to even peruse their nonsense. It is a shame I will admit. Someone may post something good there, but I won’t see it because of the outrageous behavior of the site in the past.

  35. I’ll offer this treatise on private property to the discussion:
    http://mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Well%20Being.pdf

  36. I would just like to point out one little thing for everyone to consider about the logic of the socialist/communist or whatever dogma it is that denies the right to own property.

    We all hear the ranting about how the crooks stole the money from the middle class. How they stole our homes through fraudulent foreclosures, etc.

    Well I don’t know about you but I can not figure out how anybody could have stolen anything when we don’t actually own anything in the first place.

    But who does own it? I suppose they mean the govt, since it would be hard to list all 300 million names on all the deeds. Especially since they would have to add a few thousand every day to keep up with growth.

    So if it belongs to the Govt then WHO is the Govt. More importantly WHO “owns” the Govt? Because if we don’t “own” the Govt then we have no stake in the property that the Govt owns.

    If it is purely the Govt’s property then we have nothing to complain about either. If the Govt chooses to let the banks run its affairs who are we to complain. They aren’t stealing our property.

  37. For those of you who have not read “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, do so immediately. Even if you disagree with the final premise (the virtue of selfishness), which I do, you have to admit that it is one powerful book! I literally couldn’t put it down and read it all last night (it’s only about 100 pages). The whole while I could hear Tchaikovsky playing in the background in my mind. “Anthem” is a perfect title!

    • JB

      Tell me why you reject the “virtue of selfishness”.

      • As a Christian, I am part of the collectivism that Rand is railing against. I believe that I am not the end all and be all. The working title for the book was “Ego.” Rand is setting up the self to become a god. She states in the commentary on The Fountainhead about how she doesn’t like how words like exaltation and worship are used only for God and not for the god she has set up for herself. That is where I diverge from her.

        I think there is a redeeming quality to her ego, though, in that Prometheus wishes to go back and help his friends, even though he is free to do his own will. This is a selfless act, but one that comes from free will not compulsion. I believe this is the ultimate end of moral selfishness. I work hard to make a living and I stand on my own two feet, but I am also working toward the betterment of my friends and family and, yes, even society. While I do not cleave to notions that “for the greater good” is the ultimate goal, I recognize that life is about more than just me.

        So you see, I don’t necessarily reject the “virtue of selfishness,” I simply think it is wrong to take it as far as she does.

        Does that make sense?

        • JB

          Yes, I understand. I don’t think she was trying to elevate self to the equivalent of a God. But most religious people I know get that impression when exploring her writings.

          However, if they keep exploring as you are doing they find out there is even more compatibility than they realized.

          If you didn’t see it there was an article this weekend at American Thinker about reconiling Rand to the Gospels of Jesus. The article itself was in error I believe but the comments were outstanding from many views.

          I suggest you read it if you get a chance.

    • Great, thanks.. I have a full-time (and then some!) job, grad school, sufa, a wife, a dog (who is learning how to fetch), fixing my house, Stargate SGU, Science Channel’s Firefly re-runs..

      I just picked up three Michener’s (at 1,000+ pages a piece) at a store closing sale at Borders, I’m in the middle of Les Miserables (Victor Hugo) and A Widow for One Year (John Irving). And you think I’m going to add to that Ayn Rand..

      Oh yea, and my family is in town, too.

      Maybe I’ll just read the wikipedia page..

  38. Mathius

    I would appreciate it if you were to identify the specific “pitfalls” inherent to Capitalism that you think require a safety net”. Could you also provide your idea of what it was that triggered the need for these programs.

    Mathius Says:
    April 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    … And your plan for not repeating it is to repeal all the social safety nets we’ve put in place over the years due to the pitfalls inherent in a capitalist society..?
    Rep

    • Hiya JAC!

      Top o’ the Mornin’ to ya!

      Pitfals inherent to the capitalist system:

      Let us imagine a purely capitalist sytem.. (BF, stop drooling). So what does that mean?

      If your parents can’t afford private school*, you will not be educated, thus you have very little chance of becoming a member of the elite

      *stop it, just stop it.. despite the repeated assurances that school would somehow magically become cheaper, I see no evidence to support this. Public school is “cheap” because everyone has to pay. Take away the broad payer base and it becomes expensive.

      If you are mentally challenged, or disabled, you will not be able to make ends meet. Period. You will simply starve to death unless charity somehow meets your needs. Which it will not.

      Child Labor.. yup, that’s back in fashion because kids work cheap

      Pollution.. yup, no more pesky EPA.. and do you honestly think companies are going to voluntarily internalize their externalities? HA!

      FDA.. Raise your hand if you’ve read The Jungle.. ’nuff said

      The rich will become richer and richer and the poor will become a virtually enslaved underclass. They will be paid in company chits and have to shop in company stores and live in company housing. They will not be allowed to unionize. OSHA standards will be one of the first things thrown out the window.

      Oh the humanity!

      • Mathius

        You missed the question. I am asking what was it that caused these “safety net” programs to exist. You know, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? What were the pitfalls inherent in Capitalism that caused their creation?

        Lets tackle this part first before I try to respond to your first list.

        • So, let’s pick on:

          You are walking along, minding your business, when suddenly a drunk driver hits you, breaking your spine, and speeds off.

          Congratulations, you are now a quadriplegic.

          But you were a productive worker. You had some savings. Also, fortunately for you, you had a insurance to the tune of $250,000.

          Unfortunately for you, the life-saving surgery cost $260,000. Now you’ve got nothing.

          Your boss just fired you because, let’s face it, you’re no use to him anymore. He hired someone else for your job before you were even out of surgery.

          Your wife died a few years ago when you couldn’t afford to pay for medical care for a completely treatable form of cancer, leaving you with two dependent children, 7 and 10.

          Your mortgage payment is coming due and you’re zeroed out.

          Since you can’t afford private school anymore anyway, you pull both your kids out. Fortunately, you live in Pennsylvania, and your 10 year old is just old enough to begin an apprenticeship in the coal mines. He won’t make much, but maybe it will stall forclosure for another month.

          The 7 year old gets to go bed for money on the street.

          You beg for charity, but you’re one of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and the money just isn’t there.

          Your home gets foreclosed the next month and you get booted to the street. With your 10 year old the primary source of income for your family, you live off a diet of spam and whatever scraps your 7 y/o can beg from the local restaurant.

          You’re living on the street now, and winter is approaching.

          You pool with a dozen other families in your situation and rent a small room in a slum. There’s lead paint and asbestos, and you’re all sharing one bathroom, but at least it’s warm. Your youngest, however, has developed a persistent cough, but you can’t afford a doctor or proper nutrition, so you just wait and hope.

          Meanwhile, your former boss, who also happens to own the slum, pays no taxes. He drives past you in his Bentley on his way to the golf course to meet his pasls. His annual membership costs $300,000 per year.

          Yup, no need for SS here..

          • YOu are on Red Bull this morning….right? BTW..Elvis syas hi….still waiting for you to come by and get that ten bucks…

          • Mathius

            WHAT problem in the PAST caused the creation of these MASSIVE safety net programs????????????????

            What part of that question can’t you understand.

            Could it be you can’t identify them so you create blather.

            But lets just deal with your hypothetical. Why would MY problem be the cause to create a Federal Govt Program or in fact many Programs?

            Especially given your adherence to the Greater Good view point.

            Answer: It wouldn’t. I am not important enough to justify this action. Nor would millions of me with the same problem. Not among 300 million people.

            • Let’s go with the great depression.

              When the economy was wrecked by the great depression, a third of the country was out of work. They could have been left to starve to death, or we could have built a safety net to prevent that.

              • Mathius

                Nobody was starving to death.

                And Social Security did not address people “starving to death” during the Depression.

                Try again.

              • Nobody was starving to death? Wow.. I seem to recall my great aunt telling me how she barely survived on ketchup sandwiches growing up in the GD. I seem to recall stories about how you had to get to the soup kitchen before dawn and wait in line, because they ran out early in the morning. Yes, she survived, so did three of her four siblings.. but what about that fourth sibling..

                I guess she’s made it all up.

                What kind of a difference might a small check to buy food have made in their lives? That’s why these things are needed.

              • Mathius

                Why do you avoid the real question?

                WHY were these programs created?

                You say it was to address starvation. But they did not address starvation. So WHY were they created?

                You once again bring the evidence against you to the court of public opinion. The stood in soup lines……………..get it.

                They were being fed by volunteers and charity.

                So once again, Soc Sec did not address starvation or food shortages. So WHY was it created?

              • They were being fed by charity.. that ran out early in the morning and left many others starving.

                Some were lucky, some were not.

                Thus the gov built safety nets to prevent that from happening again.

                Luck shouldn’t factor into it. If you are starving and charity is insufficient, society has an obligation to help.

      • The rich will become richer and richer and the poor will become a virtually enslaved underclass.

        Drum roll, please …. Thus proving Marx correct … slaves to their wages.

  39. Ray Hawkins says:

    @Mathius I HATE YOU

    Yesterday, at the tend age of 39, I tried my first Red Bull. Consumed 16oz at around 3:00 p.m.

    I could not sleep until 1am.

    I had vivid dreams of hugging trees, signing my paycheck over to vagrants, growing dreadlocks and saying things “hey dude, that’s groovy”.

    I woke up this morning, showered, dressed, and headed to WaWa to………….buy another Red Bull.

    I hate you Mathius.

    • Ray

      For the love of yourself………STOP. Before it is to late.

      That crap will literally take years off your life.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I shall try JAC – I shall surely try. As this liquid crack courses through my veins I can feel myself…..losing focus, thinking irrationally, becoming paranoid and wild-eyed….

        And I thought coffee was bad.

        • Ray…hurry….go grab a 44 ounce DP…it will dilute the effects. I tried it also and talked to Elvis. It is nasty.

          • Don’t listen to the Colonel.. He was drummed out of the military for an unfortunately.. err.. incident.. that happened while he was under the influence of Dr. Pepper.

            Red Bull gives you wings!

            Adding, 16 oz pounders huh? That’s a lot even for me.. I try to stick to the 8.4oz cans and limit myself to 1/day unless I really need it. I don’t know what’s in those things, but there’s no way it’s good for you.

    • It’s delicious, isn’t it..

      Try it with Vodka sometime..

  40. @Charlie,

    Good morning Knucks 🙂

    I’ve considered your iseal society that is based on fairness. However every great idea has consequences, as does yours I believe. In your world, government takes from those that have too much and spreads it out so that everyone has enough. While too much and enough are highly subjective, as your society ages, the loss of individualism, initiative, self determination and simple pride would wane to the point where everyone becomes dependent on the State for their everyday lives. All the while, the 2% will still exist within the structure of the State, and all will be for not. You fail to apply human nature to the equasion, assuming that all people will be happy if they have enough and it’s a fair system. That would turn into an old black and white C rated movie of literal mundaneness. Humans won’t and can’t live like that, they have too much spirit and desire. While fairness is a good idea on it’s face, you can’t discount human nature.

    • Buon Giorno, Gman!

      You may well be right … but we do not know that, about human nature. I believe workers will always work; the lazy will always be lazy, but we’re not looking to strip everyone of initiative. Growing up, did you not seek achievement for the sake itself or was somebody holding duckets in front of you to do well in baseball, spelling, track, etc.? I think that initiative argument is blown out of proportion but I do not know for sure, nobody does. So why not give it a try … or at least bend in that direction rather than get all stiff and rigid about it and assume the state is going to take away all your rights? Rights to what? Most people aren’t rich. Most rich people aren’t doing all the work themselves (but have workforces doing the actual labor), etc. … more later … gotta work.

  41. Good morning, SUFA. Please forgive me for being out of pocket. We have had a little issue down here…one of our BBQ pits got outta control (actually Mother Nature started a house cleaning with lightning) and burned 1.3 million acres of land. It took military assets and a whole lot of military man/woman power to help contain it. Forty five MPH winds and 70MPH wind storms within the fires created a nuisance so I have been out of pocket coordinating and overseeing the movement of 1100 personnel and 144 pieces of heavy equipment in airlift and manpower operations, while trying to maintain the same vigilance along the border. But, I am back and what a discussion.

    Charlie, my Plutonian friend, you really do like stirring the pot. I have been doing some clandestine research and reading several of your posts in other areas. You really are more conservative than you let on to be.
    But, you have made some really interesting points and have asked a question that no one has answered as yet or I have missed it. But I promised you an answer. When Texas (Tejas) or Norte Mexico, rebelled against the failed promises of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the Republic of Texas was as close to a true successful capitalist society as there ever was ( for there was and is NO fully capitalist society that I have found). The Republic was on a strictly barter situation from 1836 to its unfortunate statehood in 1845. It even coined and printed its own money and accepted bank notes from a variety of sources, included other states and countries….even Mexico. It did not operate under the single monetary system but a full barter system. It did not survive, however, because it strayed from that system. The reason it did not survive was that there was no capital to back up its own paper money. It became worthless and the barter system continued until statehood. The Texas militia and the transportation system was dependent upon individual donations and cooperation all founded on freedom and liberty. The Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Bidia, Caddo, Tonkawa, Karankawas, (to name just a few) actually lived side by side with the Republic of Texas in relative peace and harmony without infringement upon each territory except as right’s of passage. Cattlemen often made deals with tribes to live successfully side by side in exchange for beef and vegetables for skins, venison, and buffalo. There was the occasional raid of renegade tribal leaders but they were dealt with harshly and with the cooperation of the ranchers and the main Indian Tribal leaders and often in concert with one another. The trade apparent was between the individuals and not dependent upon any government and there were no United States Cavalry in the area…..until statehood. So, top answer your question, there was a true independent society that existed on cooperation and the barter system for nine years. It was also a true capitalist system in that it existed with barter ( goods and services ) and money as well as a combination of both totally unregulated until the intervention of government. There were no slaves and the Indian was not castigated during that time. Ranchers were dependent upon stores with good and services and the stores were dependent upon ranchers for selling. Barbers, shop keepers, doctors, dentists, law enforcement all existed within themselves. If someone was sick, friends and neighbors helped out. And, as I said before, then came government.
    Todd asked: Name one problem that capitalism solved. My answer is I do not know….but I will ask a question back…name one problem that any system solved. Now, the semantics start. Each person has their own definition of problem, just as Charlie has his definition of slavery. (Slave to money, slave to people, workers=slave, even you, Charlie, is a slave to your own writing and blogging.) Charlie spends a lot of time on slavery….which is the Marxist mantra so I will start there. Charlie uses the term “on the backs of workers” in his definition of slavery and he also thinks that the greater good is the best approach. Cool..if that is the way he feels. But one thing that Charlie cannot do is point out a successful Marxist system either just as no one can point out a truly successful and independent capitalist system. Indentured servitude is no more a “slave” than the plumber next door, Charlie. Or is the plumber whom you enter into a contract with, an indentured servant and, therefore, a slave. ( A service for a period of time for re-numeration). Were there unscrupulous land owners of the past that kidnapped or bought and sold human flesh, right or wrong? Yes. Was it right? I personally believe it was morally and ethically wrong. But it would be wrong of me to interfere with my neighbor because he had them…I would simply choose to not do business with him.
    I have travelled Europe and the East extensively with side trips to monotony and I find no better system than capitalism that offers the individual freedoms and ability to use one’s own brain and foresight to start and build something or continue something that a parent or grandparent started. Charlie thinks it is wrong to be successful and to continue that success to riches. He fails to understand the concept that productivity is dependent upon the freedoms of individuals to prosper. People who choose to work for others is still a choice. An employee is NOT entitled to anything other than the contract entered into with the employer. The employer is not obligated to anything other than what he agrees to do. Charlie and his ilk (no disrespect intended) think other wise. His concept is flawed when he thinks that people get “rich of the backs of others”….when those people have free will to leave if they do not like their position. If I am successful to build a business that employs one thousand people and I wish to make millions and millions and buy whatever I want, I have no moral obligation to provide Ipods and Tv’s to my employees. Charlie simply thinks otherwise and no amount of convincing is going to change him. REMEMBER THIS….CHARLIE ISLIVING THE LIFE OF THE VERY SYSTEM HE DOES NOT LIKE. That is inescapable. He must pay his taxes and live within the rules or he would be violating his own concepts of not taking a free ride….right Charlie?
    I know of no other system, as flawed as it is, that affords the opportunity to better oneself. It takes foresight and it takes persistence but it can and does happen everyday here. If someone wishes to make 500 grand per hour….cool by me. I want to do that. Does wealth corrupt? Certainly. Does power corrupt…certainly. Charlie is a Marxist and socialist thinker but lives in a capitalistic society. He enjoys the freedoms but speaks against them. This is also cool and his right to do so……courtesy of the United States Armed Forces…(could not resist that one).
    @ USW….you are certainly correct. Government intervention is stifling and it is a destroyer of a capitalism and a thief of freedom. That, I think, was your point.

    • Good morning, Colonel! Great stuff … but …

      there was a true independent society that existed on cooperation and the barter system for nine years. It was also a true capitalist system in that it existed with barter ( goods and services ) and money as well as a combination of both totally unregulated until the intervention of government.

      One could argue there’s some communism going on there as well, sir. I’m just saying …

      But one thing that Charlie cannot do is point out a successful Marxist system either just as no one can point out a truly successful and independent capitalist system.

      You are 100% correct, Colonel. Nor did I ever say I could or that it could be done without similar issues (a top 2%, etc.) without DRASTIC changes in all structure of society (why it will never happen) … and why I chose to believe in a social democracy (as a first step toward aiding the greater good, but even that would take years beyond my lifespan, I’m sure).

      Charlie thinks it is wrong to be successful and to continue that success to riches

      That is not true, Colonel. Not at all. I think “rich” requires a limit. One can be successful without duckets to prove it. One can also be rich monetarily without owning more than 90% of the population.

      REMEMBER THIS….CHARLIE ISLIVING THE LIFE OF THE VERY SYSTEM HE DOES NOT LIKE

      Charlie doesn’t have much of a choice, Colonel (and doesn’t have a problem with paying taxes). My entire family structure is here … we are currently tied to my mother’s health. When my mother passes, Charlie and his wife will be actively seeking her an RN job overseas while I search out a teaching job overseas as well (just to test the waters of life in Europe, if we are fortunate enough to do so–more curiosity than anything political). We’d probably return here, but that doesn’t mean we don’t see a better society is capable here. I agree this remains the land of opportunity, but with some very serious caveats (ethnicity, class, finances, etc.). As Matthius pointed out in another post here on this subject regarding “all men are created equal”; that is not only factually false, it remains, 200+ years later, a crock of bulldonkey.

      He enjoys the freedoms but speaks against them.

      Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, wrong here, Colonel. Not the case at all. I do not speak against the freedom this country offers. I speak against the absolute hypocrisy of a government owned by 2% of the population at the expense of the rest of the population. Even you agree (or seem to agree) that this government is corrupt. Corrupted by whom? The workers? The workers who forked over $700 billion for Wall Street with not a single stipulation protecting them? Come on, Colonel … you know what I’m saying.

      • The workers who got the Fed Govt to take over their pension funds. The workers who got the Fed Govt to break the contracts of bond holders and give them ownership of a company, for NOTHING. You mean those workers?

        Or how about those teachers, firemen, police, etc in Wisconsin who give millions to elect officials to continue their taxing of everyone else to meet their OWN financial goals. Those workers?

        YES Charlie. Corrupted by the workers AND the corporatist. Fascism does not distinguish by class Charlie. Both sides play the game and by doing so feed the corruption they complain about.

      • TexasChem says:

        Charlie Stated:” I speak against the absolute hypocrisy of a government owned by 2% of the population at the expense of the rest of the population.”

        TC: Who do you think owns and controls the governments at the expense of the population in Europe?

        • In Holland, for instance, there is universal healthcare, a damn near excellent education system and the elderly are not abandoned when they retire. We can do at least the same here. At least.

      • Good morning, my intrepid, yet, misguided friend….You are still welcome down here with or without your politics. We will feed you good food…and not that “eye talian” foo foo stuff. Do you drink wine with that too? Little finger out?

        Fajitas (beef, of course), jalepenos with a habanero thorwn in for flavor, real live frijoles (the repeating kind) and corn (not flour) torillas…Mezcal (complete with worm) and cabrito enchildas with green chilis….followed by chicken fried steak (cream gravy…the white kind), black eyed peas, and taters ( roasted in the skins ) with cajun seasoning and blackpepper. For dessert, lets try chocolate ice box pie (with real whipped topping- you know, the 300 calorie per tsp kind) followed by a Brandy Ice (extra grog for flavor and coolness for the peppers.)….with a rum chaser. Now…thas’ eatin!!

  42. Quick note, since the Colonel seems to have the wrong impression about my politics and feelings about the US&A.

    Make no mistake, I love America … I agree it has the most potential (or at least amonst the top of those countries that have potential) … but because someone doesn’t agree with an economic or political system (or anything else) does not preclude them from loving America. SUFA tends to be a little touchy (yes, collectively … stereotype intended) when criticism is directed at America in general, but conservatism specifically. Fair enough, it’s a conservative (whacko …:) site … but we on the left are not “against” America. We’re all for it … we just have differences of opinion as to how it should proceed in the future (and are more critical of its past).

    Now, the Doc waylays on your favorite Redski’s choice in entertainment …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/04/doc-on-glee-and-me-oy-vey.html

    • Charlie

      America = Individual Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All

      You do not love America, the idea.

      You love the United States of America, the place.

      You wish to make this place into your idea.

      Amerika = Charlie decides who gets what, when and how.

      • Hate to break it to you JAC.. America was socialist to one degree or another pretty much from the get-go..

        You’re the one who wants America made into something it is not.

        America is a socialist republic. It has always been a socialist republic. It will always be a socialist republic.

        Charlie and I only differ on extent. You, however, want America to be what it pretends to be, despite the fact that it’s antithetical to the real “American Way Of Life.”

        • I can hear VH’s head banging her keyboard now boooooy!

        • Mathius

          With all due respect, HORSESHIT our should I say BULLSHIT.

          And that goes for BF as well, for even allowing this to stand the other day.

          Socialism = public (aka govt) ownership of the means of production.

          You are stuck in your dogma, unsupported by rational argument so you have to construct ridiculous connections by changing the meaning of words.

          • No JAC,
            The problem is you don’t want to live in reality. You prefer your imaginary little capitalist society…

            • Todd

              Once again you are way off base.

              I simply don’t want to live in YOUR reality.

              If you need to believe I am delusional the so be it.

              It doesn’t negate my condemnation of Matts statement. It was FALSE. Nothing more and nothing less. Pure Bullshit put out there many, many years ago to pollute the minds of unsuspecting people. Obviously it took root in fertile ground.

      • America = Individual Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All

        Just read this … madonna mia, are you delusional.

        That’s in your head, brother … sorry, but you really need to take the blinders off. That’s just nonsense.

        • Yet, oddly, they think we’re the delusional ones.. go figure..

          • You guys are ridiculous! You’re totally free to leave at any time!
            Why do you put up with all the injustice? If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.

            • Charlie and I are just having fun playing in this insane asylum..

              That doesn’t mean we’re wrong though 😉

            • anita

              Because they are NOT free to leave.

              They are SLAVES to everything and everybody around them.

              Weren’t you following along with their arguments?

              Yes………..sarcasm before noon is risky, but I couldn’t resist.

              • IT’s FRUSTRATING JAC! 👿 Sometimes I wish I could argue back like you can and other times I think what’s the point?!

              • The only thing that would happen if another person started arguing like JAC is that I would have to spend more time on SUFA and start arguing like Flag.

                But then I’d never get any work done, and they’d fire me.

                Then I’d have to go on welfare.

                And they’d reposes my house.

                And my wife would leave me.

                And she’d take my dog.

                And I’d live in a box next to Starbucks, hijacking their wi-fi, and spending every hour of every day writing 3,000 word replies with multiple layers of nested block quotes.

              • anita

                The point is to sharpen YOUR knife.

                Know what I mean?

                I love that little angry guy of yours. I think of the Tasmanian Devil every time you put him up.

  43. You gotta love this.

    IT WAS ALL BUSH’s FAULT.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=26

    Bwahhahahahahaha

    • I don’t believe your graph.

      http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=26&c=iz&l=en

      BTW: This is Bush’s fault.

      • Bama dad says:

        So let me get this straight, prior to the March 2003 invasion Iraqi deaths in 2000 were 6.4 per thousand and then every year after 2000 they fell. So therefore you must be congratulating Bush for the falling death rate.

        • Yes.. that must be the case.. somehow our invasion improved the death rate in Iraq. Go figure.

          Kudos to Mr. Bush.

          • The Iraqi death rate may indeed have gone down based on the mass graves that were found….

            Not that I think the war was a good idea, I don’t. I just think that if you are going to argue about death you should include all deaths, not just American ones.

            • I voted for the imbecile (Bush) twice … he should be brought up on war crimes in Iraq and I should have a labotomy.

              • Charlie, I think a lobotomy might have been what got you into that mess in the first place.. I can’t explain why else you might have voted for him…

              • Matt: I was in transition (mentally); going from wealthy criminal (who just loved capitalism when I could charge 3 points a week) over to legit SUCKER. I was pissed at Clinton for becoming a Republican his 2nd term and refused to vote Dem again … then I was double suckered into the war thing (9-11 REALLY pissed me off) but I should’ve listened to Phil Donahue when he said we were just dying to punch somebody in the mouth. My frustration with Dems coupled with my financial transition plus 9-11 made me do it. But you’re right, a labotomy was about the same regarding those votes.

              • I wasn’t old enough to vote against him in the first election. In the second, I registered in PA, because I knew my vote wouldn’t matter in Cali (they were going blue no matter what).

                I don’t understand though.. why would being mad at the dems for being too far right make you want to vote more to the right? I get the whole 9/11 thing, but the first term just doesn’t make any sense to me..

  44. MATHIUS

    I see you are still running away from answering my question about Soc Sec during the Depression.

    If I understand the totality of your argument to this point.

    Soc Sec was installed to prevent starving to death, but since I pointed out it did not address starvation at all during the depression, you now argue that is was adopted to prevent “future” starvation.

    Which of course means it was NOT established to address any inherent deficiency in Capitalism, since no such Depression including mass starving to death occurred prior to its establishment and it was NOT developed for the purpose of preventing such an event in the future. It was designed as an annual payment to “retired people”.

    So, once again. WHY was Soc Sec implemented during the Depression?

    • Here is my guess of why Soc Sec was created, what say all of you.

      The real goal of Soc sec was to reduce the unemployment rate. By paying older people not to work that effectively removes them from the work force and frees the job up for a younger worker. That has a two fold effect on the unemployment rate because of the way the unemployment rate is calculated. 1 person is removed from the work force and 1 person is given a job. Thus a lower unemployment rate without actually adding any jobs to the economy. Pretty tricky if you ask me.

  45. SUFA

    Time to change up the discussion a bit. MORAL DILEMMA TEST.

    My now adult son (18 yrs old) qualifies for Soc. Sec and Medicaid.

    As his LEGAL GUARDIAN should I enroll him in these programs? Please explain your opinion.

    What are the ethical/moral implications for ME? What are they for my SON?

    Ready, set ……………..GO!

  46. Been with family and not near a computer.

    USWep,
    (1) You are about as far from a ““BF sycophant” – I don’t think anyone here has butted heads as strong with me as you have!

    (2) You have done brilliantly in rephrasing my position. I would not change one word of what you wrote regarding that.

    I am honored that you have read my posts with the sincerity of understanding to the degree you are able to present my position at times better than I!

  47. Why was Soc Sec created during the depression?

    Those following along saw my argument that Soc Sec did not address any of the supposed ailments of the Depression. So why was it passed then?

    Because the Great Depression was the first crisis big enough and of the right type, combined with decades of propaganda, where the Progressives could put it over on the American public.

    Following are platform positions of the Progressive Party of 1912. You may find that some of them look familiar.

    “The main work of the convention was the platform, which set forth the new party’s appeal to the voters. It included a broad range of social and political reforms advocated by progressives.[4][5]

    In the social sphere the platform called for

    * A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies. (THIS WAS ALSO in the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO by MARX)
    * Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.
    * Limited injunctions in strikes.
    * A minimum wage law for women
    * An eight hour workday
    * A federal securities commission
    * Farm relief.
    * Workers’ compensation for work-related injuries.
    * An inheritance tax.
    * A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.

    The political reforms proposed included

    * Women’s suffrage.
    * Direct election of Senators.
    * Primary elections for state and federal nominations.

    The platform also urged states to adopt measures for “direct democracy”, including:

    * The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term).
    * The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote).
    * The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote).
    * Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote).

    However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties. The platform asserted that

    To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.[6]

    To that end, the platform called for

    * Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions.
    * Registration of lobbyists.
    * Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings.

    Besides these measures, the platform called for reductions in the tariff, limitations on naval armaments by international agreement, and improvements to inland waterways.

    The biggest controversy at the convention was over the platform section dealing with trusts and monopolies such as Standard Oil. The convention approved a strong “trust-busting” plank, but Roosevelt had it replaced with language that spoke only of “strong National regulation” and “permanent active [Federal] supervision” of major corporations. This retreat shocked reformers like Pinchot, who blamed it on Perkins (a director of United States Steel). The result was a deep split in the new party that was never resolved.[4]” (from wikipedia)

    Roosevelt lost his Presidential bid. But the Progressives simply melted back into both political parties, although the Democratic Party got the majority.

    If you notice, part of this agenda is enacted during the Wilson Admin. The next big push comes with FDR and the next with LBJ. Now it is BHO’s turn. Each of these people had a crisis of the nature needed to justify implementing these programs that have been the goal for over 100 years.

    So there is my opinion on the when and why.

  48. Mathius,

    Let us imagine a purely capitalist sytem.. (BF, stop drooling). So what does that mean?

    If your parents can’t afford private school*, you will not be educated, thus you have very little chance of becoming a member of the elite

    Bad, bad bad.

    I posted specifically for you and Charlie about this type of argument crap, and you didn’t listen.

    When _EVER_ have parents not educated their children??? Please tell me the era, event and time you proclaim such an example!

    Such an “imaginary” fantasy – as I posted – confuses you.

    Stick with real world examples, understand the actions and consequences and build from there.

  49. Charlie

    BF is right! There is a universe and it universally can’t stand Charlie Stella!

    My wife often tells me I’m more annoying than most forms of arthritis

    My wife complains the same about me, so there we are at least even! 🙂 — and obviously, such an opinion is immune to philosophical stance!

    But here you are totally wrong.

    The Universe loves Charlie, which is why Charlie exists.

    In the “eyes” of the Universe, Charlie is another “right answer” to the problem called “being human”.

    Don’t confuse our petty squabble about how to be “a better human” with the care of the Universe.

    The Universe thinks you are the best thing it ever created.

  50. OK SUFA

    It is time for some clarity of what is going on and what is not.

    Mathius said to JB earlier today:

    “But, like all good humor, it has a grain of truth at the center.. the safety nets may have overgrown and expanded past their original intent, but they were put in place initially for a reason and we ignore that reason at our peril. ”

    This statement is so far wrong its beyond left field. These programs have achieved EXACTLY what they were intended to accomplish. And it has nothing to do with some mysterious, ill defined “safety net”.

    The purpose of these programs, just like Obama Care, were to HOOK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC on FREE COOKIES. To impose the Public Choice theory upon the American people through slight of hand.

    It was that simple. I urge those non-believers to reflect on the words of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and other Facist/Progressive when arguing that “well it is a foot in the door” when addressing their internal critics. And “we’ll get the rest later”.

    These SOB’s intend to change this country once and for all into their Fasciolist Utopia. Make no mistake about it. Today it is “single payer” health insurance. Notice they never call it by its accurate name………Govt Health Insurance. Tomorrow it is your right to own your own property. Don’t worry about your guns. By the time these maggots get done there won’t be any thing left worth using your guns to defend.

    • JAC, a little edgy this evening?

      If anything, those “safety nets” are bones thrown to the masses to keep them from revolting wholesale (which is exactly what would happen if you ever stripped them, think about it). Let’s put your gameplan in action, strip all the social welfare programs, entitlements, etc. … now you have a huge amount of people about to do what, barter? That’s when you’ll need those guns.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        CS, The govt has been preparing for this for decades. It’s inevetable. More to come!

      • Charlie

        Just laying the truth bare for all to see Charlie.

        Thanks for doing the same, regarding the Democrat elites view of what “safety nets” are really all about.

        If you recall I had a Dem Party type tell me the same thing, in more obnoxious terms, in the 1970’s. I should than that ass clown because he helped launched my journey to seek the truth.

        You want a chance to safe this country you claim to love Charlie? Then convince your brothers to abandon their communist/socialist/fascist agenda and join hands with those of us focused on freedom and liberty. Join us in cleaning house. You might like who you find in charge and who you find in jail when WE are done.

        But this is your last chance. You must give to get here. I will not compromise my principles any further. But I will give you the heads of those you despise. So what will it be?

        • You continue to blame democrats alone, which leads me to believe you don’t blame Republicans, which leads me to be believe you aren’t really getting it at all.

          Your idea of freedom and liberty is a bit scary to me and I doubt the people in actual charge would be any different than those in charge today. I’ll take my chances, JAC. I’d throw both parties in jail (except Bernie) and see where the chips fall.

          • Charlie

            I can’t believe this continues. Please explain to me how you get from my words:

            JAC: “Thanks for doing the same, regarding the Democrat elites view of what “safety nets” are really all about.

            If you recall I had a Dem Party type tell me the same thing, in more obnoxious terms, in the 1970′s. I should than that ass clown because he helped launched my journey to seek the truth.”

            to your conclusion: “You continue to blame democrats alone, which leads me to believe you don’t blame Republicans, which leads me to be believe you aren’t really getting it at all.”

            Your the guy who makes a living with words. Please show me what I can not see.

            Furthermore, this shows you haven’t understood much of anything I have said to you and others here.

            As for you last statement, this is how a Civil War starts.

    • Hence it is foolish for anyone to believe that our government, working through the voter process, will ever be changed in the ways desired by conservatives and VDLG supporters.

      IT HAS GONE TOO FAR and no one in Congress will turn it around. Why would you waste time believing otherwise? The people have been ingrained into accepting their free cookies and will not give theirs up – only those others are getting.

      This government will continue – as long as it exists – to go down the path the progressives have set forth. They have won the game by having the true patience to slowly gain the goals of their dreams. More and more will be taken from each of us to go to those that they decide are entitled to receive it.

      Yet, conservatives will allow this tyranny to continue incremental step by incremental step. It can not be stopped or reversed from within they system. Conservatism is too danged afraid to admit the ugly truth – you’ve lost. Like Sean Connery says to Kevin Costner in the movie The Untouchables, “What are you prepared to do?” Costner replies, “Anything within the law.” Connery then says “And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they’re not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead. ”

      The government no longer gains its legitimacy from the people – it decides its own legitimacy, and soon freedom will be as the government grants you.

      So conservatives, what ARE you prepared to do?

      • plainlyspoken

        The situation does not mean there is no chance for reversal.

        I am willing to stop taking free cookies.

        My family does not take free cookies.

        All of my friends have sworn off free cookies.

        I know retired people on SS/Medicare who have said they understand and will accept significant cuts to save the Nation for their grandchildren.

        Don’t ever underestimate the will power of the American Spirit. While we can not underestimate the resolve of the corrupt elite, they will rue the day they ignore the possibility that WE THE PEOPLE WILL WAKE UP.

        • JAC, I hear what you are saying…..and I respect a lot of what you post, as well as others.

          But (you always know there is a “but”), the “people” have had their existence changed and the future laid forth for them by the progressives. Those who argue against that plan are a minority that I do not believe can wake and hold a majority to compel change away from the progressive path.

          The progressives have played the better game.

          I can only hope for one very ugly economic collapse which carries a political collapse within it to see if “the people” will wake up and admit the truth. That you or a handful around you don’t take the cookies is great, but totally insignificant to the masses of people who do. Those masses have had their “rights” defined for them and they won’t give them up (so hence they won’t wake up).

          Hope, seems that was tried before. Hope that the Crown would come to their senses and ease up on the colonies. Yep, and we know how that turned out.

          • OBJECTION Defeatist attitude!

            “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” — Samuel Adams, 1722 – 1803

            🙂

            • Objection overruled.

              A defeatist attitude would be one tossing in the towel and calling for letting the progressives to have their way with America – which I haven’t called for.

              🙂 nice try by you and Adams though.

              • This must mean something different then:

                Those who argue against that plan are a minority that I do not believe can wake ………..

                My bad 🙂

              • anita,

                I simply mean that the minority (conservative) calling on a majority are calling on the group of people in society who have been bought with the entitlements, the “cookies” JAC mentions. You can not get enough of them to give up their cookies, they are only willing to give up other people’s cookies.

                I am saying that fixing the system by getting the people to stand up to the system and change it using the system against itself is a wasted effort. The system was given its legitimacy by the people originally, but now legitimizes itself and commands the people.

                The slide of this government, this almost 235 year old government, into a progressive socialism is inevitable. One morning we’ll wake up to find it done and any (and all) freedom gone unless granted to you by a “benevolent” government.

                We will talk ourselves right out of our freedoms.

          • plainlyspoken

            We are not as outnumbered as you might think, if you think outside the box.

            Please read again the last two paragraphs in my comment to Charlie:

            “You want a chance to safe this country you claim to love Charlie? Then convince your brothers to abandon their communist/socialist/fascist agenda and join hands with those of us focused on freedom and liberty. Join us in cleaning house. You might like who you find in charge and who you find in jail when WE are done.

            But this is your last chance. You must give to get here. I will not compromise my principles any further. But I will give you the heads of those you despise. So what will it be?”

            Now think hard on that a while.

            Who am I to argue with them over their ethical standard of Altruism. If they believe a few must be sacrificed for the good of the whole then I think we should help them in their endeavor. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  51. JAC,

    There is a book called “What to do when there is no doctor”

  52. Truthseeker says:

    Down here Mathius! I am really wondering if you are reading what is actually wrote versus what you want to read. For example:

    BL: “all men are created equal(no man has an inherent right above another)”

    Mathius: “All men are not equal.”

    TS: All mean are created equal is completely different than saying ‘All men are equal’. Because you are right, not everybody is truly equal in skill, ability, etc… However, everybody is indeed created equally. BL’s additional emphasis “no man has an inherent right above another” is also true. There is no law (natural, moral) that says that if you are born a certain way, you have the inherent right above others. Society/Government has more or less trained people to be in some sort of cast, but that is completely different than saying a certain person has an inherent right above another.

    Reading is fundamental.

    • Reading is, indeed, fundamental..

      No, TS, my point is that the US preaches that all men are created equal (in the sense that BL means), but that is not the case in practice.

      If you are born to wealthy parents, if you are born white, if you are born male.. you have an inherent advantage within the system that sets you above everyone else.

      Yes, poor black females can surpass rich white males, but it takes far more work and effort and drive. The doors do not open for them the same way as they do for us. And when there’s a conflict, the minority generally loses ceterus paribus – rich white male vs poor black female looking applying for the same job (ignoring affirmative action quotas), the male gets the job more often than not.

      But I can think of no better example than the drug laws (all stupid) in our country. Powder cocaine will get you a few months in jail, crack rocks will get you several years. The expensive drug used primarily by whites is no safer or better for society, but is punished far less, while the cheap drug used primarily among minorities in inner cities is treated harshly. “African Americans comprise 14% of regular drug users, but are 37% of those arrested for drug offenses.” Source.

      The whole system is rigged to favor the elites. A slap on the wrist for you, a decade in the slammer for them. Equality?

      Education helps balance the scales somewhat, but who gets a better education, the kid in the Bronx, or the kid in the rich suburb, again, ceterus paribus? The rich suburb has better schools (paid for by taxes on higher property values), so the children will get a better education. Then, continuing along, who has better odds of becoming successful?

      We pay lip service to this ideal, but it’s not how it works in practice. Wealth and power perpetuate wealth and power, while the poor have to work twice as hard to break into a higher “class.” Upward mobility is the exception rather than the rule in America.

      If you are born into the lower class, odds are you’ll stay there. That is not being “created equal.”

      • I think we all understand your point. But the problem is what do we do about it. In my lifetime I have watched while we write law after law and throw money after money at this problem. I don’t see any improvement-I would even stick my neck out there and say things are worse.

        • V.H… that’s perfectly fair.. but TS is just trying to understand my point. My point is that the country – as is – is rigged in favor of the elites.

          I agree that we haven’t found a good solution. Indeed, there may not be a good solution.

          We’ve tried all sorts of things and it doesn’t seem to be enough. To my mind, education and childhood nutrition programs are the silver bullet. This generation is lost, but the next one could be better.

          We spend, according to the WorldBank, 5.5% of GDP on education (note, that’s at federal, state, and local combined), but what is the expenditure on “defense”? My wife, a teacher in the Bronx, just bought a document projector for her classroom with money she raised from her friends and family and spent personally, but the military can buy $23,000 toilet seats?

          How much have we spent to combat “terrism”? How much have we spent on investigations into steroid use in baseball? How much on criminalizing drugs and locking up MILLIONS of Americans? What about giving world-class educations to every child in America?

          The black/white achievement gap among college grads is tiny. But the percentages of minorities who actually go to college lags way behind whites. High school drop-out rates are through the roof in poor areas, but nearly zero in wealthy areas. Why? Are poor and minority people incapable of learning, or are we failing them in some way by giving them second rate schools, second rate teachers, second rate materials, and lower standards?

          That’s why we’re not fixing this issue – our priorities are completely messed up.

          • Mathius,

            I’ve been around for a while and I must say I’ve heard this song before on education – more than once over the decades. And likely it’ll be the song that is continued to be sung in the future.

            The government and all the money they throw at the problem hasn’t solved it, or come close to solving it yet. Why should one believe it will change?

            • Because the public high school my wife attended is nicknamed the “ivy express.” She grew up in a wealthy area and got a first rate education. The question wasn’t “will you go to college,” but “where will you go to college.” Her school had every advantage: high student teacher ratios, first rate supplies, you name it.

              Now, as I said, she teaches in the Bronx and had to buy a projector herself. In some classes, the kids have to share textbooks between two students. There is no computer lab at all. The dilapidated building is in a high-crime area where she is actually afraid to walk to her car after work.

              I wonder what the difference is in funding between the two. I don’t suggest bringing down the “Ivy Express,” but we need to bring up the Bronx schools.

              These kids are very fortunate to have a teacher like my wife, but she is a rarity. These kids don’t stand a chance against the Ivy Express – we’re setting them up for failure.

              Of course, of course, of course, education is more complicated than just throwing money at the problem, and a major component is parental engagement, but how can we justify $14,000 hammers for the DOD when a whole class of children are being set up for failure?

              • What’s wrong with you, Matt? Don’t you know those kids in your wife’s classes who don’t push through on their own and become wealthy, loyal, patriotic citizens are just lazy for not doing so? And their families … let’s not get started on them. How dare they not escape poverty generation after generation! The louts.

                Conservatives fear public education leaping forward more than they fear the Taliban. Imagine kids educated enough not to buy into the bullshit: America = freedom, equal rights and justice for all.

                They’d rather see the DOD pay $140,000 for that hammer (because somebody would be “earning” off it–not the guy actually making the hammer, by the way, just the guy who owns the means of production) than permit public education to equal private education regarding quality.

              • First, drop the comparison to DoD spending – we know it is hideous and obscenely excessive – but you won’t change it as the school systems get their money through a different venue – property taxes.

                Why do those disparities in school funding exist? That’s an easy answer. You know those “cookies” JAC speaks of? Well it applies to education cookies too. You see when one school gets more money it’s because more is paid in property taxes in that school area and the parents of those student demand – successfully – for their school to get more “cookies” since they’ve paid more. The Bronx schools are just flat out screwed then. It happens all across the country.

                I – personally – have always felt that each school get an equal share of the property taxes taken for schools, but my thinking isn’t the norm. Hence your wife gets to spend her own money to use in teaching.

                Those parents of those rich schools – like the one your wife got to attend – will also happily call for improving the educational abilities of those “poverty” schools, just as long as it doesn’t come from their cookies.

              • Conservatives fear public education leaping forward more than they fear the Taliban

                Charlie, those conservatives stand right next to the liberals in their fear and loathing to fix education.

                Have you looked at those wonderful inner city schools – say in the LA School District – that those wonderful liberals in California have “fixed” over the last several decades?

                There is enough blame to pass around to all sides.

          • Matt-I agree that our priorities may well be mixed up but 🙂 if we are going to fix the problem of education-lets look at education by itself. First question we should ask-where is the money going-why does your wife and 1/2 of my family thru marriage spend their own money for classroom supplies. Is it because we aren’t spending enough- or is it because the money is being wasted and not getting to where it needs to go?

            • GREAT!

              Great question.

              The answer is yes.

              Waste needs to be addressed too.

              But the fact is that, for whatever reason (and there are several), inner-city schools are pathetic by comparison to rich suburbs and there’s really just no excuse for this in a country like America.

              • What are these reasons in your opinion?

                One other point I must make-In the interaction I have personally had with the different school systems in my part of the world. 🙂 The biggest deterrent to education wasn’t a matter of money. It was behavior problems from some of the children. It wasn’t the majority but it was a big enough number to make it almost impossible for the teacher to teach or the students to learn. In most cases the teachers and most of the students were actually scared.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Matt,

        You are confusing rights with status.

        Apples and oranges.

        Everyone is born with an apple in their hand, and some are born with an orange too.

        • And how is that equal?

          I had you $10 dollars and I hand Charlie $10 and an extra $1.

          Well you’re equal! You both have $10..

          Huh?

          Status and rights, if not synonyms in America, they’re closely related. Being born with status (an orange) means that you are more likely to succeed, more doors will open for you, courts and laws will favor you. Maybe it’s not a question of “right” per say, but it sure is one of equality, and I just don’t see these as equal.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Matt,

            I’m not arguing that some are born with an advantage to succeed. I TOTALLY get your point. Remember, I was born poor and am still poor in spite of.

            But don’t take the word equal out of context. We are all born with equal rights regardless of status.

            Divine right of kings is a bullshit concept. No one is better or more righteous than the next person. Rights are equally distributed by order of nature.

            • What rights though? Right to a fair trial? Right to pursue happiness?

              These are hindered by the handicap of poverty and inferior education.

              In a trial, who wins is decided only nominally by the facts of the case – it is the better funded litigant who wins most of the time.

              Right to pursue happiness sounds great, but how fruitful will your pursuit be when you can’t get a decent education in order to get a good job and make good money?

              Right to go where you want? Sounds great, but what happens when you get pulled over on a pretext stop because you’re a black man driving an ’84 Jalopy in a rich white neighborhood?

              Right to marry the person of your choosing? Well, no, not if you’re born gay.

              So I ask you, what rights are you referring to?

  53. Boeing lives by big government, dies by big government

    By: Timothy P. Carney 04/24/11 8:05 PM

    Boeing is not free to make its jets at the factory of its choosing, according to the National Labor Relations Board — it must make them in Washington state, using union labor.

    This extraordinary abridgement of economic freedom might suggest an anti-Boeing vendetta from President Obama, except that this administration’s Export-Import Bank has subsidized Boeing with nearly $15 billion in loan guarantees in the past two years — roughly three-quarters of all of Ex-Im’s guarantees during that time.

    This puts Boeing in an awkward position. The NLRB is surely overreaching in trying to block Boeing from making some of its 787s in South Carolina, a right-to-work state (NLRB calls this illegal retaliation against the machinists and aerospace workers union for its 2005 and 2008 strikes). In its effort to fight back, Boeing could be defanged by its reliance on big government. It’s a cautionary tale for Obama’s other corporate allies — from the drug industry that benefits so much from Obamacare to the tech, agrichem, coal, and other industries that have benefitted from the president’s corporatism.

    Boeing and Obama, both based in Chicago, have a real political friendship. In 2008, Obama was by far the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from Boeing employees and executives, hauling in $197,000 — five times as much as John McCain, and more than the top eight Republicans combined.

    Boeing’s lobbyists include some of Obama’s closest allies. The Podesta Group, co-founded by Obama’s transition director and John Podesta, represents the jet maker, with Democratic fundraiser Tony Podesta and former Obama campaign aide and administration official Oscar Ramirez as two of the lobbyists on the account. Linda Daschle, wife of Obama confidant Tom Daschle, is a longtime Boeing lobbyist.

    When Obama began his export initiative, he named Boeing CEO Jim McNerney chairman of the President’s Export Council.

    And Boeing has pocketed even more taxpayer loot under Obama than it did under George W. Bush. Obama’s export initiative has included ramping up subsidies from Ex-Im, and Boeing has reaped the benefits. In fiscal 2009, Ex-Im guaranteed $8.4 billion of loans to benefit Boeing, an astounding 90 percent of all of Ex-Im’s loan guarantees. This past fiscal year, according to a recent annual report, Boeing won $6.4 billion in Ex-Im loan guarantees, 63 percent of the total.

    In fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011 so far, Boeing has received more than $45 million in government contracts. Documents made public by Wikileaks showed how much work U.S. diplomats do to persuade foreign leaders to buy Boeing jets for their state-owned airlines.

    So now when the Obama administration kneecaps Boeing, bending labor law in order to benefit a labor union that gives more than 95 percent of its money to Democrats, Boeing is vulnerable. Can Boeing believably use free-market arguments to defend its right to build planes in whichever factory it wants?

    Will Boeing executives fear the loss of some goodies if they fight too hard? Could McNerney lose his perch in the administration? Could Boeing lose a contract? Maybe its billions in Ex-Im subsidies would dry up.

    If you think the Obama administration wouldn’t play that sort of hardball, you haven’t been paying attention. My Examiner colleague David Freddoso filled his new book, “Gangster Government,” with example after example of this administration “us[ing] public office to make winners into losers and losers into winners” and ‘bend[ing], break[ing] and mak[ing[ the law to help their friends and punish their enemies.”

    The Chrysler bailout provides the template. Obama threw out bankruptcy law and divided the company as he pleased. Some of the smaller creditors, who felt robbed by the decision to give most of the company to the Democrat-allied autoworkers union, objected — and Obama publicly and privately retaliated. But most of the senior creditors didn’t say a word. They couldn’t, because they were Troubled Asset Relief Program recipients and in no position to stand up to the government.

    In Boeing’s situation, it’s not only Uncle Sam who has leverage purchased with corporate welfare.

    Washington state, Illinois and Chicago have given Boeing billions in favors. Do you think these Democratic governors wouldn’t squeeze Boeing, too? Does anyone doubt the new mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, would play politics with Boeing’s subsidies in order to help his old boss, Obama? (Of course, the disputed Boeing factory in South Carolina got hundreds of millions in state subsidies, too.)

    Forever, business has been seduced by the promise of free money from government, along with regulation to clear out competition. Boeing has been the foremost among businesses partnering with Uncle Sam.

    Now, the jet maker might see these government goodies come at a price — sometimes chains.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/04/boeing-lives-big-government-dies-big-government

  54. Mathius,

    What rights though? Right to a fair trial?

    This is NOT a human right.

    It is a Government grant and can be removed as easily as a snap of the fingers.

    Right to pursue happiness?

    As happiness is merely subjective – this statement is merely a rephrasing of a Right to determine one’s own actions.

    These are hindered by the handicap of poverty and inferior education.

    NO IT IS NOT.

    It is hindered by men like you who believe they have a right to attack some non-violent men so to give goods to other men who did not earn it.

    In a trial, who wins is decided only nominally by the facts of the case – it is the better funded litigant who wins most of the time.

    This is a government grant and as such, the determination of guilt often has nothing to do with logic, reason or evidence.

    Right to pursue happine

    ss sounds great, but how fruitful will your pursuit be when you can’t get a decent education in order to get a good job and make good money?

    Because happiness, being subjective, has nothing to do with a job or money

    Right to go where you want?

    No such right exists.

    Right to marry the person of your choosing? Well, no, not if you’re born gay.

    That is a government attack upon rights – but you want government, right?

    So I ask you, what rights are you referring to?

    The REAL ones, not the ones you make up.

    • M: Right to go where you want?

      BF: No such right exists.

      Since when? You have been my ally in the argument that it is immoral to stop immigrants from coming here because we have no right to tell them where they can and cannot go.. what changed?

      • Mathius,

        You do not have a right to “go where ever you want”. You have no right to go into my house or on MY property.

        A man has a right to SEEK his own opportunities.

        You do not have a right to exercise engage in an action attempting to excerise your right that destroy my rights.

        But you can respect my rights while engaging in achieving your actions.

        • So, to go back to my original statement.. you’re a black man driving around in an ’84 Jalopy in a rich white neighborhood and you get pulled over daily, would you say that they’re infringing on your rights?

          More to the point, are they infringing on your rights more or less than if you were a white man driving a Mercedes who did not get pulled over daily?

          The heart of the question, sir, is this: While the US infringes on a lot of people’s rights, do they infringe on everyone’s rights equally or are certain individuals/races/classes/etc infringed upon more?

          • Mathius

            So, to go back to my original statement.. you’re a black man driving around in an ’84 Jalopy in a rich white neighborhood and you get pulled over daily, would you say that they’re infringing on your rights?

            Government always and must infringe on your rights to enforce itself. It is a basic requirement.

            So providing an example of this merely demonstrates the perversity of government and nothing more.

            More to the point, are they infringing on your rights more or less than if you were a white man driving a Mercedes who did not get pulled over daily?

            Government enforcement of its irrational behavior will be irrational. Nothing new here.

            The heart of the question, sir, is this: While the US infringes on a lot of people’s rights, do they infringe on everyone’s rights equally or are certain individuals/races/classes/etc infringed upon more?

            There is nothing “equal” about the irrational behavior of government which cannot be -ever- equal

            Government violence -by definition and fact- must be irrational. It is initiation of violence which is ALWAYS a failure of reason – hence, a collapse of reason into irrationality.

            To stagger around as if stunned by this realization is pointless.

            • Fine, whatever you’re rational..

              There is nothing “equal” about the irrational behavior of government which cannot be -ever- equal

              Thus, I take it you agree. That, in practice in the United States, given our Government as it has been from inception to date, that at no time have all men been allowed “equal” exercise of their rights?

              That, further, as they are all unequal, the claim that “all men are created equal [in terms of rights],” while true on the surface, is untrue in application under the United States government – that is, it is an ideal to which we’ve never adhered. That everyone has equal “rights” is true, but not everyone is allowed equally to use those rights.

              Fair?

              • Truthseeker says:

                It is not fair.

                People with power have abused their power. Regardless of their political ideologies. Our government has become more and more perverted since people desire power to rule over others. The kicker, is that those being ruled over keep voting in those that are violating their rights like the pursuit of happiness.

                And to think, people on this site want more government to tell you what to do.

            • He drinks Red Bull and Vodka………..I think he likes staggering.

  55. Mathius,

    Thus, I take it you agree. That, in practice in the United States, given our Government as it has been from inception to date, that at no time have all men been allowed “equal” exercise of their rights?

    It is not a matter of the “United States”

    No government can exist -ever- that can allow “equal” rights.

    For a government to exist, it MUST destroy Rights.

    US government exists, therefore, it MUST destroy Rights of Americans.

    That, further, as they are all unequal, the claim that “all men are created equal [in terms of rights],” while true on the surface, is untrue in application under the United States government – that is, it is an ideal to which we’ve never adhered.

    There is no ideal to adhere to.

    The moment a man declares a need for a government, that man has declared the need for destruction of other people’s rights for that man’s own purposes.

    Any man who declares that a government exists to protect all men’s rights is lying.

    That everyone has equal “rights” is true, but not everyone is allowed equally to use those rights.

    Fair?

    Fair does not exist objectively.

    What you said is:
    True

    • ::sigh of relief::

      OK, JAC! Bring it on.. Flag agrees with me!

      • Mathius

        Bring what on?

        • Sorry.. was intending that for BL.. but you’re welcome to bring it on too, I suppose..

          • Mathius

            I thought BL clearly explained that these were the ideals on which our nation was created. As expressed in the Declaration.

            He agreed as you pointed out that we have yet to achieve the ideals our forefathers set out in that great document.

            • He agreed as you pointed out that we have yet to achieve the ideals our forefathers set out in that great document.

              Orrrr he agreed … we have yet to come close to anything remotely close to those ideals set out in that three card monty rule book.

              Yes, I’m stirring it again … relax

  56. JAC,

    Do you have any objection to my contacting you via email?

    • If you have something to say, say it here.. I don’t like the idea of you two plotting privately via email..

      • lol…sorry Mathius, I believe I recall a ruling back in ’73 – Roe v Wade if memory serves me correctly – wherein the Supreme Court found a privacy right in the Constitution.

        A right I choose to exercise at this time and keep you guessing. 🙂

        • Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Patriot Act?

          Section III, subparagraph XVI, clause (84): All correspondence where a known subversive is party shall be subject to review by Mathius without application of a warrant.

          • ROFLMAO! Come arrest me…….

            • I’ve just added your name to the FEMA “Red List”.. when the time comes, I’ll be sure to arrest you personally.*

              *By personally, I mean I’ll direct the swat team from a safe distance while they take on the rather difficult and risky task of arresting you.

    • I just thought about it.. all the regulars could create dummy gmail accounts with a standard format (ie, SUFA-Mathius@gmail) and set them all to forward back to our regular accounts – that way anyone could email anyone without the need to bother Wep

      That way, also, when the revolution comes we’ll all still be able to talk to each other 🙂

    • plainlyspoken

      Absolutely not.

      I have set up an anonymous email so here it is for anyone who wishes to use it.

      justacitizen1787@gmail.com

%d bloggers like this: