Interesting Read from Stossel

I apologize to all for my lack of posting the last week or so. I sequestered myself at a lake house with the family and ended up not having such a great connection to the internet. I am back now, but have returned to a hornet’s nest at work and it is eating up my time. I read the following article from John Stossel earlier today and thought it was interesting, so I figured I would share it since I didn’t have the time to write. I look forward to thoughts from all of you on what is certainly a different take on some of the things that are simply accepted as negatives in our society.

Almost Everything We’re Taught Is Wrong

by John Stossel at Fox News

We grow up learning that some things are just bad: child labor, ticket scalping, price gouging, kidney selling, blackmail, etc. But maybe they’re not.

What I love about economics is that it can show that what seems harmful is actually good for society. It illuminates what common sense overlooks.

This was the subject of my Fox Business show last week. It was inspired by the eye-opening book “Defending the Undefendable” by economist Walter Block.

Most people call child labor an unmitigated evil. But my guests, David Boaz of the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie of Reason.tv, said that’s wrong.

“If we say that the United States should abolish child labor in very poor countries,” Boaz said, “then what will happen to these children?

… They’re not suddenly going to go to the country day school. … They may be out selling their bodies on the street. That is not an improvement over working in a T-shirt factory.”

In fact, studies show that in at least one country where child labor was suddenly banned, prostitution increased. Good economics teaches that as poor countries get richer and freer, capital investment raises the productivity of labor and child labor diminishes. There’s no shortcut through government prohibition — unless you like starvation and child prostitution.

What about price-gouging? State laws attempt to prevent people from charging “unconscionable” prices during emergencies.

“If I’m in the neighborhood of Hurricane Katrina,” Boaz said, “what I want is water and ice and generators. … If you are in Kentucky (and) you’ve got 10 generators in your store, are you getting up at 4 a.m. to drive all day to get to Louisiana to sell these generators if you can only sell them for the same price you can sell them for in Kentucky? No, you’re going to go down because … you can sell them for more.”

Also, if prices rise during an emergency, that’s a signal for people to buy only what they most need. That leaves more for everyone else.

If the price remains low, an incentive to conserve is lost.

Ticket scalpers are seen as sleazy guys who cheat you by marking up the price of tickets. Profits go to middlemen instead of the performers.

What good could they possibly do?

“I like to think of ticket scalpers as the guy who stands in line so that I don’t have to,” Gillespie said.

Time spent in line is part of the ticket cost. Scalpers let you pay entirely in money, rather than partly in valuable time.

Most people say that selling body parts is wrong.

“It also seems wrong to have people dying because they can’t get a kidney,” Boaz said.

Some 400,000 Americans are on a waiting list now for a new kidney, and they are not allowed to pay for one.

“We sell hair. We sell sperm. We sell eggs these days.” Boaz added.

Gillespie added, “The best way to grow the supply and allow more people to live is to allow the market to price those organs.”

Maybe the most counterintuitive position argued on my show was that blackmail should not be a crime. Blackmail (unlike extortion) is the demand for money in return for withholding information. Robin Hanson, a George Mason University economist, defends blackmail.

“The thing you’re threatening when you’re threatening blackmail (is) gossip,” Hanson said. “If it should be all right to tell people, it should be all right to threaten to tell people.”

What we don’t like, however, is the blackmailer saying, “Pay me to keep quiet.”

“But the effect of that is to make people behave,” Hanson said.

“If we (allow) blackmail, people behave even more because they are even more afraid of what might happen if they don’t.”

Maybe Ponzi-schemer Bernie Madoff would have been caught earlier?

“That’s right. … Blackmail is actually a form of private law enforcement.”

Also, since gossip is free speech, blackmail is simply selling the service of not engaging in free speech. Why should that be outlawed?

I subtitled my last book, “Everything You Know Is Wrong”. I was exaggerating, of course, but many things we’re taught are fallacies. That’s why I like economics. It explodes fallacies. 

You can read the article where it originally appeared at Fox News here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/24/almost-everything-were-taught-is-wrong/#ixzz1VzvZJWN5

Advertisements

Comments

  1. … They’re not suddenly going to go to the country day school. … They may be out selling their bodies on the street. That is not an improvement over working in a T-shirt factory.”

    The balls on this guy. There’s always something worse on the horizon. Point to it and slavery makes sense (didn’t private slave owners treat their slaves well vs. those who turned enemy combatants into slaves)? Sweet Jesus, the greed knows no bounds. How do you people swallow this horseshit?

    In fact, studies show that in at least one country where child labor was suddenly banned, prostitution increased.

    What a great way to justify a knew cheaper labor force! Why not help the kids, rather than abandon them to the so-called “free market”? Because it’s none of your business … until they’re working to add profit to your portfolios, of course.

    If you are in Kentucky (and) you’ve got 10 generators in your store, are you getting up at 4 a.m. to drive all day to get to Louisiana to sell these generators if you can only sell them for the same price you can sell them for in Kentucky? No, you’re going to go down because … you can sell them for more.”

    Somehow this moron’s argument gets even better. The profit motive of greed is justified because the market is right. So what people actually need these things … there’s cash to be made.

    Also, if prices rise during an emergency, that’s a signal for people to buy only what they most need. That leaves more for everyone else.

    Unless, of course, they don’t have any money …

    “I like to think of ticket scalpers as the guy who stands in line so that I don’t have to,” Gillespie said.

    Assholes like this kill me. I used to have scalpers in my pocket back in the day. What the moron doesn’t know is even the ticket scalper is usually standing in line for a guy (like I used to be) sitting on my duff in a bar “earning” profit through some slave I put out there to take the heat. The arrogance behind Gillespie’s statement says it all. Way to go, Capitalism. Talk about sheeple …

    I don’t have time to read the rest of this horseshit, but I’ll guarantee you it can only be swallowed hook, line and sinker at places like SUFA (for those who do swallow it). No offenses intended but this is one big crock of capitalist propaganda gone wild. I usually can listen to what Stossel has to say (when he did the special on NY union teachers on suspension collecting paychecks for reading all day, that was some good investigative reporting). Touting this bullshit is another thing. Sad to see him do it.

    • You miss the point Charlie. You are so focussed on your “greed is evil” mantra that you forget the law of unintended consequences. You can keep believing greed is evil and that economics are no justifiers if you want, but you should still pay attention to reality. You cannot just fix a problem, you have to fix it in a way that does not cause more harm than good. So many emotionally motivated actions and good intentions have caused greater problems. In other cases, not only were problems caused, but the original problem with not fixed. Why? Because the intuitive, reactionary, and/or “feel good” solution is often not a solution at all. One must have reason, and logic, and rationale, and one must factor in every cause and effect of the situation you want to fix and the results of your propositions. You must be strategic, you cannot just do what “seems right”, nor criticize without thought, that which “seems wrong”.

      So a scalper had someone else do his dirty work. I bet that someone was happy to get paid, or else they wouldnt have done it. You just admitted that you dont like employment. According to that logic you think every business owner should do all their own work. Guess no one gets hired, great fix for unemployment.

      So if you are broke you should get things at normal price? How does that help? Have you seen behavior during disasters? It varies, but you generally see more charity and help towards those in need than at any other time. Sure, there are looters and jerks, altho the looters are rarely the wealthy, even the wealthy who lost everything in the disaster. Hoarding doesnt help anyone. And, you simply end up with the equivalent of scalping. The point Stossel is making, however, is that supply will be lower than it would be if there was profit to be made. You can whine all you want, but some people will not help if there is nothing in it for them. Some will, some wont. Capitalism does not create greed, greed is already a human characteristic.

      Child labor was done here too. And it was rough on those kids. Starving to death, however, would have been worse. And sure, you could point to the rich business owners and say they could have paid more, and maybe you would be right. However, not all of them were robber barons. The industrial revolution was a time of massive economic growth. It was massive population growth too, because people were flooding into this country. The only way the whole thing was successful was the speed of growth, which was a result of incredible investment, most of it at great risk. Also, it was the fastest period of growth of the middle class in our country’s history, and the gap between rich and poor, as a percentage, was not increasing. More importantly, the gap between our poor and the poor in other countries was rapidly expanding, with our poor being better off. As soon as people got a little more stabilized and looked at their situation, what did they do? They unionized. And had the government not already been in bed with the corporations, the unions would have succeeded much more quickly. It is a beautiful thing, but something that would never have happened without economic growth. And it was something that could not, and never will be, fixed by government intervention. Government is a follower of power. It has NEVER been used as a tool to control power, and it never will be, because it seeks power, it allies with it and consumes it. And one more thing, before you look at the plight of someone’s situation, make sure you dont take it away from them without knowing they wont end up somewhere worse. Dont take away someone’s rusted out car due to it appearing to be horrible and unsafe when it is the only transportation they have. Bad as something is, it could be worse. Make sure you aren’t taking what little someone has away simply because it is not up to your standards.

      • So a scalper had someone else do his dirty work. I bet that someone was happy to get paid, or else they wouldnt have done it. You just admitted that you dont like employment. According to that logic you think every business owner should do all their own work. Guess no one gets hired, great fix for unemployment.

        I had the scalper do my dirty work. Was he happy? Assuming he didn’t get pinched, I guess so, although I’d have to assume he’d rather have a job with benefits. And just think the scalper taking the risk is so some lazy hump couldn’t be bothered waiting on a line. Nice exchange.

        I want ask you to explain where I admitted I didn’t like employment (that’s in your head), but I don’t believe in being a slave to wages, that’s for sure. I have to do so while I live in this shit economic system, but that doesn’t change my disdain for it. I don’t like seeing workers do the work and capitalists reaping the profits, not an iota do I like it. If it was more balanced that’d be one thing. It isn’t remotely balanced.

        Why stop at child labor? Go all the way, make it more economically feasible for the already wealthy. Get rid of the aging, sick and problem psychotics. Whack them … the poor (what a drain on your taxes, right)? Sweet Jesus, do you ever take the time to read something other than the bullshit on this blog?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie, please name for me the system under which the workers do the work AND reap the profits (rather than the elite reaping the profits).

        • If he would rather have had a job with benefits, why didnt you give him that? Oh, right, because there is not enough profit to support the cost of that. Besides, standing in line might be the most physically hard part, but it is not the only “dirty work”. Selling them, for some, is the worst part. You have to be seen as the scalper, you have to avoid authorities if you are dealing with an event that has restrictions on scalping, you have to do the sales side of it, you have to put up the money and hope your line stander doesnt take the money and run, you have to eat the cost if you cant sell them. Hell, I would rather be the guy in line.

          You are not a slave to wages in this system unless you refuse to do anything but work for other people. I started my own company. 3 years ago. In this system in a declining economy. It was hard, very hard. But I am not a slave, I just had to do something difficult. And you know what, if my company grows and I hire others and they get fussy because I make more than them, when they didnt have to go through the trouble, pain, near starvation, etc. to get the business going, I will set them straight. If they cannot see the light, I will probably let them go. I wont have people working that dont want to be working, they tend to do a poor job. Let them go start their own if they think its not of value or worth the owner making more profit, hell I will even help them if I can.

          Do you ever take the time to read it or do you just look for crazy stuff youc an take out of context. And where do you equate child labor with euthanization?

      • with our poor being better off.

        There you go again … see first response of mine. I guess they should be happy, eh?

        It has NEVER been used as a tool to control power, and it never will be, because it seeks power, it allies with it and consumes it. And one more thing, before you look at the plight of someone’s situation, make sure you dont take it away from them without knowing they wont end up somewhere worse. Dont take away someone’s rusted out car due to it appearing to be horrible and unsafe when it is the only transportation they have. Bad as something is, it could be worse. Make sure you aren’t taking what little someone has away simply because it is not up to your standards.

        You mean like our Government that acts on behalf of big business? That isn’t control? It sure has you controlled, my friend. You obviously don’t see the irony in your statement. As for taking away someone’s situation, I guess Cubans were better off under Batista (there was a guy who believed in the “free market”–exploit my people for the coins I can stash). Honestly, it’s almost comical how you ignore facts.

        So, since child prostitution is now so okay, why aren’t we allowing it here? I know it exists here, but why not on the open market, since it will employ so many kids who might not have iPhones otherwise? Hell, this might be the great answer to our unemployment problems.

        It isn’t about feel good (and I think you know that). It’s about reality and the justification of a ruthless attitude for the sake of greed (and nothing else but greed).

        • re-read what I wrote. I DID NOT say government was not used as a tool to control. I said it was not used as a tool CONTROL POWER. Big friggin difference. It has never been effectively used to take power away from the already powerful or limit them, except through war, and even that is questionable.

          And yes, our poor should be happy to live in a place that is better than where they came from and where they have an opportunity to make it even better. And you know what? Most of them were, and most of them did. That is what unions were all about. They were able to do that because of freedom, in spite of the government trying to stop them.

          Also, NO ONE said child prostitution was ok. The point was that starving kids that arent allowed to work were turning to more nefarious means of getting money than when work was an option.

          And Batista was still a dictator, not a free market supporter. Free market involves individual rights and voluntary trade. Exploitation by a government under threat of force is not anything close to freedom. I think it is you who are amazing with your ability to ignore facts, misread statements and twist them, and change definitions so that they fit with your argument, rather than look at reality and have your argument match it.

          • Get your facts straight, Batista permitted US companies to exploit his people/his land/his country. End of story. Business were permitted to operate however they wanted to long as they paid tribute up (sort of like the mob) and wasn’t it Al Capone who said, “Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class?” Al Capone … a zion of capitalism … didn’t he put people to work too?

            • That is not the same thing, as you should know if you, indeed, listen to the pro-capitalism arguments as you say you do. Perhaps, however, we need to stop using the “capitalism” term. Technically that was a coined term of Marx, and it was intended to define a lot more than the free market, it encompassed, at least for him, the corrupted form that was happening at the time, the same thing happening now (only its worse now). It is not the free market.

              Capone filled a hole in the market left by government regulation, and he did it without any regard for human rights. He is a shining example of the evil caused by regulation and restriction. The very definition of the law of unintended consequences.

            • Charlie,

              Get your facts straight, Batista permitted US companies to exploit his people/his land/his country. End of story

              Let’s see – a dictator (government) forced his people to submit to mercantilists (government sanctioned trade) – which to you is “capitalism” – and you are wholly blind to the real problem – government force.

              • The force was used (like it is here); state sponsored capitalism. Under Batista there was no need for the propaganda against socialism until Castra pulled the rug out from under him. Explain to me why Cuba has 100% adult literary rate and national health insurance. And before you point to their poverty level, remember that’s because the state sponsored capitalism here does it’s best to cut Cuba off.

                We have a democracy that forces it’s people to submit to the same, do we not? Or are you only an anarchist against socialism?

              • And let’s not forget that America supported Batista …. nothing like a cheap labor force, eh?

              • Charlie,

                Now we are on the same page: State sponsored capitalism is as evil as any other State sponsorship of anything.

                It is not capitalism that is the issue.

                It is the State.

                Cuba suffers poverty, not because of the US, but because of their economic system – there are about 203 other nations in the world to trade with other than the US, so to blame one country as the cause of another countries poverty is strange.

                And yep, democracy is no better than dictatorships – each profess a right to use violence to enforce edicts on non-violent people. Whether one man or a mob, it is still evil.

  2. Mathius™ says:

    It’s too quiet in this place.

    Wake up, SUFA!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      too busy….not enough coffee….no red bull in sight….

      I’m thinking of installing an alarm clock, blanket and pillow under my desk a la George Costanza. How long before they notice I’m missing?

    • What did you do Mathius 😆 I allowed this to download because you posted it-then it wouldn’t go away-I had to turn off my computer to Make it Stop.

      • Mathius™ says:

        haha.. I’m sorry V.. you must have some weird setting on your computer 😦

        But still, that’s a funny outcome given what the link is.

        I am going to download this and make it my alarm clock sound – that should really piss off the missus. 🙂

        • It really was funny 🙂 You should try a crowing rooster-I’m not sure which would be a worse sound to wake up to.

    • Oh God……just listened to this……seems I have heard this tune before…..trying to place it…

  3. Child labor-people gotta eat-refusing to buy products from foreign countries who use child labor-I just don’t know-are we helping them or just taking away their ability to survive. We can’t save the world-I sure don’t want to interfere-without backing it up with some kind of plan to actually help. So what is right? 😦

    price-gouging-it depends on the circumstance(I’ve seen it defined as price gouging when I didn’t believe it qualified-but to just raise the prices past additional expense in a disaster makes you a bad person in my book. But in reality-these are the times that charity should step up-and they do, as far as I’ve seen-when the government doesn’t stop them. I read an awful lot of stories about Katrina-that there were volunteers there in the very beginning bringing supplies and the government wouldn’t let them go in. And I remember reading that they literally stopped people from crossing over into the next State to get out of New Orleans-I was horrified when I read that-we are still one country-why would they do such a thing.

    Ticket Scalpers-I really don’t care-I think the seller of these tickets(for their own good) should try to stop obvious mass buying by individuals-but other than that if you want to pay more to get a ticket-go right ahead.

    Blackmail-is a good thing-I think these arguments are total BS.

    • Missed selling body parts for money-the mere idea is repugnant.

      I think I could use one of those raptors for protection- BF expected any time now 🙂

      • V.H.

        Why do you believe this?

        Do you believe giving blood is repugnant?

        Do you believe compensating someone for their blood and their time is repugnant?

        • I have a friend who survived for 2 months on selling his plasma when he was in hard times. Dont take away the choice of a person, it might be the best choice they have.

          • Somehow I don’t think of blood the same way I think of an organ-one seems plentiful-the other seems limited.Am wrestling with the contradictions-but my heart just keeps saying it is wrong. And I don’t dismiss my heart but I also don’t dismiss my brain. 🙂

            • V.H.

              The core: does a person have the right to determine their own body?

              So your argument here is:
              If there is plenty of the stuff, a person is free to dispose of it as they see fit.
              If there is little of the stuff, a person is not free to dispose of it as they see fit.

              Thus, freedom is based solely on quantity of a good – the more of such a good, the more its disposal is freedom of choice.

              But when freedom really needs to count – that is, during scarcity – you throw freedom out the window

              • The Core: No, not in every instance-that is the most honest answer I can give. No -someone offering to buy your heart, which will kill you, when you are desperate-is pure evil. We are never going to completely agree BF-I use values other than freedom as a compass-I get your argument-but NO-hell NO.

              • Mathius™ says:

                V.,

                Obviously, I’m using an extreme situation where I’m purchasing Flag’s heart to use as a spare.

                But what if my heart is failing. What if I have a wife and family? What if Flag needs the money to feed his starving family.

                Why shouldn’t he be able to lay down his life to provide for his family, while I get something that saves my life and ensures that my four young children do not grow up fatherless?

                Is that evil?

                I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it that way.

                ….

                But once you open up the doors a little bit, you’re kindof obligated to throw them open all the way. While I appreciate what your moral compass says, it’s not for you to decide what is or is not important to a person or what the value of their possessions is, nor how they may dispose of them. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? *

                If you deny a man the right to his own body, what rights does he really have?

                *Matthew 20:15

              • Nope-you are not going to throw one line out of the whole Bible at me-to dispute my claim. I do not do that to support my claims-and your doing so-is a mite hypocritical on your part(I don’t mean that as harsh as it sounds but it is a point that needed to be made)
                .
                I don’t need religion to tell me this is wrong-I don’t think I even have the words to explain why it is wrong-but it is pure evil. You describe what to me is an uncivilized, I am all that is important, the country may as well fail because it won’t be fit to live in rational for pure evil.

              • Mathius™ says:

                V.,

                I always liked that quote – long before I ever knew it came from the bible (let alone from the book after which I’m named). The fact that it’s in there is just a plus. 🙂 (ironically, it was inscribed on the law building at my college.. go figure)

                I wasn’t saying your opposition is based on religion, though I can see how you’d see that in my use of that quote, so I apologize.

                But the rest of my point stands. Can you tell me what is evil in BF’s scenario where he is dying of brain cancer anyway and wants to sell his organs in order to provide for his family? I’m just having trouble seeing your view when the only way you’re able to put it is that it’s your feeling – that’s not to belittle it, I get the knee-jerk reaction, but I’m just trying to see what’s behind it. Can you help me?

                What, exactly, is evil and uncivilized?

              • I’ll try-We are all part of humanity-all our actions effect each other-if not through a personal connection than through our laws, customs, value’s, just everything. What we do effects all these things. It is what forms our societal norms, influences our children. All these things interconnect to decide what kind of society we are going to live in. Taking advantage of one who is desperate, by claiming you have the right to make a bargain which denies him his very life-what does that tell society-what idea is that promoting?

                BF example was nothing more than trying to paint an ugliness with something a little less offensive-I was going to die anyway-so now it is okay-even if he isn’t dying. What was his argument about abortion-you want to talk about rape and such before you settle the meat of the issue.

          • College kids sell their plasma regularly.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I gave blood yesterday. It took a lot of time in the middle of my day. I was not compensated. I would give more often if I was paid, even if it was just a few bucks.

        I should be able to sell a kidney if I wanted.

        Hell, if I wanted, should be able to sell my heart, both lungs, my liver, my kidneys, and my retinas.

        I fear this is something else Flag and I are going to agree on.

        • Mathius,

          Do not fear the truth.

        • Question-you agree with the selling-how do you feel about the buying? Should anyone be able to buy your parts or should they be used based on need? It is one thing to sell your kidney-it is another to decide who gets to benefit from this limited supply.

          • V.H.

            Agree to selling .. what about buying????

            There is no “selling” without “buying”! To complain about one side is to complain about the other side. To defend one side defends the other.

            • I’m thinking about your posts BF-and trying to logically consider the points you are making-I see the contradictions in some of my statements-but the idea is still repugnant to me.

              But I asked the question-because it seems to go against the whole idea of nationalized health care-which Matt supports. And one could sell their parts to a government agency-get paid-and the organs could still be given out to people based on need

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’m not sure where you got this idea that I support nationalized health care. I have said, many times and many ways, that I’m undecided. I simply do not know enough to make an informed decision.

                But, regardless, I don’t think there’s anything in the health car law about selling organs to the government – but I could be wrong.

              • I apologize-I could have sworn you supported nationalized health care. 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                No worries. Just undecided.

                I guess it all depends on implementation and efficacy..

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It seems you have confused Mathius with me. Or Charlie. Either way, please try not to confuse Mathius for me. I’m a bit insulted. 🙂

    • V.H.

      Child labor-people gotta eat-refusing to buy products from foreign countries who use child labor-I just don’t know-are we helping them or just taking away their ability to survive.

      You suffer a bit of Charlie’s syndrome – and it is a common issue.

      A lot of people do not understand the concept of trade offs.

      To have this, you cannot have that. If you want that, you cannot have this.

      You want that and this – and thus, get all twisted out of shape when you can’t (or worse, by your wanting both, you get neither.

      There is nothing stopping you or Charlie from selling your house, car, etc. and helping these “kids”.

      But no shock to me, because your moral compass has been bent by rote authority, you don’t. You sit back in your comfy little house, moaning that some other business man should do what you would not do.

      • Don’t really disagree with your points here-don’t think my post disagreed with your points-just reflected my regret-that this stuff can’t be fixed without overall economic improvement.

  4. Charlie,

    … They’re not suddenly going to go to the country day school. … They may be out selling their bodies on the street. That is not an improvement over working in a T-shirt factory.”

    The balls on this guy. There’s always something worse on the horizon.

    … and something better.

    The problem is, you think you know what is worse and better for other people, and thus, you believe you can decide for other people

    But you are as ignorant of the future as Stossel is – thus, Stossel says “Heck, I don’t know, so I will leave you up to you

    How do you people swallow this horseshit?

    That the problem: you present horseshit.

    You believe you know better.
    You believe if you shoot enough people, they will do what you think is best for them

    Your error is not your compassion – that is admirable.

    Your error is you think you know better for someone else than the person knows for himself. That is conceit.
    Because you think you know better, you believe that justifies you forcing others to your thinking. You compound your error into evil

    Why not help the kids

    They are helping the kids by giving them jobs.

    What do you want? Give them “free” money?

    Somehow this moron’s argument gets even better. The profit motive of greed is justified because the market is right.

    It is called motivation and profit is a powerful motivator.

    You destroy it, thus, shortages proliferate.

    So what people actually need these things … there’s cash to be made.

    Because you do not understand economics, you cannot understand human action, you cannot understand your own thinking.

    Also, if prices rise during an emergency, that’s a signal for people to buy only what they most need. That leaves more for everyone else.

    Unless, of course, they don’t have any money …

    What is money, Charlie?

    • Charlie,

      As I said before, you are nuts.

      You condemn capitalists when they refuse to provide jobs.
      You condemn capitalists when they provide jobs.

      No matter what they do, you condemn them.

      You are nuts.

    • Charlie,

      Why not help the kids

      Yes, Charlie, why are YOU not helping these kids?

      There you are, living in America, doing shit all for those kids except moaning that other people should be doing what you will not do

      Socialist dogma demands hypocrisy.

      • Charlie is doing exactly as you say..shun. There is a difference if its forced child labor vs voluntary child labor.

        • Anita,

          If that is what Charlie wishes to only do – that is, shun those that he does not agree with – that is a perfectly valid choice.

          I do not believe that is all Charlie is suggesting that someone should do…..

  5. V.H.

    price-gouging-it depends on the circumstance(I’ve seen it defined as price gouging when I didn’t believe it qualified

    Pray tell – please explain your economic theory that allows you to determine “this price increase” is “gouging” and “that price increase” is not.

    -but to just raise the prices past additional expense in a disaster makes you a bad person in my book

    Why?

    Supply and demand is not a moral judgement.

    But in reality-these are the times that charity should step up-and they do

    They do.

    But if -on the subjective argument of charity- destroy economics, you get no charity and massive shortages. During a crisis, that means death.

    why would they do such a thing.

    Government hates competition.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      As we know, many people have been distorted to the point where they believe that raising prices due to increased demand is immoral, especially if the increased demand is due to a “disaster”. However, as you point out, supply and demand is not a moral judgement.

      If a company wishes to donate bottled water, generators, food, or anything else in the aftermath of a disaster, they may well see an increase in future business, because people will REMEMBER that the company donated things in the aftermath of the disaster, and will view the company favorably. Many companies do this.

      Many companies choose the route of raising prices due to increasing demand in the aftermath of a disaster. This may come back to bite them in the ass later, because people may remember them unfavorably for doing so.

      The fact is, we have been trained to see the company that donates things in the aftermath of a disaster as “good” and we have been trained to see the company who raises prices in the aftermath of a disaster as “bad”.

      Supply and demand is not a moral judgement, but we have been trained to MAKE MORAL JUDGEMENTS based on the behavior of companies when demand is increased due to “disastrous circumstances”. As consumers, we are free to make such judgements if we so choose, even though such judgements are not based upon strict economic grounds. Because the reality is that many of us have been trained to make such judgements, such judgements directly effect economics, because these judgements affect the way consumers behave.

      So the end result is that 2 years after a major hurricane, some guy decides that he wants a generator. Is he more likely to buy the generator from company A who donated generators immediately after the hurricane, or from company B who raised prices on generators after the hurricane? You might be surprised at the number of consumers who would base their decision on this particular type of moral judgement.

  6. Man wants liberty to become the man he wants to become.

    He does so precisely because he does not know what man he will want to become in time.

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    It takes a strong man to want liberty, because with liberty comes risk and responsibility. The sheep does not want liberty and the chance for excellence with the risk of failure. The sheep wants the assurance of security and elimination of risk, even though it may ensure mediocrity.

    Security in mediocrity is the surest way to lose the self.

  8. Child Labor – I do not like it simply because it is taking advantage because it is children…..having said that,if you are buying products from China, India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and others are you not supporting child labor. But what I despise more is seeing children eat out of garbage cans, prostitution beginning at the age of 11 (both boys and girls), stealing what is not nailed down just to by something to eat……so, let me inform Charlie…..that children eating out of garbage cans I have seen in China, India, Sri Lanka, Bosnia, Italy, Portugal, Thailand, post United States Vietnam, post cold war Russia, Turkey, Greece, Mexico (our neighbor), Colombia, Peru and others. How many of these are capitalist countries, Charlie? All allow children in the work force…..some do not. If your socialist agenda takes care of people….where is it…I have not seen it. But,,,,,allowing child labor does not diminish the child prostitution. All of those countries that I mentioned….also had child prostitution. What I find more disgusting than the children selling sex…..are the men and women that buy it. And, Charlie, the majority are pure socialist countries. Go visit them and do not walk the main street or go to the touristy areas….Walk two blocks off main street and see the card board shelters, the wooden boxes, the sewers in the streets….etc. Go to Beijing and walk two blocks off the square, if you can. We were blocked from it the last time I was there. Go to Mexico and watch the children beg and the selling of 7 year old girls…..go most anywhere and open your eyes. It is a nasty world out there…….and the majority are socialist in nature…..and in those countries……..the black market thrives,

    Scalpers – pretty simple…………………do not buy. That is called choice. Who the hell cares if someone stands in line to buy tickets and then doubles the prices? It is the people that are stupid enough to buy that creates scalpers. Dont buy,,,,,,,they go away. There is no ball game or concert worth the regular prices now, much less scalper prices. As much as you hate it…..the market creates it. And the market is you and I, metaphorically speaking.

    BF and I may differ on this somewhat because I am divided on the issue. Price gouging…….. I have come to the conclusion that it is a moral judgement. Nothing more….nothing less. I personally would not engage in it……but that is me.

    Selling body parts….they are mine to sell. I have no problem with it. I have no moral obligation to give anything away….the choice is mine. I am a donor and that is my choice, If I have something that works and I am dead…..ok. Giving blood is also a moral issue….want to sell it great….want to give it…great. My choice.

    As far as blackmail…..one answer…..I pity the one that tries it with me. I do not call the authorities,,,,I handle it,

    BY the way…….I do have raptors for rent.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Selling body parts….they are mine to sell. I have no problem with it. I have no moral obligation to give anything away….the choice is mine. I am a donor and that is my choice, If I have something that works and I am dead…..ok. Giving blood is also a moral issue….want to sell it great….want to give it…great. My choice.

      D13,

      I would like to purchase your liver. I don’t hold out much hope that it’s in pristine condition, but I think having 1.5 livers is better than having just the one. Please hire a child laborer to deliver it to me on ice.

      I am willing to pay in Mathius Points.

      • I think that my liver is just fine,,,,,I do not drink nor smoke nor do drugs…..never have done drugs or smoking….as to drinking….well, college does not count…..Buck said so and he is an evil lawyer….so I know that makes it ok…HOwever, I have imbibed on DRPepper quite a bit….perhaps real sugar is not too bad…..better than that corn syrup shit……I am a little sparse on the hair covering, however…..but it is a certified solar panel for a sex machine….(this according to the EPA because they are soon to regulate that in Charlie’s world).

        However, there is one little fly in the buttermilk (dont drink that nasty crap either)… I do not wish to sell my liver…..sorry. And we do not live in Charlies world just yet where they take it from me without asking. I luv ya man……BUT…you are on your own in this one.

        Besides, if you were to get my liver, you might suddenly want to move to Texas, vote conservative, and drink DR Pepper.

  9. V.H.

    but the idea is still repugnant to me.

    And that is ok! – and of course, you have the right to express that and make your own choices about that.

    But I asked the question-because it seems to go against the whole idea of nationalized health care-which Matt supports. And one could sell their parts to a government agency-get paid-and the organs could still be given out to people based on need

    I do not agree with that.

    Government has no economic sense. It does not know what price or what value anything has. It is immune to market error and market success.

    Thus, it is dangerous to such an entity to do such things.

    • I didn’t claim they would do a good job-but when has that stopped them. 🙂

      As far as the point-I see my contradiction of being against nationalized health care and also liking the idea of the health industry deciding who gets an organ as a contradiction. So I see people who want nationalized health care but demand that people have a right to control their bodies when it comes to buying and selling body parts as an equal contradiction on the other side.

      • Mathius™ says:

        With regards to this topic, I am of the opinion that any person should be free and able to buy or sell their own organs on the open market (with, perhaps, some controls to avoid organ harvesting of involuntary donors).

        Further, I think that (with the exception of antibiotics and antivirals) we should all be free to take or use whatever drugs we wish – though I do still think there’s a place for the FDA to vet them. That is, if a drug causes cancer but cures blindness, you should be free to decide if that’s a risk you are willing to accept.

        By the same token, I think you should be free to partake in any surgical/medical operation you wish to engage in up to and including assisted suicide and/or reanimating the soon-to-be-frozen head of Steve Jobs. There should be constraints about disclosure of the truth with regards to known and/or possible risks, but they are your risks to take.

        So if, while taking peyote, I get the idea to purchase Black Flag’s heart, I should be able to make him an offer. And if he is willing to give up his heart in order to provide for his family, he should be able to do so. And if I am able to convince a doctor to surgically implant a second heart into my chest, I should be able to get that operation. I may require the extra blood-flow to support the half-liver I am purchasing from D13.

        My body, my choices. Period.

        Where BF and I will disagree is in the roll of government with regards to all this. He will say the free market can/will take care of everything and arrive at the best outcome. I say government should have a roll of compelling full disclosure and ensuring that all actions take place between freely consenting adults and/or punishing violators. But beyond that, I think the government has no business in it.

        • Does that last line mean you have decided against nationalized healthcare-or am I misreading your meaning? Or do you think one has nothing to do with the other.

          On the rest-my head just exploded-and I am incapable of comment at the moment.

          • Mathius™ says:

            No. It does not mean that.

            The nationalized health care law, as I understand it, is a system of exchanges standardizing and regulating private insurance companies in terms of what and how they offer them, ban denials due to pre-existing conditions, insurance premium subsidies, expansion of medicare, and make preventative care more affordable, etc etc. I’m not sure how I feel about any of that.

            I’m talking about laws that control what we can do with our bodies with our own money (or with month which our private insurance companies are willing to shell out). I’m talking about laws that say you can’t do X, even though it doesn’t hurt anyone else and you are a free and consenting adult with full understanding of the risks involved.

            I can jump from an airplane, but I can’t take muscle relaxers without a doctor’s permission? What kind of BS is that?
            People can go to a surgeon and have him literally suck the fat out of their bodies, but they can’t take speed?
            People who are stressed out can take powerful and dangerous anti-anxiety drugs, but they can’t smoke pot?
            Steve Jobs can have his head frozen, but it’s against the law to thaw it off and attach it to my shoulder like Zaphod_Beeblebrox.

            Bah.

            Sorry about making your head explode 😦

        • Oh WOW……BF’s heart and my liver…….damn…….let’s see….you will have an incredible urge to write 3,000 word epistles, drink Dr Pepper, vote conservative OR none at all, move to Texas, and be an anarchist all rolled into one.

          Shall I saddle the raptor? Have a good one picked out for you.

  10. 😐

  11. Mathius,

    Where BF and I will disagree is in the roll of government with regards to all this. He will say the free market can/will take care of everything and arrive at the best outcome. I say government should have a roll of compelling full disclosure and ensuring that all actions take place between freely consenting adults and/or punishing violators

    I believe that a party that has no interest in the outcomes of economic transactions is a terrible choice to maintain the quality of such transactions.

    I believe the parties whose wish to protect their interests can find those honest-brokers on their own, without resorting to violence.

    I believe those that destroy their own reputations by failing to abide by consensual agreements will suffer the shun of the marketplace, to their disaster.

  12. V.H.

    No -someone offering to buy your heart, which will kill you, when you are desperate-is pure evil.

    W

    Please explain why you even have a right to judge this?

    How do you know my thoughts and desires?

    How do you believe you have a right to judge those thoughts and desires?

    Why should I not do this, if it enriches my family – for example, I am about to die from brain cancer. Why can’t I sell my perfect heart?

    The point: I do not have to explain that to you at all! You are not in my family; you are not a party to the consequences; what right do you have to interject?

    • BF-this idea that what people do -doesn’t affect others -when we live in a society as closely knit as this one-just isn’t true. Maybe in your free world-it wouldn’t matter but in this one it does.

      • VH….Have I missed something….I better go back a re-read your posts…..why are you concerned if I decide to sell Mathius my liver?…..(See my serious face?) I really would like to know…..is it a moral issue with you?

      • V.H.

        Please explain why me in my house doing my thing “matters” to you in your house doing your thing.

        If what I do does nothing to you, why do you care?

        It is this that all my life I have never understood about some people – they interfere in the lives of others of who have absolutely nothing to do with them or impact them.

  13. V.H.

    I scratch my head like Mathius.

    People are aghast at someone buying/selling their bodies….
    …yet…
    Have no problem championing bombing and slaughtering entire cities of innocent people.

  14. V.H.

    BF example was nothing more than trying to paint an ugliness with something a little less offensive-I was going to die anyway-so now it is okay-even if he isn’t dying. What was his argument about abortion-you want to talk about rape and such before you settle the meat of the issue

    No!

    My argument
    that you don’t have a clue whatsoever to my reasons for doing anything

    You made a judgement out of ignorance – you assumed something out of a seed created in your own mind. You justify your actions of interference based on ignorance.

    Most importantly – You have NO ABILITY to relieve yourself of this ignorance
    – who are you to judge my reasons for my actions on myself?????

    You have what is called a PRETENSE of KNOWLEDGE – that is, you PRETEND THAT YOU KNOW something that in fact you do not nor cannot know.

    And because you are pretending, you then pretend you are justified in interfering.

    But V.H., you are pretending you have knowledge that is humanly impossible to know – that is, know MORE about ME than I know about myself!

    It is that is called conceit.

    You can sense that everything is wrong about such a position you hold pretending you have knowledge of what you cannot possible have (in essence, lying to yourself), unresolvable ignorance, conceit, all justifying proclamation of judgement upon other person!

    What is astonishing to me is that most people feel this way, like you. Even with all this wrongness created by pretense, they think they are still right in interfering with other people!

    • I am not sensing any such thing-I simply hesitate to pass laws that limit freedom-but I will do so-when the “freedom” desired is simply reprehensible. Matt wants to buy your heart so he can survive-which equates to your death-is murder -justified by freedom. How about you decide your life is worth more than his and just get rid of him and take his money-makes the same amount of sense to me.

      • Mat has already purchased a liver a heart and a soul. He’s building a pet human.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Doesn’t to me..

        In one he makes the choice to give up his own life in exchange for something he decides is worth it.
        In the other he makes the choice to take mine without my consent and steal my money.

        I simply hesitate to pass laws that limit freedom-but I will do so-when the “freedom” desired is simply reprehensible. But who are you to decide what is so reprehensible that I am not allowed to do it, even if it does not impact you? This is akin the arguments in favor of sodomy laws that make it illegal for homosexuals to have sex. Someone, not involved, decided that it was so reprehensible that, even though it didn’t impact them directly, a law should be passed to make it a crime for two grown up and consenting adults to have sex.

        • Really-he decided-do you really think that physical force is the only kind of force. Desperation is a pretty forceful, powerful weapon to use to save your own butt while effectively killing someone else.

          Sodomy laws are ridiculous. There is no denying that there are laws that are wrong-but this- your taking away freedom on one issue-but to do so is fine in another is confusing. I readily admit-I will limit freedoms in some cases if I believe it is better for society-either economically or to further a civilized society. Should morality simply be excluded from society if the damage caused isn’t economical? What is your stand?

          BF said along time ago-if you take this stance than forget about arguing freedom-he was right-I argue freedom as a high value but not the only value and so do YOU. And if you open that door-than bad law is a possibility.

          • V.H.

            I argue freedom as a high value but not the only value

            It is not the “only” value.

            It is only the most important one.

            Once you justify taking it away from someone, you have justified everyone else to take it away from you

            • Yes-that is the problem-but as far as I can see-we have a government and it is going to remain a problem.

        • V.H.

          I simply hesitate to pass laws that limit freedom-but I will do so-when the “freedom” desired is simply reprehensible. But who are you to decide what is so reprehensible

          Mathius nailed it.

          So you are “ok” if someone believes Christian beliefs are “reprehensible” so they are ok and right to make laws against it?

          So you are “ok ” if someone believes women should be fully covered in cloth and its reprehensible for the to dress in public otherwise, so they can make laws to force that and you’d go “thumbs up!”???

          Why do you think that what you think is enough to justify violence to enforce what you think on other people?

      • V.H.

        Matt wants to buy your heart so he can survive-which equates to your death-is murder

        He is not killing me to take my heart!!!!

        IF I said “No” to his deal, and then he progressed with his side of it anyway … yep, murder.

        But if I decide “Yes” to his deal, what is it to you?

        • V.H.

          If I think Mathius is the 2nd coming of Christ, but for whatever reason God wanted to test my faith in Mathius … so he gave Mathius a faulty heart and my faith said “Save the 2nd Christ!”….

          …would not my faith be enough to say “Take my heart! For you will do great good for all mankind at the mere cost of faithful me who will sit in heaven next to You!”

          Why is that not enough for you?

          • Your other two questions-

            Everything just isn’t okay-it just isn’t -not even under the banner of freedom. No, not even the freedom of religion.

            • But don’t worry so much BF-I speak my mind on here but I will be standing with the libertarian group when it comes to policy-whether I agree 100% or not-this country has to change-it has to move back towards freedom-not against it. How far I will go with them-I don’t know-but I suspect I’ll be dead before we reach a point where I will feel I can’t back them.

              But no matter the truth of your words-we need a Civilized, Free Society -both are essential and the mind set of many in this country right now-is scary!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              V.H.

              Of course there are things that are decidedly NOT OK, even under the banner of freedom! Perhaps ESPECIALLY under the banner of freedom!

              Anything that I do that creates an imposition on someone else is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY to freedom!

              What it is vital to discern is what action of mine GENUINELY creates an imposition on you and what action of mine does not GENUINELY create an imposition upon you?

              If BF sells his heart (which would kill him), does that GENUINELY create an imposition upon you? You may find it repugnant and reprehensible, you may be saddened because you have come to know BF and respect and perhaps even like him, and you make think that his actions are completely crazy. All of those feelings would be valid; however, does the action of BF selling his heart IMPINGE ON YOUR FREEDOM IN ANY WAY???

        • It’s close enough.

  15. Buck the Wala says:

    Hey Charlie,

    Not sure if you came across this yet, but your buddy (Sanders) is introducing a bill to shore up Social Security — subject incomes in excess of $250K to the payroll tax. Incomes in between the current $106K and $250K would be exempt from the tax. A similar bill is being introduced by some rep in the House as well. Unfortunately it will never pass… Anyway, thought you’d like that.

    And to everyone else on SUFA (liberals excluded), why again can’t you support something like this? Time to duck back behind my desk…

    • And to everyone else on SUFA (liberals excluded), why again can’t you support something like this? Time to duck back behind my desk…

      Now hold on a sec…..I’ve got no problem with modifying/fixing/restructuring the tax code. 🙂

      But explain something to me…..if it’s right to tax those over 250K, why exempt those between 106-250K?

    • Buck,
      …payroll tax…

      So put on your little thinking cap.

      If you put an extra tax on those who earn “greater than X” … do you believe people will want to earn greater than “X”??

      So you have – in effect – demotivated wealth creation and prosperity … believing your conceit will increase prosperity and wealth creation.

      Again, my definition of “wrong” is proclaiming your action will accomplish “this”, but actually accomplishes the opposite.

      Congrats! You get the “Wrong, again” trophy!

      • I do not understand, BF…..don’t they (libs) know that we are not stupid? I guess not…..Go ahead and Raise the friggin tax Buck… I will simply make sure that my income falls in the threshold of no tax….we all will…and being the field of law you are…..you also know that there are a variety of ways to get money out without salaries or incomes. You want to kill the small guy…..raise the taxes. Mission accomplished. You want to go after the bigger fish…..go ahead….run them overseas. I do not get it. I guess I really am a dumb old Colonel. Want to kill asset investment? Raise the capital gains tax and reinstall the AMT….. Want us to hold on to our cash? Keep going the way it is going. Geez.

        Now, on the lighter side….ya’ll be careful up there. Ya got a pretty strong Texas Thunderstorm headed your way. (We are used to 60-110 mph winds in the spring time here) but it is forecast to be cat 1 by the time it gets there…but it is still formidable. So take care…and do not be stupid. Please, do not stand outside and look at the sky….

        • D13,

          Having dealt with such things close up, I’ve come to understand that the “Libs” do not understand human action nor economics at all – they are completely oblivious to it.

          Their entire economic theory is “capitalists are greedy and will take a dollar anyway they can” … so their “little” machinations do not interfere with this theory. Raise the bar – capitalists will leap over it to grab that dollar profit, no matter how high that bar is raised.

          On top of this, they have a world view based on their perverted morals – that they are willing to drive society into poverty as long as it drives society to a social “goodness” … all definitions of “good” of course coming from their own point of view.

          Combine those two: they believe capitalists will continue to capitalize, and if they don’t, well, who cares…. the social “good” is worth the poverty anyway.

          A typical and irrational “heads I win tails you lose” theory.

          • I suppose BF…….I just do not understand it. I understand their theoretical belief…..but do not understand why they think simply raising taxes will solve all problems….why do they think we will not respond and simply change our ways? And the rub of it is……they do exactly the same thing they rail against…….

            • D13,

              Sir, because they think capitalists are “simpletons” — that the dollar fills the capitalist heart, soul, eyes, brain and nothing else.

              So they do think us to be “stoooopid” … that there is no “human” behind the decisions; it is cold, calculating profit.

              The irony: they are right – it is calculating profit.
              Where they error is that it is NOT cold, and it is HUMAN!

              They rest in economic theories equivalent to believing in a pantheon of Gods that rule Mother Nature – whimsical, irrational, emotional, therefore their irrational, whimsical and emotional response to these “Gods” is completely correct.

              They know nothing of science -worse, they actually resist it – and when it is shown to be truth, they run from it – and kill those who profess such science. “The God’s are angry, and demand human blood as sacrifice!” is about the highest order of economic thinking they can muster.

              Do get me wrong.
              Socialists are NOT stupid.

              They are smart enough to know that we laugh at them and their crackpot theories – so they are smart enough to know how to paint their theories in an illusion of expertise.

              They know their understanding is utterly ridiculous – but they also know that to admit that means their goals are equally ridiculous. For their own reasons, they hold these goals as absolute – no matter how ridiculous.

              To overcome this paradox, they engage in illusion – they present their ridiculous ideas as if they were scientifically derived – which is more then enough to fool most people.

              I point to Mathius and his book — which based a theory of societal development on the decisions and choices of children. The face value – with all its facade of scientific lingo and processes – hid a horrific fallacy … that we can learn how adults make decisions by watching children make decisions.

              But I ask you, how many in a thousand readers will have caught this bizarre reasoning? One? … (or -shudder- none?)

              So there goes another “Progressive” theory in the making – now a reference to “prove” this particular authoritative action is “correct” because … well… society makes it decisions like children! based on the “studies” presented by this book.

              My point: the “Left”, “Progressives”, “Socialists” — whatever label — wear the same cloth. They are smart. They know their ideas regarding society hold no economic merit.

              But what the rest of us consistently fail to understand about these guys:
              They do not care about the economics.
              They do not care that they will toss society and civilization into desperate poverty
              They do not care that millions will die because of their failure to understand economics

              All they care is that their world view about what society should do or be is greater than all the live of the human race – and they are willing to pay that cost.

              The rest of us must resist them with everything we have because if we lose … its over.

          • I’m convinced they have never owned a business with employees. With their line of thinking they would have to pay the employees more than they pay themselves. 😯

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Colonel, BF, do you know a single person who would say: “You know what, I may be making 500K a year, but if this proposed payroll tax increase goes through, I’m going to go to my boss and tell him to reduce my salary to 249,999?”

          I see your argument about avoiding taxes – hell, I’m in that business myself. I get your point that some people would restructure their ‘income’ to be under the threshold. But the vast majority? No way.

          And Colonel, got any advice as to how this city slicker can keep from being blown away by Texas-forced winds this weekend? Now…where is that coffee pot hiding???

          • Buck,

            Colonel, BF, do you know a single person who would say: “You know what, I may be making 500K a year, but if this proposed payroll tax increase goes through, I’m going to go to my boss and tell him to reduce my salary to 249,999?”

            YES

            Buck, I know an entire island’s industry up and left the country overnight because of an introduction of a 1% tax.
            They were making hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, and the government decided to impose a 1% tax on this profit.

            The industry said “You do that, we are gone”.
            The government said “You will give up hundreds of millions of dollars of profit? Take millions in losses to move? Nah, you’re bluffing”.

            The day came, the tax went in, and the next day 98% of the offshore business ended for that island.

            (Aside: The utter perversity of the situation continued…. after massive layoffs, the domino effect of the massive loss of investments, huge unemployment .. the government went on national TV saying “See this is why we needed the tax, to take care of all these people who have lost their jobs!” …. but did not say …due to our tax!)

            • Buck

              But the vast majority? No way

              The failure of your logic.

              1) The “vast” majority of people are not subject to your tax idea – you are focusing it on a very very small minority.
              2) Anyone who earns $250,000 is more than astute enough to have accountants working overtime to save it from the envious hands of government.
              3) The success of this tax will be utterly negative for your goals – you will get less money, more resistance, and – as it is the basis of your idea to solve a problem of government, will actually make it worse.

              In other words, Buck, it is a great example of the utterly wrong method of problem solving – getting exactly opposite of what your goal was intended.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Sorry BF, but I simply disagree with you on this — the vast majority of those making over $250K will not reduce their salary/income to be below the threshold.

                How about this — let’s all push our congressmen to support Sanders’ proposal, get it enacted, and then you can prove me wrong when the data comes in.

                And your example above of the effect of a 1% tax on offshore business represents a very different scenario than that posed here.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I have a better suggestion Buck:

                How about this — lets all support any proposal which would recognize that taxation is theft, and the government should simply BILL us for the services it provides, including FULL ITEMIZATION of what every tax dollar paid by every individual is going for?

              • Buck

                Sorry BF, but I simply disagree with you on this — the vast majority of those making over $250K will not reduce their salary/income to be below the threshold.

                Yep, that is exactly what the PM of the country said to me at a dinner party prior to the tax.

                And you – like him – are perfectly safe in making such a claim because you hold no risk at all with your proclamation

                If you are wrong, it doesn’t change a thing for you – you shrug – and the next time we dialogue this event again, when the government does it again, you will proclaim exactly the same as you do now, and will continue to be as wrong as you have been in the past.

                In other words, you will not learn a thing.

    • BUck Buck Buck……..sigh……….I will answer your question if you answer mine. Why do you not define fair as equal?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Buck,

      The government has NEVER set aside the FICA tax to fund social security. THEY SPEND IT ALL AND MORE as soon as they get it.

      Why should any of us be convinced that they will not merely do the same with any new revenue they bring in???

      Further, why is it the government’s business to fund my, your, or anyone else’s retirement?

      Further still, if you believe that SHOULD be the business of government, why do they provide such a paltry amount?

    • Cannot support it because:
      1) There is already enough money available to support the current stated goals of government, including SS. It is being misuesed and overspent and mismanaged, etc. Giving them more will not force them to fix those issues, only forcing them to work with what they have will do that.
      2) Punishing wealthier people for their success is a massive blow to the psychology of our society.
      3) Rewarding lack of planning by continuing SS the way it is and giving people an alternative to saving and investing will simply further ingrain the mindset that we do not need to save, and that government will take care of you in the future so just live for the moment.
      4) A great number of the people making above 250k are employers, certainly more than among those making less, thus they should not have their resources sapped because in the long run it hurts the working class.
      5) The numbers picked for who is well off and who is not are arbitrary, and can be nothing but arbitrary because it is a subjective measure and therefore not a rational basis for policy
      6) As has been mentioned, a lot of people making more will either leave or find ways to bring down their taxable income, thus reducing the projected revenue gains.
      7) It de-incentivises people from making more. Sure, someone will not avoid making 500k because of a tax bracket starting at 250k, but what about 260k? 275? People dont jump from 250 to 500 very often, and tax brackets like this often create a reduced income for someone making 5 or 10 above the bracket start versus someone who makes just under it.
      8) It is still an income tax, thus it is hitting the middle class. The so-called rich are simply being helped by this since there will be reduced competition for the “good” investments.
      9) It destroys wealth creation.
      10) It is based on class warfare.
      11) It is theft, and it is being taken by force from the productive and given to the undeserving.
      12) What did the baby boomer generation ever do for me anyway, why should I have to pay for their retirement?

  16. My problem with raisung ANY taxes. I don’t care HOW much they make.

    If you think the U.S. Government will pay down the National debt with ANY tax increase, well then you are dumber than a bag of hammers. All that will do is give our beloved leaders even more to spend.

    SO WHY DO IT?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Esom, I’m not talking about raising taxes to pay down the debt. I am talking about an option being put on the table to shore up social security. Has absolutely nothing to do with paying down the debt. You want put forth a disagreement with the social security system in general, or with this specific proposal as a means of strengthening the system, be my guest. But this particular proposed tax isn’t meant to pay down the debt and no one is arguing that it will.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Which lock box will it go into this time? hah! They will just spend it and leave more worthless iou’s. Esom is dead on about the government spending it.

  17. @VH…..

    I found the conversations interesting here today regarding BF and his right, or not, to sell his organs. But I will go backward and start from a different place. My question for you, VH….

    Do you believe that I have the right to assisted suicide? If not, do you believe that I have the right to commit suicide in the first place? I say up front that I would do so in a way that would harm no other person.

    • Sorry USW, I am out the door and don’t have time to start a new conversation -right now. Will come back to this later 🙂 Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you. Have a good day!

    • V, when you get back I want in on this too.
      Understand, this is not just about uncompromising freedom. You will hear BF put people to task on the consistency or lack thereof of their arguments, often as those arguments relate to freeodm. This is, in part, due to his holding of freedom as the highest ideal. You and I do not share this thinking. We value freedom greatly, but more in how it relates to other values than on the basis that it is the highest ideal, that it is its own justification.

      Understand why freedom stands so strongly among rational thinkers. Freedom lovers do not shy away from risk. In fact, anyone who really understands freedom embraces risk, as it is an integral part of freedom. So the law of unintended consequences still exists with philosphers of freedom, but they are not bothered by it. With anything that does not embrace freedom, however, the only way that it survives is to ignore the law of unintended consequences. Freedom does not solve problems, it simply grants the opportunity for them to be solved, as well as the risk that they will not be, or will grow worse. However, every so-called “solution” to the problems in a free society ends up missing or hiding the unintended consequnces until it is too late.

      When you put morality in the hands of the law, you initiate several things.
      1) Much like with Welfare discouraging work and SS discouraging savings, you will breed complacency. If you dont like it make it illegal, then you have nothing to do. You do not have to stand up to it or have it affect your life anymore, you have passed the buck.
      2) The result of this, then, is that morality begins to become equated to morality, on both sides. Thus, you have people doing things that are immoral and saying “well I didnt break any laws” and people saying that something shouldnt be done because it is illegal, regardless of any real moral code or thinking.
      3) In the end, you either have theocratic corruption compromising the religion it is based on, or you have reistance to theocratic action. In the latter case, you have what you have now: A loss of legal blockage of immoral acts, and without any other mechanism, because the complacency has taken away the tool of social pressure, you end up fighting for a law that should never have been. You end up fighting for more government control because you feel like the society will become even less moral without it. This is because, in reality, the society lost its morality when it passed the responsibility of maintaining a moral society to the government. When it was no longer an individual choice and enforced by individual action and reaction, then the society began its slide to immorality. The eventual loss of the laws is simply the final stage of what has already happened.

      • You were welcome to continue on without me. 🙂 🙂 sometimes I feel alone in my protestations 🙂 much as the liberals on here do, I imagine 😆 I really have no argument with your remarks Jon. I look at remarks Matt makes and I know they are extreme, he does it on purpose 🙂 but they do bring someone to the bottom line of an issue. A bottom line that I do not like! A bottom line that I have a problem living with, I suppose-but in the end I want freedom. I want my children to be Free-so I will take the risk-I will trust in the decency of the people. And I will trust in God to make everything to work out.

    • Assisted suicide-No

      Now suicide-No I don’t think it is a right-I think it is an emotional/mental disorder.in most cases. I pretty much believe that most who truly want to die will succeed and any actions will be unnecessary. Those who fail-should be given a mental evaluation and hopefully, help to convince them that what they have tried to do is not the answer. But criminal charges are silly and locking someone up for more than a short period of time-in an attempt to help them is enough. Taking away someones freedom, their ability to have a life, so that they won’t hurt themselves seems counterproductive.

      • So if I determine that I want to die, you don’t think I should have the right to do so? I have the right to spend my money in foolish ways, vote for politicians who do nothing but lie, worship the god of my choice, and PROCREATE whether I would be a good parent or not. But I don’t have the right to determine that I want to terminate my life?

        • What I think, is that if you truly want to die, you will die-failure to do so-is a cry for help.

  18. Charlie,

    Why stop at child labor? Go all the way, make it more economically feasible for the already wealthy. Get rid of the aging, sick and problem psychotics. Whack them

    What a leap!

    From a kid working instead of starving means killing people is “ok”!!!!

  19. @Charlie

    The balls on this guy. There’s always something worse on the horizon. Point to it and slavery makes sense (didn’t private slave owners treat their slaves well vs. those who turned enemy combatants into slaves)? Sweet Jesus, the greed knows no bounds. How do you people swallow this horseshit?

    So what is your alternative, my friend? Make the child labor illegal? In that case, those countries, which are far too poor to provide state welfare, will be filled with people who cannot afford to eat. Or should US taxpayers once again be forced to foot the bill for the poor countries out there?

    In fact, studies show that in at least one country where child labor was suddenly banned, prostitution increased.

    What a great way to justify a new cheaper labor force! Why not help the kids, rather than abandon them to the so-called “free market”? Because it’s none of your business … until they’re working to add profit to your portfolios, of course.

    Have you ever studied the economies in countries such as Thailand or Taiwan, where many of the child labor examples come from? These people have NOTHING. Someone comes in and opens a factory, offers them a job (even if the wages are shitty), and puts them to work. No one is forcing them to work. If they want the job for the wage offered, they can take it. If not, they can refuse to take it. Seems to me that this is the EXACT SAME DEAL that you are operating under. Because you demand more wage for your work you have decided that they must demand more for their work.

    If you are in Kentucky (and) you’ve got 10 generators in your store, are you getting up at 4 a.m. to drive all day to get to Louisiana to sell these generators if you can only sell them for the same price you can sell them for in Kentucky? No, you’re going to go down because … you can sell them for more.”

    Somehow this moron’s argument gets even better. The profit motive of greed is justified because the market is right. So what people actually need these things … there’s cash to be made.

    So choose between the two scenarios Charlie. You need a generator in NY because a snowstorm will have the city buried for two months. There are no more generators in the entire New England area. Do you simply want to be shit out of luck, or would you prefer that some guy in Kentucky brings you one up and sells it to you?

    I will assume that you want him to come up and sell it to you. So why should he take the time and spend the money to bring you a generator? Out of the goodness of his heart? Did you hop in your truck and head to Kentucky when they had the flooding? What about when the tornados rolled through there? I am betting you did not. But now you want him to do it out of goodwill.

    He won’t. Profit is a great motivator and is potentially the only thing that will get that generator to NY. Of course had you helped him during the flood, he may have been willing to bring it to you for free….

    Also, if prices rise during an emergency, that’s a signal for people to buy only what they most need. That leaves more for everyone else.

    Unless, of course, they don’t have any money …

    In which case it really doesn’t matter if I am selling my generator for $5 or $500. You don’t have any money. You better hope that I am operating out of charity. In which case money wouldn’t matter. Otherwise, it really doesn’t matter what I am selling the generator for, you can’t afford it. The laws of economics say when demand goes up, price goes up. Interesting that you believe this isn’t so, or shouldn’t be so.

    “I like to think of ticket scalpers as the guy who stands in line so that I don’t have to,” Gillespie said.

    Assholes like this kill me. I used to have scalpers in my pocket back in the day. What the moron doesn’t know is even the ticket scalper is usually standing in line for a guy (like I used to be) sitting on my duff in a bar “earning” profit through some slave I put out there to take the heat. The arrogance behind Gillespie’s statement says it all. Way to go, Capitalism. Talk about sheeple …

    So some idiot decides that he doesn’t want to work a legit job and he comes to you and says “I will stand in line and buy tickets for you so long as I get X dollars”. You front the money, pay the guy what he wants paid in order to stand in line, and then sell the tickets at a premium. I fail to see where there is something wrong with that. Unless you are being literal when you say “some slave I put out there to take the heat.” If that is the case my friend, I completely fail to see how you using an example of a blatantly illegal activity (FORCING some slave to stand in line to make you profits) is a legitimate argument against what Stossel and Gillespie have said here.

    I don’t have time to read the rest of this horseshit, but I’ll guarantee you it can only be swallowed hook, line and sinker at places like SUFA (for those who do swallow it). No offenses intended but this is one big crock of capitalist propaganda gone wild.

    There you go demeaning those who may see things in a different way than you do. Is it even conceivable to you that there are intelligent people out there that have a different opinion than Charlie’s opinion? Or is the world set in a way that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must be sheeple who are unable to think for themselves and therefore rely completely on the opinions of others such as SUFA, HuffPo, or some other opinion based source. Is your IQ so high that USWeapon’s opinions or ideas must be wrong and only believed by “Sheeple”? Is it possible that you are wrong? Ever?

    I am doing my best to realize that there are other opinions than mine. Believe me I hear 30 of them within hours of whatever article I post. And I am trying really hard to NOT insult the intelligence or the integrity of those who have a different opinion than mine. Why is it that whenever an opinion is presented in an article that you disagree with, you feel the immediate need to insult the readers at SUFA? The people who read here are not “less than” you. They are not less intelligent, less compassionate, or less critical in the way they look at things. There are very few who stonewall and refuse to consider any position that differs from their own. You are being one of them when you spout this bullshit about “only at SUFA”. It is insulting to my readers. And it is insulting to me.

    A month or two ago I stepped up and admitted where I was crossing some lines. Can you?

    I usually can listen to what Stossel has to say (when he did the special on NY union teachers on suspension collecting paychecks for reading all day, that was some good investigative reporting). Touting this bullshit is another thing. Sad to see him do it.

    I enjoy Stossel because he presents things in a different way than I would have typically looked at them. When I disagree with his opinion or what he presents, I am not disappointed in him or sad that he said what he did. I simply disagree with him. Why is it that you get so angry when an opinion is presented that is contrary to what you personally believe? Can you imagine how angry I would be all the time if I got that peeved every time someone presents an argument that I don’t agree with? Hell I wouldn’t even be able to read ANY of the comments here at SUFA. And you and BF would simply make my head explode.

  20. Jon

    Freedom does not solve problems, it simply grants the opportunity for them to be solved, as well as the risk that they will not be, or will grow worse

    Exactly.

    Freedom is not an “answer” to a problem.

    It is the ability to solve that person’s problem in the manner decided by that person is freedom – my quote earlier describes this.

    Freedom is vital for a man, because a man does not what he wants to become and as time goes by, what he wants for himself changes.

  21. V.H.

    Civilized, Free Society

    That is the goal.

    But you cannot achieve Civilization by destroying Freedom – indeed, that is the pathway to Barbarism

  22. Another comment regarding the requirement of human freedom

    [T]he very uncertainty of our ultimate ethical goals dictates a wide area of individual self-determination.

    <b.We are not able to supply a blueprint of the ideal life, but we are persuaded that even if it were known it would be ideal only for the person who individually and knowingly and voluntarily accepted it.

  23. The latest from the resident Whack Job posing as a leader in Iran…

    The Iranian president said on Friday there will be no room for Israel in the region after the formation of a Palestinian state, and that once the state is established, the liberation of all Palestinian lands should follow.

    The comments by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reflected his typical anti-Israeli rhetoric, which has drawn international condemnation since he first said in 2005 that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

    Also in the article:

    “Do not assume you will be boosted with a (U.N.) recognition of a Palestinian state,” Ahmadinejad said, addressing Israel. “There is no room for you in the region.”

    “Recognition of a Palestinian state is the first step in the liberation of the entire Palestine,” he added.

    Since the 1979 Islamic revolution that brought hardline Islamists to power in Tehran, Iran’s leadership has been hostile to Israel, backing anti-Israel groups like the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

    Ahmadinejad also urged the West to stop supporting Israel. “You (the West) and the Zionist regime will have no base in the Middle East,” he warned, and dismissed the West’s support for a two-state solution as a tactic meant “to save” Israel.

    Reiterating his anti-Holocaust rhetoric, Ahmadinejad also said Israel was created on lies and added, “the Zionist regime is the axis of unity among all thieves and criminals of the world.”

    He also called on rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas to form as strong, unified state and not “consider it sufficient to have minor and weak governments in a small area.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/26/irans-ahmadinejad-no-place-for-israel-in-region/#ixzz1WAAPw2Qg

    I am sure that we are simply misunderstanding Ahmadinejad’s benevolent intentions. Certainly he isn’t stating that Israel should not exist? I know this cannot be true. BF told me so 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      Well I know that BF is never wrong, so it must be true!

    • USWep,

      zzzzzzzzz…..

      Rhetoric from a politician

      • LOL…..did you borrow a pair of blinders from the left, my friend?……before this year is out, the only reason that Ajad and his 12th Imam vision will not rule the entire southern rim of the Med…..will be because he will be dead, which is unlikely. Egypt and Saudis will fall into lock step for they will have no choice.

        • D13,

          Re: Iran

          …no way…
          They have no navy, nor air force worth any merit. Their land forces are barely mechanized. Their only “positive” is the size of the army, but that merely makes a target-rich environment for US/Israelis.

          Nah … Iran can only muster supporting 4th Generational Warfare elements and that’s about the extent of their offensive capability.

          • In all fairness BF, Iran’s supporting of 4th generation warfare has been significant. Hezbollah and others are puppets to the Iranian regime. They have managed to have a very long reach through a different and more covert method. They stopped relying on their military to conquer the ME when they realized we wouldn’t let that happen. They took a different route, and have been extremely effective in using it.

            I know you are a staunch defender, but the Iranian government and the games they play are not defendable.

            • USWep

              I am a staunch defender of the Iranian people – their government is no different than anyone else’s, it merely expresses its evil in a different manifestation, but evil like all the others.

              • BF…. I will give you this…as I am pretty conversant about the Iranian people…….if they can mount any opposition….then they can control their destiny….if not, they will become victims.

              • And you have also seen me staunchly defend the Iranian people. But you also have gone on record defending the actions of the Iranian government. You have spent ample time in the past denying that the Iranian government had any negative intentions….

              • D13,

                Sir,

                they will become victims

                The fate of all of us who live under government.

                Salut!

          • Not Iran as a military unit….they will control the surrogates who will conquer the Med south. He has learned well from the United States.

            • In addition, as soon as he acquires nuke weaponry, which will be with in 9 months….he will be the 12th man…….and I ain’t talking Aggies here.

              • D13,

                We disagree here.

                I believe you overestimate the ability to build a nuke.

                I believe you underestimate the Russians, who have zero interest in allowing another nuke-nation against their borders.

                I do not believe – with these two factors heavily weighted – that Iran has an ability to build a nuke capable of any capability of offense.

              • @ BF……Fair enough……and it is possible that I have not given the Russians enough credit…..but I also do not think that the Russians can stop it anymore than we can, short of intervention militarily and we know they cannot do that, and they do not have enough trade agreements in place to create a deterrent.

                I base my point in that the Iranians already have the delivery system for short range nukes…they just do not have the warhead yet but are only months away and they are not building it….it is being built for them at this point and not from Russia or China or India. Iran will be enriching past the 20% point within 6 months despite their computer problems. We are watching that very closely.

                Ajad’s main problem still lies with the clerics. And while still powerful, are steadily losing their power with the more moderate population. There is even rumor in Iran that forced indoctrination of school age children ( 6 to 12 ) into the Islamic Jihad movement is beginning to happen because of the moderate stance of the younger generation.

                But, we are following the money as far as the hot spots and, unbelievably, we are also a culprit. Everyone is on the band wagon of Libya and that a despot has been eliminated………to be replaced by……..despots. But, in this case, the depot is going to be worse than a dictator. I use Libya as an example because there are others just like Libya that are falling like Cessna’s in a hurricane. I think where you and I differ on Iran is that you are very involved with the emotional aspect of the Iranian people and I am not. The Iranian people are following blind. They will be victims as a result of Ajad and his ambitions. Unless he is taken out by the clerics…..he will reign. And he has the Guard solidly in his camp.

                Watch very carefully the unholy alliance with Pakistan to develop. This is my prediction.

  24. USwep

    But you also have gone on record defending the actions of the Iranian government

    …insomuch a defense based on the same rational as any other government

    Iran is surrounded by the USA … Iraq, Afgan, ex-Soviet States, and Persian gulf.

    To believe that it is Iran that is creating conflict in the region around Iran is perverted.

  25. V.H.

    Now suicide-No I don’t think it is a right-I think it is an emotional/mental disorder.in most cases

    My highlights…

    What case do you exempt?
    What RIGHT do you have to make such judgement?

    This is the point.

    You proclaim an exclusion – then exceptions to such exclusions – completely based ON YOUR OWN DETERMINATIONS

    Why are you right … yet the person whose life is at balance … wrong!

    • @VH……..interesting points……so how do you feel about codicils that deny hospitals and doctors and family from sustaining life through machines. As in our family…..we all have codicils and specific instructions on not prolonging life through machines……is this not a form of suicide by your definitions. And if I do not wish to be “kept alive”……..and I am using cost of assets as my basis for such…..in your world, I do not have the right to determine my own destiny? Am I reading you correctly?

      • No, I don’t consider that suicide. If one wishes to die naturally-that is their right. If they desire to kill themselves-then they should do it themselves-not expect people or society at large to help, condone, and especially not encourage their actions. And if they are crying out for help-I think people should help them-live- not die. Anything else IMO, is asking people to commit murder. Nice words like assisted-doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

  26. V.H.

    I want my children to be Free-so I will take the risk-I will trust in the decency of the people. And I will trust in God to make everything to work out.

    Quote the Batman:

    Sometimes the truth isn’t good enough,
    Sometimes people deserve more.
    Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.

    …hold faithful the actions of Free Men…

  27. I’m to tired to rant tonight-just glad this isn’t here and that my kids are out of school-Grandchildren-might present a future problem -who am I kidding if this came here-it’s a problem-whether I have kids or not.

    World Graphic ‘Sex Box’ for Swiss Kindergartners has Genitalia to Teach Kids that Sex is Pleasurable

    * Posted on August 26, 2011 at 10:45pm by Tiffany Gabbay Tiffany Gabbay

    In a move almost too shocking to comprehend, kindergarten children in Basel, Switzerland will be presented this year with fabric models of human genitalia in a “sex box” to teach them that “contacting body parts can be pleasurable.”

    Pictures of the sex box were too graphic to include, but can be viewed here.

    To make matters worse, the kit is intended to be given out to the primary school students by teachers during sex-education classes. That’s right. Sex education classes for kindergartners.

    And, if that were not bad enough, the sex box allegedly uses models and recommends children massage each other or rub themselves with warm sand bags, accompanied by soft music.

    What’s more, Basel education minister Christoph Eymann, from the liberal democrat party, opposed parents’ requests to exempt their children from the lessons, saying the government uses schools in order to have unrestricted access to children.

    “Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has,” Eymann said. “The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend.”

    LifeSiteNews adds:

    “Children should be encouraged to develop and experience their sexuality in a pleasurable way,” Daniel Schneider, a deputy kindergarten rector for Basel who helped develop the sex ed curriculum along with experts, had said earlier this year.

    He added, “It’s important that they learn to say no if they don’t want to be touched in a certain area.”
    Click here to find out more!

    Education officials who have reportedly been flooded with over 3000 complaints from outraged parents have agreed to change the program’s name, but will do nothing to stop the materials from being distributed in schools, according to The Local.

    Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), told the paper SonntagsBlick, “It was no doubt stupid to call it a ‘sex box’ – we will change that.

    As if a sex box by any other name would somehow be less egregious. Eymann continued:

    “But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents.”

    Eymann said he understood that one line in the program, “touching can be enjoyed heartily,” could be misconstrued, but added, “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me.’

    “We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ‘no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age.”

    Eymann, who said children should ideally be taught about sex at home thinks school officials are addressing the problem of an “oversexualised society” in which pornography is available to children via the internet.

    Meanwhile, pro-family advocates in Europe have expressed outrage at the prospect of presenting five year-old children with the sex box.

    Daniel Trappitsch of the Citizens for Citizens association labeled the idea a “catastrophic development.” “Sex education, sure, but it shouldn‘t been done this early and it certainly shouldn’t be obligatory,” he said.

    Trappitsch’s group claims they will fight the program.

    It should be noted that the “sex box” program, for as far-fetched as it sounds, could soon be en route to the U.S. — especially given the recent statement made my Health and Human Services that asserts even infants and toddlers are “sexual beings,” while members of the psychiatric community simultaneously call for the decriminalization of pedophilia.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/graphic-sex-box-for-swiss-kindergartners-has-genitalia-to-teach-kids-that-sex-is-pleasurable/

    • Damn.,,,,,,,where was this when I was in school. I remember that the library used to hide the National Geographic behind the counter.

      • Come on Colonel, you live in ranch country. Did you parents keep you blindfolded. I remember sneaking out behind the barn to watch the vet artifically inseminate the cow when I was 6 or 7. Wow, was that one long glove!

        How many have raised boys and watched them dive under the couch cushions during the mushy part of movies. Unfortunately there is so much of it on TV now that they are probably desensitized which is the whole objective to all of this. Why can’t we just let them grow up naturally.

        • Yup….seen a lot. Kids should grow up naturally….I just remember all of us trying to get the National Geographic…..had a friend whose father had a subscription. LOL…….we perused the mags quite often.

          There is no school responsibility here.

          • Murphy's Law says:

            WTF 😉 These morons actually think they need to teach kids that “contacting body parts can be pleasurable.” ?

            Ummm….did anyone on this blog need a school curriculum to teach them that?

            Murf

            • Braille……I learned by Braille.

              • COLONEL!! Dunce cap for you! 😯

                🙂

              • This whole idea is creepy ! But this line creeped me out the most “What’s more, Basel education minister Christoph Eymann, from the liberal democrat party, opposed parents’ requests to exempt their children from the lessons, saying the government uses schools in order to have unrestricted access to children.

                “Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has,” Eymann said. “The shared values that it teaches are very important.”

                I don’t want you to have and you shouldn’t have “unrestricted access” to MY Children.

              • Sorry VH but you are operating under a misconception. In their eyes the children belong to the state not to the parents. Parents are just a convenient source of care for the 3/4 of the week they are not in school. You would think that after Hitler, they would see the danger in this but they are blinded by their utopian workers paradise dreams.

              • Sigh…….ok Dunce cap it is …..sitting on the stool in the corner with Anita on my lap…..instructing me in Braille. (Did I say that?)

              • Murphy's Law says:

                Dunce cap for you, Colonel?

                Nah….these days the teacher will probably want you to stay after school for some extra “tutoring”….she’ll chase Anita off so she can have that unrestricted access…. 😉

                Murf

  28. To those of you on the East coast……you dodged a major bullet. Other than some minor power outages and some regional flooding issues….the hurricane appears to be barely a cat 1…….lot of wind and water but that should be about it. Hope you fare well.

    Sorry Obama….you cannot make a Katrina out of this one.

  29. I once took the challenge issued here and read two Ayn Rand books … like William F. Buckley, I had to flog myself to finish them. I’m curious if any of the SUFA loyalists ever read some of the arguments against capitalism. USW says he does all the time, yet he’s failed to answer one question regarding Noam Chomskey, et al …

    So, if reading is too much to ask, how about watching a film?

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/08/film-review-kingdom-of-survival.html

    • What question is it that you feel I “failed to answer?” I recall you posting some of his videos, which I watched. But I don’t recall any question directed at me.

      • I’m pretty sure I asked what you thought of his position on capitalism (that it requires state sponsorship or it wouldn’t survive for five minutes).

        • I will go you one better. I will do an article on why he is wrong.

          • It’ll be interesting, I’m sure. I look forward to it.

            Hope you guys are okay with this hurricane. I think we’re about to be flooded like never before. Predicting 8.3 inches in the city. Can’t even imagine that much water here. Two weeks ago we had 6 inches and I was nearly stuck in Brooklyn (highways all flooded). Good luck with this storm.

    • Charlie,

      I did post back to you regarding Chomsky as did JAC.

      We both stated the Chomsky uses strawman – defines capitalism to be not capitalism, and then attacks the (wrong definition) of capitalism as “corrupt”.

      I wait for his complaint about capitalism – that is, private property and its use is operated for profit.

      • BF, he’s written several books on exactly that. I’ll find some for you. Bottom line; Chomsky feels capitalism it requires state sponsorship or it can’t survive. Kind of why I believe corporations were created; to further use the government for capitalism’s survival.

        • Charlie

          So this fella Chomsky argues that trade among humans can not exist without a govt to force them to trade or to control the trade with each other?

          Just frickin brilliant.

          • Yes, well, it’s not like the guy is respected around the world or anything. He’s just another dumbski (compared to you, no doubt).

            His point is capitalism cannot exist without government support; that it would collapse on its own without government running it. Now, so many here claim a truly free market is what you crave, yet you cannot offer an example of one existing (ever as far as I recall). And if you do have something valid to show as a model of a truly free market that worked, please explain why it went the way of the dinosaur. My theory (and I’m not Chomsky, but I suspect we might agree on this) is that the nature of capitalism plays to man’s greed; therefore requiring capital to expand under whoever pursues ownership (business, land, etc.) … that once it became big enough, it was forced to form governments to support it and eventually led us to where we are today (which is on the brink of revolution–give or take 50 or so years). Mercantalism, corporations, however you want to explain away those, we say they were the obvious result of capitalism because the expansion of power has little to do with anything more than money. Once money is in control, it isn’t going to yield power without a fight. That’s where we are (in my opinion). I am curious how USW is going to “prove” Chomsky’s theory wrong (that capitalism without government wouldn’t survive 5 minutes) since we’ve yet to see truly free markets (or ones that survived).

            • Charlie,

              Yes, you have repeated Chomsky’s words a few times.

              I have shown examples – in fact, 98% of what you do in interaction with others every day is the Free Market – but that bothers you for some reason so you ignore those examples.

              However, please provide the reasoning of Chomsky to make his claim. So far you merely say “he said” – but provided nothing.

              Example of what I am asking:
              When I provide the reasoning of Mises to why Socialism cannot work, I provided the reasoning (“the lack of a pricing mechanism”) and explained why a pricing mechanism is required in any economic system as an effective means of distributing resources.

              So far the best you have done is said “Chomsky said so”. I have read Chomsky in great detail and there are many things I do agree with his position. However, nothing I have read of Chomsky regarding Free Market systems and one of its consequences -Capitalism- at all supports your comment.

              As I’ve already pointed out, Chomsky changes the definition so that his position looks plausible. But his argument therefore is a fallacy

              … if I claim men can be pregnant and I can prove it, but the proof I use is changing the definition of what a man is to be equal the definition of a woman, have I really proved men can be pregnant?

              http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQlMFaxN3I8zm9PdKt6qXtrA-y0MV23enb_wJURrfiwYk2-HmF

              (Yes, the media proclaimed a pregnant man…but “he” is really a female)

            • Charlie,

              I am curious how USW is going to “prove” Chomsky’s theory wrong

              Easy. Hold Chomsky to a valid definition of the Free Market Capitalism. Then Chomsky’s argument doesn’t even get out of the gate.

              • Charlie,

                but I suspect we might agree on this) is that the nature of capitalism plays to man’s greed; therefore requiring capital to expand under whoever pursues ownership (business, land, etc.) … that once it became big enough,

                Oh, the argument of fantasy “….once it became big enough….”

                You require a fantasy … remember that cartoon of two scientists looking at a massive equation on a blackboard, and one pointing to a line where it said “and a miracle occurs here” with the caption “…you need to explain this in a little more detail…”!

                Why do you believe that any entity can grow in a Capitalist system forever to become “big” enough?
                How big is this “big”? What is the value, 0.1% of an economy, 10%, 20%?
                How does it accomplish seizing government without seizing violence?

            • Charlie,

              And if you do have something valid to show as a model of a truly free market that worked, please explain why it went the way of the dinosaur.

              You have it backwards.

              Free Market systems are a new phenomena – for most of the 10,000 years of civilization, most of humanity has suffered under systems of government and slavery, and only since the late 1700’s has the understanding of Free Market economic prosperity been brought struggling to light.

              Since that time – starting generally at the Industrial Revolution – human prosperity has grown logarithmically to the point that you – a fairly common man – lives richer and better than King Henry VIII – imagine 10,000 of utter desperate poverty and in merely 350 years, you exceed the riches one of the richest men in antiquity!

              No, Charlie, the systems of violent controls are weakening and being discarded, not the other way around. We do tend to notice the “bad”, and yes it is getting worse.

              However, we also tend not to notice the “good”, and it is getting better, faster.

              • human prosperity has grown logarithmically to the point that you – a fairly common man – lives richer and better than King Henry VIII – imagine 10,000 of utter desperate poverty and in merely 350 years, you exceed the riches one of the richest men in antiquity!

                That is about as absurd an argument for anything other than absurdity that I’ve read.

        • Charlie,

          Kind of why I believe corporations were created; to further use the government for capitalism’s survival.

          Again, no … but close.

          Corporations -in the modern sense- were grants called “charters”.

          Hudson’s Bay Company is the oldest commercial corporation in North America and one of the oldest in the world.

          The company was incorporated by English royal charter in 1670 as The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay and functioned as the de facto government in parts of North America

          It was created by government to operate as an arm of government over areas of geography and trade

          …as usual, both you and Chomsky ignore the actual history and as required by your and his crackpot theories, require history to be provided backwards

          • Charlie, Oh, yeah

            The book “Wealth of Nations” – which is one of the first to provide a series of coherent economic theories of the Free Market, was written in 1776 … or one hundred years later then Hudson Bay Co. creation

            First published in 1776, it is a reflection on economics at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and argues that free market economies are more productive and beneficial to their societies. The book is a fundamental work in classical economics.

            So to proclaim that the concepts of Free market and Capitalism some how preceded the creation of Corporations must mean you believe in time travel

            • http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2008/01/chomsky-fuming-about-distortions-of.html

              Chomsky answering a question about Adam Smith: I didn’t do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There’s no research. Just read it. He’s pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

              He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. It goes on and on. He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies. He was talking about England and India. He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India.

              He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call “national interests.” He simply observed in passing, because it’s so obvious, that in England, which is what he’s discussing — and it was the most democratic society of the day — the principal architects of policy are the “merchants and manufacturers,” and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, “most peculiarly attended to,” no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. He didn’t have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right.

              This truism was, a century later, called class analysis, but you don’t have to go to Marx to find it. It’s very explicit in Adam Smith. It’s so obvious that any ten-year-old can see it. So he didn’t make a big point of it. He just mentioned it. But that’s correct. If you read through his work, he’s intelligent. He’s a person who was from the Enlightenment. His driving motives were the assumption that people were guided by sympathy and feelings of solidarity and the need for control of their own work, much like other Enlightenment and early Romantic thinkers. He’s part of that period, the Scottish Enlightenment.

              The version of him that’s given today is just ridiculous. But I didn’t have to any research to find this out. All you have to do is read. If you’re literate, you’ll find it out.

          • It was created by government

            And who controlled the government?

            Money. Any why would they want to protect their money? Greed? What capitalism is based on and can go nowhere else except in the pursuit of greed.

            As to Wealth of Nations, Mr. Chomsky will turn that on your head (I.e., you’re the revisionis of Wealth of Nations, my friend) if you bother reading him. He does it in one of the videos. “Free Market Fantasies” is one of the several books he’s penned.

  30. REDNECK HOME SECURITY SYSTEM: (1) Buy a pair of size 14-16 work boots. (2) Put them on front porch with copy of Guns & Ammo. (3) Put some giant dog dishes next to boots & magazine. (4) Leave note on your door: “Bubba: Me & Bertha went for more ammo & beer. Back soon. Don’t mess with the pit bulls; they messed the mail man up bad this morning. I don’t think Killer took part; hard to tell from all the blood. I locked all four of ’em in the house. Better wait outside. Be right back.~Cooter

  31. I feel so much safer. Wow what a relief! Obama has taken personal charge of FEMA. He is even calling in Napolatano to help. Now I can sleep tonight.

    • I see no problem with the wage. I was always told the formula goes like this: 1/3 for payroll, 1/3 for overhead, 1/3 for the owner. You are absolutely free to work for another employer or start your own business.

  32. Charlie,

    you cannot offer an example of one existing

    I have done so many many times.

    The problem: you are blind to it.

    Go buy a cup of coffee and think about it … the coffee purchase I mean.

    • Is that an example of a truly free market you’ll later claim isn’t free because of the government or an example of capitalism under state control (which it is).

      You need to be way more specific, BF. You’re the first one to defend the failure of the free market here in the U.S by blaming government interference. Or are you claiming it is free market capitalism and only using the government blame game when it suits your purpose?

      More tomorrow (or later) .. bad rotator cuff injury, just back from the hospital … nightmare pain.

      • Ouch-Sorry your in pain!

        What is so hard to understand about this -You want to use the power of government-which business used to get so big and powerful-to lessen the power of business-How does this make sense? You cannot point to any other form that is better-yet you still insist that the MAIN problem is business-instead of realizing that the biggest problem is the combined power of the two. I as an individual and individuals working with others have the power to fight business- if the government isn’t backing up their corruption through LAW. And before you come back and say government through law can stop corruption-look around you, look at the whole picture and tell me trusting government to do so-hasn’t hurt more than it has helped.

      • Charlie,

        Is that an example of a truly free market you’ll later claim isn’t free because of the government or an example of capitalism under state control (which it is).

        It is a Free Market – again, you do not scale your concepts.

        You plunk down coin, and he trades you coffee.

        Neither of you did so under any threat.

        He got what he wanted – a highly trade good for what he has – a low trade good.

        Your good – money – is highly traded; you could have plunked the same coins down next door, and you would have someone instantly negotiating a trade for some sort of goods for them.

        His good – coffee – is a low trade item; it is very unlikely he could go next door and plunk down a cup of coffee and someone over there want to trade.

        But you – in a small window of time – desired a coffee, more than the jingle of coins in your pocket, so you traded by your own FREE will with another by his own FREE will.

        You need to be way more specific, BF.

        I am never artitrary, clouded, or foggy in my statements.
        Often people do not like what I have to say, even though it is a truth.

        So they have to try -on their own- fog their own minds, confuse themselves, and chase their own tails.

        You’re the first one to defend the failure of the free market here in the U.S by blaming government interference.

        Your great misunderstanding which confuses you endlessly.

        Economics neither improves or degrades you Charlie.

        Economics <i>explains why you get rich or poor. There is NO judgement of “failure or success”.

        Equivalently, you would hold “gravity” a failure if you hurt yourself falling down, and a “success” if you avoided that pain. But self-evidently, that would be an utterly ridiculous attitude to hold.

        If I then said “pushing people off of tall ladders will tend to causes them pain when they fall to the ground” – describing your Marxist/Socialist theories – and you demand a “solution”, you get mad when I say “leave the people alone” – you complain to me that it is the ladder, not the pushing that is effects the consequence of eventual pain.

        But people fall off ladders without pushing too. If you want to climb higher, you risk falling – if you want more prosperity you have to invest and investing is risky. It is not the ladder …the Free Market… that made you fall, but it is the system that allows you to reach higher.

        But when you are there pushing people around (government) so that those that do not want to effort up the ladder are “taken care of” to the same degree of those that risk it – you are the cause of people falling, and not the people and their own risk.

  33. Charlie,

    That is about as absurd an argument for anything other than absurdity that I’ve read</blockquote.

    As usual, facts are absurd to you.

  34. Charlie,

    And who controlled the government

    Then is called a KING.

    But you think it was money…. (sigh) that’s like thinking orange juice ran England

  35. Charlie,.

    As to Wealth of Nations, Mr. Chomsky will turn that on your head (I.e., you’re the revisionis of Wealth of Nations, my friend) if you bother reading him. He does it in one of the videos. “Free Market Fantasies” is one of the several books he’s penned.

    As I said, I have read Chomsky. However, his attacks on Free market systems are full of strawmen, typically. As such his arguments are more comic then reasoned

  36. Charlie,

    NO, it is a king … a collective King. The money that influences governments, just like here (and you know that).

    I presented you some historical fact – that the King of England issued a charter, creating one of the first modern corporations.

    What this has to do with “money influence” I have no idea.

  37. Self-defense succeeded where the world’s navies failed.

    Pirate-Fighters, Inc.: How Mercenaries Became Ships’ Best Defense
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/pirate-fighters-inc/all/1

%d bloggers like this: