Pliny Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 Pliny: I suppose you would find it "a complex and multi-varied political/economic/social system". I think it's crazy to argue otherwise. Have you ever walked into a telephone exchange? Now that is complex but if you work there it is not as complex at all. You just have to have the proper technical training. The more you know your job the less complex it is. Next thing you know you are a journeyman telecommunications technician. Any subject is like that. posted on a Russian english forum for a few years to get a good grounding in communism. There were several hardcore socialists there. It's not even close to the same thing. Surely you must know that. It is not the same thing. It is an analogy of how things that are unknown appear complex and things that are known appear simple. I humbly suggest that your stated opinions are not quite as original as you seem to think they are. How original do I seem to think they are? When you get to the point where you are writing theory then that is original. Not too many people get to that point in their study of a subject. I believe it is where one is doing a PHD. That's too narrow. Power tends to increase, or attempt to increase, itself over time; and governments, being made up of human beings, tend to fall prey to the same human inclination. Ok. Misuse of power would continue apace, with or without an "official" government. Restrictions on freedom and prosperity would be there regardless, and could concievably be worse. Then wouldn't it be best not to centralize it in the hands of one or a few people? As soon as someone started centralizing power you could see that restrictions on freedom and prosperity were coming down the pike? How do you keep power in the hands of the people and prevent them from handing it to the State by voting themselves bread and circuses (entitlements)? What happens is that a certain "special interest" is granted some privilege or favour by government which creates resentment by those who feel they have been left out or feel marginalized and need an entitlement for their special interest. Like legalizing gay "marriage". Married people get certain privileges that gays in a long term single relationship don't get because they didn't fall under the definition of marriage. Gays have been marginalized. What happens of course is that Gays will fight for the privileges of marriage by calling for legal gay marriage recognition. It never occurs to politicians that the wrong thing they did was grant married people privilege and favour in the first place and they can't now take those entitlements away from married people, as they are used to them and expect them, some may even be dependent upon them. Not only that but they went ahead and recognized common law marriages and granted the all the benefits of marriage to them as well. They have initially made a segment of the married community "unequal" and now the have to make a correction by granting the same entitlements to the rest of the "special interests". And this is where the libertarian arguments often self-destruct, primarily because of too-selective delineations of "government" as the chief obstacle to freedom in every case. Should I take the tack it is corporations who are the chief obstacle to freedom? It is government that writes and passes the laws we live under, even corporations. Some corporations have been granted have indeed been granted privileges and favours by government. Politicians may believe or be convinced by lobbyists that these privileges are a good thing for the economy or the common good or whatever they feel will appeal to the politician. Ultimately though, it is government that makes the laws. If they are lobbied or...gulp.... bribed. The fact is, hierarchies of power always occur; always. The way to battle this, and so subsequently increase actual human freedom, is to try to remain vigilant to misuses of power in all its spheres, not only in evil lefty governments. Yes they tend to occur. There hasn't been a method to battle this devised as yet...the US Constitution probably came the closest. It isn't evil lefty governments. It is leviathan bureaucratic governments that are unworkable which are more popularly represented on the left wing. No one really supports Nazism or fascism, so-called right wing forms of socialism but many support left-wing socialism or at least socialist ideals, some wittingly, some unwittingly. The government isn't a cause, but an effect. I think you believe that the people create it and it is thus the effect of their creation. But it is granted responsibilities where it must act so is cause. If it is in the hands of a totalitarian dictator it is entirely responsible for the socially engineered society. He may consult but in the end it is his final decision on all matters. In order to think this way, we have to remain forever cognizant of, as I said, the massive complexities of a society, which is nothing much like learning a skill such as driving a car. Driving a car is of course a much simpler task. However, one may have a few scrapes and dents in learning to drive before he considers it a simple task. The complexity of a society lies only in its many activities and many actors. Politicians, with no understanding of law or economics and little understanding of government, I'm sure find it very complex. I would find it complex out of the fact I don't know much about law or parliamentary procedure. So for example, if government is shrunk to "drown in a bathtub," as a simpleton once put it, other entities of concentrated power will rise to take its place. In a capitalist libertarian society, for example, the rich will rule. Literally. Which rather cancels out the "libertarian" part of the equation. Those with records of accomplishment are perhaps best to rule and they may be the richest. But what matters is that here is mobility between the classes. Give the poor enough to live on and they will always be in the lower class. Ask them to do something that helps others and demonstrate to themselves what a co-operative social effort is and how it feels to help and they will eventually lift themselves out of poverty. They must have a sense of self worth and self respect to do so. The difference is that, unlike a flawed and corrupt centralized government that we have now, they will be totally unrepresentative--as opposed to being partially representative, as currently. They will be absolutely unelected, as opposed to being elected in a flawed and troubled manner, as we have at the moment. Personally, I view both the Left and Right strains of libertarianism as deeply problematic--for reasons of the potential rise of unrepresentative, unelected power. I have sympathies with the idea, and I think the libertarian strains within the realm of political thought are important amelioratives to absolute statism. In other words, libertarianism must always be the Opposition, not the Government. Like I said, the problems of Power are not restricted to government as we know it, but are much vaster problems that have to do with human beings inherently. Libertarianism is quite scary to most people living in our western democracies which is the only form of government they have experienced. Take the issue of the legalization of drugs. Do that and they feel everyone will be on drugs. Some advocate the legalization of just marijuana, that's a harmless drug, after all, they would say. Some support libertarianism out of that single issue not understanding a single thing about libertariainism. I would take the stance of Ron Paul on it. Legalize them all. But I would also not advocate their consumption. One's normal state must be considered his optimum state. Getting high on recreational or street drugs is not one's optimum state although there may be reasons one considers the drugged state more optimal than the normal undrugged state it never is more optimal. If drugs were legalized one would of course have to not assign any responsibility to being under the influence for damages he may cause. The individual must take total responsibility for his actions. There will be none of this I was on drugs and I didn't know what I was doing. Since the individual injested the drugs he is the one responsible for any damages tha may occur under their influence. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Bitsy Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 What's hilarious about all of Obama's swiftboating is that his own budget director is from Bain. He worked for Bain and Company, a consulting firm, not Bain Capital. Bain and Company is a separate entity from Bain Capital. Quote
punked Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 He worked for Bain and Company, a consulting firm, not Bain Capital. Bain and Company is a separate entity from Bain Capital. Nope they are the same place, unless Mitt Romney says they are different. Like the year 1999 and 2002 are now the same year to Shady until Romney says they are different years. Quote
Argus Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 As far as I know, the Bush campaign had nothing to do with the swiftboat stuff. That was an independent group. This case is entirely different. You have an odd definition of the term 'independent'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 You have an odd definition of the term 'independent'. How so? Quote
Argus Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 It is part of Marxist ideology but unfortunately Marx never devised it. He just adopted it. The ruble was the currency of the USSR and it was not a part of the currency market. They were just issued so people could trade them in for state goods, everybody was issued the same pay and could stand in line for food and wait a couple of years for an apartment. Most of the economy of the defunct USSR was underground. American jeans and vodka were more popular currencies. Yes, I understand all that. What I don't understand is how it relates to us taking things from Communist and Marxist ideologies. Was there private property in the USSR, or Cuba or China under Mao? You could have some personal things but they were still the property of the State. Same question. How does this relate to us taking things from Communism and Marxism, which was your original statement. Gosh...aren't you a responsible individual. No. As I said earlier, if I have an ideology it's pragmatism. The essence of what you are saying perhaps aligns with Obama, who said the other day that no one is successful on their own and it is because of the efforts of other people that they can achieve their success. So we all deserve to share in that person's success. Isn't that it essentially? That is simplistically put, perhaps for sound bytes, and is a generality. I think the point is that without society you cannot succeed, and you therefore have a responsibility to help maintain and give back to that society. In that sense, others might 'share' in your success in that you are capable of giving back more to society. We really can't tell who is responsible since we all should benefit from each other's work equally - share in the wealth. I think you are taking the idea past where he intended. We all know perfectly well who is more responsible and who is less responsible, nor has anyone suggested we should all benefit 'equally'. No one is saying, for example, that Bill Gates' wealth should all be redistributed and his assets sold for the common good while he lives in a rowhouse. And it sort of means that if one guy seems to be sharing disproportionately in the profits, he has no entitlement to do so and needs to divvy up some more.Once again, no one has said any such thing. No one is suggesting that all of a person's success is because of society. That's clearly not the case. Society allows people to flourish, but it's largely due to their own efforts. Some flourish, some don't. I have flourished, economically, of late. And I attribute that to my own hard work, my own skill and talent, and my own imagination. However, all of that would have availed me little without the background of society which enabled me to market my work and enabled others to make use of it and pay for it. Do you think we can then tell who should take the position of CEO and why should that person want to? Why wouldn't he want to just put a bolt on a nut all day? Why take any responsiblity? Which is part of the reason Communism fails, but what has that got to do with us? Do as Obama says and it is okay to deprive someone of private property. Except he never said any such thing. By instilling that idea in the minds of youth and other indoctrinated individuals they believe it is an okay to go and break windows on banks and act generally destructive. There's something innately satisfying about breaking stuff. I don't exactly know why, but it's been that way for thousands of years. A lot of people, especially young men, really enjoy breaking stuff. Nothing new there. Nothing ideological. You know people today have an idea that capitalism is to blame for all the inequalities in life. A few people do. Not very many. Else we'd have done away with Capitalism in favour of something else. Unfortunately, there is no more capitalism around to assign responsibility to...oohhh...government likes to point fingers at business and corporation as the bad guys causing all our ills but fewer and fewer see any advantage to being responsible in creating or causing business or corporations to succeed...after all we all make them succeed. That's all nonsense. But at the same time we do need to recognize that capitalism as a motive for business does not include anything but profit. That means whatever a business can do which makes profits, it should do. Capitalism is neither moral, nor immoral. It is amoral. That's why we need regulations and laws to reign in unrestrained capitalism. See today's testimony in Washington where HSBC will apologize for laundering drug money. You and I made the waiting lines in our healthcare....we cause the cost to rise really high. You have fixed on an idea and stretched it out of all recognition. You need to shed a little of that libertarianism and adopt more pragmatism. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 How so? The people who organized, directed and funded this group were and are prominent Republicans. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
punked Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 The people who organized, directed and funded this group were and are prominent Republicans. You can directly link almost everyone of those donors with Karl Rove's American Crossroads now. Well you could if we the Republicans didn't filibuster the Disclose act which says donors of above a certain amount giving to any organization should be open to the public. Of course Republicans hate transparency. I mean look at Romney and his tax returns, the only reason he gives for not releasing more is that John McCain (another Republican) didn't release more. Quote
Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 The people who organized, directed and funded this group were and are prominent Republicans. How so? Do you know what a 527 group is? The swiftboat group was a group of former members if Kerry's military unit. None of them were so-called prominent in any capacity. I'm afraid you're wrong again. Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 I'm afraid you're wrong again. Nope, you are. The funders of the campaign were all prominent GOP backers with ties to Bush: According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 Nope, you are. The funders of the campaign were all prominent GOP backers with ties to Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth So you consider people you've never heard of before prominent Republicans? Come'on man. Quote
Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 On a related note, Joe Klein of Time Magazine compared Obama's Bain smear of Romney to the Willie Horton ads from the 80s. Quote
Argus Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 How so? Do you know what a 527 group is? The swiftboat group was a group of former members if Kerry's military unit. None of them were so-called prominent in any capacity. I'm afraid you're wrong again. Very few of them were even in Vietnam when he was, let alone in his 'unit'. And the whole thing was funded, to the tune of millions of dollars, by high ranking Republicans. I consider the Swiftboat campaign to be the epitome of Republican hypocrisy, btw. All those swooning admirers of the military and military service doing their best to ridicule and deride a combat veteran and dismiss his service on behalf of a lying rich boy who used daddy's connections to make sure he never got within a thousand miles of combat. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 So you consider people you've never heard of before prominent Republicans? Come'on man. You think people who give millions of dollars to the Republican party aren't prominent? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 On a related note, Joe Klein of Time Magazine compared Obama's Bain smear of Romney to the Willie Horton ads from the 80s. Were you going to get around to answering post 46, by, I believe Punked, pointing out that Romney used his work at Bain to prove residency for his campaign for governor? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
punked Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 On a related note, Joe Klein of Time Magazine compared Obama's Bain smear of Romney to the Willie Horton ads from the 80s. And others are comparing it to the Daisy ad. So what is the common link? Those ads defined and won elections. Quote
guyser Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 How so? Do you know what a 527 group is? The swiftboat group was a group of former members if Kerry's military unit. None of them were so-called prominent in any capacity. I'm afraid you're wrong again. You do know what a 'front' is dont you? Would you believe Factcheck.org? Because they say you are being duplicitous. Quote
punked Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) You do know what a 'front' is dont you? Would you believe Factcheck.org? Because they say you are being duplicitous. Nope 10 military vets just had 11 million just laying around to buy national media time. Come on get on board with Shady's story. This is why money shouldn't be speech with out it being traceable. It makes no sense. It fools people like Shady who refuse to ask any questions at all. We know who gave to the swift boat people though because this was before citizens united. Bob J. Perry (Who gave at least 7 million to Roves American Cross roads) , Harold Simmons (Who has given at least 2 million to Roves American Cross roads) the list goes on and on. Although as shady says "you can't connect this to Bush". Except that the people who gave to that 527 are giving to the guy who ran both of Bush campaigns in a huge way. No connection there. Edited July 17, 2012 by punked Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 Not to mention the swiftboat attack was vile, while the Bain attack is fully justififable. Romney is looking like quite a weasel trying to "retroactively retire." He should just man up and admit he has approved of offshoring jobs in certain cases if the profit is there. The GOP is already trying to blame it on Obama's tax policy (even though it happened in 2001), so he could just follow that lead. Unfortunately, he is too wishy washy and has no guts whatsoever, which is what I think will ultimately define his campaign. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 Like I said, I fully understand the Obama campaign wanting to distract everyone from his record and the state of the economy. It's terrible. I'd do the same thing As I've already posted, The Washington Post, CNN, and FactCheck have already debunked everything. That's why Obama's campaign staff has backed off the wingnut felon charge and moved on to tax returns. Next week it'll be something else. Distract, distract, distract! Quote
punked Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 Like I said, I fully understand the Obama campaign wanting to distract everyone from his record and the state of the economy. It's terrible. I'd do the same thing As I've already posted, The Washington Post, CNN, and FactCheck have already debunked everything. That's why Obama's campaign staff has backed off the wingnut felon charge and moved on to tax returns. Next week it'll be something else. Distract, distract, distract! I get it Shady you want to distract from Romney's record and now that we are talking about it you got nothing. This guy wants to be president talking about him isn't off topic no matter how much you want to be. We know about Obama so lets talk of the alternative. Running on "I'm not Obama" isn't going to work Shady. Quote
guyser Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) As I've already posted, The Washington Post, CNN, and FactCheck have already debunked everything. Nice to see you use and respect Factcheck.org. They called and said you are full of shite for your earlier post (the one you refuse to answer) Like I said, I fully understand the Shady wanting to distract everyone from the truth , It's terrible. I'd do the same thing if I were.....hmm.... dishonest? Edited July 17, 2012 by guyser Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 Excellent strategy to bring up the sleaziest of Republican campaign tactics when trying to distract from Romney's record at Bain. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 Excellent strategy to bring up the sleaziest of Republican campaign tactics when trying to distract from Romney's record at Bain. What about his record at Bain? You mean the one Bill Clinton called stellar a few weeks ago? People are more interested in Obama's record as Prsident. His terrible record. The one he doesn't want to have to talk about. Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 17, 2012 Report Posted July 17, 2012 What about his record at Bain? The one he's trying to distance himself from by claiming he "retroactively retired." Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.