Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would never use "filthy rich" other than in a quotation. The term is an oxymoron at best. My goal is to be free. Today that really means to be free of government interference to the greatest extent possible. As a practical matter the only way to do that is through having money. Bill Gates has more freedom than you or I because he has real wealth. The convenience store clerk has very little freedom; they can walk on him at will. The both fear and respect wealth because they know that they could never achieve it; they can only prosper with the imtimidatory powers of government behind them. Notice how Obama fawns over the wealthy. But I don't wish that; I just wish to be left alone.
Federal employees have become the new nobility. Federal employment is a guarantee of a prosperous life forever; they take care of each other both in their days of work and their days of retirement. But my ethics and morals keep me from taking that path of infamy. I can only fail or succeed on my own. If I had never known before I'd certainly know now why so many bright boys and more than a few bright girls have been translating Cicero's First Oration Against Cataline for the last seven or eight centuries. It's all about a life of virtue as opposed to one of infamy. The Latin provides the reader with an excellent list of pejoratives for the wicked. Those men who founded the first universities weren't so stupid and irrelevant as is often charged today.
There is class warfare today. But they are a different set of classes.
But that was my point. In socialism (like the Yugoslav model), we were truly free, much freer than the 95%+ of people here and now with lacking medical coverage, heavy debt load etc.
You are saying it yourself - Bill Gates is much freer than really 98% of the Americans and the system was great for him. However, on average, for the vast majority of people, this system sucks. We eat sh*t for food, everyone's hands are in your pocket, just having decent medical insurance is a great deal, most people get into debt when they are 16 and get out of it in a coffin...
But that was my point. In socialism (like the Yugoslav model), we were truly free, much freer than the 95%+ of people here and now with lacking medical coverage, heavy debt load etc.
You are saying it yourself - Bill Gates is much freer than really 98% of the Americans and the system was great for him. However, on average, for the vast majority of people, this system sucks. We eat sh*t for food, everyone's hands are in your pocket, just having decent medical insurance is a great deal, most people get into debt when they are 16 and get out of it in a coffin...
OD
If I'm smart and work industriously I can buy my freedom; I have to an extent. I can also buy, possess, sell loan, or give my property to another private individual or corporation. I know a couple, both academics and politically conservative, who came here from Jugoslavia, Serbia in this case, some years ago. The lady once told me that her sister paid eighteen hundred dollars to the government for a telephone installation . After more than a year she was still waiting for her telephone. We can sue private companies or just take our business elsewhere. It's a bit different with a government monopoly. Americans once endured a private but government sponsored telephone monopoly. Rates have gone down and down since it lost its monopoly status.
I can legally carry a concealed weapon of my choice with no paperwork (permission) of any sort. I know that people can't do it everywhere in the US but I can do it here. You can't do it at all in Marxland unless you "know someone". But if it was so great there and you were so happy why are you here? For that matter, if things were so great and socialism worked so well why did the Soviet Union collapse. I know the standard answer to that question is that it wasn't real socialism; but why do you think it happened and why do you think Jugoslavia self-Balkanized.
It's interesting that Jugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have naturally evolved into smaller countries just as Adolf Hitler envisioned. I think that the answer to that is closely related to my previous questions.
I almost forgot that
1) all of the people I know eat quite well or at least eat what they wish, and
2) credit is a mark of a growing economy.
If I'm smart and work industriously I can buy my freedom; .
This is true. That's largely the way it is nowadays. But the sad thing is, that wasn't the original intention after the revolution. Somewhere along the line, we've blown it on that account and scrapped what (in my opinion) was a brilliant idea.
And this goes back to self-sufficiency. At one time, even a poor man was essentially free (with certain historical exceptions). If he worked (by consent) as an indentured servant or simply for a wage (unencumbered by government fingers at the time), he might eventually secure 5 or 10 acres of land. Once he did, he was free to do with it as he wished. There were no ridiculous taxes and fees for EVERY little improvement he wished to make. There were no building codes and restrictions to force conformity. He was not renting his land from the government as we all are today (don't believe me? Try not paying your "rent" to the government for a couple years and see what happens). He was not paying into a Ponzi "security" scheme by mandate, a medical insurance scam, and all the myriad of "for our own good" fees we pay to the government nowadays beyond the basic infrastructure costs. He could concentrate on simply funding his shelter, food, clothing, etc, and that of his family if he had one. He didn't have to support 48% of the nation who paid nothing. The government was essentially responsible for security and little more than that (of course, that didn't last for long before powerwhores began to corrupt the system). It may not have been easy for him or perfect, but he was essentially free from the shackles of big government to succeed or fail on his own.
It's too bad we have to buy our way out of slavery today (as you've correctly stated)--but even sadder that we can't really even do that because it turns out that by gaining more wealth we are simply increasing our "slavery-free" portion of income. But the slavery aspect is still there. It's just easier to bear.
I don't remember the exact quote (Franklin, I believe) that says something to the effect that he who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserves neither and will lose both. I agree.
Disclaimer (not directed at you, Happy): this is personal opinion (sermon, if you wish). There is no need for a trip to the emergency room. And there is no reason to go shopping for a neck violin.
This is true. That's largely the way it is nowadays. But the sad thing is, that wasn't the original intention after the revolution. Somewhere along the line, we've blown it on that account and scrapped what (in my opinion) was a brilliant idea.
And this goes back to self-sufficiency. At one time, even a poor man was essentially free (with certain historical exceptions). If he worked (by consent) as an indentured servant or simply for a wage (unencumbered by government fingers at the time), he might eventually secure 5 or 10 acres of land. Once he did, he was free to do with it as he wished. There were no ridiculous taxes and fees for EVERY little improvement he wished to make. There were no building codes and restrictions to force conformity. He was not renting his land from the government as we all are today (don't believe me? Try not paying your "rent" to the government for a couple years and see what happens). He was not paying into a Ponzi "security" scheme by mandate, a medical insurance scam, and all the myriad of "for our own good" fees we pay to the government nowadays beyond the basic infrastructure costs. He could concentrate on simply funding his shelter, food, clothing, etc, and that of his family if he had one. He didn't have to support 48% of the nation who paid nothing. The government was essentially responsible for security and little more than that (of course, that didn't last for long before powerwhores began to corrupt the system). It may not have been easy for him or perfect, but he was essentially free from the shackles of big government to succeed or fail on his own.
It's too bad we have to buy our way out of slavery today (as you've correctly stated)--but even sadder that we can't really even do that because it turns out that by gaining more wealth we are simply increasing our "slavery-free" portion of income. But the slavery aspect is still there. It's just easier to bear.
I don't remember the exact quote (Franklin, I believe) that says something to the effect that he who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserves neither and will lose both. I agree.
Disclaimer (not directed at you, Happy): this is personal opinion (sermon, if you wish). There is no need for a trip to the emergency room. And there is no reason to go shopping for a neck violin.
We're generally in agreement. But it wasn't always perfect back then. Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his taxes because he was opposed to the Mexican War. He went to jail. The federal government, however, wasn't very large and didn't have much money. Jefferson wrote his instrictions to Lewis and Clark himself. As J. Bracken Lee has pointed out it was unintrusive simply because it was weak.
I think that voluntary indentured servitude can be very good for both servant and master. It allowed a start or a fresh start for people who could never have raised the passage to this country on their own and helped address an acute labor shortage. More than a few young women met their husbands this way and more than a few young men went on to be prosperous citizens. Ninety percent of free Americans owned property; there was plenty just sitting there. Take as much as you need and can defend.
When Davy Crockett was running for reelection to Congress he approached a farmer to solicit his vote. The farmer told him that he would not support him. He told Crockett that because he had voted for a bill to provide relief to residents of a section of Washington City who had lost their homes and possessions in a major fire there that he would support Crockett's opponent. He did not consider charity to be a governmental function. It wasn't; it isn't.
His autobiography is a fascinating tome. He was a Whig fom the South and a potential dark horse for the Whig presidential nomination. He was well receive in New England. His description of factory life is excellent. We know he didn't write it all, perhaps none of it, if for no other reason that it goes right to the moment of his death. He didn't die in the Alamo. He was captured and brought before Santa Ana who had him executed immediately and before all. He was no ignorant lout.
Jefferson did believe that the federal government should sponsor roads and some scientific research. Since the beneficiaries of roads may be far away from the roads and since many roads need to coss areas that were not jammed with people we can make a legitimate case here. I have a BA in Econ from the University of Chicago where most of the faculty would support some roadbuilding. The scientific research was the sort of activity that would include sending an artist and one or more scientists on an exploration to new country. From a cost standpoint it was very small potatoes and often yielded immediate results.
I like the quotation but I'm not sure who wrote it. I have never seen a citation, but so what? It's a great aphorism. It's similar to the false quote from a Japanese admiral warning of a rifle behind every blade of grass should Japan invade.
I wish that the Southern states had seceded when Pierce or Buchanan were president. Neither would have made a stink and the South would have been prosperous instead of effectively turned into a colony. Everyone knew slavery was coming to an end. But if it had been peaceful the slave owners could have sold the slaves in Brazil, Africa, or the Mideast.
If you find my attitude shocking please recall that John Locke owned shares in the Royal Africa Company.
Our true freedom ended with the adoption of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave the central government all the powers that they needed and none that they shouldn't have had.
If I'm smart and work industriously I can buy my freedom; I have to an extent. I can also buy, possess, sell loan, or give my property to another private individual or corporation. I know a couple, both academics and politically conservative, who came here from Jugoslavia, Serbia in this case, some years ago. The lady once told me that her sister paid eighteen hundred dollars to the government for a telephone installation . After more than a year she was still waiting for her telephone. We can sue private companies or just take our business elsewhere. It's a bit different with a government monopoly. Americans once endured a private but government sponsored telephone monopoly. Rates have gone down and down since it lost its monopoly status.
I once worked in NYC where we paid a large, private telecommunications company to run a T1 connection between our office and a colocated server installation. 12 months later we still didn't have a T1 but they sent us a bill anyways for using the non-existent T1 for six months out of those twelve. It took three more months to get everything straightened out.
Most recently we signed a contract with another large telecommunications company to install fiber to our office in Austin. The contract was signed in July 2011 and we just saw our fiber installed in May 2012 AFTER threats, prodding and begging. So, poor service is not unique to socialist countries.
My mother in law purchased a large cell carrier's cell phone service and realized that her apartment complex (and for that matter the majority of town she lives in) has extremely poor coverage. She called them, went to their local store, tried everything she could to get this right but after 45 days of crap and being sent around various departments, she went ahead and stopped paying for her service, after letting the company know that she has no reception and hence no service. To this day she is being called by a collection agency for the debt resulting from breaking the contract on service she never effectively received.
Quite a few farmers in United States and Canada got sued by Monsanto over their patented Round-up resistent seeds that drifted into their fields from neighboring fields (Monsanto vs Schmeiser). They all lost because Monsanto has more money and more lawyers. Many of them lost their livelihoods in the process....
BP almost destroyed the Gulf and half the planet. Now they are on TV with commercials that would make you think that the oil spill was the best thing that ever happened to the Gulf . Sure, they got penalized here and there but the amount of money they spent is a mosquito bite compared to the damage they did.
Haliburton in Nigeria (quote from BBC article: "KBR last year pleaded guilty to paying $180m (£115m) in bribes to Nigerian officials prior to 2007, when it was a subsidiary of Halliburton. The firm agreed to pay $579m (£372m) in fines related to the case in the US."). Isn't it a criminal offense for you to bribe a U.S. government official? Would you not go to jail for it if you tried? How come corporations get away with just paying fines and citizens end up losing their freedoms in this "free for the people, by the people" society?
How come a corporation in America can neither "admit or deny any wrongdoing" in a case, pay a fine and move on? Do you think that is right and that it is the thing our forefathers had envisioned for this country?
I can go on....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
I can legally carry a concealed weapon of my choice with no paperwork (permission) of any sort. I know that people can't do it everywhere in the US but I can do it here. You can't do it at all in Marxland unless you "know someone". But if it was so great there and you were so happy why are you here?
Two different statements:
I lived in Belgrade, a large city of 2 million people, could go into ANY part of town and ANY time of day, completely unarmed and nothing would have ever happened to me. Violent crime rate was almost non-existent. Hence, I needed no gun. Can you do the same in any large American city?
Question #2: It was (one of) the greatest country in the world and it fell apart in a bloody civil war. So, I am here. However, it should be a lesson to anyone else out there as to what can happen to a place. It can go from great to nothing in a matter of 12 months (at least for the majority of people there, that was the experience, perhaps there were people in the security structures who had knowledge of the impending crash much earlier?). If you think that the same thing cannot happen here, you are either arrogant (no offense intended!) or uneducated or just putting your head in the sand (again, no personal offense intended!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
For that matter, if things were so great and socialism worked so well why did the Soviet Union collapse. I know the standard answer to that question is that it wasn't real socialism; but why do you think it happened and why do you think Jugoslavia self-Balkanized.
Soviet Union and the rest of the communist countries jumped into communism from very undeveloped, poor agrarian societies, burdened by often bloody history (unlike United States where the society effectively started from scratch, unburdened by past events - how many times do you have this shot in a thousand years?) . They (Soviet block) had really no shot at much. That is not to say that the system they were striving towards was bad, the path they took towards it (much different from Yugoslavia) was bad.
If you ask me, places like Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) have a much better shot at proper socialism since they are properly transitioning into it, they are wealthy, their population is highly educated, their financial reserves are large, their society is highly ordered, crime is very low etc.
Capitalism has its shining lights too. However, the way it is practiced here is often inhumane. You can go from middle-class to ****-poor over one illness. 40+ million people (out of 300 million) with no medical coverage? Corporations running everything? It has gone to the "other end of the spectrum" at this point.
Anyways, Yugoslavia "self-Balkanized" because of its history and because of money. There are many theories why but I will give you mine - reasons are two-fold.
Reason #1: World war 2 never finished for some people. Serbs were massacred by Croats in WW2 and this wound never healed properly.
Reason #2: Kosovo. It cost millions of dollars per day for Yugoslav police and army apparatus to keep Muslim Albanian minority (which has by 1980s become majority in Kosovo) from seceding and attaching itself to Albania (at least that was their desire then). Republics like Croatia and Slovenia brought billions of dollars every year to the table from tourism (alpine and the Adriatic sea). All of this money went to the capital (Belgrade) and then was spent as the federal govt saw fit (ring a bell?). At the end Slovenians and Croats said "no more" to spending money on Kosovo, Serbia should give it large autonomy. Serbs would have none of that. So, the rift started widening.... Not that there was no outside "help" to making this problem much bigger than it was, mind you...
By the way, if you go back there now, I can guarantee you that 90+ % of former Yugoslavs miss their old country, they know what they lost and they will never see it come back. What they got now is rapid race towards what we have here, an inhumane, highly stressful, dog-eat-dog system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
I almost forgot that
1) all of the people I know eat quite well or at least eat what they wish, and
2) credit is a mark of a growing economy.
1) Statistically speaking you know you are not right. Obesity, diseases with origin in poor nutrition, lack of time to exercise, they are all marks of this society - we invented all that stuff. (but hey, the medical industry is booming!)
2) Credit is also a mark of growing slavery
Every society has its ailments.
By the way, the most frequent reaction I get from people is "go back, leave us alone". I think it is the wrong reaction, that's like shooting the messenger . People have eyes and ears and opinions. We should be listening to everyone who wants to suggest a change or their experience or opinion.
We're generally in agreement. But it wasn't always perfect back then. Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his taxes because he was opposed to the Mexican War. He went to jail. The federal government, however, wasn't very large and didn't have much money. Jefferson wrote his instrictions to Lewis and Clark himself. As J. Bracken Lee has pointed out it was unintrusive simply because it was weak.
I think that voluntary indentured servitude can be very good for both servant and master. It allowed a start or a fresh start for people who could never have raised the passage to this country on their own and helped address an acute labor shortage. More than a few young women met their husbands this way and more than a few young men went on to be prosperous citizens. Ninety percent of free Americans owned property; there was plenty just sitting there. Take as much as you need and can defend.
When Davy Crockett was running for reelection to Congress he approached a farmer to solicit his vote. The farmer told him that he would not support him. He told Crockett that because he had voted for a bill to provide relief to residents of a section of Washington City who had lost their homes and possessions in a major fire there that he would support Crockett's opponent. He did not consider charity to be a governmental function. It wasn't; it isn't.
His autobiography is a fascinating tome. He was a Whig fom the South and a potential dark horse for the Whig presidential nomination. He was well receive in New England. His description of factory life is excellent. We know he didn't write it all, perhaps none of it, if for no other reason that it goes right to the moment of his death. He didn't die in the Alamo. He was captured and brought before Santa Ana who had him executed immediately and before all. He was no ignorant lout.
Jefferson did believe that the federal government should sponsor roads and some scientific research. Since the beneficiaries of roads may be far away from the roads and since many roads need to coss areas that were not jammed with people we can make a legitimate case here. I have a BA in Econ from the University of Chicago where most of the faculty would support some roadbuilding. The scientific research was the sort of activity that would include sending an artist and one or more scientists on an exploration to new country. From a cost standpoint it was very small potatoes and often yielded immediate results.
I like the quotation but I'm not sure who wrote it. I have never seen a citation, but so what? It's a great aphorism. It's similar to the false quote from a Japanese admiral warning of a rifle behind every blade of grass should Japan invade.
I wish that the Southern states had seceded when Pierce or Buchanan were president. Neither would have made a stink and the South would have been prosperous instead of effectively turned into a colony. Everyone knew slavery was coming to an end. But if it had been peaceful the slave owners could have sold the slaves in Brazil, Africa, or the Mideast.
If you find my attitude shocking please recall that John Locke owned shares in the Royal Africa Company.
Our true freedom ended with the adoption of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave the central government all the powers that they needed and none that they shouldn't have had.
This is an interesting, informative, and thought-provoking post.
I recently read a book about the Federalist Papers. It was meant to familiarize the reader with the papers and the motivations behind the Constitution. It also had plenty of material on the Articles of Confederation. It served its purpose concerning the Constitution, but in my mind, rather than endearing me further to the Constitution in actually had me questioning it at times. Not that I don't support the Constitution at this point, but more than a few times the book had me scratching my head and saying to myself that I prefer this or that aspect of the Articles of Confederation over the way the Constitution handled it. Also, at times I questioned the reasoning (in the Federalist Papers) behind scrapping the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution. At any rate, it's all very interesting to think about and to think about what might have been if the Articles of Confederation would have stood.
Oddly enough, Bunker's book relates somewhat to the part of your post concerning the Civil War and the reasons behind it beyond the slavery issue. He actually stated some of the things you mention here--especially the "effectively turned into a colony" aspect.
You've reminded me that I had planned on purchasing the book in your second link (Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates). I think I'll go do that right now...
Two different statements:
I lived in Belgrade, a large city of 2 million people, could go into ANY part of town and ANY time of day, completely unarmed and nothing would have ever happened to me. Violent crime rate was almost non-existent. Hence, I needed no gun. Can you do the same in any large American city?
Whether I need a gun or a bar of gold or anything else has nothing to do with my right to have a gun or a bar of gold or anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
Soviet Union and the rest of the communist countries jumped into communism from very undeveloped, poor agrarian societies, burdened by often bloody history (unlike United States where the society effectively started from scratch, unburdened by past events - how many times do you have this shot in a thousand years?) . They (Soviet block) had really no shot at much. That is not to say that the system they were striving towards was bad, the path they took towards it (much different from Yugoslavia) was bad.
They had seventy-four years to develop. I should think that three generations is ample time for a good bit of unburdening. But they couldn't even learn how to grow a sufficient wheat crop consistently. Of course, when the government allowed private plots those did very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
1) Statistically speaking you know you are not right. Obesity, diseases with origin in poor nutrition, lack of time to exercise, they are all marks of this society - we invented all that stuff. (but hey, the medical industry is booming!)
2) Credit is also a mark of growing slavery
We're not farm animals to be given the proper diet. Freedom means eating what you wish to eat as long as you can afford it. You may eat a diet of sprouts and dandelion greens; I prefer breaded and deep-fried bacon. Freedom means not exercising if you don't wish to do it.
Your remark on credit is fatuous.
You really don't comprehend what it means to be free.
The theme of his book is one of striving for the simple over the complex--low-tech solutions rather than high tech solutions. We can quibble here about root cellar vs refrigeration, electricity vs sans-electricity, horses vs nuclear power, canning vs MREs, and all the other details, and whether you or I practice them or not, until the cows or the boxes of powdered milk come home. But like you said, who cares?
I wonder why someone would go to the trouble of acquiring 150 year old periodicals and books containing low-tech solutions if s/he weren't interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
This is true. That's largely the way it is nowadays. But the sad thing is, that wasn't the original intention after the revolution. Somewhere along the line, we've blown it on that account and scrapped what (in my opinion) was a brilliant idea.
And this goes back to self-sufficiency. At one time, even a poor man was essentially free (with certain historical exceptions). If he worked (by consent) as an indentured servant or simply for a wage (unencumbered by government fingers at the time), he might eventually secure 5 or 10 acres of land. Once he did, he was free to do with it as he wished. There were no ridiculous taxes and fees for EVERY little improvement he wished to make. There were no building codes and restrictions to force conformity. He was not renting his land from the government as we all are today (don't believe me? Try not paying your "rent" to the government for a couple years and see what happens). He was not paying into a Ponzi "security" scheme by mandate, a medical insurance scam, and all the myriad of "for our own good" fees we pay to the government nowadays beyond the basic infrastructure costs. He could concentrate on simply funding his shelter, food, clothing, etc, and that of his family if he had one. He didn't have to support 48% of the nation who paid nothing. The government was essentially responsible for security and little more than that (of course, that didn't last for long before powerwhores began to corrupt the system). It may not have been easy for him or perfect, but he was essentially free from the shackles of big government to succeed or fail on his own.
The problem is, and always was, human nature. Even in, and between, the most primitive societies remaining on earth today, people are at risk by the greedy and power hungry.
Whether I need a gun or a bar of gold or anything else has nothing to do with my right to have a gun or a bar of gold or anything else.
They had seventy-four years to develop. I should think that three generations is ample time for a good bit of unburdening. But they couldn't even learn how to grow a sufficient wheat crop consistently. Of course, when the government allowed private plots those did very well.
We're not farm animals to be given the proper diet. Freedom means eating what you wish to eat as long as you can afford it. You may eat a diet of sprouts and dandelion greens; I prefer breaded and deep-fried bacon. Freedom means not exercising if you don't wish to do it.
Your remark on credit is fatuous.
You really don't comprehend what it means to be free.
Hey, hey, let's not start throwing such heavy accusations!
Do you think you are more free than the citizens of France or Spain or Italy? Or Sweden? Because you can own a gun?
My remark on credit might be pointless and silly but when it factually results in indentured servitude for the majority of the population where this said majority relinquishes its freedom to drop everything at any point in time and move or choose a new profession or life because of use of said "credit" all the while a small minority (or a set of corporate entities) owns the means of lending credit and obtaining profits from it, what really matters?
Why don't you go and open a bank tomorrow that will stay in business competitively with Bank of America? In theory you are free to do it. Or have barriers to entry to most industries and services become so high that only the ones with the deepest pockets can afford to start offering a new service on scale?
Anyways, what happens when the majority of the banks own the whole "financial system" and can bring it to its knees (for benefit of few) directly affecting the lives of the whole country? How many banks are we talking about really? Five, ten, twenty? What is the percentage of the 300 million Americans that works for these banks and why do they get to choose the future of a whole country?
Is that what Jefferson had in mind?
What is the difference between the above and the government owned means of lending credit? The fact that there is more than one entity involved? In a system like here at the sizes of corporations we are talking about today, what is the difference, please explain? All the banks (JPM, BofA, Citi etc.) have naturally converged to the same model as the competition space is finite (there is only so many suckers to rip off and only so many ways to do it) and they all have their money in the same pots because the world is finite and there are only so many pots. As a group, they are all moving towards the same thing, they are all extracting profits out of the population the same way, what makes them so different from each other and how is this "free choice" at the end of the day? I think it is rather a free choice from a pre-selected menu of free choices that these guys dreamed up but what about the menu itself, can it be different and who decides?
That touches on true freedom, in my mind.
Hey, the other day I wanted to open a bank account. I shopped around and guess what? All the big banks have monthly fees to give me the privilege of keeping my money with them! With all this "freedom" and "choice", I still get the same menu everywhere, just the numbers are different.
How about Lowes and Home Depot? They are the single drivers of the majority of production of hand tools, equipment, pipes, lumber, toilet seats, faucets, doors, windows (and whatever else they sell) etc in the consumer market. Small mom and pop reseller shops (and production end of the affairs alike) have been killed off and there are only two choices, more or less, either you are buying Brand A produced for Home Depot or brand B produced for Lowes. How does the consumer win here? They all look alike, act alike, drill alike, hammer alike, just different color, however, you will notice, a VERY SIMILAR PRICE STICKER.
It seems to me that the business usually goes like this: at the beginning there is plenty of competition, small shops, individual businesses, local ventures. Then the market starts "maturing" and there are a few growing players that drop prices by virtue of some kind of competitive quality (great for you and me!). People naturally flock to the few cheaper places, these places grow further and finally purchase everyone else out, with one or two remaining in every field. Now for everyone else to enter the field becomes prohibitively expensive, there is no way you can compete with a guy like Home Depot or Walmart when half a China is in their pocket.
There are 3-4 large meat and chicken producing companies. Two single largest drivers of beef demand are McDonalds and who else, Burger King probably? Is this to you freedom of choice? Yes, you can buy "organic" beef from your local farmer but statistically speaking the vast majority of the country buys beef through McDonalds in processed form.
Your diet is your choice but again, look at the statistics, things take a turn and as a society the vast majority of people simply ends up doing the same thing. Question becomes, what is this thing, what drives its adoption, what is the motivation behind it, what is it doing to the general population etc..
Would you be happy for your country if in year 2078, 75% of the population was bed-ridden, weighed 400 lbs each and had an IQ of 70 and was hooked into a TV/phone/computer via a wire directly into the brain? 'Cause you know, it could happen for the majority very easily
The problem is, and always was, human nature. Even in, and between, the most primitive societies remaining on earth today, people are at risk by the greedy and power hungry.
Okay, now this is something we can agree on.
Really, there wouldn't be a need for rules and regulations at all if not for the questionable nature of our species (on the whole). The problem nowadays is that the greedy and power hungry are trying to "save" us from the greedy and power hungry. It's hard to disconnect from that loop. I have nothing against wealth, but I will forever be against those who seek non-consenting control over others. In my case, as was stated somewhere else in this thread by another poster, I simply want to be left alone. Or putting it another way "out of that loop" as much as possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and a potential dark horse for the Whig presidential nomination. He was well receive in New England. His description of factory life is excellent. We know he didn't write it all, perhaps none of it, if for no other reason that it goes right to the moment of his death. He didn't die in the Alamo. He was captured and brought before Santa Ana who had him executed immediately and before all. He was no ignorant lout.
. Sure, they got penalized here and there but the amount of money they spent is a mosquito bite compared to the damage they did.
