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.
You need to go back and study the history of this country. Your ancestors 200+ years ago were free to go anywhere they wanted and free to do pretty much what they wanted. The causes of immigration to a new continent were manyfold but mostly freedom of religion, running away from a feudal system (and associated taxation by one entity), quest for more opportunity etc. The human beings that inhabited this continent and the animals at the time were either eradicated or subdued in a genocide-style manner. In many instances religion was used to justify the genocide (as in, Native People are not Christian so they are not really people) but it was a thin cover for what was essentially a ruthless land grab. I am not inventing anything new here, just giving you the breakdown.
Your ancestors at the time were much more free than you are now (spatially - they could go nearly darn anywhere they pleased or in terms of taxation, ordinances, state and federal laws etc.). This is one of the reasons why the Constitution was a logical next step - codify and guarantee those freedoms as much as you can.
Where are we now? You can't fart as much without a local city or county permit that costs you money. The tax overlords are the only ones on whose debt you cannot default and they can take you to the cleaners today and have leans on your wages until you die (including potential jail time). Your access to land in general has shrunk dramatically unless you can afford to buy 10,000 acres of your own ranch. Everywhere you turn there are fences, roads, "no trespassing" signs. Sure, you can have an opinion and have the freedom to voice it, but, who the hell are you among the disparate voices of millions of others?
People are thrust into a system where they have one single skill which is bartered for money in order to acquire hundreds of other things that the acquirer has no idea where they come from or how they are made. In essence, you are exchanging convenience for ignorance and thus limiting your freedoms of what you can do. This is why you can have a situation where generations of Americans are poisoned by processed food by the same company that now announces a healthy product by removing the chemicals and crap that made them billions to begin with, all the while making profits on the new, "healthier" product. The ignorant masses never stop to ask "well, wait a second, if you can make a healthy can of tomatoes by peeling them with steam now - could you not have done that from the beginning instead if using harsh chemicals like lye".
Anyways, statistics show you that such a system works for 5% of the population. You may have the freedom to be in debt with your bank till you die because you wanted to get an education and be a "productive member of the society" or because you wanted to buy a house or whatever. Yes, you have the freedom to not be in debt and not borrow. Again, statistics show that for 95% of the population that's just a myth...
Enjoy your "freedom".
OD
Some of what you say here, I actually agree with. Too bad we are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to what might be a cure to these issues.
Why does the cannery use lye to peel the tomatoes? Is it because they have an evil plot to kill their customers and that by definition, capitalism promotes this sort of thing? Surely you must see that is silly and self-defeating. The only reason for the lye (whether it kills the customers or not) is maximization of profit. They make a few more bucks doing it that way than by using steam. That is NOT the fault of a free market system. It is the fault (as with most everything else) of greed. Too much emphasis on doing things as cheaply as possible. Too much emphasis on the pocketbook. I don't see the free market system as the problem, I see the greed within the system as the problem. As is by definition always the case, a corrupt system cannot function properly. No matter the system.
The free market system (in it's natural form) allows everyone to contribute to society with what they best contribute to society, if that system is functioning properly (I realize it's NOT right now, but that's not the fault of free market philosophy). We have to go back in time to see how it may have worked properly at one time. For instance, let's say I make the best brooms in town. Joe down the block is a great blacksmith. Sara makes great bread. Ann is a wonderful nurse and helps with the older folks in town. Deirdre paints the most wonderful portraits. John plays guitar on Saturday nights on the town square. Etc. Etc. Everyone has their little niche and is compensated for it and is then able to live comfortably in our little Pleasantville scenario. That's how it was supposed to work. It's only when jackasses who are only concerned with more, more, more, like Mr. Scrooge and old man Potter enter the picture that the free market system turns into crony capitalism. And suddenly you have all these folks screaming for tyranny rather than striving to fix the real problem: greed and a lust for power over others.
I would like to offer a new term (new to me at least) and propose that this system would be the best alternative, but would demand the kind of ethics that 99% of us don't have: Sufficiency Free Market Philosophy. With the motto of, "I have sufficient for my needs." Pie in the sky for sure, but if everyone played by, and WANTED to play by, the rules, it would work. No one wants a pile of gold just for the sake of having it. Everyone has liberty because nobody wants to take anyone else's away. Wouldn't that be nice?
Editor's note: Yeah, I KNOW! No way it's ever going to happen. Dreams are still okay though, right? They aren't taxed yet?
But I worked hard for mine. I didn't get it from some social program!
But, other than saving for a "rainy day," what purpose does it serve if you are happy with your situation in life?
Note: I'm not talking about living in poverty when I say this. Then again, "poverty" is really a misunderstood word in the US of A. But in my view, there is nothing wrong with accumulation of wealth that will prevent one from ever needing a "social program." But there is a logical limit. And once we pass it, we have what we have now. And then we have the other "99%" of the people bellyaching and throwing a tantrum because they all don't make 20 million dollars a year like Mr. X, Wall Street Superstar. Who the hell cares about how much Mr. X makes in the first place? I don't. Making 20 million a year became pointless in my way of thinking about 0.25% ago. Actually, for me, it became pointless even sooner than that. If Mr. X wants to waste his life on this sort of thing, fine. But that's just my way of thinking. It goes back to that "phallus" thing from the other thread again: my little pot of gold is bigger than your little pot of gold.
Some of what you say here, I actually agree with. Too bad we are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to what might be a cure to these issues.
Why does the cannery use lye to peel the tomatoes? Is it because they have an evil plot to kill their customers and that by definition, capitalism promotes this sort of thing? Surely you must see that is silly and self-defeating. The only reason for the lye (whether it kills the customers or not) is maximization of profit. They make a few more bucks doing it that way than by using steam. That is NOT the fault of a free market system. It is the fault (as with most everything else) of greed. Too much emphasis on doing things as cheaply as possible. Too much emphasis on the pocketbook. I don't see the free market system as the problem, I see the greed within the system as the problem. As is by definition always the case, a corrupt system cannot function properly. No matter the system.
The free market system (in it's natural form) allows everyone to contribute to society with what they best contribute to society, if that system is functioning properly (I realize it's NOT right now, but that's not the fault of free market philosophy). We have to go back in time to see how it may have worked properly at one time. For instance, let's say I make the best brooms in town. Joe down the block is a great blacksmith. Sara makes great bread. Ann is a wonderful nurse and helps with the older folks in town. Deirdre paints the most wonderful portraits. John plays guitar on Saturday nights on the town square. Etc. Etc. Everyone has their little niche and is compensated for it and is then able to live comfortably in our little Pleasantville scenario. That's how it was supposed to work. It's only when jackasses who are only concerned with more, more, more, like Mr. Scrooge and old man Potter enter the picture that the free market system turns into crony capitalism. And suddenly you have all these folks screaming for tyranny rather than striving to fix the real problem: greed and a lust for power over others.
I would like to offer a new term (new to me at least) and propose that this system would be the best alternative, but would demand the kind of ethics that 99% of us don't have: Sufficiency Free Market Philosophy. With the motto of, "I have sufficient for my needs." Pie in the sky for sure, but if everyone played by, and WANTED to play by, the rules, it would work. No one wants a pile of gold just for the sake of having it. Everyone has liberty because nobody wants to take anyone else's away. Wouldn't that be nice?
Editor's note: Yeah, I KNOW! No way it's ever going to happen. Dreams are still okay though, right? They aren't taxed yet?
We are not far off on the spectrum. I am not advocating taking anyone's anything (although I would not mind if it happened and there was a "great equalizer" sort of an event) - that would be impossible in the current state of affairs. What I am (somewhat nostalgically) saying is that our ancestors 2 centuries ago had more freedom than our supposedly advanced society.
However, two centuries ago lack of common sense was regulated by the harshness of daily life - today anything and anyone can survive.
Anyways, where you and I differ is the cause of it all. You say it is greed. I say, I agree but greed is a consequence of progress. That's the root of all evil in my mind.
Tyranny has many forms. Some are immediately obvious like oppressive governments. Others are not immediately visible and have become part of everyday life. The less obvious, the larger the magnitude and the more pervasive.
Bascailly they do what our elected offical tell them to under laws they pass. I know very few in coastal areas who do not think protection of wet lands is not important.True sometime like every human decision its over done but generally they do the majorities bidding.
What I am (somewhat nostalgically) saying is that our ancestors 2 centuries ago had more freedom than our supposedly advanced society.
Most certainly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
However, two centuries ago lack of common sense was regulated by the harshness of daily life - today anything and anyone can survive.
Again, true. That harshness of daily life would nip about 99% of the philosophical mushrooming that we have today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
Anyways, where you and I differ is the cause of it all. You say it is greed. I say, I agree but greed is a consequence of progress. That's the root of all evil in my mind.
OD
What the Corp has done is just now sinking in. People who originally thought this was a great idea are now realizing just what happens when the government takes over.
We are now hearing stories about people who bought a piece of land and were told by the Corp how much of it they could develop. One guy I was talking to told me he had bought an acre to build a house, plant a garden and orchard, and have a few farm animals on. The Corp said they would only allow him to develop 1/4 acre. When he went to the parish to have the decreased value of the property recorded, he was told that the buying price determined his taxes!
The Corp rep jokingly said that they would reconsider their rules when there were no empty houses in the parish.
So . . . . no new business or subdivisions for St. Tammany Parish! I hear Tangipahoa Parish (next door) is celebrating.
I do not personally know of any individual property owner who abuses his property. Most people take pride in what they own. I must admit, some do not make their property as beautiful as they could since this would increase the value of their property and result in increased property taxes.
I do know some corporations (especially those not headquartered in Louisiana) who don't seem to care. Fortunately, corporations are sensitive to public ridicule. I know of corporations who would rather pay out millions in fines than be laughed at. But then, - aren't these fines tax deductible?
People who originally thought this was a great idea are now realizing just what happens when the government takes over.
I find this to be the case in nearly every bit of this type of legislation. Folks want the government to come fix it, they want the government to enforce their wants/needs... and then are stymied when the government they asked to be there does more than they asked it to do (sometimes not even doing the thing it was asked to do!) and is precluding them from doing what they want to do now. People's inability to envision the possible negative impacts comes back to haunt them time and again. It might look good now, but what bad thing could happen later? Nothing comes without a price, and we continually ignore the very real historical misuses of power in past governments... like it could never happen here and now
Asking for government intervention is akin to inviting a vampire over your threshold... you can't get rid of them, have no control over what they'll do once they're inside, which will most likely be enslaving you and draining you dry.
I find this to be the case in nearly every bit of this type of legislation. Folks want the government to come fix it, they want the government to enforce their wants/needs... and then are stymied when the government they asked to be there does more than they asked it to do (sometimes not even doing the thing it was asked to do!) and is precluding them from doing what they want to do now. People's inability to envision the possible negative impacts comes back to haunt them time and again. It might look good now, but what bad thing could happen later? Nothing comes without a price, and we continually ignore the very real historical misuses of power in past governments... like it could never happen here and now
Asking for government intervention is akin to inviting a vampire over your threshold... you can't get rid of them, have no control over what they'll do once they're inside, which will most likely be enslaving you and draining you dry.
So much for being stewards of the land. One of the dairy farmers in the article says (paraphrased) "we own the land so we know what's best for it".
Yeah, right. Greedy, greedy, greedy...
You can claim fracking is safe, but don't forget DDT was safe 40 years ago before it wasn't (and so were hundreds of other "new things to make profit with")...
OD
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.
I didn't get it from some social program! 
Reality bites
