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.
How about a sugar mama instead? As long as she's far more attractive than the un-airbrushed, un-photoshopped version of Ms. Pelosi. No more work... Sugar Mama gonna take care of everything.
You recently indicated support for "safety nets"; you seemed to indicate that you no longer believe that absolute support of capitalism is right; you share private jokes with Josip Tito, Jr. Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to those of us who have considered you a staunch supporter of capitalism and freedom in general.
This what I see for Tito, his mentors, and his sycophants:
This article talks about the expenses and pitfalls of wiring up a city. It's just one example, but clearly it must happen nearly everywhere as we can see from the total lack of competition in broadband and the crappy service/prices around the country.
There are some things the government is in far better position of doing - infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Funnily enough, when Google announced that Austin was going to get gigabit fiber, Time Warner Cable suddenly doubled its speeds without raising the price. Now that's the way it ought to work.
Yeah, after what? Quite a few years essentially raping their customers? The fact that all of a sudden they could provide a faster service for the same price tells me that they could have done that a long time ago but they decided not to. That's dishonest - these companies are a scourge on the country and should not be in control of our infrastructure.
As for the broadband and poverty - you can say whatever you want - having high speed internet is already and is only going to be even more important if we want to be competitive with the world. Right now we are under the thumb of a few monopolies and that's just sad because they are holding the whole country hostage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Sorry but it's not the infrastructure. It's the people that make the difference.
Riiiiight. I say we don't need internet, roads, airports, telecommunications, nothin'. Let's cut all that out and compete with Germany and China. We are the best by default so we don't need none of that stuff to be the best.
Better yet, let's give EVERYTHING to 2-3 companies, land, water, air - everything.
Last edited by LordyLordy; 03-06-2014 at 09:40 PM..
You recently indicated support for "safety nets"; you seemed to indicate that you no longer believe that absolute support of capitalism is right; you share private jokes with Josip Tito, Jr. Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to those of us who have considered you a staunch supporter of capitalism and freedom in general.
I mean, I am honored to be in the company of someone like ChrisC and be mentioned in the same sentence, I have always idolized the man. You are right, I am a sycophant
You recently indicated support for "safety nets"; you seemed to indicate that you no longer believe that absolute support of capitalism is right; you share private jokes with Josip Tito, Jr. Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to those of us who have considered you a staunch supporter of capitalism and freedom in general.
Recall Dante.
Well, let's start with a philosophical/ideological/theoretical view (yeah I know, "Tito Jr," I'm good at that sort of thing and I offer very little beyond--so be it):
I've never really supported "capitalism" in it's present form. I do support the concept of a free market with no form of government interference, ASSUMING that free market is conducted in the absence of evil, gluttony, and power-whoredom. And that's a pretty tall order. As with any other social/political/economic system, the idea of a true free market economy cannot succeed in the significant presence of any of those three. Unfortunately, our species' brains are largely wired (not every single one of us, but enough to make life miserable for the rest) to exhibit and practice at least one of those three nasty tendencies. And yes... I do believe in good and evil, even though my academic and political masters have been trying to exorcise such notions from me since birth.
So my ideal of a free market is the unencumbered exchange/marketing of goods and services by the INDIVIDUAL in the absence of evil, gluttony, and power-whoredom. There would be no behemoth economic "teams" to cheer on, look up to, or stroke each other (or masturbate). There would be no such thing as the government construct called a "corporation" (which in my estimation is another government tool to promote dependency). This of course would mean that another modern fetish would be absent: the idea of collectivism--because there are economic collectives just as sure and there are social, religious, and political collectives.
As for freedom/liberty, I AM a staunch supporter. But where does an ideal and practicality meet? I don't want to have to be Conan the Barbarian to be able to exercise liberty and live peacefully. I mentioned this in another post: theoretically, I support complete anarchy (I'm not talking anarchy in the sense of chaos), meaning the complete lack of government and leadership of any kind. BUT, have you ever wondered why the word anarchy, which technically means lack of government and/or control, has come to be synonymous with chaos and disorder? I'll tell you: it's because of the same three human flaws I stated above--evil, gluttony, and power-whoredom. Just as sure as the sun rises each morning, the people who would live peacefully under anarchy would be enslaved in short order. Until those three flaws are erased from our DNA, complete non-control cannot work, even though I desperately wish it would. Sadly, most folks understand the "liberty" part, but they do not understand the "for all" part.
Thus, we are stuck with the rather unpalatable notion of "government." But now much? That's were we all disagree. "Tito Jr" wants heavy government regulation and a sort of socialist plan. You want more of a corporate feudal sort of thing (where business, in essence becomes the government). And I want nearly none. Minarchism is what I support in a practical sense--a nighwatchman state. The government protects the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is the end of the road for government. It does not MANDATE it's vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does NOT punish success. It does NOT reward failure. You, as an individual do that. Or not.
As for a "safety net"... yes, I support a practical safety net, but NOT the safety net we have now--because it's not a safety net, it's a dependence net--more like a fish net (or sheep net, as it were). I do, however, understand that there are those people who truly cannot function well enough to provide for themselves--this includes those with severe handicaps, either mental or physical. This does not include deadbeats. Don't get me wrong, if you want to be a deadbeat, fine. Just not on my, or anyone else's, dime. No net for those types. They do what they do of their own resources.
As for socialism... I can accept that socialism may well be the best social model for some people. The problem is that socialism, as practiced throughout the world, is typically forced onto ALL people within a given nation. That's where I have a problem with it. If you want to be a socialist, fine... as long as you leave me out of it. I'm dead set against any social structure that forces inclusion rather than allows inclusion. That was what was so nice about the original intent of this nation. If you wanted to, you could go out with your comrades and set up an entire collectivist city. Pool your money and resources. It was done in practice many, many times in this nation. Eat from the same table and, if you like, all sleep in the same bed. On the other hand, if you like, you can move out to the middle of nowhere and never be encumbered or enslaved by anyone or anything. That was the ideal on the founding, and although it never was fully realized, it was a noble idea and an idea that should have been a continuing goal. Sadly, our goal is exactly in the opposite direction now--a nation of comfortable slaves.
So, now on the practical side... things are obviously changing for the worse--at least for someone like me. So, what to do? It's largely a game of disconnection and working around minefields for me--finding a way out of what the government and its nation full of sheep want to force me to do. I don't want to beat the system. I don't want the system. In a nation full of collectivists, it isn't going to get any better for people like me. Avoidance is really the only recourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordyLordy
I mean, I am honored to be in the company of someone like ChrisC and be mentioned in the same sentence, I have always idolized the man. You are right, I am a sycophant
Oh please.
-------------------------------
For the record, the "sugar mama" comment was a JOKE! A sugar mama (or daddy) invariably turns into a master.
Well, let's start with a philosophical/ideological/theoretical view (yeah I know, "Tito Jr," I'm good at that sort of thing and I offer very little beyond--so be it):
First, to make my social desires clear to you and other readers let me state the following. My ideal society is found in Ayn Rand's "Utopia of Greed", that Colorado valley populated by men and women who refuse to participate in the rotting husk of what was once the freest and most moral society ever conceived. That society was these United States governed by the Articles of Confederation. I'm sure that you and most others here have read Atlas Shrugged. Remember that in Rand's utopia there are places for industrialists, composers, and truckdrivers. The only requirement is that they earn their money through their own efforts, not stealing the products of the efforts of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I've never really supported "capitalism" in it's present form. I do support the concept of a free market with no form of government interference, ASSUMING that free market is conducted in the absence of evil, gluttony, and power-whoredom. And that's a pretty tall order. As with any other social/political/economic system, the idea of a true free market economy cannot succeed in the significant presence of any of those three. Unfortunately, our species' brains are largely wired (not every single one of us, but enough to make life miserable for the rest) to exhibit and practice at least one of those three nasty tendencies. And yes... I do believe in good and evil, even though my academic and political masters have been trying to exorcise such notions from me since birth.
Capitalism works for a rural village; it works just as well for an entire society. Swiss bankers need have an outlook no different from that of Swiss dairy farmers. As long as they have an honest business there is no difference. Small is no more synomous with good than big is with bad.
Homo sapiens became the dominant species on this planet because of a desire to obtain and accumulate wealth of all sorts. It began in ancestal species because of the need to secure food. The species best able to get food and to secure it from attack became the dominant species. But wealth has long been far more than just food. Archaeologists have found fabricated beads nearly a hundred thousand years old. Baltic amber has been found in Subsaharan Africa in locations determined to be 25k years old. Beads and amber are luxury goods, that is, they don't meet basic physical needs but do fulfill the almost unique human desire for aesthetic pleasure. You may call it evil greed but it's the reson our ancestors at a certain stage became civilized. The difference between the most primitive beads and a palatial estate filled with beautiful objects is only one of degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
So my ideal of a free market is the unencumbered exchange/marketing of goods and services by the INDIVIDUAL in the absence of evil, gluttony, and power-whoredom. There would be no behemoth economic "teams" to cheer on, look up to, or stroke each other (or masturbate). There would be no such thing as the government construct called a "corporation" (which in my estimation is another government tool to promote dependency). This of course would mean that another modern fetish would be absent: the idea of collectivism--because there are economic collectives just as sure and there are social, religious, and political collectives.
A corporation is an individual or a group of individuals who have created a corporate person. Besides convenience, it allows individuals to invest specific amounts without putting their entire fortunes at risk. The corporation or the current limited liability company is necessary for the smallest news stand or the largest railroad. Along with patents it makes modern civilization possible. Had farmers in this country been using the corporation a century ago far more of them would have been able to weather the Great Depression, that initially minor event prolonged by a ruler's savage desire to turn the country into a communist hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
As for freedom/liberty, I AM a staunch supporter. But where does an ideal and practicality meet? I don't want to have to be Conan the Barbarian to be able to exercise liberty and live peacefully. I mentioned this in another post: theoretically, I support complete anarchy (I'm not talking anarchy in the sense of chaos), meaning the complete lack of government and leadership of any kind. BUT, have you ever wondered why the word anarchy, which technically means lack of government and/or control, has come to be synonymous with chaos and disorder? I'll tell you: it's because of the same three human flaws I stated above--evil, gluttony, and power-whoredom. Just as sure as the sun rises each morning, the people who would live peacefully under anarchy would be enslaved in short order. Until those three flaws are erased from our DNA, complete non-control cannot work, even though I desperately wish it would. Sadly, most folks understand the "liberty" part, but they do not understand the "for all" part.
We had this under the Articles of Confederation when the central government could neither tax nor control the individual.
We are our DNA. In many places during the federal period (the period before the constitution) people lived in a society of anarchism, but not anarchy. They could come together to repel Indian attacks then return to their previous unsocial lives. The Utopia of Greed works the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Thus, we are stuck with the rather unpalatable notion of "government." But now much? That's were we all disagree. "Tito Jr" wants heavy government regulation and a sort of socialist plan. You want more of a corporate feudal sort of thing (where business, in essence becomes the government). And I want nearly none. Minarchism is what I support in a practical sense--a nighwatchman state. The government protects the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is the end of the road for government. It does not MANDATE it's vision of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does NOT punish success. It does NOT reward failure. You, as an individual do that. Or not.
"Tito, Jr." hates successful people as much as his murderous namesake. Do you seriously believe that if you, a small holder, designed a new tool that revolutionized farming and made you a man of extraordinary wealth, that he would allow you to keep the fruits of your intellect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
As for a "safety net"... yes, I support a practical safety net, but NOT the safety net we have now--because it's not a safety net, it's a dependence net--more like a fish net (or sheep net, as it were). I do, however, understand that there are those people who truly cannot function well enough to provide for themselves--this includes those with severe handicaps, either mental or physical. This does not include deadbeats. Don't get me wrong, if you want to be a deadbeat, fine. Just not on my, or anyone else's, dime. No net for those types. They do what they do of their own resources.
You may give everything you own to those who don't produce. But don't order me to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
As for socialism... I can accept that socialism may well be the best social model for some people. The problem is that socialism, as practiced throughout the world, is typically forced onto ALL people within a given nation. That's where I have a problem with it. If you want to be a socialist, fine... as long as you leave me out of it. I'm dead set against any social structure that forces inclusion rather than allows inclusion. That was what was so nice about the original intent of this nation. If you wanted to, you could go out with your comrades and set up an entire collectivist city. Pool your money and resources. It was done in practice many, many times in this nation. Eat from the same table and, if you like, all sleep in the same bed. On the other hand, if you like, you can move out to the middle of nowhere and never be encumbered or enslaved by anyone or anything. That was the ideal on the founding, and although it never was fully realized, it was a noble idea and an idea that should have been a continuing goal. Sadly, our goal is exactly in the opposite direction now--a nation of comfortable slaves.
Socialism forces inclusion. Small socialist societies have always quickly disappeared. The Amish are not cialists simply because they cooperate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
So, now on the practical side... things are obviously changing for the worse--at least for someone like me. So, what to do? It's largely a game of disconnection and working around minefields for me--finding a way out of what the government and its nation full of sheep want to force me to do. I don't want to beat the system. I don't want the system. In a nation full of collectivists, it isn't going to get any better for people like me. Avoidance is really the only recourse.
The nation is not full of collectivists. But most people do not have the necessary intelligence to resist the orders of the rulers backed up by armed men who are nothing more than the most powerful gang.
"Tito, Jr." hates successful people as much as his murderous namesake. Do you seriously believe that if you, a small holder, designed a new tool that revolutionized farming and made you a man of extraordinary wealth, that he would allow you to keep the fruits of your intellect?
You got nothing to worry about since you are not self-made.
You were fed with a silver spoon, given everything you want and your only responsibility was to go to school (if you botched that too, oh well, it happens). You got a mortgage-free and car-loan-free life to start as a gift. Now you sit in your cozy home and **** on everyone else who doesn't want to live in the 1820s where the local rancher was the law 'cause he could pay the sheriff.
I consider myself successful and I think I have a lot of friends who are well to do and successful. I think that you are gone off the deep end to the far, far away lands where there are only extremes and where you revel in the delusions of grandeur. As such there is no point in dragging this discussion forever.
By the way, I am not sure what murderous namesake you are referring to? If I am thinking the same guy you are thinking - that dude didn't order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Vietnam or Iraq for example just to create more business for his oil and gas buddies now did he?
First, to make my social desires clear to you and other readers let me state the following. My ideal society is found in Ayn Rand's "Utopia of Greed", that Colorado valley populated by men and women who refuse to participate in the rotting husk of what was once the freest and most moral society ever conceived. That society was these United States governed by the Articles of Confederation. I'm sure that you and most others here have read Atlas Shrugged. Remember that in Rand's utopia there are places for industrialists, composers, and truckdrivers. The only requirement is that they earn their money through their own efforts, not stealing the products of the efforts of others.
Ah that explains it - you are regurgitating someone else's ideology (while blaming others for following a different ideology). I thought that GM scholarship was to produce independent thought. Hmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
Capitalism works for a rural village; it works just as well for an entire society. Swiss bankers need have an outlook no different from that of Swiss dairy farmers. As long as they have an honest business there is no difference. Small is no more synomous with good than big is with bad.
How come there are so many dishonest businesses here, today? I get ripped off almost daily on this or that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
The difference between the most primitive beads and a palatial estate filled with beautiful objects is only one of degree.
That's a nice way to rationalize something bad and absolve yourself or anyone else from any responsibility for everything bad that they have done in their quest to satisfy their greed. So in your (Milton Friedman cultivated) mind the corporation that denudes a mountain or pollutes the river or forces thousands of people to go elsewhere and leave their ancestral lands just because they happen to be sitting on coal or gold or whatever is the same as someone who just wants to have an extra horse or two or maybe be able to go to the hospital without going bankrupt. I see, the world is black and white with no shades of gray. Nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
A corporation is an individual or a group of individuals who have created a corporate person.
Corporate person is a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
Besides convenience, it allows individuals to invest specific amounts without putting their entire fortunes at risk.
It has also allowed people to create fortunes from thin air, by manipulation, arbitrage or whatever else. That's because none of it is based on reality, it is all imaginary. In addition, the markets, instead of being a part of the economy, have become THE economy. That's bad, bad, bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
The corporation or the current limited liability company is necessary for the smallest news stand or the largest railroad.
Yeah, it is necessary for you to hide yourself behind a piece of paper and a bunch of lawyers when you do something bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
We are our DNA. In many places during the federal period (the period before the constitution) people lived in a society of anarchism, but not anarchy. They could come together to repel Indian attacks then return to their previous unsocial lives. The Utopia of Greed works the same way.
In many places force was the deciding factor - who had more money and more guns. If you were a cattle baron, you got a few of your buddies and you killed off your competition to have more land and more cattle. I don't remember Milton Friedman being a proponent of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
You may give everything you own to those who don't produce. But don't order me to do it.
You don't own the roads for example - you just pay into their maintenance. Do you not drive on them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
The nation is not full of collectivists. But most people do not have the necessary intelligence to resist the orders of the rulers backed up by armed men who are nothing more than the most powerful gang.
Oh thanks, here it comes - the topping on the cake, someone with TRUE intelligence to tell us in a soft, non-condescending voice that we are too dumb to form an opinion on our own. Someone who was given a great head-start in life by Mom and Dad, everything paid. Someone educated.
Oh wait, was it you speaking or was it a quote from Ayn Rand?
You're free to kill those capitalists, if they get too far out of hand, you know. Since everyone hates them, no fingers will be pointed at you. Everybody is a chickeness, that's the problem
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.
No more work... Sugar Mama gonna take care of everything. 
