View Full Version : End the War on Drugs, support Ron Paul!
Do you want an end to the War On (Some) Drugs? Then you have exactly ONE Presidential candidate to support, Ron Paul. Here are a few tidbits on why Ron Paul is the anti-Drug War candidate:
*Ron Paul voted for the legalization of industrial hemp
*Voted NO on border patrols to battle drugs
*Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to drug testing
*Sponsored the States' rights to Medical Marijuana Act
*Voted against the "Rave Act"
To find out more and to support Ron Paul for President 2008, visit the following:
RonPaul2008.com (http://www.RonPaul2008.com)
RonPaulPortal.com (http://www.ronpaulportal.com/)
RonPaul.meetup.com (http://www.RonPaul.meetup.com)
Youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom (http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom)
Join the Ron Paul Revolution! Defender of the Constitution.
craazyman
10-03-2007, 02:37 PM
Ron Paul was one of the few who could outduel Greenspan during congressional testimony.
Ron Paul was one of the few who could outduel Greenspan during congressional testimony.
And Bernanke.
willoweyes
10-04-2007, 08:31 AM
Well, personally, I will never forget his rendition of "Love Shack"--
And the creator of Starbooty and WeeWee Pole surely has my vote!!
suebee
10-08-2007, 08:53 AM
maybe this (not ron paul, but the drug war) is the one area this board could become united and organized for. im not sure where else 'we' could make a dent. agent smith, any ideas?
(wouldnt a hillary/ron ticket be interesting? not that i want hillary but it seems like a juggernaut.)
craazyman
10-08-2007, 11:18 AM
let's light up a few blunts with the Paul campaign staff and see if we can hammer out a platform before we get stoned into a state of speechless paralysis.
Reminds me of sitting in the Frat house with the TV on after bongs. Talk about fried eggs.
Someone will have to volunteer to be the designated thinker. LOL. But we'll agree to let them drink instead.
willoweyes
10-09-2007, 07:06 AM
I'm afraid voting for Ron Paul because he "supports" marijuana (or at least doesn't care what the heck you do with your life) would be counterproductive to the values many of us on this site hold dear.
here is angry man mccain's take:
Published on Monday, October 8, 2007 by the Chicago Tribune
McCain Should Know the Truth about Medical Marijuana
by Steve Chapman
Through all his years in politics, despite the endless obligation to shake hands, smile for the cameras and coax money out of contributors, John McCain has somehow avoided becoming a complete phony-something that John Edwards and Mitt Romney managed to achieve within a week of entering politics. Annoy McCain, and you won’t have to wait long to find out.
Even a sickly, soft-spoken woman in a wheelchair gets no pass from him. The other day, at a meeting with voters in New Hampshire, Linda Macia mentioned her use of medical marijuana and politely asked his position on permitting it. Barely were the words out of her mouth before the Arizona senator spun on his heel, stalked away and heaped scorn on the idea.
“You may be one of the unique cases in America that only medical marijuana can relieve pain from,” he said, in a skeptical tone. “Every medical expert I know of, including the AMA (American Medical Association), says there are much more effective and much more, uh, better treatments for pain.” He also ridiculed the notion that police would arrest patients for using marijuana as medicine.
It’s refreshing that McCain is willing to state his position with such unvarnished candor. It would be even better if he knew what he was talking about.
Apparently he missed the news that federal agents recently raided the home of Leonard French, a paraplegic who had been authorized under New Mexico law to use cannabis for his condition. He now faces possible federal charges, not to mention that he was deprived of the medicine recommended by his doctor.
As for medical experts, McCain could easily find plenty who testify to the therapeutic value of pot. The American Academy of HIV Medicine says that “when appropriately prescribed and monitored, marijuana/cannabis can provide immeasurable benefits for the health and well-being of our patients.”
The New England Journal of Medicine has called the federal ban on medical marijuana “misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane.” A 1999 report by the federal Institute of Medicine concluded, “Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.”
It’s true that actual arrests of patients are rare. But that’s often little consolation. Consider the case of Angel Raich, a California cancer victim whose marijuana was confiscated in a federal drug raid.
When she challenged the federal law, an appeals court ruled against her. But the court also had to acknowledge, “Raich’s physician presented uncontroverted evidence that Raich ‘cannot be without cannabis as medicine’ because she would quickly suffer ‘precipitous medical deterioration’ and ‘could very well die.’ ” Said the court, “All medical evidence in the record suggests that, if Raich were to stop using marijuana, the acute chronic pain and wasting disorders would immediatelyresume.”
But none of that mattered. In the end, the government and the courts gave Raich a choice: obey federal law, or risk jail by using the only treatment that helped her.
Bush administration officials often insist there are no definitive studies proving the curative powers of marijuana. What they omit is that the federal government has done everything in its power to prevent such research.
That effort has not entirely succeeded, though. Recently, the journal Neurology published the results of one clinical trial of HIV patients. It showed that pot “effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy,” with no adverse side effects.
The mystery is not why anyone believes cannabis can be safe and effective therapy. The mystery is why so many politicians, particularly Republican presidential candidates-Ron Paul, a physician, being the heroic exception-are unwilling to consider the possibility, or to leave the matter up to the states. It’s not even clear their hard-line stance is smart politics in their own party.
Wherever you look, public opinion supports medical marijuana. In Texas, a 2004 Scripps-Howard poll found that 75 percent of the people favor allowing it-including 67 percent of Republicans. Such red states as Alaska, Colorado, Montana and Nevada are among the 12 that have legalized medical marijuana.
This is not a dispute between Republican voters and Democratic voters. It’s a dispute between Republican politicians and everyone else.
What McCain ought to say is that he would rather ignore medical opinion, and inflict needless pain on people whose doctors say they could be helped by marijuana, than admit the federal ban is a mistake. Now that would be real candor.
–Steve Chapman
I'm afraid voting for Ron Paul because he "supports" marijuana (or at least doesn't care what the heck you do with your life) would be counterproductive to the values many of us on this site hold dear.
Umm...huh? Voting for Ron Paul, who supports an end to the War On (some) Drugs, is "counterproductive to the values of many of those on this site"? I'm REALLLY confused...unless that was sarcasm.
willoweyes
10-09-2007, 07:56 AM
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying, voting for Ron Paul just because he doesn't care if you smoke marijuana might not be a good idea. Because he doesn't support other things, like universal health care and social security, that some might care about and he is basically a flat-earther in the govt. sphere, as far as I can see.
And, just because a candidate says he doesn't care if you smoke marijuana, doesn't mean that if he is elected you will get to smoke marijuana.
not that i'm overly concerned about the consequences of a ron paul presidency.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying, voting for Ron Paul just because he doesn't care if you smoke marijuana might not be a good idea. Because he doesn't support other things, like universal health care and social security, that some might care about and he is basically a flat-earther in the govt. sphere, as far as I can see.
And, just because a candidate says he doesn't care if you smoke marijuana, doesn't mean that if he is elected you will get to smoke marijuana.
not that i'm overly concerned about the consequences of a ron paul presidency.
Ahh...I get ya now. Well, for the record, I personally agree with Ron Paul on 99.9% of the issues, so I for one am not supporting him because of only one single issue. I posted it the way I did because I figured that this one issue might get some people on these forums at least interested in what he's all about.
Caprinardo Delirio
10-09-2007, 10:22 PM
ron paul is pro total-privatization "free" market, pro-guns.. he might be a good hearted republican, but for christ's sake merricans, don't vote for him!
ron paul is pro total-privatization "free" market, pro-guns.. he might be a good hearted republican, but for christ's sake merricans, don't vote for him!
Yes, he's pro freedom, pro liberty and Founding Father material. Why wouldn't we vote for him? This isn't Communist China (yet) after all. We're supposed to vote for the man/woman who best upholds the U.S. Constitution, and that person is Ron Paul without any doubt.
willoweyes
10-10-2007, 11:55 AM
K.J., your polite yet passionate defense of Paul requires something beyond a snide reference to RhuPaul. and flat earthers. (I hate it when others dismiss ideas with a limiting and inaccurate label).
So I went back and READ Ron Paul's website and Wikepedia articles, rather than just showing up, sniffing the air, and not liking the vibe.
It appears that Paul is a highly principled supporter of the constitution, and someone with an incredibly perservering and steadfast nature. He stands up for what he believes in even if he is all alone; again and again you see the words, "Paul was the only member of congress voting against the measure."
Intriguing quotes about Paul from Wikipedia:
"His 2008 campaign chair, Kent Snyder, first worked for Paul on the 1988 campaign, when, Snyder says, Senator John McCain told him, "You're working for the most honest man in Congress."
"In June 2003, Paul voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." (brave that!)
"Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.)."" (many who are not familiar with how the legal system works, do not realize that juries cannot judge the law of a case--to me this is a miscarriage of the purpose of juries).
"Paul broke with his party by voting against the Patriot Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment. He has said, "Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America."[72] Paul opposes reintroducing the draft, and has spoken against torture[101] and the apparent abuse of executive authority during the Iraq War to override Constitutional rights."
However, in his steadfastness lurks a stubborness and a prideful certainty that can lead to an imprisoning blindness--he knows he's right, even if he's not in the real world.
As I understand it, he believes that there should be no federal regulation of the criminal code; he once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction,” in a discussion of abortion laws and laws governing sexual behavior and the gender of married couples.
If the states "retain jurisdiction", does this mean that if a state passes a law that contravenes the constitution, the federal courts would not have the right to correct it?
He is also against federal interference in education, health care, and pollution management, believing these concerns should be left to the states. Although this stance might be constitutionally correct, times change, and turning these issues over to the states in these times would lead to an incredible Balkenization of our country. (which, if the truth be known, might serve BOTH's cause well. . . . ).
It certainly doesn't bode well for the ganja for all party--there would be a nightmare scenerio of boarder patrols between states, smuggling, and the worst results of prohibition, played out across the country as some states loosened drug use and abortions; other states did not.
His extreme devotion to the Christian faith also blinds him to the very real necessity to keep God out of our Government; he thinks he is advocating religious freedom, but what he is advocating is a belief that all would believe in Jesus if just given the chance. Not good for me.
A statement of his: "Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility".
If anyone needs me to explain how this statement falls short logically and morally and politely, please let me know.
His ideas on economics--if I could I would give him a shot at the presidency, just to see what would happen. The present economic system is about to suck us all down via the sinking ship whirlpool phenomena. So, I'd give gold a chance.
In short, get him on the ballot, KJ, and I'll vote for him before I vote for Ghouliani or Hillary.
As I understand it, he believes that there should be no federal regulation of the criminal code; he once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction,” in a discussion of abortion laws and laws governing sexual behavior and the gender of married couples.
If the states "retain jurisdiction", does this mean that if a state passes a law that contravenes the constitution, the federal courts would not have the right to correct it?
Yes, he correctly understands that the federal government has no enumerated jurisdiction over this issue in the vast majority of cases (treason would be an example where they do have jurisdiction). As for the states obeying the Constitution, the U.S Constitution doesn't apply directly to them, it was written to restrain the federal government. This is why states have their own constitutions.
He is also against federal interference in education, health care, and pollution management, believing these concerns should be left to the states. Although this stance might be constitutionally correct, times change, and turning these issues over to the states in these times would lead to an incredible Balkenization of our country. (which, if the truth be known, might serve BOTH's cause well. . . . ).
Times have changed so we should ignore the law of the land, our Constitution? I strongly disagree. All of these concerns should be and could be handled at the state and local level. Even if times have changed to the point where we need to reconsider some of the things in the Constitution, it should be done the right way, by amendment, not by willfully violating it.
His extreme devotion to the Christian faith also blinds him to the very real necessity to keep God out of our Government; he thinks he is advocating religious freedom, but what he is advocating is a belief that all would believe in Jesus if just given the chance. Not good for me.
A statement of his: "Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility".
What? I have NEVER heard him advocate that everyone should believe Jesus is their savior. In fact, unless directly asked, he NEVER talks about his personal religious beliefs in his role as a politician (can't say much about his personal life).
The quote you provided is his personal belief and he's entitled to it. But he would NEVER force that on others through political power or otherwise. That would go against everything he stands for. He was basically just trying to say that the government is NOT a source of morality and civility.
In short, get him on the ballot, KJ, and I'll vote for him before I vote for Ghouliani or Hillary.
I, and many hundreds of thousands of others are working on that! If you believe in what he stands for and that he would make the best president out of the current bunch, then do what you can to help him get elected. Even if that means only making a small donation at the campaign website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com); every $10 helps!
That said, it was so nice to see that you actually took the time to read up about his position and his stellar record. We need more people in this country like you!
willoweyes
10-12-2007, 01:37 PM
Ron Paul is featured tonight on PBS' McNeil=Leher News Hour. Check it out.
Ron Paul is featured tonight on PBS' McNeil=Leher News Hour. Check it out.
Yes, I just watched that. Great interview!
Caprinardo Delirio
10-13-2007, 08:47 AM
if you vote for ron paul, doesn't your vote go to the republican side of the divide?
will it not be just like the thing with voting for nader, which damages the democratic party and puts republican nuts in office?
i know he seems like a nice guy, but i'm afraid that voting for him equals voting for bush. vote obama for fuck sake!
Isaiah Mpski
10-13-2007, 12:49 PM
What is it with you white boy?
LBJ would turn over in his grave.
I bet you look just like Mr Paul,you European invader.
Seriously Cap.I've lived in a country where the majority-99% were black and they were much more racially predjudiced that I ever thought about being.
Obama ain't got a chance Cap.
sidecross
10-13-2007, 02:42 PM
I listened to the Ron Paul interview and he sounded like an Eisenhower Republican of the 50’s.
As far as decriminalizing cannabis, when the shit hits the fan on the U.S. economy they, the government, will most likely make it legal and encourage it or substances that quiet down an angry public.
I have yet to hear a serious candidate for President addressing the serious problems this nation and the planet will be facing in the near future.
if you vote for ron paul, doesn't your vote go to the republican side of the divide?
will it not be just like the thing with voting for nader, which damages the democratic party and puts republican nuts in office?
i know he seems like a nice guy, but i'm afraid that voting for him equals voting for bush. vote obama for fuck sake!
Ron Paul is running as a Republican. But he's an Old Right Republican, not a neo-con like Bush. Oh, and Obama is a socialist.
sidecross
10-13-2007, 05:26 PM
"Obama is a socialist."
And I am Santa Clause!
:p
suebee
10-13-2007, 05:50 PM
lets take 20% of ron; 20% of obama; 20% of biden; 20% of hagel; and 20% of hillary.
ron paul is against too much for my liking. he would disband the board of education for crying out loud. maybe that would work if our tax money was allocated to states and then you better be careful where you live. our biggest challenge is to get multi nationals under control. maybe not let them do business in each state? not let government give them our taxes? what is the answer to that?
Caprinardo Delirio
10-14-2007, 12:48 AM
do americans understand what "socialism" means?
your republican scare campaigns against "socialized medicine" is laughable to us europeans who do have it and understand that no private market would ever do it half as good. - there are also a lot american surverys that has also shown how the administrative costs of a private heath sector is vastly higher than a rational integrated "socialized" system like ours. obviously. what america sorely needs is "socialization" since what you have now are endless marginalized groups cut off from every other group, defending their rights against others, etc. take a look in part of the world that works before you listen to your usual propaganda folks. there's nothing evil about health care for all, it's the only rational way you can approach a solution.
obama is the only ticket you have, in my opinion.
the best message your population could send to the third world, the middle east etc, is to elect a black man named 'obama' - you cannot send a better message of reconciliation to the world than that. other than that, he clearly is the best candidate.
isaiah, what the fuck is up with your racial slant?
craazyman
10-14-2007, 01:48 AM
cap we do have socialism in this country.
It's socialism for the hedge fund operators and multinational banks and capitalism for the rest of us.
Basically, we the people pay for their folly, with money we borrow from the rest of the world.
I like Obama, but not because of his name or his gene pool. I think he's by far the only one saying what needs to be said. Sadly though, I don't think he has a chance. I hope I'm wrong.
craazyman
10-14-2007, 03:52 AM
Ron Paul says some necessary stuff too, but his view of states rights is too extreme to be electable.
Caprinardo Delirio
10-14-2007, 05:39 AM
cap we do have socialism in this country.
It's socialism for the hedge fund operators and multinational banks and capitalism for the rest of us.
right. enormous government subsidies to a select few private corporations that are then held up as the prime examples of how good business will survive on it's own "because the market is fair though tough love" - but that's not what i meant by socialism. i was talking about a social ideal held by people. nothing marxist or anything more elaborate than a workable social security net, making sure that depression and crime doesn't flourish so much, that makes sure that everybody has a decent living. you know, empathy, sympathy; what is sometimes called solidarity.
and yeah, i think ron paul is an ok guy. somethings he says are quite smart, but others are quite ludicrous. he does appear like bit of a clown sometimes, and i'm not at all sure he could be expected to reign anything like how he appears on stage. doesn't at all appear to me like a statesman. (eventhough i don't generally like statesmen, that's not a compliment in this case.)
and, i really think the whole "vote ron paul" phenomenon among the fed up young on bbs's and myspace etc. is just retaaaarded!
willoweyes
10-14-2007, 09:08 AM
Lord Cap, glad to hear your voice on our weary old site.
I agree with your take on health. No just society turns its back on the sick while others clone their pets.
We're becoming a who cares about sick losers kinda people. A "them vs us" kinda people. Too bad for us.
However, I think chopping the USA up into fifty little fiefdoms would be an interesting experiment. And all the smart good people like me could gravitate to states far from Texas (where Bush would be named Great Leader for Life).
Maybe Oregon.
Of course it would be chaotic and Balkanized--perhaps there would even be a resurgence of brave deeds and adventure.
I thought Ron Paul looked honest in his interview. What a treat!
Caprinardo Delirio
10-15-2007, 03:54 AM
one of my american friends suggested the exact same when he was here over the summer.
the whole notion of identifying something singularly "american" does indeed seem more and more difficult and counterintuitive as your nation is so very friggen huge and the identity seems ever more slippery and thus prone to creating the whole the good and the bad and so forth.
ron paul does indeed seem honest.. also a bit a class-clown; he knows he's not as corrupt and imbecile as the typical politician, but he also seems somewhat populist and non-serious. who really know how he'd run the country? but my money would definitely be put in obama's pockets.
he seems vastly more intelligent and perceptive of the real political idiosyncrasies, where as paul's critique of the political game-show is itself a game-show.
i still think strewart/colbert should be allowed to run on account of their massive public support! :D
craazyman
10-15-2007, 04:17 AM
speaking of Colbert, anyone see Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday. Pretty good for the New York Times. Here it is Cap-- "Good Morning America How Are You? Don't you know me, I'm your native son . . ."
A Mock Columnist, Amok
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: October 14, 2007
I was in my office, writing a column on the injustice of relative marginal tax rates for hedge fund managers, when I saw Stephen Colbert on TV.
He was sneering that Times columns make good “kindling.” He was ranting that after you throw away the paper, “it takes over a hundred years for the lies to biodegrade.” He was observing, approvingly, that “Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream is driving a bulldozer into The New York Times while drinking crude oil out of Keith Olbermann’s skull.”
I called Colbert with a dare: if he thought it was so easy to be a Times Op-Ed pundit, he should try it. He came right over. In a moment of weakness, I had staged a coup d’moi. I just hope he leaves at some point. He’s typing and drinking and threatening to “shave Paul Krugman with a broken bottle.”
* * *
I Am an Op-Ed Columnist (And So Can You!)
By STEPHEN COLBERT
Surprised to see my byline here, aren’t you? I would be too, if I read The New York Times. But I don’t. So I’ll just have to take your word that this was published. Frankly, I prefer emoticons to the written word, and if you disagree :(
I’d like to thank Maureen Dowd for permitting/begging me to write her column today. As I type this, she’s watching from an overstuffed divan, petting her prize Abyssinian and sipping a Dirty Cosmotinijito. Which reminds me: Before I get started, I have to take care of one other bit of business:
Bad things are happening in countries you shouldn’t have to think about. It’s all George Bush’s fault, the vice president is Satan, and God is gay.
There. Now I’ve written Frank Rich’s column too.
So why I am writing Miss Dowd’s column today? Simple. Because I believe the 2008 election, unlike all previous elections, is important. And a lot of Americans feel confused about the current crop of presidential candidates.
For instance, Hillary Clinton. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to be scared of her so Democrats will think they should nominate her when she’s actually easy to beat, or if I’m supposed to be scared of her because she’s legitimately scary.
Or Rudy Giuliani. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to support him because he’s the one who can beat Hillary if she gets nominated, or if I’m supposed to support him because he’s legitimately scary.
And Fred Thompson. In my opinion “Law & Order” never sufficiently explained why the Manhattan D.A. had an accent like an Appalachian catfish wrestler.
Well, suddenly an option is looming on the horizon. And I don’t mean Al Gore (though he’s a world-class loomer). First of all, I don’t think Nobel Prizes should go to people I was seated next to at the Emmys. Second, winning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.
While my hat is not presently in the ring, I should also point out that it is not on my head. So where’s that hat? (Hint: John McCain was seen passing one at a gas station to fuel up the Straight Talk Express.)
Others point to my new bestseller, “I Am America (And So Can You!)” noting that many candidates test the waters with a book first. Just look at Barack Obama, John Edwards or O. J. Simpson.
Look at the moral guidance I offer. On faith: “After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up.” On gender: “The sooner we accept the basic differences between men and women, the sooner we can stop arguing about it and start having sex.” On race: “While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad.” On the elderly: “They look like lizards.”
Our nation is at a Fork in the Road. Some say we should go Left; some say go Right. I say, “Doesn’t this thing have a reverse gear?” Let’s back this country up to a time before there were forks in the road — or even roads. Or forks, for that matter. I want to return to a simpler America where we ate our meat off the end of a sharpened stick.
Let me regurgitate: I know why you want me to run, and I hear your clamor. I share Americans’ nostalgia for an era when you not only could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry hadn’t yet fled to Guangdong. And I don’t intend to tease you for weeks the way Newt Gingrich did, saying that if his supporters raised $30 million, he would run for president. I would run for 15 million. Cash.
Nevertheless, I am not ready to announce yet — even though it’s clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative.
What do I offer? Hope for the common man. Because I am not the Anointed or the Inevitable. I am just an Average Joe like you — if you have a TV show.
sidecross
10-15-2007, 05:25 AM
Thanks for pointing out Sunday’s Maureen Dowd piece in the NYT.
I had to choose between hers and Frank Rich, and choose Frank Rich hoping someone else would mention the Dowd piece which left me with a big grin.
;)
at the democratic debate when asked "If we knew where Osama was and he was in pakistan and we had 20 minutes to bomb him but there would be civilian casualties what would you do?" Hillary, Obama etc all said yes they would. The only one who had the sense to say no was Kucinich. How is making a martyr out of Osama and killing a bunch of innocent people gonna make things any better? For that reason alone I dont trust those guys.
Caprinardo Delirio
10-17-2007, 08:43 AM
still, that's a typical absurd question to be asked in those debates. that shouldn't be one's general compass on these politicians. but don't truss em, never!
"Obama is a socialist."
And I am Santa Clause!
:p
I'm sorry, but if you think that stealing from Peter to pay Paul (socialized healthcare anyone?) is the reason for the government's existence, then you are of a socialist persuasion. You may not believe everything in the socialist platform, but your support of the nanny state on any issue is socialistic in nature.
Obama is just like the rest of the Democratic candidates: he hasn't seen very many big government programs he doesn't love; and even when he finds one he doesn't love, it's not because he wants to get rid of it, it's only because he thinks he can manage it better.
lets take 20% of ron; 20% of obama; 20% of biden; 20% of hagel; and 20% of hillary.
ron paul is against too much for my liking. he would disband the board of education for crying out loud. maybe that would work if our tax money was allocated to states and then you better be careful where you live.
You fail to see that his desire to rid us of the Dept. of "Education" isn't utilitarian in nature. Although for many reasons our children would be better off without it, this isn't his main reason for abolishing it. His number 1 reason is this: it's ENTIRELY un-Constitutional!
suebee
10-17-2007, 01:12 PM
i should add 20% of kucinich. he also advocates ending the 'war on drugs'.
it seems to me that "government" (which i define as 'rules' over and above the constitution) was necessary to keep ourselves from harming each other.... in interstate commerce, for example. the fda to stop poison food, etc.... the dept of transportation to keep the roads safe, etc.....
does the strict interpretation mindset require that our amendments be revoked?
i should add 20% of kucinich. he also advocates ending the 'war on drugs'.
it seems to me that "government" (which i define as 'rules' over and above the constitution) was necessary to keep ourselves from harming each other.... in interstate commerce, for example. the fda to stop poison food, etc.... the dept of transportation to keep the roads safe, etc.....
does the strict interpretation mindset require that our amendments be revoked?
Actually, the purpose of government is to protect individual liberties. That is its SOLE purpose. And those liberties are defined quite clearly in the Declaration of Independence. And the government of the United States is strictly limited to those powers granted it in the Constitution. Last time I checked, the Constitution said nothing at all about poison in foods, safety of roads, socializing medicine, etc.
Caprinardo Delirio
10-26-2007, 07:31 AM
so k.j. what you wish for the world is dog-eat-dog on drugs?
you sound retarded, sorry!
so k.j. what you wish for the world is dog-eat-dog on drugs?
you sound retarded, sorry!
Umm, no. That's pretty much what we have now. Only, it's Government eat everybody, on drugs.
Oh, and thanks for the uninformed personal attack; you're showing your stripes. If you're going to debate ideas, and if you think your ideas are far more sane than mine, then why don't you start with some real arguments instead of personally attacking me?
bopes
10-26-2007, 12:23 PM
Last time I checked, the Constitution said nothing at all about poison in foods, safety of roads, socializing medicine, etc.
Are you saying that anything not expressly, specifically spelled out in the Constitution aint covered by it?
Are you saying that anything not expressly, specifically spelled out in the Constitution aint covered by it?
Yep, that's exactly it.
If the Federal government isn't specifically authorized in the Constitution to do a particular thing, then it is FORBIDDEN to do that thing. Now, amendments can be made, but there is a very detailed and specific process to do that; simply ignoring the Constitution by proclaiming yourself as The Decider (like Bush has done) is NOT the proper and lawful way to amend it.
sidecross
10-26-2007, 02:07 PM
The U.S. Constitution was written when the human population on the planet was less than 1 billion people; today we are a planet of 6.5 billion and still growing. Communication and transportation has made the idea of nationalism obsolete.
To live by a strict Libertarian point of view in reference to the constitution is no different than trying to live by a strict interpretation of the bible or Koran.
Who are going to build bridges, treat water for safe use, and safely dispose of sewage to name just a few concerns?
The U.S. Constitution was written when the human population on the planet was less than 1 billion people; today we are a planet of 6.5 billion and still growing. Communication and transportation has made the idea of nationalism obsolete.
To live by a strict Libertarian point of view in reference to the constitution is no different than trying to live by a strict interpretation of the bible or Koran.
Who are going to build bridges, treat water for safe use, and safely dispose of sewage to name just a few concerns?
That argument is an old one and a pretty lame one at that. This country is great BECAUSE of the Constitution and the rule of law. That said, the Constitution isn't perfect and it was never intended to be a static document. But that doesn't mean we ignore it when it's convenient to do so. There are RULES in place that allow for amendment of the Constitution; if it needs changing and updating for our times, then following these procedures is the proper way to go about it.
As for those concerns you mentioned, one answer: free markets. Stealing from Paul to pay Peter in order to build bridges, treat water and dispose of sewage is NOT the way to go about it. If these things need doing, people will do them without having to be coerced. Asking the government to be responsible for every little thing in life is asking for socialism and communism to rule this great country, and we all know what a disaster those ideologies are.
sidecross
10-27-2007, 07:52 AM
"That argument is an old one and a pretty lame one at that. This country is great BECAUSE of the Constitution and the rule of law....."
"...That argument is an old one and a pretty lame one at that. This country is great BECAUSE of the Constitution and the rule of law."
I do not consider my criticism ‘lame’; I thought you were concerned with discussing ideas and not name calling or dismissing other points of view.
I would argue that this country is not ‘great’ and its constitution not ‘great’ too.
To begin with the constitution allowed slavery, said nothing concerning the genocide of the ingenious people, and did not allow women the right to vote.
As for socialism and communism as workable ways to govern their failure lies with those who have used these ideas. I am sure Buddha and Jesus would have been good socialists or communalists.
It is not the tools that are always at fault, but rather the people using them.
I do not consider my criticism ‘lame’; I thought you were concerned with discussing ideas and not name calling or dismissing other points of view.
My concern IS about ideas, though I never said I had a problem calling ideas lame when they are lame. I didn't personally attack you, I attacked your idea. There's an important distinction there.
I would argue that this country is not ‘great’ and its constitution not ‘great’ too.
I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.
To begin with the constitution allowed slavery, said nothing concerning the genocide of the ingenious people, and did not allow women the right to vote.
As I said, the Constitution isn't perfect and never was. I also said that there was a procedure in place for amending it in order to make it better and that's exactly what was done in all of the cases you mentioned.
As for socialism and communism as workable ways to govern their failure lies with those who have used these ideas. I am sure Buddha and Jesus would have been good socialists or communalists.
It is not the tools that are always at fault, but rather the people using them.
No, the issue with socialism and communism is the ideology, not the people. I don't mind socialism and communism as long as they aren't state supported institutions (i.e China, U.S.S.R., etc.). If a group of people want to get together and voluntarily live under a communistic or socialistic scheme, that's fine by me.
Any ideology that REQUIRES coercion and violence in order to get people to adopt it is inherently flawed and evil. I am willing to concede that our Constitutional Republic and capitalism aren't the only good ideas, but they ARE the best ideas to come along thus far. If you can propose a better idea that does NOT require coercion and violence to prop it up, I'm all ears.
sidecross
10-27-2007, 05:07 PM
"...Any ideology that REQUIRES coercion and violence in order to get people to adopt it is inherently flawed and evil. I am willing to concede that our Constitutional Republic and capitalism aren't the only good ideas, but they ARE the best ideas to come along thus far. If you can propose a better idea that does NOT require coercion and violence to prop it up, I'm all ears."
A reading of Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by the Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Weiner will document how since World War Two the American government has committed 'coercion' and 'violence' not only on fellow Americans but on other nations as well using tactics you stated you abhor.
No ideology to control a population foreign or domestic is clean.
I might also add that ‘free markets’ have produced the savings and loan mess, the scandals of WorldCom, Enron, and the latest Sub prime debacle. ‘Free markets’ without regulation is no answer to parade around as an answer to our needs and problems.
I am more inclined to conclude that the human species is defective and in its current population acts more like a cancer on Gaia or planet Earth. Any chance of a ‘remission’ lies in our own imagination and by moving forward not using rear view mirrors to pilot our course.
A reading of Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by the Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Weiner will document how since World War Two the American government has committed 'coercion' and 'violence' not only on fellow Americans but on other nations as well using tactics you stated you abhor.
I know, disgusting isn't it? The CIA is an evil organization that spreads violence, fear and death across the globe (remember the 80's crack epidemic in the U.S.? Thanks CIA!).
No ideology to control a population foreign or domestic is clean.
Whoa, what!? Control a population? Those sound like the words of a despot.
I might also add that ‘free markets’ have produced the savings and loan mess, the scandals of WorldCom, Enron, and the latest Sub prime debacle. ‘Free markets’ without regulation is no answer to parade around as an answer to our needs and problems.
No, the free markets are not responsible for any of those things. We do not HAVE free markets. What we actually have are controlled, regulated and state-infected markets. Monopolies and mega-corporations like WorldCom and Enron (and many others) exist BECAUSE of the state apparatus. A truly free market would be free of state interference, with the exception of rules and punishments for those companies that use force or fraud against the people. The governments ONLY role in society is to protect individuals against force or fraud.
I am more inclined to conclude that the human species is defective and in its current population acts more like a cancer on Gaia or planet Earth. Any chance of a ‘remission’ lies in our own imagination and by moving forward not using rear view mirrors to pilot our course.
A cancer? Hardly. I understand your concerns for Gaia, as I share many of them as well, but humanity as a whole is not a cancer upon the earth. We are an integral and beautiful part of Gaia's system, though we do have much to learn.
suebee
11-04-2007, 09:45 AM
Actually, the purpose of government is to protect individual liberties. That is its SOLE purpose. And those liberties are defined quite clearly in the Declaration of Independence. And the government of the United States is strictly limited to those powers granted it in the Constitution. Last time I checked, the Constitution said nothing at all about poison in foods, safety of roads, socializing medicine, etc.
"The governments ONLY role in society is to protect individuals against force or fraud." - K.J
wouldnt "individual liberties" include not being poisoned? isnt that a form of fraud? and how does "government" go about carrying out its "role" without resort to making laws against things which harm our "liberties"?
craazyman
11-04-2007, 11:37 AM
Whoa! KJ. You can start a new career as a food taster. But it might be hard to get health insurance! Woooaaaahhhhh! That fish tastes a little funky! Booowarggghaahhh! Anybody here from Brooklyn!:p :p
Whoa!
The Ayn Rand Food Tasting School
"Life Sucks, Bite Hard"
Whoa!
Isaiah Mpski
11-05-2007, 03:36 AM
I recently saw Mr Paul speak and was quite impressed.
Anyone else watching the Ron Paul Nov. 5th money bomb (http://www.thisnovember5th.com)? Supporters have so far bombed the campaigns bank account with $1.6 million dollars! And the donations are rolling in by the thousands every few minutes.
If you support Ron Paul, donate today and help us make elections history! Go to www.ronpaul2008.com/donate (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate). To watch the progress, go to RonPaulGraphs (http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com) (don't camp out on the official site, leave bandwidth for new donors).
"The governments ONLY role in society is to protect individuals against force or fraud." - K.J
wouldnt "individual liberties" include not being poisoned? isnt that a form of fraud? and how does "government" go about carrying out its "role" without resort to making laws against things which harm our "liberties"?
Of course it includes that...and the government would prosecute anyone who did such a thing, just like they do for any other kind of rights violation (or, should be doing anyhow). Though poisoning isn't a form of fraud, it's a form of force.
bopes
11-06-2007, 06:44 AM
K.J., looks like your boy's done well lately (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/us/politics/06paul.html).
K.J., looks like your boy's done well lately (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/us/politics/06paul.html).
Well is an understatement! Over $4 million in 24 hours...I'm still dumbfounded!
bopes
11-06-2007, 09:18 AM
In case you haven't seen it, Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html)has a pretty good article up about Ron Paul over at Salon.
In case you haven't seen it, Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html)has a pretty good article up about Ron Paul over at Salon.
I did see that one; a pretty good article for lefty-leaning Salon.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-06-2007, 10:49 PM
hey kj, how's the retardation going? :D
i'm sorry about that comment... i came home drunk one night, did it, and had totally forgotten about it.
it's just that the differences in notions of state and government seem so vast between many europeans and americans, and naturally certain what could almost be called truisms for one seems like a cocktrap for the other. guess that's how it seems to me.. sorry bout the "personal attack" (hey, tech-buddhists should know that a board's a different plane) - but the political discussions are almost always the ones in which the real teeth-grinding and head-scratching takes place.
i think many americans have a weird notion of gov. and state. your imperial past definitely calls for it, yet, to me, "fear" of socialized medicine is really really a ghost to be exorcised. the tyranny of unaccountable private corporations is really what is squashing your country in my opinion. also the ties to a corrupt gov. but gov. can do and be a totally legitimate thing, for instance in the case of healthcare.. in this there is no war and fear mongering, eventhough the institutions that cause these very different expressions is basically the same.
the free market is where your critique of government needs to be extended.
i dunno, let's chat further if you're willing at some point?
Isaiah Mpski
11-07-2007, 04:23 AM
"...the fear of socialized medicine.."
What are you?Looney Whiteman?
Who do you think shells out the most campaign money-that's right-doctors and drug companies.:rolleyes:
I can remember as a young man,the first time I was eligible to vote.
In the so-called primaries-there was a man-Eugene McCarthy-whose philosophy analogously paraleled Ron Paul.He was handsome, with an abilty to communiate.
It was so obvious that he should lead our country.
He didn't make even past the primary.
And so it's been for all the corrupt;the innocent are duped into they know not what.
What the US needs is another ass-kicking like we got in Viet Nam.Up the KIA to levels of past wars and you'll get people's attention.
Do I want that?Of course not.
I,as a Native American want peace,love,prosperity,love of the land.:eek:
The common man in America is in the same position that many good people founf themselves under Hitler.
hey kj, how's the retardation going? :D
i'm sorry about that comment... i came home drunk one night, did it, and had totally forgotten about it.
it's just that the differences in notions of state and government seem so vast between many europeans and americans, and naturally certain what could almost be called truisms for one seems like a cocktrap for the other. guess that's how it seems to me.. sorry bout the "personal attack" (hey, tech-buddhists should know that a board's a different plane) - but the political discussions are almost always the ones in which the real teeth-grinding and head-scratching takes place.
i think many americans have a weird notion of gov. and state. your imperial past definitely calls for it, yet, to me, "fear" of socialized medicine is really really a ghost to be exorcised. the tyranny of unaccountable private corporations is really what is squashing your country in my opinion. also the ties to a corrupt gov. but gov. can do and be a totally legitimate thing, for instance in the case of healthcare.. in this there is no war and fear mongering, eventhough the institutions that cause these very different expressions is basically the same.
the free market is where your critique of government needs to be extended.
i dunno, let's chat further if you're willing at some point?
Thanks for the apology. It's so much better to debate when the personal attacks are left behind.
As for fear of socialized medicine, it's not really a fear that I have. It's a matter of principle. It's simply wrong in my book to steal/coerce money from one party to pay for the healthcare (or any other thing) of another party. That's the fundamental problem I have with any government program. Legalized theft is still theft. If it's wrong for an individual to do it, it's wrong for a group of individuals to do it. Collectives do not hold any sort superior moral authority.
bopes
11-07-2007, 08:20 AM
So, we should do away with fire departments and EMS departments?
craazyman
11-07-2007, 08:24 AM
there is a notion in the fields of economics and political theory referred to by the phrase "a public good" and it's inverse is referred to as "the tragedy of the commons."
Simply put, certain definitive benefits to society--such as a clean environment, personal security, national security--are difficult to achieve through a reliance on personal self-interest expressed through an unfettered free market.
The idea is that of the "free rider" problem. It's in everyone's interest to have these things, yet each individual is tempted to evade his or her responsibility under the belief that their neighbors will make up the difference, or that they wont.
Why, for example, should I clean up the manure my horse leaves on the commons when no one else doesk, or constrain my oxen from grazing there when my neighbors won't (to use an antiquated example). And so the commons is filthy and barren.
Personal security, as another example, may be purchased and administered individually--like in certain banana republics and African dictatorships through forces like Blackwater--but everyone is more secure if each contributes a little to the establishment of a police force and court system that enforces agreed upon laws. The resultant society is usually a more fertile place for the pursuit of personal freedoms and happiness. In the banana republic, a small few are wealthy beyond measure and can protect their interests through force, while the majority is either prey or predator. The luxury that the few experience inevitably devolves their morals and those of the larger society who struggles in poverty and crime without opportunity for release or escape.
Individual wealth and societal wealth are therefore related and increased through creation and enforcement of a just society that recognizes public goods and avoids the tragedy of the commons.
Something like socialized medicine arguably falls under the concept of a public good. Instead of theft of personal property through taxation, it can be seen as an investment in a healthier society where personal security in case of illness or accident is enhanced for all, contributing to a more just, harmonious and happy population.
Something like socialized medicine arguably falls under the concept of a public good. Instead of theft of personal property through taxation, it can be seen as an investment in a healthier society where personal security in case of illness or accident is enhanced for all, contributing to a more just, harmonious and happy population.
Sure, it could be seen this way...if you're willing to delude yourself about what it really is. You cannot separate an end from the means used to achieve it. In this case theft and force are required to enact what you would call a noble end. The ends never justify the means.
So, we should do away with fire departments and EMS departments?
Not at all. Those are state, city and local issues if they are to be public issues at all. I would argue that there is no reason these kinds of services cannot be handled through a free people interacting in a market free of force and coercion.
sidecross
11-07-2007, 01:01 PM
Not at all. Those are state, city and local issues if they are to be public issues at all. I would argue that there is no reason these kinds of services cannot be handled through a free people interacting in a market free of force and coercion.
Do you mean to write that Blackwater is an example of how these public services are to be served?
Do you mean to write that Blackwater is an example of how these public services are to be served?
No, Blackwater is outside of the law. They are accountable to nobody; not the people, not the government...nobody. That's a horrible example.
craazyman
11-07-2007, 02:44 PM
the problem of force and coercian could be solved through voluntary participation.
The private market appears to be incapable of finding a way to provide adequate health insurance to tens of millions of Americans. These individuals show up at hospital emergency rooms, pay out of pocket at usurious rates for healthcare, and/or avoid treatment at a much higher cost to society (not to mention the personal trauma and family pain that results from their status and desparateness) than would likely be paid through a more effective system.
The government could step in to organize such an insurance pool, and it could be financed through monthly premiums that would be paid by the insured. If someone already has insurance through an employer or some other program, then one needn't enroll in the government program. This would not be a tax as much as a government-organized program.
Private providers of medically related goods and services would still have a vital role in such a system--from doctors, to pharmaceuticals, to medical equipment and facilities.
I am not an ideologue and I don't believe socialized medicine elminates the concept of individual choice or avoids the use of the free market as an effective tool for problems where it can offer the optimal solution. But like all tools, it has its uses and deficiencies. A hammer is good for banging nails but one would not use it to peel an apple.
sidecross
11-07-2007, 02:56 PM
Yes craazyman, your comment reminds me of the old saying that ‘someone with a hammer all problems are seen as nails’.
As for Blackwater it has operated as it was intended. It provided the ‘free market’ access to solve problems eliminating the need for government intervention.
craazyman
11-08-2007, 12:31 AM
That's right Sidecross, it's amazing how many problems arise from that tendency.
The problem of the uninsured seems to me to be similar to the failure of the free market to provide electricity to rural America in the mid 20th century. Investor-owned utilities were unwilling to invest in the infrastructure required to bring power to sparsely populated areas, where revenues and profits were insufficient to provide an adequate return on investment, resulting in a nation increasingly split between "haves" and "have-nots".
The government recognized this as a growing problem that could destabilize society and result in a permanent impoverished rural underclass. As a result, it formed the Rural Electrification Administration that sponsored the construction of power lines and generation in rural areas, relying on the free market to supply the materials and services, while supporting the program with economic incentives and loan gaurantees.
I suppose it's a matter of personal opinion whether this was all a good idea, but I think few people would be willing to live without electricity. Even today, municipal, citizen-owned utilities provide power to tens of millions of people in rural areas, towns and cities because the free-market did not and/or could not do an effective job of the same.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/malone.electrification.administration.rural
the problem of force and coercian could be solved through voluntary participation.
I agree, but that cannot be done through government. And if it could, why then would we need government? A voluntary payment system IS the free market.
The private market appears to be incapable of finding a way to provide adequate health insurance to tens of millions of Americans.
It's impossible for your statement to be true because we do not live under a free market, we live under a government managed corporatism. So don't blame the problems we have today on a free market that doesn't actually exist.
The government could step in to organize such an insurance pool, and it could be financed through monthly premiums that would be paid by the insured.
Why do we need the government to do this? Is the government somehow uniquely suited to do such a thing? What makes the free market any less capable of doing what you propose?
I would remind you that socialism has been tried many times over and it has failed miserably every single time (U.S.S.R, Germany, Cuba, China...the list goes on). Socialism always ends in despotism and destitution.
On the other hand, the most prosperous and free society in the history of the world has been the United States. And why is that? Because the Founders understood individual liberty and economic freedom leads to prosperity for all. We have gone so far away from that ideal, and this is why we are in the mess we're in right now. Returning to that ideal is the answer; the answer cannot be found in going further from that ideal and embracing socialism and communism.
bopes
11-08-2007, 08:16 AM
If each state established its own state-government-organized insurance pool for state residents, along the lines described by c-man, would you be opposed to that as well, KJ? If so, on what grounds?
If each state established its own state-government-organized insurance pool for state residents, along the lines described by c-man, would you be opposed to that as well, KJ? If so, on what grounds?
As long as the people of that state voted in favor of this, and as long as it wasn't in violation of that state's Constitution, then no I wouldn't be opposed to it on any legal grounds though I would be on moral grounds.
But if I were in a state that did such a thing, I would be working hard to have the state Constitution amended to prohibit taking taxes from one person to pay for another's health insurance.
sidecross
11-08-2007, 08:29 AM
K.J. would have us believe that the human is basically ‘good’ and if left to the ‘free market’ under the U.S. Constitution the human could solve their problems.
Terrance McKenna was once asked if the ‘human’ were good. He answered paraphrasing; the human is good if well marinated.
;)
bopes
11-08-2007, 08:39 AM
One of the things that puzzles me about the Libertarians is if they are such sticklers for sticking to the letter of the Constitution then their obvious remedy, by their own lights, is to exercise their constitutional right to lobby for an amendment to the Constitution that imposes that requirement (which the Founders themselves did not see fit to include).
Until they do that, they are pissing in the wind.
K.J. would have us believe that the human is basically ‘good’ and if left to the ‘free market’ under the U.S. Constitution the human could solve their problems.
Here's the statist position: humans aren't by nature good, so we'll solve the problem by putting HUMANS in power over other humans! What a brilliant idea! No, I do not believe that all humans are by nature good (though the vast majority obviously are), and that is EXACTLY why I do not want to divest centralized power in a small group of humans. You know who typically wants that kind of power? Humans that aren't good by nature!
One of the things that puzzles me about the Libertarians is if they are such sticklers for sticking to the letter of the Constitution then their obvious remedy, by their own lights, is to exercise their constitutional right to lobby for an amendment to the Constitution that imposes that requirement (which the Founders themselves did not see fit to include).
Until they do that, they are pissing in the wind.
I'm confused. Can you clarify?
The problem is that the vast majority of what the federal government does today is entirely un-Constitutional. If these things should be done, then they should go about the legal process of amending the Constitution, not simply ignore it and wipe their collective golden asses with it.
craazyman
11-08-2007, 09:52 AM
Why do we need the government to do this? Is the government somehow uniquely suited to do such a thing? What makes the free market any less capable of doing what you propose?
I would remind you that socialism has been tried many times over and it has failed miserably every single time (U.S.S.R, Germany, Cuba, China...the list goes on). Socialism always ends in despotism and destitution.
On the other hand, the most prosperous and free society in the history of the world has been the United States.
I agree with your second two paragraphs.
But regarding the first, one reason is that private investors and entrepreneurs evidently have not, or the uninsured would not exist as such. I suspect that's because the start-up costs are too high and the profit outlook, over the near to intermediate term, is too uncertain to raise investor financing for such an enterprise.
The government, by its nature, does not have investors to repay or any particular time frame over which financial success must be measured. It has considerably more flexibility to arrange such a program.
The free market would demand relatively rapid payback of its investment plus a profit that compensates investors for the risk. As a result, the premiums charged to the insured would be unafordably high and the enterprise would be doomed to failure at the outset.
It is interesting to note that even in the electric utility industry with it's long tradition of capital expansion and a product with consistent, rising demand, that free market investors are refusing to finance a new round of nuclear plant building without government loan gaurantees--given the sizeable cost of new nuclear plants. The free market is very fickeled and risk averse in many respects.
bopes
11-08-2007, 09:59 AM
The problem is that the vast majority of what the federal government does today is entirely un-Constitutional.
The reason all that vastness is "entirely unconstitutional" (from a Libertarian perspective) is because the power to do all that is not in the Constitution (as in, explicitly), right?
Well, nor is there any clause in the Constitution that explicitly says the power to do all that has to be explicitly stated, is there? Given that, and given the Supreme Court's power to declare a law unconstitutional (which necessarily involves interpreting the words of the Constitution and applying them to the law) then you've got a lot of room for implied powers. Which is what happened to the Commerce clause, among other things one of the big-time constitutional sources of Federal regulatory power. The Libertarian's don't like that, right? That's what pisses them off so much.
Well, by way of long-winded response, if it pisses them off so much then they have the right to try and amend the Constitution to be more explicit. Something that says Congress shall enact no law the subject matter of which is not explicitly mentioned herein as within their constitutional jurisdiction ... (or some such) which would then be followed by ten thousand or so explicit things that it could validly enact laws on. (Then of course you'd have to amend the Constitution pretty much constantly to stay current, and you'd end up with a Constitution that is bigger than the tax code, but that's another story.)
So, until the Libertarians put their money where their mouth is and actually try and amend the Constitution like they keep saying should be done, then all the stuff they keep saying is unconstitutional right now, well, generally speaking just aint. (Note, for purposes of this discussion I aint talking about the crimes of Shrub's administration.)
Caprinardo Delirio
11-08-2007, 10:28 AM
kj, please note that just as what is called the free market is very far from a true free market, so does the socialism that has been "tried" have nothing in common with a true socialism.
i pay 41% in taxes
my parents pay 60-something %.
and yet you live in a much more totalitarian system...
The reason all that vastness is "entirely unconstitutional" (from a Libertarian perspective) is because the power to do all that is not in the Constitution (as in, explicitly), right?
Well, nor is there any clause in the Constitution that explicitly says the power to do all that has to be explicitly stated, is there? Given that, and given the Supreme Court's power to declare a law unconstitutional (which necessarily involves interpreting the words of the Constitution and applying them to the law) then you've got a lot of room for implied powers. Which is what happened to the Commerce clause, among other things one of the big-time constitutional sources of Federal regulatory power. The Libertarian's don't like that, right? That's what pisses them off so much.
Well, by way of long-winded response, if it pisses them off so much then they have the right to try and amend the Constitution to be more explicit. Something that says Congress shall enact no law the subject matter of which is not explicitly mentioned herein as within their constitutional jurisdiction ... (or some such) which would then be followed by ten thousand or so explicit things that it could validly enact laws on. (Then of course you'd have to amend the Constitution pretty much constantly to stay current, and you'd end up with a Constitution that is bigger than the tax code, but that's another story.)
So, until the Libertarians put their money where their mouth is and actually try and amend the Constitution like they keep saying should be done, then all the stuff they keep saying is unconstitutional right now, well, generally speaking just aint. (Note, for purposes of this discussion I aint talking about the crimes of Shrub's administration.)
The Constitution enumerated specific powers to the US Government; anything not specifically enumerated is absolutely un-Constitutional and outside of the rule of law. There is no reason we should need to amend the Constitution to state that fact, as it is ALREADY part and parcel to the Constitution.
What you're essentially saying is that even though the Constitution is in shreds, it's all good unless we amend it to state that the Constitution should be followed explicitly as the Founders intended when they wrote it. How absurd is that?
kj, please note that just as what is called the free market is very far from a true free market, so does the socialism that has been "tried" have nothing in common with a true socialism.
Oh? That's interesting. I'd love for you to show me how socialism as it has been practiced throughout the history of mankind is not TRUE socialism.
Any philosophy that requires coercion and force to enact it is evil and will never be accepted by me (and many, many others) as moral and just. We can argue specifics and window dressing issues all day long, but in the end you are defending the indefensible: the coercing of one individual to enact the will of another.
bopes
11-08-2007, 10:45 AM
anything not specifically enumerated is absolutely un-Constitutional and outside of the rule of law.
And what Article are you quoting?
And what Article are you quoting?
Article I; Section 8 which begins: "The Congress shall have the power to..." and then goes on to list the specific enumerated powers granted in the Constitution.
bopes
11-08-2007, 10:51 AM
The power to regulate commerce among the states, for example. How do you define that? What are the limits of that?
The power to regulate commerce among the states, for example. How do you define that? What are the limits of that?
That is to be decided by Congress, representatives of which are voted in by the people. It certainly isn't to be decided by the Executive or Judicial branches, nor unelected bureaucrats.
And in my opinion they should be limiting their decisions to two purposes: punishing force and fraud in the market; that is all they should be doing when it comes to regulating commerce. Any representative who did more or less than that would be voted out by me and as many people as I could convince to do so.
bopes
11-08-2007, 11:03 AM
Well, good luck with all that, then. But all this inflexible absolutism is probably bad for the blood pressure, which might rise unduly when I tell you that "punishing force and fraud in the market" aint an enumerated power, either.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-08-2007, 11:47 AM
this is widely held by any serious political intellectual. in europe anyway. also the serious right knows this, although it's always a chance to bash the team you have signed up against, like the left always calls everybody that worries about the delicacy of the historical process a nazi. strangely enough.. :D
well, as much as i gather from your own ideas, pretty much as you state a truly free market, that phrase would perhaps be the outside structure of what the "internal" or human natured expression would might be termed "socialism" - this is how i understand things anyway.
to me (and i wouldn't necessarily pick "socialism" as a favorite phrase, partly due to it's historical confusion) socialism is non coercive, non-ideologically driven public in an equilibrium of it's means of production and distribution. which would paint a radically different private and public person.
to inspire and cultivate an environmental soil in which it is not far removed from the ordinary person to recognize all kinds of "values" like compassion for ever broader ranges of entities and ever larger opportunities for the rational potential of civilization to unfold without perverting itself, as it's always done where there is competitive races for limited resources and personal loss at stake, etc etc.. the monetary system itself must go to the winds!
what the right wing has successfully done in the last 10-20 is smash an enormous amount of attention and surplus of motivation for caring about the deeper community and extend the sphere of normal human concern back into a vanishing small bubble of personal belief to the discarding of any thoughts at all about your neighbor, since you don't have any time, nerve, money, calm to go so far in your heart and mind. you only stay on the surface, and that's what have been done. class is crystallizing harder and sharper than anywhere in the past, and the poles are charging; the atheists against the monotheists, stock-market jetset freeloaders against apathetic social security freeloaders, the smart from the dumb, the sane from the insane, and on and on if you want. to really break into a space where the notion of violence, the notion of hate and hierarchies of all kinds of human favoring subsides under a wash of universal human worth in the light of a much higher mystery, beauty, cosmic importance and your own heart center, you come very fast to the notion that equality in society would help lift the heavy veil of seriousness in social exclusivity into the subtler, richer, calmer and saner qualities of life, and imagine all about such a non-trivial world.
it's really funny to me, that in the midst of all the new salvation and damnation mythologizing, that no one has ever really noticed that the dreaded new world order, and the (2012) new humanity, new jerusalem, new eden, wonderland utopia obviously is two sides of the came fucking coin.
if we pre-imagine some non-violent, non-criminal, more or less sane body of people, that actually came together, of free will in a kind of pseudo-religious self-praise as a species, then they'd probably choose to create some kind of united collective representational expression. "MOTHERFUCKING HUMANS, YEAH @ EARTH" or something... that in itself would get the dogmatically regimented right, that is so sick and disbelieving of all kinds of government, to flip and start hallucinating other, un-nice, people strangling them, defeating them, in my opinion. so paranoid do the right wing in america seem to me. traumatized in causal principle to their insane religious psychology.
to me (and i wouldn't necessarily pick "socialism" as a favorite phrase, partly due to it's historical confusion) socialism is non coercive, non-ideologically driven public in an equilibrium of it's means of production and distribution. which would paint a radically different private and public person.
And that's the kind of socialism I have no problems with whatsoever. If a thing can be done without violence, force or coercion then I have no problem with anyone who wants to support it. I'm all for new ideas. I don't think that capitalism is the be all end all of social thought, but I do think it's the best thing we've come up with yet that doesn't involve coercion.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-08-2007, 11:58 AM
coercion is what is usually criticized in capitalist critiques... i think.
craazyman
11-08-2007, 01:59 PM
that's some thoughtful criticism cap, but I would argue that it wasn't the right over the past 10-20 years that coerced the changes, but the evolution of the left itself from counterculture hippies to business counter culture tech capitalists is the prime driver of the phenomenon.
the tech boom brought with it a messianic, rebellious, feel good, save the world with technology zeitgeist--that confirmed the solipsistic regard the left always had for its own sense of destiny--with the jeans and T-shirt uniform of the post-modern hippie, all the while brutally exhausting it's army of wannabe workers with 80 hour always-connected weeks and no-vacation years, and no-warning layoffs when the venture capital money ran out, until the proletarians were spit out the door for cheaper labor in India and the "principals" went on to the next "venture."
A caricature to be sure. But not too far off the mark. Human nature--left, right or center--will always reveal itself when there's quick money to be made. God save a humanity that does not then have something of a welfare state to fall back on, because their fellow man will not, unless they are family, and have to.
-J.P. More-gun
sidecross
11-08-2007, 02:50 PM
The only true ‘Libertarians’ were the hunter gathers of the Neo-Paleolithic era.
Groups were no larger than 35 to 45 people, and when disagreements occurred beyond resolving new groups were formed and moved on.
Today with 6.5 billion people and a still growing population the kind of ‘Libertarian’ that K.J. has as a model is ludicrous.
The U.S. which is 4% of the planets population is in no position to propose solutions to the other 96% of the population whom 50% have no access to sanitation and the 80% have no access to clean water in their dwellings.
Today with 6.5 billion people and a still growing population the kind of ‘Libertarian’ that K.J. has as a model is ludicrous.
Yes, because of course centralized planning schemes like communism and socialism are SO much better at managing 6.5 billion individuals (as if they needed to be managed).
The U.S. which is 4% of the planets population is in no position to propose solutions to the other 96% of the population whom 50% have no access to sanitation and the 80% have no access to clean water in their dwellings.
Are you saying that I advocated such a thing? That's exactly the opposite of what I would see done. Only the free market and individual liberty, spread by example not force, can solve the problems of the world.
sidecross
11-08-2007, 03:36 PM
"...Only the free market and individual liberty, spread by example not force, can solve the problems of the world."
If you truly believe this, you sound like a Christian Missionary saving the world through the word of the Bible and Christianity.
:p
"...Only the free market and individual liberty, spread by example not force, can solve the problems of the world."
If you truly believe this, you sound like a Christian Missionary saving the world through the word of the Bible and Christianity.
:p
Maybe to some, but for me it's more about spreading the idea that some things are true whether you believe them or not; things like gravity and free market capitalism. Capitalism isn't an ideology like Christianity is, capitalism is based on the laws of economics which are true whether you believe them or not.
sidecross
11-08-2007, 04:29 PM
Maybe to some, but for me it's more about spreading the idea that some things are true whether you believe them or not; things like gravity and free market capitalism. Capitalism isn't an ideology like Christianity is, capitalism is based on the laws of economics which are true whether you believe them or not.
Sorry, but this is where I drop out; capitalism is an idealogy and can not be compared to gravity.
Good luck K.J.
Sorry, but this is where I drop out; capitalism is an idealogy and can not be compared to gravity.
Good luck K.J.
Read closely what I actually said. I said the laws of economics are true whether you believe them or not, like the law of gravity. I only said that free market capitalism was based upon those laws, not that it was one of them.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-08-2007, 10:18 PM
no, the laws of economics aren't true by even a long shot.. not so long as several other economic models are competing for a place on earth and are meeting military force, which capitalism has done several times over to what it feels threatens it. nothing to do with human values, straight hegemony of wealth is what motivated the struggle against communism.
and kj, you said that capitalism didn't involve coercion, but even though that our capitalist governments aren't attempting the bureaucratic oversight and control that historical communist governments has tried, that doesn't mean that unnatural, undesirable, catastrophic coercion isn't much more present in capitalistic societies than in any type of society that came before.
the techniques of totalitarianism have simply become much more refined, and power has spread out over various institutions that has as little concern for human dignity as fascist italy or who have you.
if you were to remove most governmental oversight and public sector initiatives, from your particular society, and just let it all up to the "free market" you can be certain as you'll need to take a dump soon, that civil war no less would break out very fast. therein would be no justice and no principles of freedom worth writing about. unless of course you're already got it made with a giant fence and your guns and dogs, and couldn't give a shit about else than you.
a public sector does not, especially with our eminently efficient information technologies, have to be beaurocratic or criminal. actually i think public sectors, even through taxation is what is keeping all the latent criminal and anti-human aspects of capitalism from really taking a stronger footing against it's population.
no, the laws of economics aren't true by even a long shot.. not so long as several other economic models are competing for a place on earth and are meeting military force, which capitalism has done several times over to what it feels threatens it. nothing to do with human values, straight hegemony of wealth is what motivated the struggle against communism.
You're conflating free market capitalism where individuals trade freely with one another absent coercion, with government wars and militarism. They aren't the same things.
and kj, you said that capitalism didn't involve coercion, but even though that our capitalist governments aren't attempting the bureaucratic oversight and control that historical communist governments has tried, that doesn't mean that unnatural, undesirable, catastrophic coercion isn't much more present in capitalistic societies than in any type of society that came before.
Are you blaming the natural suffering and human calamity that occurs in any type of society on capitalism? Capitalism has brought more wealth, prosperity and comfort to humanity than any other form of social organization; even America's poorest are better off than the richest men of 200 years ago because of capitalism.
a public sector does not, especially with our eminently efficient information technologies, have to be beaurocratic or criminal. actually i think public sectors, even through taxation is what is keeping all the latent criminal and anti-human aspects of capitalism from really taking a stronger footing against it's population.
I agree that humanity at its current state of enlightenment isn't ready for my ideal form of social organization (anarcho-capitalism) and that we need to get back to our small government, Constitutional Republic roots before we can move into something even more enlightened. So at this stage in our evolution we certainly do need a night-watchman government which is there to protect against force and fraud; but that's all it should be doing.
bopes
11-09-2007, 05:47 AM
Ahhh. So you're anarcho-capitalist, at heart. This Libertarianism thing is just a stepping stone, eh?
Caprinardo Delirio
11-09-2007, 07:09 AM
You're conflating free market capitalism where individuals trade freely with one another absent coercion, with government wars and militarism. They aren't the same things.
as much as they exist today, they sure as fuck are. we can't even imagine a market without war and aggression. any evolution to a non-violent, non-criminal free market would ultimately have come through as a thought out and planned reform of the historical market systems which are inseparable from the world wars and the genocides and all the rest of it. "government wars" is "market wars". your free market ideal is the exact same ideal revisionism as marx predicted of you.
Are you blaming the natural suffering and human calamity that occurs in any type of society on capitalism? Capitalism has brought more wealth, prosperity and comfort to humanity than any other form of social organization; even America's poorest are better off than the richest men of 200 years ago because of capitalism.
here is where i think you start sounding like a self-serving fascist. no, i'm not blaming natural occurrences on the contrivances of capitalism, which is the aspect i am highlighting here: you might call all of human history "natural" and i can agree in a certain way, but as sure as you can account capitalism for the rise of wealth and comfort, you need to include all the suffering and oppression that brought about those luxuries (and ask your history books if those who suffered were those to profited please). whatever we have achieved that is worth defending and expanding upon is also neither the sole effort of our economic model. the way we managed resources and created production in the early capitalistic era has still lashed out more suffering than comforts and pleasures. do you really think it's such a prosperous and wealthy society, that everything is so goddamn dandy? selective attention isn't failing you, i admire your psychological strengths on that point man. your last comment about americas poorest and the richest 200 years ago is among the most ignorant statements there could ever be fabricated, what the hell are you thinking?!?!?
I agree that humanity at its current state of enlightenment isn't ready for my ideal form of social organization (anarcho-capitalism) and that we need to get back to our small government, Constitutional Republic roots before we can move into something even more enlightened. So at this stage in our evolution we certainly do need a night-watchman government which is there to protect against force and fraud; but that's all it should be doing.
there isn't any state of "humanity's enlightenment." this is one of the major flaws of 2012 thinking also. we create our own index, and any reification of such an index better be understood as a mythological reification unless you wanna go and dumb yourself down some more (which capitalism would surely love, because it good for "the economy" you see). plenty of millions of people in the long long ago have had more "enlightened" societies of more enlightened people than we have in out capitalist societies today. the dog eat dog mentality of the modern world doesn't reflect human nature, they reflect 200 years of predatory assault on humanity by tyrannical economical schemes of one sort or another.
sounds like you'd also like a society that doesn't make murderers and hypocrites out of it's populous. how totally ordinary! :D yes, i agree with you here; there isn't any shortcuts to a truly compassionate humanity, even though it's right under the surface, present in every man woman and the children of men and women. but we're shaped and domesticated, regimented, etc etc into one dimensional bags of piss and need with very little taste and rhythm , and so it seems that we're as crazy as shit-house rats in our politics and out plans for the future. yes, i really don't think there is much reason to defend capitalism. it has caused immense suffering in it's raising of the living standard. much more than was valid, expect by the forgivable ignorance of a less sophisticated past humanity, which is also where i forgive us: of course it ran amok the first round, and what will save it IS some sort of analysis and synthesis of what is with how it should be. then you can have your market and call it free. remind yourself that the longest running defense of slavery was also that slaves were "increasingly better off".. i think it's more than a little analogous with today. "rising living standards" is a self-limiting mode of imagination about our progress and politics. just as it is true to day, it was true 200 years ago: the rise of wealth and expanse of industrial societies isn't any amazing triumph of an economical system. it's just one really long story of irrationality and greed and both today as back then (in principle), civilization can flourish both faster and more humanely, were certain horizons and epistemic end results known by us.
the idea that america should be split up in all it's smaller states and eliminate the overarching government, i think is a great idea. one of the reasons that our countries in scandinavia run so smooth compared to many others is for one their small size. denmark only has little more than 5 million people, and that is obviously an advantage. the next one would obviously be our huge tax and giant public sectors. that's basically why our societies are the richest, most well functioning of the modern industrial societies on the planet. of course it's still shit in light of what is technically possible, and there is so so many things to dawn on dad and mom before we can go to the next plateau.
Ahhh. So you're anarcho-capitalist, at heart. This Libertarianism thing is just a stepping stone, eh?
I'm actually not advocating Libertarianism as in "Libertarian Party" politics. I am an advocate of Constitutional Republic, rule-of-law societal organization. And once we get back on that track, we can then start to think about more enlightened forms of social organization, such as anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism.
So yes, Constitutionalism is a path to even better forms of social organization.
suebee
11-09-2007, 09:55 AM
to glorify "the free market" as the saving grace for...what? our country, the economy of the world, the people of the world? what? this line of thinking confounds me, k.j. i guess im not getting it.
what is the point of a free market? money. and where money is to be made, people will conceive of anything to make it, and will worship at the 'bottom line' alter and do anything and everything to increase their profit. maybe like china is doing now?? how do you propose to keep people from taking advantage of any and every thing? who provides medicine to people who have no money and nothing worth trading? you think a free market will do it? these people will, (just like now but for the dirty word welfare) fall by the wayside, oops, your parents are poor, too bad, fortune dealt you a bad hand, you die. the free market doesnt concern itself with those facts. in a hundred years only the people who have anything will be left and utopia will reign? is that it? people who have dirt for assets need to perish so those of us with something can have more? turn a blind eye? how is that a solution to anything? how is that evolution of anything human?
craazyman
11-09-2007, 10:56 AM
Buy their dirt from them at a penny a pound!
And when they're freezing cold in the dead of winter without a house or clothes or even sticks for a fire, then sell it back to them for a day of their labor at $10 a pound.
And tax them twice--once on the profit of their labor and a second time on the dirt they cover themselves with.
Ha, ha!
We'll make an economy come to life yet, and we'll raise them up by their naked frozen toes and make responsible workers out of them, vagrants that they are!.:p :p
And if they try to form a union and bargain with us, we'll break their bloody skulls, the ungrateful bastards.
to glorify "the free market" as the saving grace for...what? our country, the economy of the world, the people of the world? what? this line of thinking confounds me, k.j. i guess im not getting it.
what is the point of a free market? money. and where money is to be made, people will conceive of anything to make it, and will worship at the 'bottom line' alter and do anything and everything to increase their profit.
Actually no, the free market is not about money, it's about trade amongst a free people. Is buying food to feed yourself about money, or is it about being able to get what you need to survive at a reasonable cost, delivered to your door in millions of varieties. Same with any other good you need; shoes, clothing, housing, you name it. Money is simply a means of exchange and of storing value; it has no intrinsic worth. People are the real assets, not money.
Buy their dirt from them at a penny a pound!
And when they're freezing cold in the dead of winter without a house or clothes or even sticks for a fire, then sell it back to them for a day of their labor at $10 a pound.
And tax them twice--once on the profit of their labor and a second time on the dirt they cover themselves with.
See, you're conflating state sponsored corporatism with free market capitalism; they aren't related at all.
Capitalism is simply this: free individuals trading on a free market, absent force and fraud, for goods and services that they value. It's really as simple as that. How can one possibly be opposed to that? There is nothing about capitalism that says one MUST sell their goods; people are free to give away the shirt on their back if that's what they so desire. If you really believe that capitalism is all about money, then you REALLY don't understand capitalism at all.
Here is just one of the many visions of the future that only a free people, trading freely on a market absent force and deception, could help bring about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQukt36Gew0. That kind of thing will not be brought about by socialism and communism.
craazyman
11-09-2007, 11:54 AM
I'm just having a little fun KJ. I got hammered in the stock market this week, absolutely hammered & need to let off some pressure. I appreciate your indefatigable enthusiasm for philosophical discourse. However, I think this thread is setting political economy back at least 300 years--before the advent of the joint stock company--and possibly back to ancient Greece and Rome (that's a long way).
Here's one of many rubs. Men (and women) are not angels, if they were, they would not need governments. Force and fraud are the natural impulse of a non-trivial subset of humanity. To enable markets to function without force and fraud, enforceable regulations are required. Crafting of these regulations and enforcement of them require third parties (beyond buyers and sellers), who are compensated to do so. As it says in the Delcaration of Independence, governments are formed to preserve the rights to live umolested by force and fraud, among other rights. Governments cannot be funded without taxes. Taxes are in theory voluntary contributions by individuals for creation of activities that serve the greater good. If, however, taxes themselves are examples of theft (force), then the very establishment of markets free from force and fraud requires force, which is an inconsistency.
bopes
11-09-2007, 12:33 PM
That "force and fraud" stuff is in the Declaration of Independence? Where?
Here's one of many rubs. Men (and women) are not angels, if they were, they would not need governments. Force and fraud are the natural impulse of a non-trivial subset of humanity. To enable markets to function without force and fraud, enforceable regulations are required. Crafting of these regulations and enforcement of them require third parties (beyond buyers and sellers), who are compensated to do so. As it says in the Delcaration of Independence, governments are formed to preserve the rights to live umolested by force and fraud, among other rights. Governments cannot be funded without taxes. Taxes are in theory voluntary contributions by individuals for creation of activities that serve the greater good. If, however, taxes themselves are examples of theft (force), then the very establishment of markets free from force and fraud requires force, which is an inconsistency.
I think you just made an argument for anarcho-capitalism being the only consistent political philosophy for social organization.
(no need to apologize, I enjoy the discourse).
That "force and fraud" stuff is in the Declaration of Independence? Where?
Although those words don't appear in that precise formulation within the Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights/Constitution, the spirit of the American Revolution, I would argue, is exactly that.
bopes
11-09-2007, 12:50 PM
Property rights are not absolute. In fact, no thing is absolute.
(PS: I just threw that out there. I got it from googling snappycomebackstolibertariananarchocapitalists)
craazyman
11-09-2007, 12:56 PM
from the D of I ---
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
* * *
I would say freedom from force or fraud is consistent with that passage.
bopes
11-09-2007, 01:03 PM
I'll buy that, coming from a non-strict constructionist.
But I won't buy it from someone who says government can only do what's enumerated to it. I'd say that person would be committing a fraud. :)
I'll buy that, coming from a non-strict constructionist.
But I won't buy it from someone who says government can only do what's enumerated to it. I'd say that person would be committing a fraud. :)
How about you explain exactly why it's lawful and just for a government to do anything OTHER than what is enumerated in its founding document?
craazyman
11-09-2007, 01:18 PM
actually, Jefferson almost wrote "life, liberty and property", based on Locke, from what I recall (not that I was there, but from reading about it, LOL), so the connection between property and happiness is elemental and foundational in the constitution and in American political philosophy.
bopes
11-09-2007, 01:21 PM
How about you explain exactly why it's lawful and just for a government to do anything OTHER than what is enumerated in its founding document?
Is it just me or did someone cut the irony with a knife here?
You say potato and I say potato. Potato, potato, potato, potato . . . let's call the whole thing off.
There's just one thing this conversation is missing. Cowbells.
willoweyes
11-09-2007, 02:28 PM
I have a great new post brewing--
"-before the advent of the joint stock company--and possibly back to ancient Greece and Rome (that's a long way. . . .)"
I just want the joint company. . .
One time i talked about changing the stars. there i just joked with y0u-tivialized the possibilities. i kidded, but the stars can change.
craazyman
11-10-2007, 05:39 AM
apparently they all did change.
I don't see one anywhere on the board anymore.
I kind of miss my 2 stars, they made me feel special.:p
suebee
11-10-2007, 07:20 AM
so are we going to give everyone an equal chance? divide up all our goods into equal per person parts, roll the monolopy dice and see who survives? or do we start with what's in place now? just how does this utopian constitutional country begin the process. and dont we have to make sure everyone has a skill/trade or at least a shot at getting a skill/trade. how do we ensure that happens? how do we level the playing field?
and if money is necessary i dont see how you get around my last argument. people are not saints and will take....that's been proved. how do we regulate actions absent a third party who regulates?
so are we going to give everyone an equal chance? divide up all our goods into equal per person parts, roll the monolopy dice and see who survives? or do we start with what's in place now? just how does this utopian constitutional country begin the process. and dont we have to make sure everyone has a skill/trade or at least a shot at getting a skill/trade. how do we ensure that happens? how do we level the playing field?
and if money is necessary i dont see how you get around my last argument. people are not saints and will take....that's been proved. how do we regulate actions absent a third party who regulates?
You give everyone an equal chance by protecting them against force and fraud EQUALLY under the law. That's the only way to do it; you cannot steal from everyone all of the fruits of their labor and then dish it out in an equal way and expect that to promote freedom, liberty and prosperity.
As for regulating people, the market regulates itself when left unfettered. Read some Mises, Rothbard, etc.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-11-2007, 01:23 AM
the market regulates itself...
kj, your views gives me fucking nasuea, i'm sorry but it's true. :cry:
the free market is the single most destructive force in the world as it exists today. on par with the three major monotheistic religions, only that now every person can ride the ignorant assumptions of earlier times exclusive priesthoods into glory and gore. no, the freedom to produce any and every kind of accessory is no longer an ecological viable solution, the market must adhere to a globally shared information of needs and limits..
but it's all based on the notions of the frontier, the expanse, new territories, and new trading partners, competitors, battles that must be won and expanded, and all of this is exactly the last century wrong thinking that our worldcentric new awareness must leave behind.
the globe in enclosed, there is no more new terrain, and the internal fighting between nations and classes which all free market economy needs to sustain itself will become more desperate if we do not truly wake up to a global planetary culture that can regulate itself by the knowledge of itself as a whole, not just parts that only vaguely know about the larger organisms that it prides itself to be at war with.
the only way a free market system could function rationally is through an international interface of shared goals and shared responsibility.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-11-2007, 02:32 AM
tens of thousands of koreans regulating the "free market"
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/South_Korea_US_Free_217853i.jpg
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/APTOPIX_South_Korea_217864i.jpg
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/South_Korea_US_Free_217866i.jpg
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/South_Korea_US_Free_217860i.jpg
i guess this is what you can call the market regulating itself.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-11-2007, 02:38 AM
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/SOUTH_KOREA_US_FREE_217861i.jpg
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/South_Korea_US_Free_217865i.jpg
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/South_Korea_US_Free_217857i.jpg
http://politiken.dk/archive/00217/SOUTH_KOREA_US_FREE_217855i.jpg
craazyman
11-11-2007, 03:39 AM
No Cap, those are shots from a Kung Fu movie being filmed in a studio lot in Bubank, California.
Nice try.:)
Isaiah Mpski
11-11-2007, 05:27 AM
You know of course,you are only putting forth the views of Mr Paul who would take our troops out of Asia,the middle east and Perhaps Europe.
I believe eventually it is going to happen one way or the other anyhow and then Cap.It won't be clubs.It will be bullets and 20 year jail sentences.Death for major drug offenses.
I wecome it and hope if Mr Paul is elected he will offer Mexico the opportunity to become the 51st or 2nd state.Cuba too wants the same privlidge.Puerto Rico rejected it but is still numer two on the amount of welfare money sent there.New York is number one.
Figure that?
the market regulates itself...
kj, your views gives me fucking nasuea, i'm sorry but it's true. :cry:
the free market is the single most destructive force in the world as it exists today. on par with the three major monotheistic religions, only that now every person can ride the ignorant assumptions of earlier times exclusive priesthoods into glory and gore. no, the freedom to produce any and every kind of accessory is no longer an ecological viable solution, the market must adhere to a globally shared information of needs and limits..
but it's all based on the notions of the frontier, the expanse, new territories, and new trading partners, competitors, battles that must be won and expanded, and all of this is exactly the last century wrong thinking that our worldcentric new awareness must leave behind.
the globe in enclosed, there is no more new terrain, and the internal fighting between nations and classes which all free market economy needs to sustain itself will become more desperate if we do not truly wake up to a global planetary culture that can regulate itself by the knowledge of itself as a whole, not just parts that only vaguely know about the larger organisms that it prides itself to be at war with.
the only way a free market system could function rationally is through an international interface of shared goals and shared responsibility.
You are obviously very uninformed about what capitalism actually is, and I don't blame you; most of us have been taught, trained and educated to be ignorant about it. Capitalism has been distorted beyond all recognition in today's world; we do NOT have capitalism today, we have state corporatism which IS the most dangerous ideology our world has seen next to communism.
Free market capitalism has nothing to do with nationalism; the entire world should consist of free individuals trading on a free market.
The free market is the ONLY way information can be spread and acted upon quickly, efficiently, reliably and profitably; a centralized socialistic top-down system CANNOT do this.
You know of course,you are only putting forth the views of Mr Paul who would take our troops out of Asia,the middle east and Perhaps Europe.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not, but if it was: Paul is actually putting forth ideas I've held for over a decade now; I'm not putting forth his ideas, he's putting forth ideas he and I share.
suebee
11-11-2007, 09:05 AM
the problem i have with your view on this k.j, is that it leaves 75% of the population without a single drop of water or crumb of food.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-11-2007, 09:33 AM
it's just horseshit, horseshit, horseshit!
;)
Caprinardo Delirio
11-11-2007, 09:38 AM
The free market is the ONLY way information can be spread and acted upon quickly, efficiently, reliably and profitably; a centralized socialistic top-down system CANNOT do this.
i mean, what a totally provincial, ancient and artificially constructed set of choices! :rolleyes:
craazyman
11-11-2007, 10:01 AM
I haven't seen this much fur flying around here since the polyamory thread.:p
Yo! Nothing like debating two ideological extremes, neither of which are ever found in nature. What makes better physics--continutity or discontinuity? Yeah, a real Geek joke.:hmm:
suebee, that's why they're willing to work so hard when you give them a job. Boooowahahaha:eek:
"Workin for the man
every night and day . . . "
the problem i have with your view on this k.j, is that it leaves 75% of the population without a single drop of water or crumb of food.
No, it actually brings those things to more people than might otherwise have access to them.
i mean, what a totally provincial, ancient and artificially constructed set of choices! :rolleyes:
Oh, I'm all for choices. I'd like to see 10k different forms of social organization competing with one another across the glove...as long as not a one of them involves coercion, force and/or deception.
See, my whole issue with socialism/communism/fascism is that those who espouse these ideas think not only that they are the ONLY way to organize society, but they also think they have a right to FORCE them upon everyone. That's what's so great about capitalism; it doesn't require, via the use of force, that anyone else adopt it! So if you think capitalism is a horrible idea, then you are entirely free to organize your life in any other manner you find acceptable.
sidecross
11-11-2007, 12:31 PM
How come, K.J., every species seems to exist except the human without any ‘ism’?
Your belief in Capitalism as a ‘superb’ form of ‘ism’ is what puzzles me.
Capitalism has used violence, slavery, and sexism to gain its power in the world.
craazyman
11-11-2007, 12:42 PM
so has every other system, although they haven't had the mechanisms for internal dissent and adjustment.
"Capitalism" is a straw man, that means different things to different people--and so the arguments go in circles.
Sadly, the central liberating idea is the right to property, which is why Locke and then Jefferson stressed it so much. In a large and distributed society, possession of property has been the central force driving the evolution of a systemic conscience, although admittedly in fits and starts with retrograde periods.
In small tribal societies, property is an unnecessary extension of the individual, but when populatio numbers grow to the point where individual transactions are anonymous, then property is seen as an extension of the person. The right to buy and sell one's property is elemental to freedom in a large and anonymous society.
Consider that slaves were inevitably deprived of property and the communist revolution and collapse of feudalism occurred because of the desire for property on the part of the chronically dispossessed.
To deny people the right to property and the right to buy and sell it as they wish will inevitably result in a failed society.
However, this says nothing about the ideal structure of markets.
How come, K.J., every species seems to exist except the human without any ‘ism’?
Your belief in Capitalism as a ‘superb’ form of ‘ism’ is what puzzles me.
Capitalism has used violence, slavery, and sexism to gain its power in the world.
Let's see...maybe because humanity is the only species capable of reason and such thought concepts as "ism's"?
The state has used violence, slavery and sexism...capitalism requires and accepts NONE of these things. Again, I repeat, capitalism is nothing more or less than free trade amongst FREE individuals. If it requires slavery, violence and sexism then it is NOT capitalism (in fact, those things sound an awful lot like what socialism requires to me).
Consider that slaves were inevitably deprived of property and the communist revolution and collapse of feudalism occurred because of the desire for property on the part of the chronically dispossessed.
To deny people the right to property and the right to buy and sell it as they wish will inevitably result in a failed society.
However, this says nothing about the ideal structure of markets.
Amen brother, you get it!
As for the ideal structure of markets, I am ALL for competing ideas. Capitalism will win or fall of its own merits, but no other idea should be forced onto anyone.
sidecross
11-11-2007, 02:36 PM
Let's see...maybe because humanity is the only species capable of reason and such thought concepts as "ism's"?
The state has used violence, slavery and sexism...capitalism requires and accepts NONE of these things. Again, I repeat, capitalism is nothing more or less than free trade amongst FREE individuals. If it requires slavery, violence and sexism then it is NOT capitalism (in fact, those things sound an awful lot like what socialism requires to me).
Have you considered that the human is incapable of using “reason’ without the dire consequences?
Your consideration of ‘free markets’ is just another fruitless attempt of vanity the human is addicted too; it is using ‘reason’ as its tool.
When you study the history of the human and ‘reason’ you follow what Terrence McKenna described as the ‘fall into history’.
sidecross
11-11-2007, 03:06 PM
CHIEF SEATTLE'S LETTER
"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?
Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.
We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family.
The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each glossy reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.
The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give the rivers the kindness that you would give any brother.
If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life that it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers.
Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth.
This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.
One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.
Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and then hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.
When the last red man has vanished with this wilderness, and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my people left?
We love this earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it, as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you receive it. Preserve the land for all children, and love it, as God loves us.
As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you.
One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all."
http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html
Have you considered that the human is incapable of using “reason’ without the dire consequences?
Your consideration of ‘free markets’ is just another fruitless attempt of vanity the human is addicted too; it is using ‘reason’ as its tool.
When you study the history of the human and ‘reason’ you follow what Terrence McKenna described as the ‘fall into history’.
You mean that humans are incapable of reason without the possibility of messing things up? Of course I've considered that; humans aren't perfect.
Though McKenna is certainly one of my personal patron saints, he certainly wasn't right about everything he carried on about.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-12-2007, 08:40 AM
kj, i think we have the same underlying agreement of what parts of human history we should't tamper with. you ultimately identify capitalism with human desire to make livings and pursue destinies. i'm defining capitalism as the inertia, control and so on.
i don't want ideological revolution.
but check this: i think we have to move to a society of enormous automatization, and essentially create a society of people who go through some kind of educational system(s) until perhaps even age 30. (but probably having jobs from age 20, and all opportunity to utilize talent when it's springs from a clear source.) "government" is only an democratic interface space, organizing autonomous neighborhood zones, and structuring temporary organizational groups etc. it's "The Public" with their gay little logo perhaps..
a lot of markets will become niched and exist solely as serve it's function, with no economical detriment looming over any persons ownership. at neighborhood level crucial information and technology is supplied and maintained, and everything is participatory and self-organizing. a business will enter a channel in a market where it will receive fair game, ultimately only the quality and usefulness of your work will determine if it survives or not. companies will work together often and will shift all according to internal external likings. no one risks economical downfall, and at doctors, dentists, schools, is there not any money involved. money will phase out anyway, but there is no central institution behind it, no governmental organ in power over forces that can used against us. if this is a local revolution, we might keep a military surplus around somewhere, but we count on that every person in the world would want this, really. if you would have to boil the basic ingredients down, i guess it actually sounds a bit like your american declaration of independence. the personal benefits, i mean.
we start with letting the rich stay rich but in measure of critical matters attend the poorer first. not to worry, the non-economy is able to produce as long as there are consumers.
all hail petoria!
(it's my kashmir saivism city cult on one of those straight squaring mountains in the painted deserts.. :D )
suebee
11-15-2007, 04:37 PM
No, it actually brings those things to more people than might otherwise have access to them.
how?
??????
how?
??????
Do you think the homeless would be able to scrounge up .69 cents, head over to McDonald's, and buy a burger full of protein and calories they so badly need if it weren't for capitalism? No, it would likely cost them 4-5 times that much, and they'd have to travel 5 times as far, and then wait in a line stretching 5 city blocks if we lived under socialism (presuming such a product was available at all).
This is just one small example; we could spend all day going over examples.
bopes
11-16-2007, 06:40 AM
those capitalist homeless ingrates. If they don't like it here, with all that pocket change bulging out of their filthy pockets, whyn't they just move to a communist country?
craazyman
11-16-2007, 06:44 AM
nobody has any money in communist countries.
panhandlers can't make a living.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-16-2007, 08:41 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM
I'm not sure what your point was here. I agree with some of his views, but only those that don't require force and coercion to put into effect.
craazyman
11-16-2007, 02:16 PM
and not the kind you smoke in a bong, dude
Herman Melville's short story "Billy Budd" and the antagonist Claggart, Master at Arms, a portrait in psycopathology.
Could be said about Chomsky, very veritably, truly said, most eminently, soon and now. And all the fools trod underneath that purposeful gate of perspicacity . . .
"These men are true madmen, and of the most dangerous sort, for their lunacy is not continuous but occasional, evoked by some special object; it is probably secretive, which is as much to say it is self-contained, so that when moreover, most active, it is to the average mind not distinguishable from sanity, and for the reason above suggested that whatever its aims may be--and the aim is never declared--the method and the outward proceeding are always perfectly rational."
-Herman Melville, Billy Budd, Chapter 11
suebee
11-16-2007, 04:49 PM
dollar double cheese burgers. hmmm..... farm subsidy bills, taxes funding junk food.... still not getting you k.j, but i dont know much about all this stuff so i'll give it a rest. ;)
dollar double cheese burgers. hmmm..... farm subsidy bills, taxes funding junk food.... still not getting you k.j, but i dont know much about all this stuff so i'll give it a rest. ;)
Wait, I never said a thing about farm subsidies and tax funds for junk food! I'm TOTALLY opposed to both of these things!
Caprinardo Delirio
11-17-2007, 01:52 AM
one of chomsky's ("anarchist") mottos is to seek out and analyze any form of power and control and assess their legitimacy. if found not to be legitimate any kind of power or dominance should be overthrown. that's kinds your view too, right?
Caprinardo Delirio
11-17-2007, 01:53 AM
Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior)
by Aura Bogado
November 14, 2007
Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has always opposed the Iraq war, and that's really, really great. I'm happy for him. The right wing ideologue actually gets the war, the CIA's practice of so-called extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo right – but the balance of what he gets wrong is glaring and is almost as frightening as the amount of friends and colleagues I respect that have signed on as Ron Paul supporters. People seem to like that he appears to be an unusual Republican candidate, but right below the surface of the libertarian mask that Paul wears is an ultra nationalist, gun loving Christian conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman's right to choose and same-sex marriage. And… oh yeah: he hates immigrants.
Paul is Not an Anti-Capitalist
Despite his record-breaking online fundraising effort, it's more likely that pigs will fly before Paul wins the Republican primary. Regardless, I'm dismayed at the left-wing, anti-capitalist buzz around him, including the comparisons between him and Noam Chomsky. Paul's vision for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social security would only yield monopolies that don't work for everyday people, much like our current healthcare system. The presidential candidate advocates dismantling the few positive governmental regulations that secure working-class rights and benefits, including welfare – again, clearly not anti-capitalist. And while I can admire that any politician would call for ending the US' support of Israel, it follows in the vein of Paul's nationalist, isolationist concept of abolishing the United Nations and other diplomatic efforts to conserve our own opulence while leaving the rest of the world to waste.
I Loves My Guns
Paul calls himself a strict abider of the Constitution, and says that the relationship between the People and government is important. Unfortunately, I wonder how many people would be left if we adhered to this Texan's ideas surrounding the Second Amendment. Paul, who has earned an A-rating by the National Rifle Association, champions the cause to allow people to carry concealed firearms. And although ruling after ruling has clarified that the Constitution does not guarantee people the right to run around lugging assault rifles, Paul loves his guns and according to him the issue is not even up for debate. Add to this the fact that legislation like the 1968 Gun Control Act (which was approved after the John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert F. Kennedy were killed with um… guns) was passed in a way in which Paul would likely interpret as unconstitutional, and you quickly realize how fanatical this man is about the Second Amendment.
Paul and the Christian Right
Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. Yes, you read correctly, he opposes it. He says there is a war on religion, and that "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view." We should remember that when writing about the First Amendment of the Constitution (which clearly states that "government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), Thomas Jefferson coined the term "separation of Church and State". If Paul's theocratic concepts were instituted, we would have Old Testament displays at the nation's courthouses, and Christian prayers would be part of each child's school day.
His religious conservatism seems to inform his views on topics as elementary as evolution when it comes to education. When asked if he would encourage presenting so-called facts to contradict the theory of evolution in schools, he answered yes. This "alternative view" on the theory of evolution means teaching the concept of intelligent design– a pseudoscience which real scientists dismiss as another attempt to once again introduce creationism into public classrooms. No thank you. Intelligent design may have its place in church, on the street or at home, but in terms of science, it doesn't propose any hypotheses which can be tested through experiment; it's simply not science. Teachers should certainly not be forced to teach right-wing conservative Christian ideals about God in any classroom. When I take a biology course, I go to learn about accepted theory. When I want to hear about God, I'll go to church.
Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a program of mass murder". A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the topic in his spare time, he thinks States should decide the matter (read: allow states to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade to allow new laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right calls "unborn people"). Under Paul's proposal, States could conceivably pass laws that bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or incest, and even when the woman's life is at risk. Any person that values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do with her own body should take caution – Paul is to the extreme right of the political spectrum on this issue. I understand that Presidents do not decide abortion policy, but we have yet to see what Bush's Supreme Court appointments will yield in terms of abortion rights in the years to come. Any presidential candidate that would move to allow States to eradicate women's rights doesn't deserve the attention and praise he's getting from the Left.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, Paul says that federal government should play no role in the matter and that anyone can get married and call their relationship whatever they want. On its surface, that may sound fair enough. However, Paul was an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House. Passed in the House in 2004, the bill sought to preclude federal courts from transferring the recognition of same-sex marriage across state lines. For example, a same-sex marriage that took place in Massachusetts would not be acknowledged in Alabama. Addressing the House in 2004, Paul made clear that if he was a member of the Texas legislature he would bar judges from advocating "new definitions" of marriage. Those of us who truly believe that anyone has the right to be married and to be recognized as such should realize that Paul's sometimes careful wording around the issue camouflages his Christian conservatism which defines marriage as something that can solely occur between a man and a woman.
Affirmative What?
Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. headed to Washington in March, 1964 to hear the historic Senate debate on the Civil Rights Act. The legislation, which was passed a few months later, banned segregation in schools and public spaces and made it illegal to discriminate in housing and hiring processes. Malcolm, Martin, and millions of people of color and their supporters knew that such legislation would permanently influence and reduce de jure discrimination across entire nation, including the reach of Jim Crow laws in the South. They also knew that it was a necessary step towards reducing the de facto discrimination that followed. Yet Ron Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a violation of the Constitution and that it reduced individual liberties. Last year, Paul was one of only 33 Congress members to vote against Voting Rights Act renewal, despite the fact that 390 of his colleagues voted for it. Paul seems to want to go back to the times when racial segregation was the norm and the law.
Paul is against affirmative action because, he says, no one should be punished or privileged for belonging to a group, and everyone should be treated as an individual. In stating this, Paul conveniently ignores the truth that individuals from the white group are treated one way and individuals from the people of color group are treated another way. He detests calls for diversity, and adds that those of us who base our identities on race are "inherently racist". His logic in the latter statement is so far removed from reality that it makes it difficult to respond to – suffice to say that people of color do not have the institutional power to be racist against whites; his statement instead illustrates his own racism. But it gets a lot worse: Paul's political literature has stated that it is sensible to be afraid of black men; that "95 percent of African Americans in [Washington D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"; that black male children (but not white ones) should be treated and tried as adults for crimes they commit beginning at age 13; and he referred to two black men that were interviewed by Ted Koppel after the Los Angeles 1992 uprising as "animals". Kanye West was right when he said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Guess what? If his own political literature is any indication, Ron Paul loathes black people.
Supporters who have gone as far as to donate money to Paul's campaign should bear in mind that he has knowingly also taken donations from white supremacist and former KKK GrandWizard Don Black. Other white supremacists like David Duke also support Paul's bid for President. It's easy for Paul to dismiss affirmative action as something that violates individual liberty, but what hides behind that is the fact that he is a hate-spewing presidential candidate aligned with some of the most blatant, odious racists on the planet.
More "American" Than You and I
Not surprisingly, Paul offensive terms like "illegal alien", "illegal immigrant" or plain-old "illegals" when referring to human beings who live in the United States without proper documentation. Besides "beaner", "spic" and "wetback", I cannot immediately think of other words that approximate the bigotry that these terms are loaded with. In this regard, however, nearly all presidential candidates and even well-meaning everyday people continue to use these terms – except that Paul is not well-meaning when it comes to the undocumented.
While addressing a group of supporters, Paul claimed that in terms of work ethic, some undocumented workers "are more American than some of us." WASP purists like Paul employ a type of historical amnesia which yields an artificial yet neutral-sounding identity that they call "American". Perhaps if Paul wasn't such an isolationist he would realize that there actually are two continents worth of people that call themselves American, and that the ones that do so in the United States are not a chosen bunch. The truth is that the practice of pioneer colonialism in the U.S. illegally and immorally took land from various indigenous populations. Those pioneer immigrants, who illegally brought African slaves with them, tried to enforce and superimpose their cultural and linguistic practices on this stolen territory while almost completely exterminating the people that they took the land from. Those original populations that were not killed were illegally displaced against their will. In practice, these pioneer immigrants illegally crossed national borders, and as a result their decedents continue to reap the structural benefits that were created. But instead of claiming this pioneer immigrant identity (which requires a truthful look into an uneasy past) they appropriate a fear-based, racist "American" identity and demonize contemporary immigrants instead.
In Paul's fuzzy logic, all immigrants are here to suck the country dry of its welfare, education and emergency healthcare systems. If it was up to Paul, those systems would be voided for not only undocumented, but for documented immigrants as well. Forget that both groups pay into the income, property and retail tax system. Ignore that time and time again, studies indicate that the undocumented pay more into the system than they take out. According to Paul, even documented immigrants should be stripped of any government subsidy. He also says that children born to undocumented immigrants on US soil should not be allowed to hold citizenship. The so-called strict abider of the Constitution wants to overturn the Fourteenth Amendment so that children born to undocumented immigrants are stripped of their birthright. Besides the serious moral dilemmas surrounding his radical proposal, the practical limitations are copious. What if one parent is documented but the other is not? What if both parents were undocumented, but from different countries? What if they were from the same country, but the country of origin refused to recognize the child as a citizen of that land? Paul's scheme (like so many of his others) is completely absurd.
Deconstructing Ron Paul
It's really not very complicated: people who are or stand with workers, the poor, women, queer folks, people of color and immigrants will need to look far beyond this candidate. Despite his supporter's efforts to ignore the man behind the façade, it's time to get real and deconstruct the pretense. Ron Paul is a free market capitalist who doesn't care for the rights of workers or the poor; he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA, he is a radical Christian conservative who thinks that school prayer and intelligent design have a God-given place in public schools, that a woman's right to choose should be crushed, and that same-sex marriage is repugnant; he is a Congressman that has voted against affirmative action and thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution; and he is a candidate that hates immigrants. Yes, we are sick and tired of Washington, but just because Bush has failed so deeply does not mean we can latch on to the very first presidential hopeful who wants to bring the troops home immediately, yet simultaneously destroy the rights and benefits we have struggled for centuries to achieve. Paul is certainly not the answer and we need to stop pretending that he is. I recognize and can appreciate that he stands against the Iraq War and everything that the so-called War on Terror has wreaked at home and abroad. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Yeah Cap, that was a total piece of garbage there about Ron Paul. Not only is it inaccurate in some parts (Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist), it was obviously written by a socialist; hardly an indictment.
craazyman
11-17-2007, 06:56 AM
I'll take Ron Paul over "Chomp"sky, but I'll take Ralph "Soak the Rich" Nader over both, or Kucinich & his UFO.
Time to tax the financial parasites so they'll go away and let the welfare queens run the place for a while. They couldn't do any worse.
Either way, 'though, it'll just end up more money for the lawyers.
If the euro weren't so damn high, I'd move to France where a crazy person can feel at home.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-17-2007, 06:58 AM
i just found it today. also.. you use socialist as a broken concept, but most social philosophy and concepts have their origin or influence in this ideology. you can't dismiss socialism as a mode of discourse when you yourself is using it heavily in your worldly assessments.
i think we should try to dig out what the essential differences are here. it's funny, last night i linked around youtube and to this chomsky video and i ended up discussing with an angry fella who accused chomsky of being a jewish supremacist, which is of course a kind of fictional view because of it's heavy rethinking of his stances, but here was this mention of ron pauls christian nationalism and support by white supremacists. at any rate there is an ethnological essence to this view left-right psychosis where if you love ron paul you think the left are jewish racists and if you're an anarchist you think ron paul is a christian supremacist. funny, eh?
to me chomsky deals with ethnological groups like most of us do; as somehow secondary to the primary humanness of the individual per se.
i just found it today. also.. you use socialist as a broken concept, but most social philosophy and concepts have their origin or influence in this ideology. you can't dismiss socialism as a mode of discourse when you yourself is using it heavily in your worldly assessments.
i think we should try to dig out what the essential differences are here.
The essential difference for me is this: socialism/communism, as most people understand them, require force and coercion to put in place and keep it there.
Capitalism does not. That's the entire difference of opinion I have here: no force, no coercion, no deception. If it doesn't involve any of those things, then I'm all for it.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-17-2007, 07:36 AM
right there is the difference.. i understand it totally reverse! :D
capitalism through private and private-governmental allied groups are making propaganda against democratic institutions to move power into the unaccountable transnational empires that wants to move freely from the constraints of democracy as inforced by the public through government. so government is so demonized that it's real essence, the private corporations, wrestle free from judicial responsibility and gain in peace, through accountable coercion.
socialism (not the historical versions) to me is this unifying democraticing and freedom struggle from the forces that had dominated them before: the king, the totalitarian government, the church, the corporate owners etc. socialism is the struggle against coercion and control in european history!
just speading some chumpsky propaganga here:
selling the capitalist sory (short ending of a lecture, i think it illuminates what i percieve to be the contradictions of the paul type of anti-government schism)
http://download.yousendit.com/2F15B2392CB92E36
free market fantasies - (brilliant lecture, stick with it it centeres right and expands on this schism too - it cuts short but i have the ending elsewhere)
http://download.yousendit.com/BB8A3DAD03C93870
some good-oldies:
the common good:
http://download.yousendit.com/8DDA0D271C9258B2
neccesary illusions:
http://download.yousendit.com/2CC226C039431369
kj, try digging this stuff with an open mind (but not too open ;) ) - i'm trying ron paul out as open as i can force myself.. we should converse with respect and a mission to see the flaws in the divide in better detail, later on, i hope!
craazyman
11-17-2007, 08:06 AM
Here's the difference
in socialism, the bosses work a 35 hour week and so do the workers.
in capitalism, the bosses work a 5 hour week and the workers work an 80 hour week.
In both systems, the average work week is 35 hours on a population-wide basis, which is why people have trouble defining the difference.
A free market is a market where your neighbor can sell anything he wants whenever he wants, no matter how much noise he makes in the middle of the night.
In socialism, you're both too depressed to sleep, so you're both up drinking, which likely ends up in a fist fight.
In socialism, everyone gets a piece of the action, but there isn;t very much action, unless you're on the take. In capitalsm, everyone is on the take, or being taken.
For more definitions and solutions to world problems send $29.95 to:
attn: Mail Room Clerk, Ph.D.
Institute for the Improvement of Global Welfare
345 Hershey Highway
Saint Louis, MO
right there is the difference.. i understand it totally reverse! :D
capitalism through private and private-governmental allied groups are making propaganda against democratic institutions to move power into the unaccountable transnational empires that wants to move freely from the constraints of democracy as inforced by the public through government. so government is so demonized that it's real essence, the private corporations, wrestle free from judicial responsibility and gain in peace, through accountable coercion.
See, but what you're talking about there is NOT capitalism. It's state-corporatism and mercantilism. I'm opposed to ANY state action in the market, though I would for now settle with paring it down to state action wherever there is force or fraud in the market...and that's it. I understand people's confusion with capitalism and mercantilism, which I guess is why I work so hard to educate them.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-17-2007, 08:16 AM
so you see no problem of private power as a force that is working against people, the private power is the people, so simply?
i agree about state-corporatism and mercantilism not being democracy, but have etymological issues with you on 'capitalism'.
check chomsky - the common good is good too!
Isaiah Mpski
11-17-2007, 08:24 AM
Great post CM.
so you see no problem of private power as a force that is working against people, the private power is the people, so simply?
How could private power (individual people in positions of non-coercive power) be against "the people"? Isn't it made up of "the people"? I don't believe in a collective called "the people"; there are only individuals working together in groups for a common cause.
sidecross
11-17-2007, 12:04 PM
I do not understand, K.J., your open hostility to ‘socialism’; you seem to use the word in way Hitler viewed the ‘Jews’.
Socialism, like Libertarian, and Free Markets are only ideas or concepts coming from a flawed species.
craazyman
11-17-2007, 01:30 PM
Sometimes real world examples help clarify theoretical frameworks. In contemplating the following, I am not sure whether to label this type of enterprise "capitalism" or "socialism". Indeed, it evidences the ingenuity usually associated with capitalism. But there is an undeniable element of government support, notably, free housing, which likely offered a base for entreprenurial activities. In that context, it might be said to be socialism . . .
Kirksey McCord Nix, Jr. was reputedly the leader of the Dixie Mafia.
He was a suspect in the assassination attempt on Sheriff Buford Pusser and in the death of Buford's wife on August 12, 1967.
In 1972, Nix was convicted of murdering Frank Corso a New Orleans grocery executive in a break-in at the man's home, and began serving a life sentence without parole.
According to an October 20, 1999 appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi, "while serving a life sentence for murder at Angola State Penitentiary, Nix built a criminal empire from which he hoped to earn enough money to buy his way out of prison. Although he dabbled in insurance fraud and drug dealing, Nix’s primary money-making scheme was a “lonely hearts” scam designed to defraud homosexual men. Nix and his prison syndicate would place personal advertisements in national homosexual magazines. When men would respond to these ads, Nix or one of his associates would indicate that he was having financial difficulties and needed the respondent to wire money to a Nix associate outside prison. Nix acquired hundreds of thousands of dollars from this scam."
Nix is currently incarcerated at a federal facility in Colorado
I do not understand, K.J., your open hostility to ‘socialism’; you seem to use the word in way Hitler viewed the ‘Jews’.
Socialism, like Libertarian, and Free Markets are only ideas or concepts coming from a flawed species.
I don't have a problem with socialism that is NON coercive and NON violent. I have a problem with anything that is. Socialism as most people understand it today is violent and coercive and deceptive, which is why I use it the way I do.
Sometimes real world examples help clarify theoretical frameworks. In contemplating the following, I am not sure whether to label this type of enterprise "capitalism" or "socialism". Indeed, it evidences the ingenuity usually associated with capitalism. But there is an undeniable element of government support, notably, free housing, which likely offered a base for entreprenurial activities. In that context, it might be said to be socialism . . .
Kirksey McCord Nix, Jr. was reputedly the leader of the Dixie Mafia.
He was a suspect in the assassination attempt on Sheriff Buford Pusser and in the death of Buford's wife on August 12, 1967.
In 1972, Nix was convicted of murdering Frank Corso a New Orleans grocery executive in a break-in at the man's home, and began serving a life sentence without parole.
According to an October 20, 1999 appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi, "while serving a life sentence for murder at Angola State Penitentiary, Nix built a criminal empire from which he hoped to earn enough money to buy his way out of prison. Although he dabbled in insurance fraud and drug dealing, Nix’s primary money-making scheme was a “lonely hearts” scam designed to defraud homosexual men. Nix and his prison syndicate would place personal advertisements in national homosexual magazines. When men would respond to these ads, Nix or one of his associates would indicate that he was having financial difficulties and needed the respondent to wire money to a Nix associate outside prison. Nix acquired hundreds of thousands of dollars from this scam."
Nix is currently incarcerated at a federal facility in Colorado
I don't think it matters what label you give it...it was deceptive and fraudulent; I wouldn't support it if you called it capitalism OR socialism. But since my definition of capitalism does not include the use of force or fraud, I would never call the activities in the example above capitalism.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-17-2007, 04:13 PM
How could private power (individual people in positions of non-coercive power) be against "the people"? Isn't it made up of "the people"? I don't believe in a collective called "the people"; there are only individuals working together in groups for a common cause.
isn't government made up of "the people" then... if you can't see that private power is the new century's version of coercive governmental control, we share nothing of concerns...
seriously, the idea that "government" is all so destructive and private power is just the people.........wow, seriously man, that is so fucking contradictory, it almost gets me high! - and precisely the result of the propaganda chomsky is talking about.
wow..
isn't government made up of "the people" then... if you can't see that private power is the new century's version of coercive governmental control, we share nothing of concerns...
seriously, the idea that "government" is all so destructive and private power is just the people.........wow, seriously man, that is so fucking contradictory, it almost gets me high! - and precisely the result of the propaganda chomsky is talking about.
wow..
I never said private power couldn't be destructive; ANY power can be destructive. But top-down power is MUCH more destructive than dispersed, decentralized power is. And we would have vastly larger proportions of decentralized power without the state than we do with the state.
As for the government being "the people": what if even ONE person disagrees with what the government is doing? Is it then still "the people"?
What is it about the collective that gives it more moral authority than an individual possesses? I am of the opinion that if it's wrong for an individual to do it, then it's wrong for a collective to do it (i.e. theft is theft, violence is violence, whether 1 million people do it via the state, or whether one person does it); an individual cannot grant to the collective more moral authority than he/she possesses as an individual.
craazyman
11-18-2007, 02:32 AM
you're right KJ, I was in a funk yesterday, trying to make myself laugh. It certainly is a symphony of force and fraud.
Real Problems though:
Decentralized Power
-slavery
-Jim Crow laws
-back alley abortions O(-0<
-abortions (if you're a right to lifer)
-draconian drug laws
-lax environmental standards
-etc. etc.
-honor killings (Arab world)
-brutal dowry systems
-culturally entrenched misogyny
-etc. etc.
(all the stupid human tricks)
The individual concience has to be active to be legitimate--and even then it's debatable what the right thing is. Sometimes, it can only be activated and enforced through the authority of the collective.
It's a tension that runs through all intellectual disciplines -- micro and macro, individual and community, part and whole, point and line, word and sentence, discontinuity and continuity, thesis and antithesis.
suebee
11-18-2007, 07:02 AM
yes, c-man. this is why i cant see eliminating "the collective" (in any incantation) when talking about thriving/surviving.
suebee
11-19-2007, 02:03 PM
k.j, how do you think your man feels about deregulation?
k.j, how do you think your man feels about deregulation?
At the federal level he'd be all over it (for the most part; the federal government has a very short list of enumerated Constitutional duties); it's a state issue if anything.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-22-2007, 12:28 PM
end the war on peoples insights, vote anything but ron paul!
:razz:
suebee
11-23-2007, 07:49 AM
interesting little article about denmark's socialism in Time this week. favorably reviewed. :)
craazyman
11-23-2007, 08:41 AM
send me some money, cap, you Danish socialist.
I promise I'll spend it responsibly, no subprime mortgages--after I buy a few beers.
ho ho ho.
you can send me some too, Suebee, anytime. I am not a republican. It will be OK.
Yes, Isaiah, McClendon is in there buying more this week, something must be up. Also, the ABP guys are still buying. I hope you avoided the spike down last week, looks like it's at a support level in here.
Isaiah Mpski
11-23-2007, 10:39 AM
No CM I lost all that money I was going to send you.I bought near the 4.50 level.Really jumped the gun,but how was I to know being new to all that stuff. Oh well,like I said,there's a hurricane headed on it's way:eventually and that appears to be the only time they make money.With as much money as they've got I figured they's sell out an run.Old man Abraxas died and I think the kids are ready to get out.I don't know but have that feeling.They brought in some wheeler dealer maker named Bommer about 6 months ago.
As for CHK,they've suddenly become the owners of ALOT of NG.They had three or four completions yesterday of big wells-over 1 mcf's/day,and that seems to be happening everyday.They've got more money than we can imagine and most of it is still in the ground.
I've told you this before,but they believe thet have a gas field under DFW airport that will supply that area with enough gas for 50 years.
Yeah we did good with CHK today,but I think I'm stuck with ABP till another hurricane.Wish I'd put it in WMB.
Anyway,our day is just around the corner-Mine probably sooner if SB gets her hands around my neck.I just love teasing her.She takes it all so seriously.
Can't wait till I have enough cash to play with those penny stocks.I got a 5 bagger with my gold mine investments in Mexico.
Great time to be alive-particularily if you have money and a few good women.lol.
Caprinardo Delirio
11-23-2007, 03:01 PM
interesting little article about denmark's socialism in Time this week. favorably reviewed. :)
obviously since the nutters have been in power for 8 years now, it's safe to say good things. the whole social democratic thing that brought it about is pretty much gone pretty soon, but it's kind of floating on it's own intertic wake.
i will gladly pay my 41% of taxes to keep the social level as is, although the shit is also rising here. 41 is the lower percentage here, my parents is considerably higher.
but the sweep of unaccountable free market capitalism is as corrupt as the governmental force in history and much harder to fight.
suebee
11-23-2007, 05:06 PM
gave money to the food bank here as their stocks are so low its tragic; otherwise i am about ready for welfare myself so no money for you c-man, fascist or not.
coporate anything goes bottom line. wallstreet low tax evade regulation greed. capitalism at its finest.
bopes
11-24-2007, 03:12 AM
looks like prophet Daniel has some problems with capitalism (http://realitysandwich.com/when_other_shoe_drops).
What say you, KJ?
looks like prophet Daniel has some problems with capitalism (http://realitysandwich.com/when_other_shoe_drops).
What say you, KJ?
He has an interesting take, as always, but I didn't interpret it as him having a problem with capitalism per se, but a problem with capitalism as it too often operates in today's world (which as I have said so many times, is NOT what capitalism is). That is a problem with so-called capitalism that both Daniel and I share.
I am open and supportive of any and every form of social organization one can imagine, but as Daniel notes in the last paragraph of that essay:
"Considering the preponderance of military force, there is no hope for violence as a tool of social transformation. Any radicalized program should focus on an absorptive strategy that neutralizes its potential opponents by engaging and transforming them - a Tantric approach, that sees no dualities nor enemies."
So, bring on the change you want to see, but always remember that the means NEVER justify the ends: coercion and force CANNOT play any role whatsoever in transforming this world, otherwise you just end up with more of the same.
As for me, I will continue propagating and supporting conscious capitalism until something better comes along. I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting for a very long time.
Here is avery good article (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8150) on how the free market can handle environmental issues better than any coercive government can, even if it isn't perfect.
I found the following quote, taken from the above linked article, very applicable to our conversation in this thread:
"Critics of libertarianism sometimes denigrate it as a political program of “market fundamentalism” that, if put into practice, would reduce all human values to the price they can fetch as mere commodities. But that is a caricature of the social arrangements advocated by any sensible libertarian. The great figures of classical-liberal and libertarian thought have always recognized the vital contributions that nonmarket institutions, such as churches, families, charities, social clubs, communities of scholars and their students, art foundations, conservation groups, neighborhood associations, and youth athletic leagues, make to the healthy functioning of a free society. What libertarians offer as an alternative to statism is not a social order that judges every human interaction solely on a miserly calculation of profit or loss, but a society in which every desirable form of voluntary association is allowed to flourish, free from coercive interference by the state."
craazyman
11-24-2007, 09:30 AM
"That kind of hands-off approach to good government sounds good to me."
-F. Friendly Hand, Esq.
Executive Vice President
North American Man Boy Love Association
Ho Ho Ho, Merry Christmas:D
suebee
11-25-2007, 08:15 AM
where do you think statutes/laws came from k.j?
Isaiah Mpski
11-25-2007, 11:13 AM
From the guy who has the power and the guts to enforce them or do away with them.
George Washington,1778,Boston.
where do you think statutes/laws came from k.j?
From unprincipled lawmakers who don't follow their oaths to uphold the Constitution, mostly. And then there are the useless regulations put in by no-good, unelected bureaucrats.
Why do you ask?
bopes
11-26-2007, 07:09 AM
Found a NYT piece tangentially related to the topics discussed on this thread that might be comment-worthy. It's an op-ed called The Big Sleep (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25robb.html?em&ex=1196226000&en=3a0b02c988ba41e5&ei=5087%0A) about the pre-industrial cultural roots of the French worker's disdain for a 40-hour work week. Some excerpts:
Economists and bureaucrats who ventured out into the countryside after the Revolution were horrified to find that the work force disappeared between fall and spring. The fields were deserted from Flanders to Provence. Villages and even small towns were silent, with barely a column of smoke to reveal a human presence. As soon as the weather turned cold, people all over France shut themselves away and practiced the forgotten art of doing nothing at all for months on end.
. . .
President Sarkozy’s campaign slogan, “Work more to earn more,” would have meant nothing to most French peasants. After the Revolution, government officials complained that farmers were “abandoning themselves to dumb idleness,” instead of undertaking “some peaceful and sedentary industry.” Income acted only as a deterrent. The people of Beaucaire on the Rhône made enough money at their summer fair to spend the rest of the year “smoking, playing cards, hunting and sleeping.”
Until the 20th century, few people needed money. Apart from salt and iron, everything could be paid for in kind. Economic activity was more a means of making the time pass than of making money, which might explain why one of the few winter industries in the Alps was clock-making. Tinkering with tiny mechanisms made time pass less slowly, and the clocks themselves proved that it was indeed passing.
. . .
In September, at the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Sarkozy proposed “un New Deal écologique et économique,” but without explaining how economic growth can be reconciled with conservation. If he is serious about saving the planet, and if he wants to reassure the unions that workers will still have time with their families, he should consider introducing tax incentives for hibernation. The long-term benefits of reduced energy consumption would counterbalance the economic loss. There has never been a better time to stay in bed.
looks like prophet Daniel has some problems with capitalism (http://realitysandwich.com/when_other_shoe_drops).
What say you, KJ?
Bopes,
Check out this brain-on response to Daniel's latest essay, which you linked to. Notice that though his response, and the link he provided, all point to a totally new way of seeing free markets, it is still FREE MARKET, not socialism. Here is just one way things might look as capitalism helps our world evolve, as it always has.
Submitted by beaming on Mon, 11/26/2007 - 10:09.
Thanks Daniel for your provocative piece and the comments above.
Having spent 11 years working on Wall Street and many years since following the capital markets I am very familiar with calls for financial meltdowns. Nevertheless with each and every crisis since Depression era reforms- the oil lending crisis in the 70’s, the savings and loan debacle in the 80’s, or the sub-prime mortgage and consumer debt threat- the Federal Reserve System survives despite massive and repeated write-downs of public and private debt. While a compelling case can be made that “this is it,” in terms of systemic collapse I suggest such speculation is futile in the end. Rather I think we are better served by focusing on the creation of a parallel cooperation-based system as alluded to in your article, the rise of social enterprises around the world where entrepreneurs target both social and financial returns, and the rise of a new social capital market that blends the efficiencies of market-based systems with values based missions and incentives.
I would also argue that we are already in the middle of a crisis in consciousness and in the midst of “a major opening of awareness and compassionate understanding.” As complexity rises and communication potential expands humans seem to move more like swarms in reaction to ever-sharper views of their nest. The trick it seems to me in this environment is to be attentive and supportive of what is arising on its own at local levels. In my view, needs are best defined at local levels while global structures create horizontal efficiencies where common patterns or needs (at local levels) can be recognized and/or supported.
I agree media will play an influential role, particularly with the evolution of online and physical social networks of all kinds that support local and cooperative decision-making; and user generated video and gaming where we are rapidly becoming experts at rapid-prototyping simulated environments and extrapolating our experience into real structures in physical space. I have more confidence that a new system will arise in this context than I do in one arising from entrenched, industrial age hierarchies and nation-state based political systems.
Kevin Jones, Tim Freundlich and I have begun to build the framework for a 30,000 foot view of the social capital market that we hope many on this list can contribute to. Here is a link to a very preliminary framework that we hope to build on with the help of a wide community.
http://artbeam.net/goodcap/marketmodel.html
Our hope is that by making the landscape more clear more resources will flow toward it. Like Bruce I have great respect for the work of the others copied here and appreciate any comments you have.
Paz Mark Beam Oaxaca, Mexico |||b
bopes
11-26-2007, 12:03 PM
Yeah, I saw that too, KJ. I agree it was a great response. I even checked out the guy's website (but didn't get beyond the diagram:razz: so I'm not exactly sure what he meant by a "30,000 foot view of the social capital market").
Yeah, I saw that too, KJ. I agree it was a great response. I even checked out the guy's website (but didn't get beyond the diagram:razz: so I'm not exactly sure what he meant by a "30,000 foot view of the social capital market").
Click the next button and follow along. Each page has several links that appear in the middle of the large circle; just click on the gray circles to the left of the text. I've been reading through it a little and am impressed so far.
Check out just one of the links provided within he presentation; now tell me that capitalism can't be a tool for the positive change this world needs: http://www.bcorporation.net/about/
bopes
11-26-2007, 12:33 PM
hmmm. Very interesting. Kind of like a uniform commercial code for socially progressive corporations. But will it float?
sidecross
11-26-2007, 12:40 PM
K.J.
‘Free Markets’ are not some ‘angel dust’ Tinkerbelle will through on the planet to save ourselves from ourselves.
Please tell us how 6.5 billion people on the planet are going to share the planet’s natural resources? Free markets without violence or coercion is not a Disneyland dream that human nature is about to discover.
K.J.
‘Free Markets’ are not some ‘angel dust’ Tinkerbelle will through on the planet to save ourselves from ourselves.
Please tell us how 6.5 billion people on the planet are going to share the planet’s natural resources? Free markets without violence or coercion is not a Disneyland dream that human nature is about to discover.
I never said it was magic, it's better than that: it's a natural law of sorts. The magic is in the fact that the only moral and effective way to exchange and create wealth (and by wealth I don't mean simply money) is between free people acting voluntarily. Let people be free and the magic you speak of soon follows.
You have yet to show me any other viable, non-violent, non-coercive system that could replace capitalism.
As for natural resources, ever heard of nanotechnology? It's pretty amazing, and that evil system called capitalism will be what brings it into play. Check out this article, The Coming Market Triumph (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/kramer5.html), for more information on the things capitalism WILL bring us which can save us from ourselves, so to speak.
suebee
11-26-2007, 02:23 PM
where do you think laws/statutes come from?
From unprincipled lawmakers who don't follow their oaths to uphold the Constitution, mostly. And then there are the useless regulations put in by no-good, unelected bureaucrats.
Why do you ask?
i just wondered, that's all....:)
Isaiah Mpski
11-26-2007, 02:50 PM
Well put KJ.Well put.
suebee
11-26-2007, 05:28 PM
i couldnt read anymore tonite of the coming market triumph after the author proclaimed that every last american is living better today than the richest person on earth lived 150 years ago. maybe ill try again tomorrow.
Gideon
11-30-2007, 01:55 PM
Was drawn to this thread from the Ron Paul heading. I don't get the theory of the Balkanization of the United States about giving States more rights. As an example, it would be great to not have the DEA storm medical marijuania shops and homes of people who use it in spite of what the majority of people have voted for in that particular state.
To have the Federal supreme court "put right" what the states do, to me, seems like a weak argument. If the majority of people of a state vote to not allow, or to allow abortion and it's turned to law for that state isn't that better than possiblily overturning Roe vs. Wade, or keeping it the same and forcing all states to comply?
Maybe I would be against Ron Paul's views on abolishing the IRS, the Federal Reserve, (which of course is not owned by American interests) and closing down many of the world wide military base network used for "empire building", as Paul put's it, if it was used to benefit the United States and not expand the power of the elites of the world at the expense of the majority of people in the world.
And finally the cynical part of me believes that if he really had any shot of winning the election, with the changes he would make to the power structure, he wouldn't live to see his first day in office. However it's still fun to watch the debates and see the other canidates squirm when he speaks.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.