PDA

View Full Version : Gasoline? Public or Private commodity?




electronicmaji
06-10-2008, 09:20 PM
Recently I've been hearing the arguement that Oil wells should be a public commodity from a lot of lefties; I have also heard the opposite for a lot of righties. Convince me which one it should be.

OptionsTrader
06-10-2008, 09:26 PM
Crude oil, gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, plastics, tires, and every other product you use that is based on this industry belongs to the individuals and companies that produce them, to advocate that the government has the authority to steal this property and give to any other entity is to not understand or to not respect property rights.

RSLudlum
06-10-2008, 09:46 PM
If I have a hickory tree growing in my backyard and my neighbors like using hickory to smoke ribs for cookouts, do they have the right to cut the tree down for their own use just because they prefer using hickory instead of oak, mesquite, or pecan??

I don't think so!!

Kludge
06-10-2008, 09:50 PM
Lol @ OP question.

All resources are private commodities.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

angelatc
06-10-2008, 10:04 PM
Lol @ OP question.

All resources are private commodities.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf


Not in other countries. Norway's oil is public, and that's how they pay for socialism. Not by penalizing the productive. I think Kuwait is the same, even more so.

As to the op, the left won't freaking let anybody drill. If you're saying they'll only let people drill if the State drills, then that's hypocritical.

The rights should belong to the states only if the state owns the land.

Buti t's crazy that the left won't let anybody drill, and as a result, other countries are drilling just past our jurisdiction, into reserves we could be tapping.

Fox McCloud
06-10-2008, 10:08 PM
Not in other countries. Norway's oil is public, and that's how they pay for socialism. Not by penalizing the productive. I think Kuwait is the same, even more so.

The UAE and several other Arab countries do this as well--I recall the Mogambo Guru saying that in one country $55 per barrel goes towards "welfare".

the UAE is a bit insane on its welfare...the poor are guaranteed $25,000 a year minimum income...because of this, there's a problem with the workforce...not surprisingly, they don't work,and over HALF of their workforce is foreigners.

either way: No, oil should not be nationalized, as the left will most likely not allow as much drilling, and will very likely engage in "price fixing" to force Americans to use alternative energy...not something I want to do, until alternatives are authentically cheaper than oil.

The left has already proposed taxation be placed on gas to prevent it from ever going below $4 a gallon...why? To falsely make alternatives more appealing.

Also, if it's nationalized, the government can cut it off at any incident because of a "crisis", shut oil production down to use that against the people.

Kludge
06-10-2008, 10:10 PM
Not in other countries. Norway's oil is public, and that's how they pay for socialism. Not by penalizing the productive. I think Kuwait is the same, even more so.

As to the op, the left won't freaking let anybody drill. If you're saying they'll only let people drill if the State drills, then that's hypocritical.

The rights should belong to the states only if the state owns the land.

Buti t's crazy that the left won't let anybody drill, and as a result, other countries are drilling just past our jurisdiction, into reserves we could be tapping.

**By principle, no state has the right to any resources that could prevent producers from producing, which includes land, labor (people), and natural resources.

Danke
06-10-2008, 10:47 PM
Not in other countries. Norway's oil is public, and that's how they pay for socialism. Not by penalizing the productive. I think Kuwait is the same, even more so.

As to the op, the left won't freaking let anybody drill. If you're saying they'll only let people drill if the State drills, then that's hypocritical.

The rights should belong to the states only if the state owns the land.

Buti t's crazy that the left won't let anybody drill, and as a result, other countries are drilling just past our jurisdiction, into reserves we could be tapping.

Isn't Norwegian oil offshore (mostly?). So no one (state only) owns the land.

electronicmaji
06-10-2008, 11:07 PM
Well different Libertarians feel different about the matter

Progressive Libertarians feel that property should be defined as "products of labor and human effort", as opposed to land and natural resources, which they feel should be subject to regulation for purposes of "fair access."

Geolibertarians feel the same way.

Left Libertarians have a egalitarian view on land as well...

Kludge
06-10-2008, 11:13 PM
All rights derive from property. If you do not recognize this, the acceptance of individual liberties will be impossible.

If you do not believe you own yourself, you invite social engineers to tell you how you are to live your life and what they are to do with products of your labor. When you pay taxes, you lose a part of yourself, those parts which labored to create a product that resulted in an increase of wealth. To pay taxes is to give up your ownership.

Kludge
06-10-2008, 11:17 PM
www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Fox McCloud
06-10-2008, 11:23 PM
Isn't Norwegian oil offshore (mostly?). So no one (state only) owns the land.

That's why the oceans should be privatized ;)

electronicmaji
06-10-2008, 11:25 PM
All rights derive from property. If you do not recognize this, the acceptance of individual liberties will be impossible.

If you do not believe you own yourself, you invite social engineers to tell you how you are to live your life and what they are to do with products of your labor. When you pay taxes, you lose a part of yourself, those parts which labored to create a product that resulted in an increase of wealth. To pay taxes is to give up your ownership.

There are a lot of libertarians who don't beleive this. Almost as many as do.

Kludge
06-10-2008, 11:28 PM
There are a lot of libertarians who don't beleive this. Almost as many as do.

They are not libertarians then. libertarianism and statism are opposite each other and libertarianism with liberalism is incompatible. A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

Fox McCloud
06-10-2008, 11:28 PM
There are a lot of libertarians who don't beleive this. Almost as many as do.

there's a lot of people who think war is good, socialized medicine works, that the EPA, FDA, DOA, DHS are all good and needed, but that doesn't necessarily make them right.

Just because the majority or an equal amount of people hold one belief doesn't automatically make them correct.

For example, let's take global warming--the vast majority believe it in the US and believe it's humans who are causing it...but that doesn't make them right.

Brian4Liberty
06-11-2008, 03:01 PM
Lol @ OP question.

All resources are private commodities.



If a tree falls in a forest and there are no humans around, who owns the fallen tree?

Kludge
06-11-2008, 03:01 PM
If a tree falls in a forest and there are no humans around, who owns the fallen tree?

Whoever owned the land. Duh...

Fox McCloud
06-11-2008, 03:02 PM
If a tree falls in a forest and there are no humans around, who owns the fallen tree?

whoever owns the forest :-P

if no one owns the forest, then the tree belongs to forest :-P

familydog
06-11-2008, 03:03 PM
whoever owns the forest :-P

if no one owns the forest, then the tree belongs to forest :-P

Non-humans with property rights? :eek:

Kludge
06-11-2008, 03:05 PM
Non-humans with property rights? :eek:

Forests don't exist.

Fox McCloud
06-11-2008, 03:05 PM
Non-humans with property rights? :eek:

hmmm good point.

the tree belongs to no-one then. :)

Fox McCloud
06-11-2008, 03:07 PM
Forests don't exist.

they do, but they exist only as organizational concepts...that is to say, a forest is "many individual trees", but it's not something [a forest] that you can actually touch.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 03:08 PM
they do, but they exist only as organizational concepts...that is to say, a forest is "many individual trees", but it's not something [a forest] that you can actually touch.

**organizational concepts have no (property) rights

Brian4Liberty
06-11-2008, 03:08 PM
Whoever owned the land. Duh...

National forest. Must be a socialist tree...duh.

Fox McCloud
06-11-2008, 03:09 PM
**organizational concepts have no (property) rights

I never said they did ;)

and I would agree that organizational concepts have no property rights.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 03:10 PM
National forest. Must be a socialist tree...duh.

But we've already declared that all resources (land) are private commodities. Gov't has no right to land. Gov't should be nothing more then an organizational concept representing individuals.

mconder
06-11-2008, 03:24 PM
The rights should belong to the states only if the state owns the land.

No state should ever own land. Government should only be allowed to lease it from the people. Non U.S. citizens should also NOT be allowed to own land, only lease.

All national forest and other public lands should be auctioned off and privately maintained. Yes, even the grand canyon. There, I said it.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 03:35 PM
Recently I've been hearing the arguement that Oil wells should be a public commodity from a lot of lefties; I have also heard the opposite for a lot of righties. Convince me which one it should be.

We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of oil companies.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of banks.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of the military.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of billionaires.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of the rich.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of lawyers.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of judges.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of religion.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of insurance companies.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of cultures.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of special interests.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of hollywood actors.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Free Masons.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of conservatives.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of liberals.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Republicans.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Democrats.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Libertarians.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of corporations.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of CEO's.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of corporate executives.
So, we are a nation of the people. As a nation of the people we need to rule as mediators between the master and slave class in our society. We do this as McCain was suggesting today by limiting pay to CEO's and Executives. Or we raise minimum wage. We the people regulate liberty. We do this by both binding the stong man while granting liberty to the weak one.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 03:43 PM
We are a nation of individual persons. No one or group of persons has any rights over other individual or group of persons or their earnings.

Fox McCloud
06-11-2008, 03:45 PM
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of oil companies.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of banks.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of the military.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of billionaires.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of the rich.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of lawyers.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of judges.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of religion.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of insurance companies.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of cultures.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of special interests.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of hollywood actors.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Free Masons.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of conservatives.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of liberals.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Republicans.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Democrats.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Libertarians.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of corporations.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of CEO's.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of corporate executives.
So, we are a nation of the people. As a nation of the people we need to rule as mediators between the master and slave class in our society. We do this as McCain was suggesting today by limiting pay to CEO's and Executives. Or we raise minimum wage. We the people regulate liberty. We do this by both binding the stong man while granting liberty to the weak one.


What a bunch of socialist BS cleverly disguised as non-party populism.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 03:55 PM
We are a nation of individual persons. No one or group of persons has any rights over other individual or group of persons or their earnings.

But an open market does not exist in a world with an oil cartel. So the people of the United States should make the determination of whether the profits of the oil companies are just. If the oil companies don't like being under the rule of the people, they should move elsewhere. We can do just find without them.

In fact, take the city of Dallas as a great example. The energy companies in the city of Dallas at one time challenged the city of Houston as the energy capital of the world before almost all of them got bought up, moved away or, even worse, moved to Houston.

The big surprise? The city of Dallas benefitted greatly when the oil companies left. The city diversified. It has more millionaires than the much larger city of Houston. The metropolitan area has more billionaires by far than the metropolitan area of Houston. As a result of Dallas losing its huge oil industry, the area creates a new industry every decade or so.

So, let the energy companies leave if that is there wish. Let them move to Great Britain or the Middle East.

Good riddance.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 03:58 PM
But an open market does not exist in a world with an oil cartel. So the people of the United States should make the determination of whether the profits of the oil companies are just. If the oil companies don't like being under the rule of the people, they should move elsewhere. We can do just find without them.

That would be fine if oil were necessary to live. Oil is no different from a resource like lumber or beans.

From where do we derive rights that allow us to rule over others? Why should my welfare be the responsibility of someone other then myself? I do not submit to that.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 04:01 PM
What a bunch of socialist BS cleverly disguised as non-party populism.

Sorry, Western Civilization was created by a social act. The United States does have a social agenda. We aren't against the word "social" but against the political science of "socialism."
But I would rather live in a socialist society than live in a world of mindless freedom and undefined hatred.
So, yes. Go ahead and hate me you hateful bastards. Bring it out of the closet. Deal with it.

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 04:11 PM
That would be fine if oil were necessary to live. Oil is no different from a resource like lumber or beans.

From where do we derive rights that allow us to rule over others? Why should my welfare be the responsibility of someone other then myself? I do not submit to that.

Its at the point where Oil is a neccesity to live. Especially with the suburban enviroment we designed. We seriously fucked up with that and if oil keeps going up people are going to have en masse to urban centers.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 04:11 PM
That would be fine if oil were necessary to live. Oil is no different from a resource like lumber or beans.

From where do we derive rights that allow us to rule over others? Why should my welfare be the responsibility of someone other then myself? I do not submit to that.

The people rule at the dinner table. If the good king isn't ruling as a good king by tending to the thirst of the lowest uncomely untouchable at the table, then we must take it upon ourselves to divorce him as a tyrant. So, tyranny is unacceptible. Don't blame me for this social agenda but place blame on the founding fathers.
We don't just free the poor slaves but we have a history of binding the big guys with the cigars also that we don't like to talk about. This is what distinguishes us from the British who certainly freed their poor little slaves too. But, you know, they don't bind the Queen mother very much. They still don't sit the master and the slave ideally at the same table in England as we do here in the United States.

asgardshill
06-11-2008, 04:16 PM
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of oil companies.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of banks.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of the military.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of billionaires.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of the rich.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of lawyers.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of judges.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of religion.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of insurance companies.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of cultures.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of special interests.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of hollywood actors.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Free Masons.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of conservatives.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of liberals.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Republicans.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Democrats.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of Libertarians.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of corporations.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of CEO's.
We are a nation of the people. Not a nation of corporate executives.


I must have missed the memo decreeing that personhood has been summarily stripped from bank employees, the military, billionaires, the rich, lawyers, judges, religious people, insurance company employees, people who are members of a culture, people working for special interest groups, Hollywood actors, Freemasons, conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, people working for corporations, CEOs, and corporate executives.

I've worked in a bank before, served in the military, I'm reasonably well-off financially, I'm an election judge, I'm fairly religious, I'm a member of several cultures (but will count this as only one), I've worked for special-interest groups, I've acted in and done writing and consulting work for a Hollywood TV series, I'm conservative with some liberal and Libertarian leanings (but will also count this as only one), I've worked for corporations, and am the CEO of my own corporation. So I guess I've had my personhood rescinded 11 times now. Dammit.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 04:18 PM
I blame the king and only the king, not those he has given corporate welfare and other corrupted favors.

The oil companies earn wealth through ownership and voluntary transactions, kings earn wealth through the barrel of a gun and coercive theft for the numerical "Greater Good".

RideTheDirt
06-11-2008, 04:19 PM
Sorry, Western Civilization was created by a social act. The United States does have a social agenda. We aren't against the word "social" but against the political science of "socialism."
But I would rather live in a socialist society than live in a world of mindless freedom and undefined hatred.
So, yes. Go ahead and hate me you hateful bastards. Bring it out of the closet. Deal with it.
We already knew that, well at least I did.
Just one question; would you feel the same way if somehow,(Sorry to burst your bubble but,The United States would fall if we tried to implement socialism) we did become socialist, and you had to pay for every lazy ass person. People who treat their body like shit and create thousands of dollars in medical bills? Alcoholics and their habit?Meth heads?Peoples expensive tastes in clothing?People who will simply not work because you are willing to pay for it?

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 04:33 PM
Its at the point where Oil is a neccesity to live. Especially with the suburban enviroment we designed. We seriously fucked up with that and if oil keeps going up people are going to have en masse to urban centers.

Oil is not a neccesity to live but it sure as hell does make life a lot easier... so why does the government tax the consumption of oil's derivatives?

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 04:38 PM
But an open market does not exist in a world with an oil cartel.

What do you mean by "open market"?


So the people of the United States should make the determination of whether the profits of the oil companies are just. If the oil companies don't like being under the rule of the people, they should move elsewhere. We can do just find without them.

Those profits are just when adjusted for inflation. The only people that should rule oil companies are its owners. No, life would be a lot harder without oil.


In fact, take the city of Dallas as a great example. The energy companies in the city of Dallas at one time challenged the city of Houston as the energy capital of the world before almost all of them got bought up, moved away or, even worse, moved to Houston.

Looks like Houston won.


The big surprise? The city of Dallas benefitted greatly when the oil companies left. The city diversified. It has more millionaires than the much larger city of Houston. The metropolitan area has more billionaires by far than the metropolitan area of Houston. As a result of Dallas losing its huge oil industry, the area creates a new industry every decade or so.

Was that the free market at work? Or did Dallas nationalize everything within its juristiction?


So, let the energy companies leave if that is there wish. Let them move to Great Britain or the Middle East.

Good riddance.

Or better yet, let the foreigners buy up American companies. lol

AutoDas
06-11-2008, 04:46 PM
I can't tell if this is a discussion or a massacre. Uncle, go read some Atlas Shrugged.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 04:54 PM
What do you mean by "open market"?

An open market doesn't have a cartel. Like when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the silver market. The Oil cartel can raise the price of oil and then dump oil to run our energy companies out of business that get going because of the high price of oil.




Those profits are just when adjusted for inflation. The only people that should rule oil companies are its owners. No, life would be a lot harder without oil.

We are a nation of the people. Not of Oil Companies. This nation of the people is what created this fabulous wealth of oil companies so we shouldn't alter our government to suit them. To hell with them.




Looks like Houston won.

While Houston builds tall skyscrapers for its energy business, the DFW area creates new business districts for the new industries that it creates. Over the long run, DFW has always had the better economy.




Was that the free market at work? Or did Dallas nationalize everything within its juristiction?

Free market? There is no free market with oil because the market has a cartel. Nice try. The metropolitan area still has a huge oil and gas industry. Fort Worth is under the largest gas field in North American. The industry just isn't over 50% of its economy like in Houston.


Or better yet, let the foreigners buy up American companies. lol

We should be a nation of the people. That is what created the wealth so why alter it? Where are the oil companies going to move? The middle east? Russia? Uhm. China?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:00 PM
We already knew that, well at least I did.
Just one question; would you feel the same way if somehow,(Sorry to burst your bubble but,The United States would fall if we tried to implement socialism) we did become socialist, and you had to pay for every lazy ass person. People who treat their body like shit and create thousands of dollars in medical bills? Alcoholics and their habit?Meth heads?Peoples expensive tastes in clothing?People who will simply not work because you are willing to pay for it?

Look. I'm a conservative. If you don't understand that, it is a lacking in your education. But go ahead and let your hatred come out of the closet. We need to deal with this since it is the gravest one that endangers our nation.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:01 PM
I can't tell if this is a discussion or a massacre. Uncle, go read some Atlas Shrugged.

Just because you herd with the majority doesn't mean that you are smarter than a cow.

AutoDas
06-11-2008, 05:05 PM
An open market doesn't have a cartel. Like when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the silver market. The Oil cartel can raise the price of oil and then dump oil to run our energy companies out of business that get going because of the high price of oil.


Oil companies can not sustain selling their oil below market value. If they do that to try and get some competition out then all it takes is one to withdraw the investment and wait until oil companies stop underselling.


We are a nation of the people. Not of Oil Companies. This nation of the people is what created this fabulous wealth of oil companies so we shouldn't alter our government to suit them. To hell with them.

People have jobs.:rolleyes:


We should be a nation of the people. That is what created the wealth so why alter it? Where are the oil companies going to move? The middle east? Russia? Uhm. China?

And you're complaining about a cartel? You want to corner the oil industry. Life isn't some fairy tell make-believe where we can instantly turn away from oil.

AutoDas
06-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Just because you herd with the majority doesn't mean that you are smarter than a cow.

Oh noes! You gonna serve me on the DINNER TABLE for the SERVANTS or the KING.

LOL

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:09 PM
Oil is not a neccesity to live but it sure as hell does make life a lot easier... so why does the government tax the consumption of oil's derivatives?

Look. Think of it in terms of banks. When the economy of the United States goes under, all we have left are banks. So, banking is a very good business even when the banks supposedly go out of business. We don't really have an open market. Take health insurance and the pharmaceutical companies as examples. Health insurance companies lose money and yet doctors make less while the patients pay more. So, what is going on here? Well, the insurance companies can always complain they lose money while making it up by raising rates. It is the perfect scheme perpetuated by tricky accounting.
Now the pharmaceutical companies will always make their money because they are subsidized by congress through medicare and medicaid. Must be nice.
At the same damned time the telecommunications industry can go screw themselves as can the Airlines industry which bleeds and bleeds billions upon billions of dollars.
So, we aren't a nation of banks. We are a nation of people.
When the bankers end up with all the wealth piled up on their plates, we the people should reach over with out big spoon and redistribute it from their plate to those plates that have nothing.
If you don't like this American way, blame your founding fathers.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:10 PM
An open market doesn't have a cartel. Like when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the silver market. The Oil cartel can raise the price of oil and then dump oil to run our energy companies out of business that get going because of the high price of oil.

Again. What do you mean buy "open market"? And which oil cartel are you refering to?



We are a nation of the people. Not of Oil Companies. This nation of the people is what created this fabulous wealth of oil companies so we shouldn't alter our government to suit them. To hell with them.

When you say "nation of people", what the hell are you talking about? The federal government?



While Houston builds tall skyscrapers for its energy business, the DFW area creates new business districts for the new industries that it creates. Over the long run, DFW has always had the better economy.

What factors are you using to compare DFW with Houston?



Free market? There is no free market with oil because the market has a cartel. Nice try. The metropolitan area still has a huge oil and gas industry. Fort Worth is under the largest gas field in North American. The industry just isn't over 50% of its economy like in Houston.

Sure. There's OPEC. Tons of red tape, environmentalists. Of course there is no free market now.




We should be a nation of the people. That is what created the wealth so why alter it? Where are the oil companies going to move? The middle east? Russia? Uhm. China?

Shoul be? You said we were! Keep you story straight. Btw, when did you create my wealth?

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:12 PM
Look. I'm a conservative. If you don't understand that, it is a lacking in your education. But go ahead and let your hatred come out of the closet. We need to deal with this since it is the gravest one that endangers our nation.

Damnit! If people are going to be sarcastic on these threads, at least tell us. Add a "(sarcasm)" once in a while.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:12 PM
Oh noes! You gonna serve me on the DINNER TABLE for the SERVANTS or the KING.

LOL

Nope. But one is liable to get a bayonett in their belly for going against the self evident truths and the inalienable rights written on the conscience of every human soul. If you don't believe this is a great power than the corrupt power of tyranny, why are you even an American? Move to Greenland for cripes sake.

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 05:15 PM
Oil is not a neccesity to live but it sure as hell does make life a lot easier... so why does the government tax the consumption of oil's derivatives?

People need oil to get to work, the way suburbs are now designed there is no public transport and they are literally 20+ miles away from their jobs. If they do not have oil they can not work. If they lose their jobs they can not buy food. Usually they can't even buy food without oil; since once again suburban communities are designed so that grocery stores are 10+ miles away as well.

If people lived in urban centers it would be easier; but at this point most of the population has shifted away and its a problem.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:16 PM
Look.

I looketh!



Think of it in terms of banks. When the economy of the United States goes under, all we have left are banks. So, banking is a very good business even when the banks supposedly go out of business.

Lol. Is that why the Fed had to bail out Bear Sterns and other banks? So having a bank that goes out of business is a good thing now? lol



We don't really have an open market. Take health insurance and the pharmaceutical companies as examples. Health insurance companies lose money and yet doctors make less while the patients pay more. So, what is going on here? Well, the insurance companies can always complain they lose money while making it up by raising rates. It is the perfect scheme perpetuated by tricky accounting.

Yes. Tricky accounting plus the governments red tapesss.


Now the pharmaceutical companies will always make their money because they are subsidized by congress through medicare and medicaid. Must be nice. At the same damned time the telecommunications industry can go screw themselves as can the Airlines industry which bleeds and bleeds billions upon billions of dollars.

But according to you, governmental subsidies are good because they helped Dallas-Fort Worth thrive and out-compete Houston. lol




So, we aren't a nation of banks. We are a nation of people.
When the bankers end up with all the wealth piled up on their plates, we the people should reach over with out big spoon and redistribute it from their plate to those plates that have nothing.
If you don't like this American way, blame your founding fathers.

How about we just get rid of the Fed.lol

Kludge
06-11-2008, 05:16 PM
Nope. But one is liable to get a bayonett in their belly for going against the self evident truths and the inalienable rights written on the conscience of every human soul. If you don't believe this is a great power than the corrupt power of tyranny, why are you even an American? Move to Greenland for cripes sake.

.... I do not have rights because it is imprinted on my soul. I have rights because I joined (granted, against my will) a society that tells me what is and is not aggression. If a law is not passed restricting me from doing something (eating small children, belching in public, dancing in the streets), I have a right to do it. Order is necessary for rights to exist which is why some degree of law needs to exist in all societies.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 05:17 PM
People need oil to get to work, the way suburbs are now designed there is no public transport and they are literally 20+ miles away from their jobs. If they do not have oil they can not work. If they lose their jobs they can not buy food. Usually they can't even buy food without oil; since once again suburban communities are designed so that grocery stores are 10+ miles away as well.

If people lived in urban centers it would be easier; but at this point most of the population has shifted away and its a problem.

It is their problem if they did not consider location when buying a house. Fools deserve no sympathy.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:19 PM
People need oil to get to work, the way suburbs are now designed there is no public transport and they are literally 20+ miles away from their jobs. If they do not have oil they can not work. If they lose their jobs they can not buy food. Usually they can't even buy food without oil; since once again suburban communities are designed so that grocery stores are 10+ miles away as well.

If people lived in urban centers it would be easier; but at this point most of the population has shifted away and its a problem.

Like I said. People could walk the 20+ plus miles to work but driving makes it a whole lot easier.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:19 PM
I blame the king and only the king, not those he has given corporate welfare and other corrupted favors.

The oil companies earn wealth through ownership and voluntary transactions, kings earn wealth through the barrel of a gun and coercive theft for the numerical "Greater Good".

We traded a tyrant for a kingly president. Our founding fathers did not defy the authority of a king which would have been an offense to God but they defied the tyranny of a tyrant. The people rule at the table because of the natural right written onto the conscience of our human souls. This isn't just an idea because one can argue this. This is a reduced down John Locke type of natural right developed as a law of nature.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:21 PM
It is their problem if they did not consider location when buying a house. Fools deserve no sympathy.

You heartless b***ch! If people want to live five thousand miles from work, the government should subsidize getting to work. **sarcasm**

EDIT: I totally mispelled "subsidize

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:23 PM
We traded a tyrant for a kingly president. Our founding fathers did not defy the authority of a king which would have been an offense to God but they defied the tyranny of a tyrant. The people rule at the table because of the natural right written onto the conscience of our human souls. This isn't just an idea because one can argue this. This is a reduced down John Locke type of natural right developed as a law of nature.

Omigod! You actually have a point. The founding father DID want Washington to be King of the 13 states.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 05:23 PM
You heartless b***ch! If people want to live five thousand miles from work, the government should subside getting to work. **sarcasm**

Ahh yes, the work-of-choice program.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:29 PM
.... I do not have rights because it is imprinted on my soul. I have rights because I joined (granted, against my will) a society that tells me what is and is not aggression. If a law is not passed restricting me from doing something (eating small children, belching in public, dancing in the streets), I have a right to do it. Order is necessary for rights to exist which is why some degree of law needs to exist in all societies.

But wait, you do have rights imprinted on the conscience of your human soul if you are an American. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. It is beyond argument because it isn't an ideal. That is what a natural right is. It is just there and if you don't like it you can move to Greenland. That is what self evident means. There are no arguments against the the self evident truths regardless. Our founding fathers are going to stand in judgement under God concerning the government they created.

RSLudlum
06-11-2008, 05:31 PM
It is their problem if they did not consider location when buying a house. Fools deserve no sympathy.

Exactly...That's why I live where I do now, 5 minutes from my work and 8 minutes from my wifes work. It's not the best of neighborhoods but also not the worst and my mortage is only 565/mo at 6%. I remember my father riding a bike 8 miles everyday to work in the late 70's when times were tough...People do what they have to do to make ends meet.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 05:33 PM
But wait, you do have rights imprinted on the conscience of your human soul if you are an American. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. It is beyond argument because it isn't an ideal. That is what a natural right is. It is just there and if you don't like it you can move to Greenland. That is what self evident means. There are no arguments against the the self evident truths regardless. Our founding fathers are going to stand in judgement under God concerning the government they created.

Government can be changed, and We the People will be judged based on our success or failure (if not by God, by our children). Mandatory societal participation is tyranny. It was an unfortunate compromise of ideals when They decided to give us "birthright citizenship"...

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:33 PM
Omigod! You actually have a point. The founding father DID want Washington to be King of the 13 states.

Perhaps the reason you fail to see the point is because you have a herd mentality? You know, it was hard for President Washington not to rule over a totalitarian system because a government without a party only has 1 party (I did well in math).

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:40 PM
Government can be changed, and We the People will be judged based on our success or failure (if not by God, by our children). Mandatory societal participation is tyranny. It was an unfortunate compromise of ideals when They decided to give us "birthright citizenship"...

(self-retracted)



Perhaps the reason you fail to see the point is because you have a herd mentality? You know, it was hard for President Washington not to rule over a totalitarian system because a government without a party only has 1 party (I did well in math).

Actually, I was agreeing with you. Our founding fathers did want Washignton to be King. You did well in math? Since when does 0 = 1?

Kludge
06-11-2008, 05:43 PM
But forcing oil companies to do something against their will isn't tyranny? Gotcha!

I never argued that.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:45 PM
Government can be changed. Mandatory societal participation is tyranny. It was an unfortunate compromise of ideals when They decided to give us "birthright citizenship"...

Our founding fathers defined tyranny extensively better than anyone has ever done in history. That is what the declaration of independence is. It is a formal document divorcing a tyrant. In defining what a tyrant is, our founding fathers spared no expense by using the Socratic dialectic, the Platonic "best principled" statement and Aristotle's logical statement. They used this thoughtfulness to juxtapose the corrupt power of tyranny to that of a greater power of self evident truths and inalienable rights written on the conscience of every human soul.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:47 PM
I never argued that.

Oops. Wrong person. My bad.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 05:47 PM
But forcing oil companies to do something against their will isn't tyranny? Gotcha!




Actually, I was agreeing with you. Our founding fathers did want Washignton to be King. You did well in math? Since when does 0 = 1?

When one has none, one has one.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 05:51 PM
When one has none, one has one.

So what you're saying is that if I have zero dollars, I actually have one dollar?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 06:00 PM
So what you're saying is that if I have zero dollars, I actually have one dollar?

In the magical land of the Federal Government, if you have zero dollars you have $20, $40, $80, $160, and so on for infinity. But seriously. One government is one party. Like the communist party. Why can't the communist government in China be sued as a tyranny by the Chinese people? Because it doesn't exist. That was Marx's plan. Eventually the communist government would disappear as it did in China. Proof that the party disappeared in China is evident in how the Chinese rulers wear the garments of peasants. So, legally speaking, the communist party does not exist in China so it has a no party system.
I am certain that President Washington would have agreed likewise that no party existed during his term in office and so there existed no tyranny.

Carehn
06-11-2008, 06:09 PM
If i find oil on my land and the state says there going to take it from me I will be on the news as the crazy gun toting bureaucrat slayer.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 06:15 PM
In the magical land of the Federal Government, if you have zero dollars you have $20, $40, $80, $160, and so on for infinity. But seriously. One government is one party. Like the communist party. Why can't the communist government in China be sued as a tyranny by the Chinese people? Because it doesn't exist. That was Marx's plan. Eventually the communist government would disappear as it did in China. Proof that the party disappeared in China is evident in how the Chinese rulers wear the garments of peasants. So, legally speaking, the communist party does not exist in China so it has a no party system.
I am certain that President Washington would have agreed likewise that no party existed during his term in office and so there existed no tyranny.

You had me at "but seriously"...

RSLudlum
06-11-2008, 06:15 PM
If i find oil on my land and the state says there going to take it from me I will be on the news as the crazy gun toting bureaucrat slayer.


http://i29.tinypic.com/xoqhzl.jpg

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 07:04 PM
http://i29.tinypic.com/xoqhzl.jpg

Is that David Hasselhoff?

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 07:16 PM
If i find oil on my land and the state says there going to take it from me I will be on the news as the crazy gun toting bureaucrat slayer.

I don't think the state should take it away from you, but I do think they need to ensure proper flow of essential goods like oil. Make of it what you will.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 07:18 PM
I don't think the state should take it away from you, but I do think they need to ensure proper flow of essential goods like oil. Make of it what you will.

If the gov't has the right to "ensure proper flow", then The State owns it...

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 07:19 PM
It is their problem if they did not consider location when buying a house. Fools deserve no sympathy.

It's practically impossible to buy houses outside of the Suburbs in major markets anymore. They are not fools; and even if they were they are approximately over 60 million of these fools in America. Would you have them all die?

Kludge
06-11-2008, 07:27 PM
It's practically impossible to buy houses outside of the Suburbs in major markets anymore. They are not fools; and even if they were they are approximately over 60 million of these fools in America. Would you have them all die?

Die? Why would they die? Private charity would take care of them. I started life in a small town and for years went to a food line because my mother couldn't afford basic necessities. Prevented her from having to take the ill-gotten charity of The State.

There is still work in suburbs, whether working in a small shop or as a farm hand. It's also possible to sustain yourself by using the internet as a source of revenue.

And even if you couldn't find work or a private charity, Uncle Sam is happy to pay you for your existence. But really, charity works better.

OR, you could ride a bicycle! I'm told they go significantly faster then running, and I've even seen people using them to go to work (unless they stop at factories for some other reason...)

Carehn
06-11-2008, 07:38 PM
It's practically impossible to buy houses outside of the Suburbs in major markets anymore. They are not fools; and even if they were they are approximately over 60 million of these fools in America. Would you have them all die?

you don't know what you are talking about.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 07:49 PM
I don't think the state should take it away from you, but I do think they need to ensure proper flow of essential goods like oil. Make of it what you will.

What good is ownership if the owner does not have control over the use and/or sale his property?

electronicmaji
06-11-2008, 07:53 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I came in here for some common sense, I found everything but.

Kludge
06-11-2008, 07:54 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I came in here for some common sense, I found everything but.

Our ideas are rational, not common.

danberkeley
06-11-2008, 08:05 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I came in here for some common sense, I found everything but.

Looks like you found yourself.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE=danberkeley;1508130]But according to you, governmental subsidies are good because they helped Dallas-Fort Worth thrive and out-compete Houston. lol

The Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex has a large airline and telecommunication industry. It also has a lot of energy companies, high tech, banking, insurance, retail, wholesale, aerospace, defense and so on. It is like a small Chicago in that it isn't a one industry town like Houston or Detroit. The result creates a lot of smaller office buildings in new business districts which pop up every decade. Houston tends to build the tall office buildings because energy companies need a lot of space when they expand.
Still, over the long run, DFW kicks Houston's ass.