Conversation with a liberal-- thoughts?

[LittleLightShining]

Will someone help me refute this guy?
for example, the "right" to property is not from nature or the gods; it's a construct (as is the very idea of property)

the long history of Western law is a largely unbroken line of decisions (legislative & judicial) that serve the interests of the powerful; the marriage of personal "rights" and modern commerce is not an accident or necessarily a happy story (as some would have us believe)

unfortunately, capitalism is inherently undemocratic (although many on the Right would have us believe the two are inextricably bound - hogwash); I encourage you to read "Law and the Rise of Capitalism" by Michael Tigar (1977)

in any case, the state (for centuries) has been an active and willing partner in the very creation of what you think of as capitalism; indeed, the purpose of the modern state is in large part to facilitate commerce; the relationships between capital and labor are the result of countless little (and ocassionally big) legal decisions that have established the rules that we now take for granted (and sometimes refer to as "rights"); there were many opportunities to take different roads but here we are

in truth, workers have almost no rights; think of the doctrine of "at-will employment"; it was created out of whole cloth and overturned centuries of common law that recognized the relationship between "master & servant"; it was not by accident that it served the interests of employers at a time when the power of labor was ascendant; but we now accept the (odd) notion that there is an equivalence between the power of capital and labor

in the end, your suggestion that all industries have been "interferred with" by gov't. is backwards; it is business that has shaped the legal framework that controls the relationships between capital and labor

so it is not "government intervention" in the "market" that is the problem; from the very beginning, the purpose of gov't. was to enable the "market"; comparatively recent concerns about things like the corrupting influence of campaign contributions have to take a back seat to centuries of legal decisions made by a certain class of people in order to protect and enhance their power

one need not be a Marxist to see and accept this; the evidence is overwhelming

the good news is that some people (including unions - especially unions) have been fighting back for 150 years (and many have died at the hands of the gov't - acting on behalf of commercial interests); the tide ebbs and flows but we have made some progress

the point is that while the Fed is an abomination, it's just the latest in a long line of institutional arrangements that serve the interests of capital

eta this was from a conversation I started to try to get some progressives on board with hr1207.

[sailor]

Refute what? He doesn`t provide any backing for his claims. He just wrote a list of things he belives in. You can`t argue with a person about his religion.

[sarahgop]

thats above my pay grade.

[LittleLightShining]

The people on this site think that if they refer to "studies" or books they have proven their point. In contrast if I provide studies or other references they ignore them, say they are "right-wing talking points" or dismiss them because they are not peer-reviewed.

This particular guy is really full of himself and responds to everything I post. I'm at a loss as to how to respond. I'm getting worn out.

[Theocrat]

His response opens so many cans of worms that it becomes exhaustive to refute every single point he's stated. I think it's better to simply recommend a book to him, like The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Capitalism (http://www.regnery.com/books/pigcapitalism.html). It's a concise and easy-to-read book for anyone wishing to study the truth of capitalism.

[hugolp]

1) Being undemocratic is good. Democracy is tyranny.

2)
in the end, your suggestion that all industries have been "interferred with" by gov't. is backwards; it is business that has shaped the legal framework that controls the relationships between capital and labor

so it is not "government intervention" in the "market" that is the problem; from the very beginning, the purpose of gov't. was to enable the "market"; comparatively recent concerns about things like the corrupting influence of campaign contributions have to take a back seat to centuries of legal decisions made by a certain class of people in order to protect and enhance their power

Ok. So if goverment was created to enable the big companies to trade, like he is suggesting, lets get rid of goverment. Or is he against the idea of commerce? One should only consume what he/she produces?

3)
in truth, workers have almost no rights; think of the doctrine of "at-will employment"; it was created out of whole cloth and overturned centuries of common law that recognized the relationship between "master & servant"; it was not by accident that it served the interests of employers at a time when the power of labor was ascendant; but we now accept the (odd) notion that there is an equivalence between the power of capital and labor

He is right. The currently goverment controlled system is unfair. We should get rid of it, and allow people to freely exchange their labor. Or is he agains the idea of working for someone else? or, again, should one person only consume what he/she produces?

4)
the good news is that some people (including unions - especially unions) have been fighting back for 150 years (and many have died at the hands of the gov't - acting on behalf of commercial interests); the tide ebbs and flows but we have made some progress

If he thinks unions work in favor of workers he needs to look again. And the unions had a lot to do with creating the credit crisis: YouTube - EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64)

I really want to know if he feels selling labor and commerce is bad, what he proposes as alternative? Only consuming what one produces?

PD: If you want to, I would join the discussion if you give the link.

[Epic]

He states that government hasn't interfered with business - rather business has been interfering with government.


This obviously is false on its face. The government is the only institution that can use force. It has a monopoly on force, and everything else it does. Hence, whatever actions business takes - it is only reacting to the incentive structure provided by the one institution that can use force - government.

In addition, businesses usually lobby for more regulations because it erects barriers to competition and entrenches established companies. So if he is worried about business interfering with government, then he should logically also want removal of all regulations and government-awarded monopolies given to business.

[tremendoustie]

Will someone help me refute this guy?

eta this was from a conversation I started to try to get some progressives on board with hr1207.



for example, the "right" to property is not from nature or the gods; it's a construct (as is the very idea of property)So, say three people land on the newly created earth, as neighbors. One discovers a lump of clay, and after much labor creates a sculpture. Would you say this person owns the sculpture? If not, do you think it would be moral or immoral for one of his/her neighbors to destroy it, because they feel like it?



the long history of Western law is a largely unbroken line of decisions (legislative & judicial) that serve the interests of the powerful; the marriage of personal "rights" and modern commerce is not an accident or necessarily a happy story (as some would have us believe)How would you say personal rights are married to commerce? I don't necessarily disagree with you -- government has served the interests of the powerful in many cases, over and above the rights of others, because these powerful people can buy the most influence, and politicians are as self interested as anyone, or more. It's one of the problems with government.



unfortunately, capitalism is inherently undemocratic (although many on the Right would have us believe the two are inextricably bound - hogwash); I encourage you to read "Law and the Rise of Capitalism" by Michael Tigar (1977)Please explain your thoughts on this. I may not agree with what you refer to as "Capitalism". For example, I don't believe in corporate person hood. However, I do believe that a person owns what they produce, and that they have a right to trade that with others, if they choose. Do you disagree with this?


in any case, the state (for centuries) has been an active and willing partner in the very creation of what you think of as capitalism; indeed, the purpose of the modern state is in large part to facilitate commerce; the relationships between capital and labor are the result of countless little (and ocassionally big) legal decisions that have established the rules that we now take for granted (and sometimes refer to as "rights"); there were many opportunities to take different roads but here we areThere are a great many unnecessary laws, and abuses of power, most of which (big surprise) benefit the powerful. I don't know what you mean by "the relationships between capitol and labor". I do believe that a person owns what he/she produces, and also that a person owns their time, and if a person wants to make trades with what they own, it's their right to do so.


in truth, workers have almost no rights; think of the doctrine of "at-will employment"; it was created out of whole cloth and overturned centuries of common law that recognized the relationship between "master & servant"; it was not by accident that it served the interests of employers at a time when the power of labor was ascendant; but we now accept the (odd) notion that there is an equivalence between the power of capital and laborA person owns their money, and their time. If a person no longer wants to exchange their time for money, or their money for time, it's their choice. Many laws about "masters and servants" were regarding indentured servitude, or slavery -- the theft of one person's time against their will, which is inherently evil.


in the end, your suggestion that all industries have been "interferred with" by gov't. is backwards; it is business that has shaped the legal framework that controls the relationships between capital and laborIndeed, industry has benefited in many cases by getting in bed with government -- at the expense of the common man. This relationship should be ended. People should be free to exchange goods and services as they choose -- but they should not relieve special treatment by government, or be allowed to pass predatory regulations, or certainly, as currently is the case, blatently steal money from average people.


so it is not "government intervention" in the "market" that is the problem; from the very beginning, the purpose of gov't. was to enable the "market"; comparatively recent concerns about things like the corrupting influence of campaign contributions have to take a back seat to centuries of legal decisions made by a certain class of people in order to protect and enhance their power

one need not be a Marxist to see and accept this; the evidence is overwhelming
The market occurs without government, because people trade things. If I have a TV set, and want a dining room table, and you have a table, but want a TV set, we trade. No government is necessary -- indeed, in point of fact, these trades have occurred throughout history, even in cases with little or no government. People trade things when it is beneficial to both parties to do so.

The influence of corrupting money is a big problem, as you note -- the root of the problem is really that government has too much power. It can pick winners and losers, and abuse others to benefit the politically well connected. As long as government has so much power in the hands of corruptible people, which politicians are even more often than others, it will be bought and sold.



the good news is that some people (including unions - especially unions) have been fighting back for 150 years (and many have died at the hands of the gov't - acting on behalf of commercial interests); the tide ebbs and flows but we have made some progressPeople have a right to organize. Neither unions or corporations should have special rights. People can get into a group and threaten to quit if they wish, the owner can negotiate with them, or fire them as he wishes. No one should be forced by government to work for someone they don't want to, or hire someone they don't want to.


the point is that while the Fed is an abomination, it's just the latest in a long line of institutional arrangements that serve the interests of capitalIt certainly is one in a long line of abominations -- it is effectively the blatant theft of peoples money, which is handed to banks. Its credit distortions also happen to be one of the main reasons we are experiencing the economic troubles we are today.

[LittleLightShining]

If anyone wants to go set these folks straight here's the thread: http://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4457

[Athan]

Will someone help me refute this guy?

eta this was from a conversation I started to try to get some progressives on board with hr1207.
Well first tell him that he is getting capitalism mixed up with corporatism. He is confusing THAT with free market capitalism which is the fundamental flaw in his argument.

Review this video of a (fucking sweet) Tea Party speech and listen carefully about the history of mercantilism/fascism/corporatism. Hell show him the video. The dumb son of a bitch doesn't realize we have not had a free market in almost a century. Then ask the dumbass why he even supports the Fed which is what you are really trying to convince him of. If he thinks it is abominable, why the fuck is he bitching about you about capitalism which he doesn't even fully have a decent grasp of? Don't go off on a tangent if your goal has nothing to do with debating capitalism.

YouTube - "War On Economic Freedom" San Antonio Tea Party April 15 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3S6hwxdHmU)

[LittleLightShining]

So, say three people land on the newly created earth, as neighbors. One discovers a lump of clay, and after much labor creates a sculpture. Would you say this person owns the sculpture? If not, do you think it would be moral or immoral for one of his/her neighbors to destroy it, because they feel like it?


How would you say personal rights are married to commerce? I don't necessarily disagree with you -- government has served the interests of the powerful in many cases, over and above the rights of others, because these powerful people can buy the most influence, and politicians are as self interested as anyone, or more. It's one of the problems with government.


Please explain your thoughts on this. I may not agree with what you refer to as "Capitalism". For example, I don't believe in corporate person hood. However, I do believe that a person owns what they produce, and that they have a right to trade that with others, if they choose. Do you disagree with this?

There are a great many unnecessary laws, and abuses of power, most of which (big surprise) benefit the powerful. I don't know what you mean by "the relationships between capitol and labor". I do believe that a person owns what he/she produces, and also that a person owns their time, and if a person wants to make trades with what they own, it's their right to do so.

A person owns their money, and their time. If a person no longer wants to exchange their time for money, or their money for time, it's their choice. Many laws about "masters and servants" were regarding indentured servitude, or slavery -- the theft of one person's time against their will, which is inherently evil.

Indeed, industry has benefited in many cases by getting in bed with government -- at the expense of the common man. This relationship should be ended. People should be free to exchange goods and services as they choose -- but they should not relieve special treatment by government, or be allowed to pass predatory regulations, or certainly, as currently is the case, blatently steal money from average people.

The market occurs without government, because people trade things. If I have a TV set, and want a dining room table, and you have a table, but want a TV set, we trade. No government is necessary -- indeed, in point of fact, these trades have occurred throughout history, even in cases with little or no government. People trade things when it is beneficial to both parties to do so.

The influence of corrupting money is a big problem, as you note -- the root of the problem is really that government has too much power. It can pick winners and losers, and abuse others to benefit the politically well connected. As long as government has so much power in the hands of corruptible people, which politicians are even more often than others, it will be bought and sold.


People have a right to organize. Neither unions or corporations should have special rights. People can get into a group and threaten to quit if they wish, the owner can negotiate with them, or fire them as he wishes. No one should be forced by government to work for someone they don't want to, or hire someone they don't want to.

It certainly is one in a long line of abominations -- it is effectively the blatant theft of peoples money, which is handed to banks. Its credit distortions also happen to be one of the main reasons we are experiencing the economic troubles we are today.The thing is-- and your points are spot on-- this one guy (and a few others, but him mostly) totally believes that capitalism is evil. He will not admit that he's a socialist but all of his assertions are about being fair to everyone. One thing he's really hung up on is mortgage interest deductions which he calls subsidies. Honestly, this guy is something else. And when he can't defendhis own position he accuses me of "right-wing talking points". He's pretty much a communist.

[LittleLightShining]

Well first tell him that he is getting capitalism mixed up with corporatism. He is confusing THAT with free market capitalism which is the fundamental flaw in his argument.

Review this video of a (fucking sweet) Tea Party speech and listen carefully about the history of mercantilism/fascism/corporatism. Hell show him the video. The dumb son of a bitch doesn't realize we have not had a free market in almost a century. Then ask the dumbass why he even supports the Fed which is what you are really trying to convince him of. If he thinks it is abominable, why the fuck is he bitching about you about capitalism which he doesn't even fully have a decent grasp of? Don't go off on a tangent if your goal has nothing to do with debating capitalism.

YouTube - "War On Economic Freedom" San Antonio Tea Party April 15 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3S6hwxdHmU)I mentioned the corporatism thing. You should go read that thread. I know I probably could do better at stating my position but they have me on defense all the time, calling me names and telling me how ignorant I am.

[Freedom 4 all]

Doesn't sound like a standard Liberal argument to me, he sounds like a full blown Socialist/Communist.

[Objectivist]

Ah, "The Virtue of Selfishness".

[Athan]

I mentioned the corporatism thing. You should go read that thread. I know I probably could do better at stating my position but they have me on defense all the time, calling me names and telling me how ignorant I am.

You went off on a tangent which he baited you into. He stated the fed was an abomination. Why is this fucking hypocrite refusing to support legislation to shed light on the abomination? Call him on it hard. Why the fuck is he refusing to support 1207. It shows he is a hypocrite. Don't bother with capitalism because the poster is a full blown communist and keynsian debt lover. Focus on the fact the fed is an instrument of corruption for the elite few that he is ideologically supposed to be bitching against but in fact supporting. (when it is actually an instrument communists love and know it)

[LittleLightShining]

Doesn't sound like a standard Liberal argument to me, he sounds like a full blown Socialist/Communist.You really have to go read the thread. It's frickin ridiculous. This guy needs his head screwed on right.

[LittleLightShining]

I just posted again and that guy is on so this will be interesting.

[Athan]

Just ask "initially you said the Fed was an abomination, why won't you support legislation to audit the Fed?"

Find out his "reasons" and work from there. He may not even know much about the fed which is why he refuses to talk about it.

[Objectivist]

I notice the use of the term "undemocratic"... we are not a democratic country, we are a republic and I never understand how people try to nail down an economic system to their political ideology so that it fits their needs.

The comment about workers not having any power is a farce, as they are free to choose for whomever they wish to work. It's the socialization of workers that hampers their ability to achieve, not the employer. Example is where in unions the senior journeyman workers make more in wages than an apprentice would, even if the apprentice works harder and is more productive. If all workers were paid on the level of production then the Individual would have an incentive to earn more for them self.

Another point is that it is the government that prevents people from earning a living in many cases. Local governments restrict the number of yard sales a citizen can have to 2-3 per year. Government requires you to have a certification or permit for most trades and professions. That's not an employer/worker problem and Capitalism would work for millions that just wanted to start their own business.

The Federal Reserve does not serve Capitalism, ask how they think it does.

If politicians really wanted Capitalism to succeed then ask them to return any and all campaign contributions in the medical industries field. Wouldn't that money be better spent in the reduction of costs and development of new technologies or medicines? Any cost incurred, including campaign contributions is money that could benefit millions who are borderline at being able to afford health insurance. Hundreds of millions of dollars that could go to reducing the cost to the customers/citizens.

My personal opinion on the relationship between government and business is that politicians extort revenue from business as they themselves cannot function or compete in that arena, so they found a way to gain power over business my manipulating law and regulating it. And any revenue taken out of the free market by government hampers the ability of the development of wealth across the board. More people became wealthy under a free market than ever did under a socialistic one.

Now go watch You Tube Milton Friedman "Free to Choose"

[Objectivist]

Skip past the idiot in the first 4:59 of this video to get to the beginning. Or get a history lesson of the idiot for your own knowledge and watch the series.
YouTube - Milton Friedman - Free to Choose 1990 - 1of 5 The Power of the Market PL 1/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yndxvj6813c&feature=related)
YouTube - Milton Friedman - Free to Choose 1990 - Wolny wybór - odc. 1 - Siła rynku 2/5 PL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xwulIBflF4)
YouTube - Milton Friedman - Free to Choose 1990 - Wolny wybór - odc. 1 - Siła rynku 3/5 PL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6hCcdWx_DQ&feature=related)
YouTube - Milton Friedman - Free to Choose 1990 - Wolny wybór - odc. 1 - Siła rynku 4/5 PL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSnUqQF2GRI&feature=related)
YouTube - Milton Friedman - Free to Choose 1990 - Wolny wybór - odc. 1 - Siła rynku 5/5 PL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vIpJ-nUaPg&feature=related)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well..honestly , I can see his point. Those at Jekyll Island were capitalists, bankers are capitalists, it IS evil when evil , immoral people are running things. This is why it is so important to have a moral society (which the libertarians on this board scoff at)..but without a moral society what do you get? Corruption. The principles of free market capitalism are good and true...but just like religion...if it gets into the hands of evil devils...it becomes bad bad bad..and hurts and kills. Monsanto..those folks are capitalists..but LOOK at the harm they are doing to humanity. Don't you think Rockefeller and the Rothschilds are capitalists? Tones

[LittleLightShining]

I notice the use of the term "undemocratic"... we are not a democratic country, we are a republic and I never understand how people try to nail down an economic system to their political ideology so that it fits their needs.

The comment about workers not having any power is a farce, as they are free to choose for whomever they wish to work. It's the socialization of workers that hampers their ability to achieve, not the employer. Example is where in unions the senior journeyman workers make more in wages than an apprentice would, even if the apprentice works harder and is more productive. If all workers were paid on the level of production then the Individual would have an incentive to earn more for them self.

Another point is that it is the government that prevents people from earning a living in many cases. Local governments restrict the number of yard sales a citizen can have to 2-3 per year. Government requires you to have a certification or permit for most trades and professions. That's not an employer/worker problem and Capitalism would work for millions that just wanted to start their own business.

The Federal Reserve does not serve Capitalism, ask how they think it does.

If politicians really wanted Capitalism to succeed then ask them to return any and all campaign contributions in the medical industries field. Wouldn't that money be better spent in the reduction of costs and development of new technologies or medicines? Any cost incurred, including campaign contributions is money that could benefit millions who are borderline at being able to afford health insurance. Hundreds of millions of dollars that could go to reducing the cost to the customers/citizens.

My personal opinion on the relationship between government and business is that politicians extort revenue from business as they themselves cannot function or compete in that arena, so they found a way to gain power over business my manipulating law and regulating it. And any revenue taken out of the free market by government hampers the ability of the development of wealth across the board. More people became wealthy under a free market than ever did under a socialistic one.

Now go watch You Tube Milton Friedman "Free to Choose"
I can't make these arguments with this guy. He starts finger wagging and name calling...

Guy: (the 4 is the best rating a post can get) [eta this is in response to a post hugolp made]

it must be (4.00 / 1)
difficult living in a world that contains nothing but absolutes

I say gov't. should better manage the economy and you're off to Stalinism

we have a financial meltdown and you identify one institution that caused the whole thing (funny how you didn't mention greed or the imperatives of Wall St.); couldn't possibly be that the system tends to excess if not checked; no, it must be that darned government

you say things would be great if only "people [could] enjoy what they work [for] and freely exchange what they have"

can I have some of what you're smoking?

how are wages determined in your world?
how do we ensure safe working conditions?
how are prices determined in your world? is an exchange "free" when one party has something you really need and is the only one who has it (you know, no real competition)
what if there's a dispute about the exchange? who will resolve the problem?
what if some people aren't allowed to work so they can't "enjoy" the fruits of their labor? you know, like Black people, or women, or people who look funny; or people who say things the employer doesn't like? are they still free?
what if while making a product for exchange, someone dumps poison in the river?

your model assumes a fairy land where power is evenly distributed; how absurd; how naive

you speak of the dangers of saviors but don't see that the idea of the "free market" is an illusion (and just a different kind of religion)

you are the one who has been fooled

So I say: (no rating)

Doug. We have a financial meltdown. The greed or imperatives of Wall St are a given. so tell me, why is it that the Fed (which is NOT the government) and the Treasury are chock full of Wall St bankers? They are greedy and destructive on Wall St but they are not when they are installed into the govt? You're not making any sense. See, you are so quick to jump to the defense of govt but were you defending Bush? Probably not and neither was I. Who put Bernanke in place? Who put Paulson in place? Who put Geithner in place? Who put Greenspan in place? And where did all these guys come from, anyway? Think this through.

You want to blame all of our problems on corrupt businesses not on a corrupt govt (unless it involves Douglas). You, for all of your book reading, have never read Mussolini's definition of fascism? DO I need to cite that here or will YOU snarkily ignore the meat in MY posts and accuse me of right-wing talking points and not citing sources?

I agree with hugo. Here's an organic American Spirit. You are asking questions from the wrong angle. See, for every one of your useful and necessary regulations, competition is slowly knocked out so that there only the big survive. Take the lead act. Small toy crafters can't afford to have their handmade toys tested for lead like the big corporations can. It creates an environment where Joe Woodworker can't sell his handcrafted, handpainted blocks to independent toy stores because he can't afford the tests! So what do you have? Unintended consequences, my friend. And never mind hoping to score vintage Fisher-Price Adventure People for your kids from the Salvation Army, Goodwill or Recycle North. And do not even get me started on the books.

Your model assumes a fairlyland where the ever-benevolent govt always acts in the best interests of the people. Especially because the people are "too stupid" as Sonny Audette said to me, "to know what to do" when I told him I didn't like his vote on the seat belt law. This is not freedom, this is not liberty. Whatever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This is what our govt is supposed to protect, Doug. It's not some quaint saying on a Yogi Tea bag.

You, Doug, are the one with your head in the sand.

And he says: (no rating)-- I

I might
agree except that I have NEVER defended the Fed, the SEC, or any of the other alphabet soup agencies that have failed us

the difference is, I think they can be made to work; you seem to think there is a happy world awaiting if we get rid of them

again, absurd and naive; there is no such thing as pure competition; there are (and have always been) real differences in power between capital and labor; the Fed didn't make people greedy; give it up

BTW - I went to great pains to explain how gov't. has enabled excessive business practices for centuries and you have the nerve to suggest that I am defending gov't?! expressing a belief in the need for regulation does not mean I don't see how the current regime has failed; like the other guy, your need for simplicity overwhelms your good sense (and your ability to hear what I say); the really crazy thing is that I've been raving about the failures of gov't. (and the excesses of business) for 50 years (yeah, I started early); so it's a bit galling to hear you say I'm some sort of apologist for capitalism (which is what it is, nothwithstanding your efforts to draw meaningless distinctions) or big gov't. This doesn't make any sense to me.Is he saying the Mussolini definition of fascism is a meaningless distinctionbecause capitalism is fascism? Huh?

I happen to think the answer is not in less gov't., but better gov't.; that is, gov't. that is responsive to the needs of real people who gain power through organizing instead of a fairy tale about "free markets"

I'm tired of this; you have not heard those of us who have responded repeatedly and at length; you are of course free to hold your own views but there is really no point in talking with you; you are like a fundamentalist and real dialogue is impossible

This guy's always trying to rope me in with his digs and evasions-- notice how he had nothing to say about the lead act and the way regulations stifle competition? I get sucked in every time. And he says he doesn't want to talk to me anymore and then he comes back and comments again. So I posted this:


So you support (0.00 / 0)
an audit of the Fed, yes?

[Objectivist]

Well..honestly , I can see his point. Those at Jekyll Island were capitalists, bankers are capitalists, it IS evil when evil , immoral people are running things. This is why it is so important to have a moral society (which the libertarians on this board scoff at)..but without a moral society what do you get? Corruption. The principles of free market capitalism are good and true...but just like religion...if it gets into the hands of evil devils...it becomes bad bad bad..and hurts and kills. Monsanto..those folks are capitalists..but LOOK at the harm they are doing to humanity. Don't you think Rockefeller and the Rothschilds are capitalists? Tones

Thousands of corrupt businesses have collapsed over time because people tend to stay away from bad business practices. In this day and age it's a matter of hours before the entire world knows of misdeeds in the business world. Will there be a Bernie Madoff from time to time? Absolutely, and you can see where he is at the moment. People like him actually strengthen Capitalism from the position of the Consumer as they become more diligent in the investigation of a company before doing business with it. Government makes monopolies that offer little if any alternatives for the Consumer, would you prefer that route? Bread lines in the USSR.

[LittleLightShining]

Well..honestly , I can see his point. Those at Jekyll Island were capitalists, bankers are capitalists, it IS evil when evil , immoral people are running things. This is why it is so important to have a moral society (which the libertarians on this board scoff at)..but without a moral society what do you get? Corruption. The principles of free market capitalism are good and true...but just like religion...if it gets into the hands of evil devils...it becomes bad bad bad..and hurts and kills. Monsanto..those folks are capitalists..but LOOK at the harm they are doing to humanity. Don't you think Rockefeller and the Rothschilds are capitalists? TonesHah! Don't even try to talk about morality with these folks! Who needs morals when the state can be God?

[Objectivist]

I can't make these arguments with this guy. He starts finger wagging and name calling...

Guy: (the 4 is the best rating a post can get) [eta this is in response to a post hugolp made]


So I say: (no rating)


And he says: (no rating)-- I


This guy's always trying to rope me in with his digs and evasions-- notice how he had nothing to say about the lead act and the way regulations stifle competition? I get sucked in every time. And he says he doesn't want to talk to me anymore and then he comes back and comments again. So I posted this:

If you cannot make an argument that is an open dialog without resorting to childish behavior then why play chess with a rube? or checkers for that matter.

You have to stand on the strength of your ideas at all costs, he's wrong, remember?

[tonesforjonesbones]

well..there is a definate problem with morality in 2009 and so..we have chaos. I honestly believe morality is the key..without it ya get Babylon, and all the constitutions and free market philosophy in the universe won't change it. That has to be done from within. I am FOR capitalism..but it seems the communists are for it too..those at the top of the chain. They figured out they have to have capital to do anything...they just don't want "everyman" to have that opportunity. I'd say those who are doing the bad things are capitalists...they are also immoral devils. It's not capitalism that's ruining things...it's immoral greedy devils. tones

[Objectivist]

Got a link?

[LittleLightShining]

If you cannot make an argument that is an open dialog without resorting to childish behavior then why play chess with a rube? or checkers for that matter.

You have to stand on the strength of your ideas at all costs, he's wrong, remember?I'm not going to let him suck me in anymore but these people are (mostly) vicious and I guess I have the fortitude to deal with their crap. It's all about 1207 for me. I need Democrats to start pressuring Peter Welch. But I would love to see someone who knows their way in and around all the arguments go kick some socialist butt over there. :o

http://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4457 (http://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4457)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Every time some wanker imposes on someone's rights..we get another law..force and fraud are rampant in corporations ..and have been forever. so what ;ya gonna do? How do we fix it? How do you force people to be moral? there we go with force again..it seems to be tricky. tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

Hey I have this question ...why is it HR instead of HB. HR = house resolution and HB - house BILL..so this is just a resolution..and will it become law..or just a ceremonial resolution? Why wasn't it a bill? tones

[LittleLightShining]

Every time some wanker imposes on someone's rights..we get another law..force and fraud are rampant in corporations ..and have been forever. so what ;ya gonna do? How do we fix it? How do you force people to be moral? there we go with force again..it seems to be tricky. tonesI don't believe it's something you can legislate-- nor should we. This is what I love about libertarianism-- you do your thing and I'll do mine. As long as we're not hurting anyone what difference does it make. Legislating morality or trying to really enforce morals, I mean, sheesh, you can't even enforce punishment for murder because even that is subjective. *sigh* But it's all about rights and entitlements with these people, not about living and letting live.

[Freedom 4 all]

Every time some wanker imposes on someone's rights..we get another law..force and fraud are rampant in corporations ..and have been forever. so what ;ya gonna do? How do we fix it? How do you force people to be moral? there we go with force again..it seems to be tricky. tones

You make a good point and that's the crux of the problem. a) People need to be moral for society to work b) forced morality is not only fake morality but leads to horrific abuses and atrocities as we see in Muslim nations where so called "morality" is forced

I haven't got a clue as to how to fix this problem tbh. A society where all are moral would be awesome and yet I see now way in which force can solve the problems associated with immorality at the top rungs of society. The police/polititians/CEOs are the essence of force in our society and everyone here is well aware how often they behave in an immoral way. All I know is that in Communism/Socialism, immoral devils have far more potential for evil should they be at the top. I'll take Bernie Madoff over Josef Stalin any day of the week.

[Andrew-Austin]

Well..honestly , I can see his point. Those at Jekyll Island were capitalists, bankers are capitalists, it IS evil when evil , immoral people are running things. This is why it is so important to have a moral society (which the libertarians on this board scoff at)..but without a moral society what do you get? Corruption. The principles of free market capitalism are good and true...but just like religion...if it gets into the hands of evil devils...it becomes bad bad bad..and hurts and kills. Monsanto..those folks are capitalists..but LOOK at the harm they are doing to humanity. Don't you think Rockefeller and the Rothschilds are capitalists? Tones

Your making a common mistake... Saying whatever businessmen do or want to do is capitalistic. And to begin with I don't think fractional reserve banking can be called capitalistic, since it is inhernetly fraudulent.

Monsanto certainly isn't capitalistic in a number of ways (they thrive off of government enforced IP laws for starters), I suggest you read more about Libertarian philosophy and the free market, before you run off on your common tangent that "its all about Jesus!". You'll say anything so long as it confirms your beliefs.

Capitalism is not immoral, it is fallacious to try and attack capitalism by the immoral actions of businessmen. Businessmen own private property and everything, but you can't say that whatever businessmen x does (such as lobby the government) is an example of capitalism.



I am FOR capitalism..but it seems the communists are for it too..those at the top of the chain. They figured out they have to have capital to do anything...they just don't want "everyman" to have that opportunity.

lol, come again?

[Objectivist]

On the aspect of lobbying government a businessman is only using the rules as government has laid them out. It wasn't the businessman who made the rules it was government who by making rules garners favor or power over us.

[andrewh817]

In any case, the state (for centuries) has been an active and willing partner in the very creation of what you think of as capitalism. (QUOTED)

It's true that the state has been an active and willing partner in commerce largely through encouraging (or pressuring) rapid expansion of business and real estate so more profits will be collected through taxes. And since small business makes less profit and thus gives less tax revenue than bigger companies, from the early 20th century until now the government began encouraging businesses to streamline and merge together to maximize profits for the corporation and the government.

Our system is set up so that government expansion and big business expansion are almost one in the same. The government "allows" you to do business and in return you kick up a percentage. That's why when business is down (like RIGHT NOW) the government is struggling to pay for all its domestic and overseas endeavors. Now that their lifeblood is low, the state is taxing the hell out of every that's not business related so even if you want to be responsible with your money they'll still get a cut.

So my final statement would be..........

In any case, the state (for centuries) has been an active and willing partner in the very creation of what you think of as economic slavery.