Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 289

Thread: Tucker Carlson: What is destroying rural America?

  1. #121
    I am lurking but enjoying this discussion.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    Why have you chosen to adopt that ideology? What do you find appealing about it?
    I adopt the ideology of anarchism because it's the one that recognizes the rights of every human being, it puts lives above property. it recognizes the difference between personal and private property, it recognizes equality as the primary goal (rather than "prosperity")

  4. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    I adopt the ideology of anarchism because it's the one that recognizes the rights of every human being, it puts lives above property. it recognizes the difference between personal and private property, it recognizes equality as the primary goal (rather than "prosperity")
    The only place all are equal is in the dirt and you want to put everyone there.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    I adopt the ideology of anarchism because it's the one that recognizes the rights of every human being, it puts lives above property. it recognizes the difference between personal and private property, it recognizes equality as the primary goal (rather than "prosperity")
    Pretty good rundown, here, on the history of anarchism, with a few snips:
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/ana...rary-anarchism

    Artists were attracted by the individualist spirit of anarchism. By the mid-1890s, however, the more militant anarchists in France began to realize that an excess of individualism had detached them from the workers they sought to liberate. Anarchists, indeed, have always found it difficult to reconcile the claims of general human solidarity with the demands—equally insistent—of the individual who desires freedom.


    The anarcho-syndicalists argued that the traditional function of trade unions—to struggle for better wages and working conditions—was not enough. The unions should become militant organizations dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and the state. They should aim to take over factories and utilities, which would then be operated by the workers. In this way the union or syndicate would have a double function—as an organ of struggle within the existing political system and as an organ of administration after the revolution. The anarcho-syndicalists’ strategy called for sustaining militancy by creating an atmosphere of incessant conflict, which would culminate in a massive general strike. Many anarcho-syndicalists believed that such an overwhelming act of noncooperation would bring about what they called “the revolution of folded arms,” resulting in the collapse of the state and the capitalist system.

    Anarchists also took up issues related to feminism and developed a rich body of work, known as anarcha-feminism, that applied anarchist principles to the analysis of women’s oppression, arguing that the state is inherently patriarchal and that women’s experience as nurturers and caregivers reflects the anarchist ideals of mutuality and the rejection of hierarchy and authority. <----- BS!!!

    The most prevalent current in anarchist thinking during the last two decades of the 20th century (at least in the United States) was an eclectic, countercultural mixture of theories reflecting a wide range of artistic, literary, political, and philosophical influences, including Dada, Surrealism, and Situationism; the writers of the Beat movement; the Frankfurt School of Marxist-oriented social and political philosophers—especially Herbert Marcuse...

    At the beginning of the 21st century, no anarchist movement posed a serious threat to state power, and anarchists were no closer to achieving their dream of a society without government than they were a century before. Nevertheless, the perceived failure of governments to solve enduring social problems such as racial and gender inequality, poverty, environmental destruction, political corruption, and war increased the appeal of anarchist ideas among many groups. Young people in particular were attracted to the anarchist priorities of creativity and spontaneity—the importance of living the “new society” here and now rather than postponing it indefinitely until “after the Revolution.” For these people and many others around the world, anarchism remained an active and vibrant ferment of criticism, protest, and direct action.


    A recurring theme running throughout the history is "pure" anarchism always being overtaken by totalitarian communism. A running consistent objective is destruction of the family. I'd like to know the origins behind that, as in who introduced that thought and what their arguments were. I vehemently disagree about that being beneficial or natural. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Kind of reminds me of the saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Some of their ideas and desires were completely reasonable, like better working conditions - especially during times when physical labor was much more miserable and unrewarding than it is now (and much still is). I kind of like the idea of equality of labor, with all essential work or contributions to making society and the economy hum along having respectability and value. How that plays out, though, I dunno. An orthopedic surgeon is always going to have more value than someone working the Taco Bell drive through, even though we use the service of latter far more. In any event, I've never liked those who work hard in unskilled or less skilled positions not even being able to afford rent, let alone a house. I will acknowledge that labor unions have rectified that to some degree but, of course, they are corrupt, too.

    So, there was the desire to rectify the abject misery that so many lived and to not be the virtual property of the overlords (whoever that happened to be). An understandable human wish for freedom, happiness and a greater degree of economic reward. All good, BUT... so often fueled by envy, hate and rage, resulting in extreme violence, mass murder, dysfunctional planned economies and loss of freedom. With the advent of technology, where does that go? Communist China.

    Then there's the other part, which is rebellion against "authority", though it's consistently given rise to authoritarian and totalitarian butchers. What's that that Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? That Zero Hedge comment, in @Swordsmyth 's sig comes to mind. Anyway, on the subject of rejection of "authority" or rebellion, where they lost the plot was (and still is) confusing that with having no self control/governance. That's best illustrated in the debauchery and degeneracy of inter war Berlin and the Franklin school (or the likes of the Maquis de Sade, of whom we spoke earlier). Recently, I read the phrase "cultural of ruin" and thought it brilliant. That's exactly where all of this leads and what Marx said he wished to bring about. Though Crowley's Luciferian "do what thou will shall be the whole of law" (as long as you don't step on my toes) would constitute the meaning of "freedom" for a large segment of humanity, it is predicated upon rejection of any spiritual authority or acknowledgement of a higher self and purpose (and karma/action-reaction). That's a recipe for self destruction, not self fulfillment and improvement. It's no accident that the left has an intense hatred of Christianity. It isn't "church" culture that they hate, it's Christ and his message. While he taught, "Go and sin no more", the Franklin School taught if it feels good do it and fck authority. The former demands self control and the latter completely rejects it in favor of pleasing the senses. So, ultimately - and I have a tendency to always see the micro in the macro and vice versa - it is my conclusion that that the wanton rejection of authority, as an objective in and of itself, which it is with anarchy, is rooted in the rejection of God. I refer back to the Gustav Doré illustration I posted upthread.

    Sorry for any typos and I'm sure they're there. Stream of consciousness and I don't want to go back and read it.

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The only place all are equal is in the dirt and you want to put everyone there.
    Truth!



    lol

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    Pretty good rundown, here, on the history of anarchism, with a few snips:
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/ana...rary-anarchism

    Artists were attracted by the individualist spirit of anarchism. By the mid-1890s, however, the more militant anarchists in France began to realize that an excess of individualism had detached them from the workers they sought to liberate. Anarchists, indeed, have always found it difficult to reconcile the claims of general human solidarity with the demands—equally insistent—of the individual who desires freedom.


    The anarcho-syndicalists argued that the traditional function of trade unions—to struggle for better wages and working conditions—was not enough. The unions should become militant organizations dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and the state. They should aim to take over factories and utilities, which would then be operated by the workers. In this way the union or syndicate would have a double function—as an organ of struggle within the existing political system and as an organ of administration after the revolution. The anarcho-syndicalists’ strategy called for sustaining militancy by creating an atmosphere of incessant conflict, which would culminate in a massive general strike. Many anarcho-syndicalists believed that such an overwhelming act of noncooperation would bring about what they called “the revolution of folded arms,” resulting in the collapse of the state and the capitalist system.

    Anarchists also took up issues related to feminism and developed a rich body of work, known as anarcha-feminism, that applied anarchist principles to the analysis of women’s oppression, arguing that the state is inherently patriarchal and that women’s experience as nurturers and caregivers reflects the anarchist ideals of mutuality and the rejection of hierarchy and authority. <----- BS!!!

    The most prevalent current in anarchist thinking during the last two decades of the 20th century (at least in the United States) was an eclectic, countercultural mixture of theories reflecting a wide range of artistic, literary, political, and philosophical influences, including Dada, Surrealism, and Situationism; the writers of the Beat movement; the Frankfurt School of Marxist-oriented social and political philosophers—especially Herbert Marcuse...

    At the beginning of the 21st century, no anarchist movement posed a serious threat to state power, and anarchists were no closer to achieving their dream of a society without government than they were a century before. Nevertheless, the perceived failure of governments to solve enduring social problems such as racial and gender inequality, poverty, environmental destruction, political corruption, and war increased the appeal of anarchist ideas among many groups. Young people in particular were attracted to the anarchist priorities of creativity and spontaneity—the importance of living the “new society” here and now rather than postponing it indefinitely until “after the Revolution.” For these people and many others around the world, anarchism remained an active and vibrant ferment of criticism, protest, and direct action.


    A recurring theme running throughout the history is "pure" anarchism always being overtaken by totalitarian communism. A running consistent objective is destruction of the family. I'd like to know the origins behind that, as in who introduced that thought and what their arguments were. I vehemently disagree about that being beneficial or natural. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Kind of reminds me of the saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Some of their ideas and desires were completely reasonable, like better working conditions - especially during times when physical labor was much more miserable and unrewarding than it is now (and much still is). I kind of like the idea of equality of labor, with all essential work or contributions to making society and the economy hum along having respectability and value. How that plays out, though, I dunno. An orthopedic surgeon is always going to have more value than someone working the Taco Bell drive through, even though we use the service of latter far more. In any event, I've never liked those who work hard in unskilled or less skilled positions not even being able to afford rent, let alone a house. I will acknowledge that labor unions have rectified that to some degree but, of course, they are corrupt, too.

    So, there was the desire to rectify the abject misery that so many lived and to not be the virtual property of the overlords (whoever that happened to be). An understandable human wish for freedom, happiness and a greater degree of economic reward. All good, BUT... so often fueled by envy, hate and rage, resulting in extreme violence, mass murder, dysfunctional planned economies and loss of freedom. With the advent of technology, where does that go? Communist China.

    Then there's the other part, which is rebellion against "authority", though it's consistently given rise to authoritarian and totalitarian butchers. What's that that Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? That Zero Hedge comment, in @Swordsmyth 's sig comes to mind. Anyway, on the subject of rejection of "authority" or rebellion, where they lost the plot was (and still is) confusing that with having no self control/governance. That's best illustrated in the debauchery and degeneracy of inter war Berlin and the Franklin school (or the likes of the Maquis de Sade, of whom we spoke earlier). Recently, I read the phrase "cultural of ruin" and thought it brilliant. That's exactly where all of this leads and what Marx said he wished to bring about. Though Crowley's Luciferian "do what thou will shall be the whole of law" (as long as you don't step on my toes) would constitute the meaning of "freedom" for a large segment of humanity, it is predicated upon rejection of any spiritual authority or acknowledgement of a higher self and purpose (and karma/action-reaction). That's a recipe for self destruction, not self fulfillment and improvement. It's no accident that the left has an intense hatred of Christianity. It isn't "church" culture that they hate, it's Christ and his message. While he taught, "Go and sin no more", the Franklin School taught if it feels good do it and fck authority. The former demands self control and the latter completely rejects it in favor of pleasing the senses. So, ultimately - and I have a tendency to always see the micro in the macro and vice versa - it is my conclusion that that the wanton rejection of authority, as an objective in and of itself, which it is with anarchy, is rooted in the rejection of God. I refer back to the Gustav Doré illustration I posted upthread.

    Sorry for any typos and I'm sure they're there. Stream of consciousness and I don't want to go back and read it.
    Well said.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    I adopt the ideology of anarchism because it's the one that recognizes the rights of every human being, it puts lives above property. it recognizes the difference between personal and private property, it recognizes equality as the primary goal (rather than "prosperity")
    Just want to say that I sympathize with some of your desires but disagree with how to get there. I would add that you actually have the freedom to make a lot of those dreams come true, right here, right now, in the United States,even with all of it's problems. Start with where you really have control and that's over yourself

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    I am lurking but enjoying this discussion.
    I wish Tucker were a part of it. He's a deep thinker and makes the big connections. He knows.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Tucker and the Nationalist are right in their diagnosis but they are wrong in their prescription. That is why we started this: sonsoflibertyso.com

    It’s not capitalism to put the bottom line before human dignity, family, community, culture etc. It’s capitalism when you realize people want those things and you can bring it to them.

    Btw, if you’re in North Jersey on April 19th (Patriots Day - Paul Reveres Ride) come out and joins us at Angry Erik Brewing as we bring together our community including Veterans and LEOs (yes LEOs) in celebration of American Freedom at our 1st Annual Freedom Fest 🇺🇸 We’ll be cooking Burgers and Dogs all day on us 🔥🔥🔥

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    Tucker and the Nationalist are right in their diagnosis but they are wrong in their prescription. That is why we started this: sonsoflibertyso.com

    It’s not capitalism to put the bottom line before human dignity, family, community, culture etc. It’s capitalism when you realize people want those things and you can bring it to them.

    Btw, if you’re in North Jersey on April 19th (Patriots Day - Paul Reveres Ride) come out and joins us at Angry Erik Brewing as we bring together our community including Veterans and LEOs (yes LEOs) in celebration of American Freedom at our 1st Annual Freedom Fest  We’ll be cooking Burgers and Dogs all day on us 
    The problem is the Fed.
    Without the Fed the globalists wouldn't be able to create enough money to buy out all the other businesses and ship them to China etc.
    The Fed and its money are the root of this evil, those with connections to the globalists get to steal from everyone else who has dollars and use the proceeds to buy and control everything.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The problem is the Fed.
    Without the Fed the globalists wouldn't be able to create enough money to buy out all the other businesses and ship them to China etc.
    The Fed and its money are the root of this evil, those with connections to the globalists get to steal from everyone else who has dollars and use the proceeds to buy and control everything.
    I agree. The Fed and all Magic Money Printing Machines are fraudulent and more powerful than bombs and bullets when it comes to destroying free societies. We need to pass laws that allow for competition and break the “money monopoly“. Before that can happen though we need to reconnect with neighbors and build communities around the ideals of American Freedom. Political movements to end the Fed will fail (due to corporate media subversion) without cultural/social support and we ain’t there, yet... but we’re working on it.

  14. #132
    I'd like a working definition of "capitalism" because I believe it's unclear and means different things to different people. My impression is that it means the bankster/usury/funny money system of the Synagogue of Satan and what would be called neoliberal policies and not the old mom & pop hardware store and you make it, you earn it, it's yours economy of people buying and selling freely. Very different things.

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    I'd like a working definition of "capitalism" because I believe it's unclear and means different things to different people. My impression is that it means the bankster/usury/funny money system of the Synagogue of Satan and what would be called neoliberal policies and not the old mom & pop hardware store and you make it, you earn it, it's yours economy of people buying and selling freely. Very different things.
    Very different things indeed and in need of different definitions. What would you propose calling a network of independently owned businesses selling to the public and each other without government regulation?

    I like the Homegrown Economy.

  16. #134

    Exclamation Socialist Wealth Spread - Trumpkins destroying America

    What is destroying rural America?
    Trumpkin Socialism, aka Wealth Spread.



    Trumpkin Socialist, typical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  17. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    Very different things indeed and in need of different definitions. What would you propose calling a network of independently owned businesses selling to the public and each other without government regulation?

    I like the Homegrown Economy.
    I like it. I wonder if there was a word that described that type o economic system prior to the word capitalism entering the picture.

    Most of all, I think capitalism refers to making money on money, be that through through usury or investment.

  18. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    I like it. I wonder if there was a word that described that type o economic system prior to the word capitalism entering the picture.

    Most of all, I think capitalism refers to making money on money, be that through through usury or investment.
    1400-1800 = Merchant Capitalism (Small Businesses/Ship Owners Dominate)
    1750-1913 = Industrial Capitalism (Factory/Railroad Owners Dominate)
    1865-Present = Financial Capitalism (Banking Houses/Stock Owners Dominate)

    Capitalism = Using tools & skills (capital) to increase the production of goods and services.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Back to the subject of corporate ownership and investing, another thread brought this to mind:

    What Is an Investment?

    An investment is an asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation. In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth. In finance, an investment is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income in the future or will later be sold at a higher price for a profit.
    ...
    Investments and Speculation

    Speculation is a separate activity from making an investment. Investing involves the purchase of assets with the intent of holding them for the long term, while speculation involves attempting to capitalize on market inefficiencies for short-term profit. Ownership is generally not a goal of speculators, while investors often look to build the number of assets in their portfolios over time.

    Although speculators are often making informed decisions, speculation cannot usually be categorized as traditional investing. Speculation is generally considered higher risk than traditional investing, though this can vary depending on the type of investment involved. Some consider speculation more akin to gambling than anything else.
    ...
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/investment.asp
    The standard shareholders are usually investors, the corporate raiders are speculators. Not a big deal, but it does highlight that not every shareholder is the same, and not every shareholder has the same goals or agendas.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  21. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The only place all are equal is in the dirt and you want to put everyone there.
    hardly.

    you're the kind of person that thinks taking another penny from you is equal to slavery, so there's plenty of middle ground between you extreme greed and equal dirt.

    the obvious examples are
    -1 man 1 vote
    -equal opportunity laws

    a few extra steps could be
    -equalizing access to resources
    -equalizing basic living standards and income
    none of which require killing people or making everybody equally poor.

  22. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    I'd like a working definition of "capitalism" because I believe it's unclear and means different things to different people. My impression is that it means the bankster/usury/funny money system of the Synagogue of Satan and what would be called neoliberal policies and not the old mom & pop hardware store and you make it, you earn it, it's yours economy of people buying and selling freely. Very different things.
    1. private ownership of means of production (production meaning profit, commercial activity)
    2. the system where a person with capital profits at a faster pace than a person with only labor
    3. the system where "investment" is possible, a person can remotely provide cash in exchange for profits while workers sell their labor under the threat of survival
    4. a system where nobody has any rights, or the few they do have comes after the rights to own property
    5. a system that allows "private" property, property that is owned for purposes of profit which one person cannot reasonably or humanly make personal (or profitable) use of

  23. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    hardly.

    you're the kind of person that thinks taking another penny from you is equal to slavery, so there's plenty of middle ground between you extreme greed and equal dirt.

    the obvious examples are
    -1 man 1 vote
    -equal opportunity laws

    a few extra steps could be
    -equalizing access to resources
    -equalizing basic living standards and income
    none of which require killing people or making everybody equally poor.
    You are the greedy one who wants what other people have created and earned and you will destroy everything you covet trying to take it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    Just want to say that I sympathize with some of your desires but disagree with how to get there.
    how to get where?

    also, the fact I can thrive in today's world doesn't mean I have to be happy with the rest of it.

    you can work hard and earn a living while protesting taxation and wanting to make laws more just for your purpose.

  25. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You are the greedy one who wants what other people have created and earned and you will destroy everything you covet trying to take it.
    Greed is defined as wanting more than survival. Try again.

    "Created and earned" doesn't mean anything unless it was done morally and legally.

    I don't care how much sacrifice you made to capture a slave, buy a slave, or rob a bank. (in your case, I bet you don't care how hard an IRS agent works to collect your taxes)

  26. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    how to get where?

    also, the fact I can thrive in today's world doesn't mean I have to be happy with the rest of it.

    you can work hard and earn a living while protesting taxation and wanting to make laws more just for your purpose.
    To the "fairer" type of system you envision. While you may not be able to change the world, what's stopping you from living in a commune? You want it, then live it. If it's so great, others may model it and the change you want will catch on. Or not. So far, not mnay freely choose it and it hasn't worked when forcefully imposed and if they didn't get murdered by the idealists, many escaped or lived in misery, longing to be free(er).

  27. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    To the "fairer" type of system you envision. While you may not be able to change the world, what's stopping you from living in a commune?
    Access to electricity, communications and many other modern luxuries. the same things people aren't willing to leave the country for even if they hate paying taxes.

    You want it, then live it. If it's so great, others may model it and the change you want will catch on.
    "others may model it" assumes that the people who want it have the power to do so.

    "others may model" a no tax society
    "others may model" a society where rape is legal
    But are those who want it the ones who can?

    Or not. So far, not mnay freely choose it and it hasn't worked when forcefully imposed
    Agreed. Capitalism is a great example of forcefully imposed

    and if they didn't get murdered by the idealists, many escaped or lived in misery, longing to be free(er).
    yep. like today.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    Access to electricity, communications and many other modern luxuries. the same things people aren't willing to leave the country for even if they hate paying taxes.
    How does living in a commune prevent anyone from having utilities and modern conveniences? It doesn't. You simply share the income and split the bills.



    "others may model it" assumes that the people who want it have the power to do so.
    You obviously live somewhere, as do other people. Get with other people and share a residence, income and bills and you've got a commune. It doesn't take any "power" other than having a job to contribute to the communal finances and work around the house & yard.

    "others may model" a no tax society
    "others may model" a society where rape is legal
    But are those who want it the ones who can?
    Rape? WTF? I don't know anyone who fantasizes about a society where "rape is legal". perhaps you have some loose screws or a cluster B personality disorder.

    As for no taxes, good luck with that though I'm sure there are places where that's possible but, then, you'd have to forgo those modern conveniences you like.

    EDIT: I just realized that I completely misunderstood your comment and please accept my apology! I get what you meant, now.



    Agreed. Capitalism is a great example of forcefully imposed
    Don't borrow any money (no usury). Start your own business so you're not subject to working for someone else and you own the means of your production.

    You sound miserable.


    yep. like today.
    Yes, millions are being dragged out and shot, put in gulags and being starved to death in the USA.

    Dude, you need to read some history and get some perspective.
    Last edited by susano; 12-10-2019 at 07:30 PM.

  30. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Back to the subject of corporate ownership and investing, another thread brought this to mind:



    The standard shareholders are usually investors, the corporate raiders are speculators. Not a big deal, but it does highlight that not every shareholder is the same, and not every shareholder has the same goals or agendas.
    Corporate raiders are investors though. They are value investors. They are buying something for less than intrinsic worth and looking to unlock that value. The ability to liquidate a company is ultimately what tethers stock prices to reality.

    Most people don't realize Warren Buffett was a corporate raider. Sanborn Maps was one of his early companies he got on the board of and forced changes. Bershire Hathaway (the textile company) was an example of corporate raiding which he didn't break up and it turned out to be his number 1 worst investment ever. (The textile business went bust.) https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/...time-will.aspx

    The Father of Value Investing and Warren Buffett's teacher, Benjamin Graham, basically popularized the idea of corporate raider. https://www.businessinsider.com/benj...ctivist-2016-6

    Graham believed investors treated corporate management teams far too kindly, and he had no qualms about fighting companies on behalf of shareholders. For the rest of his career, he battled with overcapitalized corporations and argued for an “energetic attitude by stockholders toward their managements.”
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 12-10-2019 at 07:38 PM.

  31. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Corporate raiders are investors though. They are value investors. They are buying something for less than intrinsic worth and looking to unlock that value. The ability to liquidate a company is ultimately what tethers stock prices to reality.

    Most people don't realize Warren Buffett was a corporate raider. Sanborn Maps was one of his early companies he got on the board of and forced changes. Bershire Hathaway (the textile company) was an example of corporate raiding which he didn't break up and it turned out to be his number 1 worst investment ever. (The textile business went bust.) https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/...time-will.aspx

    The Father of Value Investing and Warren Buffett's teacher, Benjamin Graham, basically popularized the idea of corporate raider. https://www.businessinsider.com/benj...ctivist-2016-6
    no qualms about fighting companies on behalf of shareholders.
    Lol. Sorry. I am not buying the altruism of corporate raiders.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  32. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Lol. Sorry. I am not buying the altruism of corporate raiders.
    Markets tend to reward virtue. Altruism is a vice. By taking care of themselves the corporate raider takes care of society at large.

  33. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by susano View Post
    How does living in a commune prevent anyone from having utilities and modern conveniences? It doesn't. You simply share the income and split the bills.
    oh, you're not referring to "those kids" of communes.

    You obviously live somewhere, as do other people. Get with other people and share a residence, income and bills and you've got a commune. It doesn't take any "power" other than having a job to contribute to the communal finances and work around the house & yard.
    Most people are forced into roommating, does that count? Also, sharing bills doesn't change the fact there are bills, the biggest one being to landlords.

    Rape? WTF? I don't know anyone who fantasizes about a society where "rape is legal". perhaps you have some loose screws or a cluster B personality disorder.
    what?

    As for no taxes, good luck with that though I'm sure there are places where that's possible but, then, you'd have to forgo those modern conveniences you like.
    You mean ....just what I said above?

    EDIT: I just realized that I completely misunderstood your comment and please accept my apology! I get what you meant, now.
    Cool



    Don't borrow any money (no usury). Start your own business so you're not subject to working for someone else and you own the means of your production.
    Starting your own business requires you to have one of the following,

    -standard of living met
    -superior skill and or opportunity
    -additional riskable capital

    I am lucky that I am not completely without investable money, but that doesn't mean I don't want the same for everybody. So, my complaints about our system are not entirely personal, I hope you understand that part, even if you don't agree

    You sound miserable.
    As are most people here, Ron Paul brings together people who are miserable about the system.

    Yes, millions are being dragged out and shot, put in gulags and being starved to death in the USA.
    Maybe not shot, but imprisoned and starved due to inability to produce profits, yes.

    Dude, you need to read some history and get some perspective.
    ahhh, the old "because we dont have concentration camps, stop complaining because it could be worse!"

  34. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post

    Maybe not shot, but imprisoned and starved due to inability to produce profits, yes.
    Number of people who starved to death in 2019 due to capitalism in 2019: 0

    Quite a remarkable feat. Out of hundreds of millions of people in countries like the United States and Western Europe zero people died because they couldn't produce something marketable.

    The people you are describing do not exist.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2019, 01:22 PM
  2. Replies: 180
    Last Post: 06-12-2019, 01:04 PM
  3. Tucker Carlson is destroying the neocons tonight on his show
    By Brett85 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-10-2019, 02:10 PM
  4. Tucker Carlson AGAIN
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-19-2019, 06:57 PM
  5. Ron To Appear On Tucker Carlson
    By zach in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 01:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •