No System of Government Works (by itself)
-
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Ah, so it's not about a free market at all, it's about conquest and empire. Freedom for us, death for others. Lovely.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
James L. Thomson wrote:
but nowhere in the constitution is your property protected from private citizens or businesses
The Constitution doesn't give people rights. It lays out the framework for a system of government to protect people's inherent God given rights. The constitution isn't something that lays out all of the laws that exist into a small document. It is a framework. You are born with rights, privileges are given to you by authority. The constitution exist as the architecture of the government.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The Constitution doesn't give people rights. It lays out the framework for a system of government to protect people's inherent God given rights.
Oh this is rich. The constitution was created to be a system to allow a central government to rule. That was it. The problem was it never would have been ratified as it was. Demands were made and the Bill of Rights was tacked on. This was made specifically to constrain the government on how it dealt with individuals. The constitution would have happily ignored those rights had the states not demanded those rights put in. And it only says what the Federal Government can and can't do. As was shown when the Supreme Court said imminent domain is fine to hand private property to another private investor. States can do whatever their own constitutions allow as long as it doesn't go against a stated constitutional provision. As for the BP thing, the property rights of the fishermen hosed by the spill would mean nothing. They didn't have property hurt. Their income being destroyed was not property being damaged... So it's okay for them to be bankrupt thanks to an oil company, right?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Ah, so it's not about a free market at all, it's about conquest and empire. Freedom for us, death for others. Lovely.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I'd like to see the US force China to do anything. Before moron...er..W, we might have had a chance. But now, no way. Our armed forces are stretched too thin, our military complex is worn out and our troops are tired and while now very combat trained, would be fighting a different kind of war against an army numbering in the millions if necessary. If we even tried conventional war. Which would be smart since they could nuke us as easily as the USSR used to be able to. The US doesn't have the economic might to bury China like it did the USSR. So that's out. Yea, we got jack here...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Again I say... Upon seizing power I promise to be a benevolent dictator. Thrakazogism Ideal: Unregulated market without government interference. Innovation is rewarded,laziness is punished by 24 hour reality show involving tazers. Reality: Revenue from the show tazing the lazy will be used to feed/educate them. End Result: Entertainment, World peace.
I find your words intriguing and wish to subscribe to your publications.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We will force them to, and their slaves will rebel and they will collapse. If they don't like it, then they can die.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I quoted it so he could not change it. your way is better.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'd like to see the US force China to do anything. Before moron...er..W, we might have had a chance. But now, no way. Our armed forces are stretched too thin, our military complex is worn out and our troops are tired and while now very combat trained, would be fighting a different kind of war against an army numbering in the millions if necessary. If we even tried conventional war. Which would be smart since they could nuke us as easily as the USSR used to be able to. The US doesn't have the economic might to bury China like it did the USSR. So that's out. Yea, we got jack here...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Oh, I know, but it's still the case that CSS wants to be able to promote freedom by oppressing others.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, for the most part, but I think it should be clear by now that NONE of the discussed systems work by themselves... Take any one of them to its logical conclusion, and what do you get? Communism
Ideal: Everyone is equal, so there are no rich and no poor, no powerful and no weak. (Including those elected to lead) Reality: This goes against natural human greed. Inevitably, those in charge turn it into a communist dictatorship (See: USSR). End Result: Authoritarian regime by the chosen rulers Socialism
Ideal: The state controls everything and takes good care of the populace Reality: The state controls everything and screws the populace. End Result: Authoritarian regime by the chosen rulers Capitalism
Ideal: Unregulated market without government interference. Innovation is rewarded, laziness is punished Reality: Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the rich, the poor are reduced largely to slave labor. End Result: Authoritarian regime by whichever companies grow largest So what's the solution... Put them together... Take the best parts of each and find some way to make them complement each other. Basically, what we have now, but with the scales adjusted a bit. How much to adjust them, well, that's where the different political viewpoints come in.Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)An authoritarian regime is in itself not failure, though. The USSR worked, for a while anyway, but somehow they failed, even though China didn't. China works. The Roman Empire worked - until they overstretched. The French Empire (Napoleon) worked - until they overstretched and broke in two. The Eastern Roman Empire worked for over a thousand years, beat that. The Third Reich might have worked - but it overstretched before it even got that far so we'll never know and that may not be a bad thing. So, what's with the overstretching? If an authoritarian regime can hold back a bit, it works fine.
-
Oh, I know, but it's still the case that CSS wants to be able to promote freedom by oppressing others.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
to promote freedom by oppressing others.
Hell, that's the American motto. We became a nation and what did we do? 1: Killed those dirty indians keeping us from our land. 2: Told them canadians (eh?) to get lost and if we saw em again we'd strap em to some moose and send em packin 3: Freed the slaves, by shooting anyoen that thought having them was okay. 4: picked on Spain cause it was fun. And we got Cuba as buddies along with Guam and Puerto Rico. 5: Killed some no good Mexicans for daring to expect Texas to remain part of their country when those guys wanted to be FREE!!!! And then they joined us. 6: Killed more no good indians for getting mad when we took their land without askin, how dare they get in the way. 7: Killed a bunch of no good germans for attackin the frenchies. We like our fries! 8: Killed those germans again, cause England needed help, and the Japs bombed a bunch of ships (bastards) 9: Koreans needed to be free, so we shot the northern bunch. 10: Vietnamese needed to be free, so we bombed them a lot. 11: Killed a bunch of Iraqis for being such warmongers and attacking a place that gives has rich people with oil. 12: Killed a bunch of dark people for blowing up our twin towers. Association with the ones that did, minimal. But hey, they hate freedom! 13: Told the french their fries suck and are not free enough for having the gaul to question #12.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is no problem with that, because things balance themselves out. Products, services, and wages will be set to their true value. If however the government interviens, that causes imbalances, and some people are going to get screwed without choice because of the way the law fucks them over.
Very true... And what's the "true value" of someone who works an assembly line in a factory? How about a pizza delivery boy? Janitor at a department store? If companies could get away with paying these people less, they could lower the prices of their products and better compete in the marketplace. That's how unregulated capitalism works, and that's why we have things like minimum wage and government-supported trade unions. Explain to me how the "free market" would fix that little snafu.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
riced wrote:
I studied economics for eight years (two degrees) and lectured in economics for six years.
Keynesian economic theory no doubt. Ben Bernake knows a bit about that, and look at the economy now.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Actually both Keynesian and Monetarist along with a whole bunch of other stuff, including general equilibrium theory and welfare economics. You may be surprised to learn that fundamentally there is no difference between Keynes' and Friedman's prescriptions as far as monetary policy is concerned. Where they differ is in the their views on the role of government in the economy, and that's politics not economics. If you think there is I suggested reading 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money', followed up by a 'Treatise on Money'. You might also try Alex Leijonhuvfud's 'On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes'. The alternative is to accept the popularizations of politicians, the media and self publicists such as Friedman.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There is no problem with that, because things balance themselves out. Products, services, and wages will be set to their true value. If however the government interviens, that causes imbalances, and some people are going to get screwed without choice because of the way the law fucks them over.
Very true... And what's the "true value" of someone who works an assembly line in a factory? How about a pizza delivery boy? Janitor at a department store? If companies could get away with paying these people less, they could lower the prices of their products and better compete in the marketplace. That's how unregulated capitalism works, and that's why we have things like minimum wage and government-supported trade unions. Explain to me how the "free market" would fix that little snafu.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Man I hate coming in on his side.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Explain to me how the "free market" would fix that little snafu.
The problem is that you are not describing a free market, where goods and information can flow freely. You are discussing the construction of monopolies, and the government regulation that keeps them in place. Often, regulations made with the best intent end up going awry. What ever regulations you make, people game. Even if it did not 'distort' the market, originally, someone will run with it make it distort the market. If people have free flow of information, they know about the risk of funds backed by subprime mortgages the government is generating. They know where jobs pay more. They know where people want more of a product. Free market is not the same as monopolistic capitalism.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
People who have degrees are the stupidest of them all. You have to unlearn everything after you enter the real world.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
People who have degrees are the stupidest of them all. You have to unlearn everything after you enter the real world.
And yet you worship Milton Friedman who is a prime example of an academic whose theories did not work in the real world.
Bob Emmett New Eugenecist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting.
-
riced wrote:
I studied economics for eight years (two degrees) and lectured in economics for six years.
Keynesian economic theory no doubt. Ben Bernake knows a bit about that, and look at the economy now.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ben Bernake knows a bit about that,
But Ben Bernanke is not practising Keynesian economics. As you would know, had you ever read Keynes, rather than parroting from InfoWars, St. Paul, etc. 'Keynesian Marxist' economy, indeed. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: The sad thing being that you can't understand just how foolish that is.
Bob Emmett New Eugenecist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting.
-
Actually both Keynesian and Monetarist along with a whole bunch of other stuff, including general equilibrium theory and welfare economics. You may be surprised to learn that fundamentally there is no difference between Keynes' and Friedman's prescriptions as far as monetary policy is concerned. Where they differ is in the their views on the role of government in the economy, and that's politics not economics. If you think there is I suggested reading 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money', followed up by a 'Treatise on Money'. You might also try Alex Leijonhuvfud's 'On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes'. The alternative is to accept the popularizations of politicians, the media and self publicists such as Friedman.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are thinking of corporatism. Where the corporations lobby government to pass legislation and regulation that favors certain corporations in the name of "fair trade" and all that. No-bid contracts, federal reserve lending, corporate welfare (bailouts).
No, I know exactly what I'm thinking of. With unregulated markets, minimum wage removed, and no labor regulation, companies can make their own rules. If you take the government out of the picture, nothing stops companies from exploiting workers any way they see fit.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What system of government works is a Constitutional Republic based on the principles of liberty and free-markets. When the Constitution is enforced correctly; and people are keen on what their government is doing at all times, the system works.
You don't even know what any of that means. You're just regurgitating what you've read on Ron Paul's website.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you take the government out of the picture, nothing stops companies from exploiting workers any way they see fit.
Except for the unions. (Or Guilds as they were called in the middle ages). Anyway, back to yuor post. An anarchic system needs its members to behave responsibly to succeed. And they didnt. They fucked it up, and ripped us off, while getting away clean themselves. The only way a system such as todays works is with the occasional revoloution to get back at the bastards who fucked us in the first place.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Man I hate coming in on his side.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Explain to me how the "free market" would fix that little snafu.
The problem is that you are not describing a free market, where goods and information can flow freely. You are discussing the construction of monopolies, and the government regulation that keeps them in place. Often, regulations made with the best intent end up going awry. What ever regulations you make, people game. Even if it did not 'distort' the market, originally, someone will run with it make it distort the market. If people have free flow of information, they know about the risk of funds backed by subprime mortgages the government is generating. They know where jobs pay more. They know where people want more of a product. Free market is not the same as monopolistic capitalism.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
The problem is that you are not describing a free market, where goods and information can flow freely.
What makes you say that? We live in a society where information flows freely. People do know where jobs pay more. So do employers. An employer will reduce the rate of pay for new hires, if aware that others pay a lower rate for the same job. (Also, existing job holders may be laid off and re-hired at lower rates.) Conversely, where there is a skill shortage, the rate of pay is increased, to attract new hires and retain existing employees. Either way, pay rates for similar work will cluster around a norm.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are discussing the construction of monopolies
Can you explain how a free market prevents monopolies and cartels? We have seen Microsoft attain a virtual monopoly for nearly 30 years, simply by providing what its customers wanted, and for the 30 years preceding Microsoft, IBM likewise. How would they have fared in a free market?
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you take the government out of the picture, nothing stops companies from exploiting workers any way they see fit.
Except for the unions. (Or Guilds as they were called in the middle ages). Anyway, back to yuor post. An anarchic system needs its members to behave responsibly to succeed. And they didnt. They fucked it up, and ripped us off, while getting away clean themselves. The only way a system such as todays works is with the occasional revoloution to get back at the bastards who fucked us in the first place.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
An anarchic system needs its members to behave responsibly to succee
Exactly... That's the big hole in the libertarian agenda... Absolute freedom only works if you trust in the "goodness" of human nature. In the real world, that's a pretty bad assumption.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)