ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Would you dedicate your political activity to creating a real future like STAR TREK?

dfgrbac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 102

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 10:36 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 27 2012, 3:06 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 27 2012, 2:09 pm

>

>So people do not have the right to a job and earn a living for themselves and their families?
People don't have the right to demand a job from someone else.  If people can't find an employer, they can go into business for themselves and find customers.  It's those type of people that create wealth!


So you're not familiar with the many thousands of small businesses and Mom & Pop stores that have been destroyed by mega-businesses like Walmart.  This is not normal capitalistic competition - this is criminal.  The New Deal anti-trust laws have been ignored.  Monopolies now rule.  A small new business cannot compete against these companies.  Occasionally, someone does come up with a spectacular new invention or idea that flies on it's own and succeeds, but in today's world this is extremely rare.  And if one of these monopolies gets word of the idea before it is protected and marketed, forget it.


There are not too many of "those type of people" anymore.


Don Grbac

dfgrbac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 102

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 10:42 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 27 2012, 3:11 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 27 2012, 2:09 pm

>

>Darn, I keep failing to get the chart to display as you have done.  How do you display a graphic on this board?
If the picture is on the internet, just right-click the picture and then paste it into the reply box.  (That's the easiest.)


Right-click, huh?  Let's see:


Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.


Thanks for the tip, Bambam!  You're not such a bad fellow afterall.


Don Grbac

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 10:50 am

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 10:36 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 27 2012, 3:06 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 27 2012, 2:09 pm

>

>

>So people do not have the right to a job and earn a living for themselves and their families?
People don't have the right to demand a job from someone else.  If people can't find an employer, they can go into business for themselves and find customers.  It's those type of people that create wealth!

So you're not familiar with the many thousands of small businesses and Mom & Pop stores that have been destroyed by mega-businesses like Walmart.  This is not normal capitalistic competition - this is criminal.  The New Deal anti-trust laws have been ignored.  Monopolies now rule.  A small new business cannot compete against these companies.  Occasionally, someone does come up with a spectacular new invention or idea that flies on it's own and succeeds, but in today's world this is extremely rare.  And if one of these monopolies gets word of the idea before it is protected and marketed, forget it.

There are not too many of "those type of people" anymore.

Why is it criminal for one store to compete with another?  Why shouldn't Walmart be allowed the same right as the small business to have a store and sell products?  Why do you not like the much larger diverse inventory and lowered prices that Walmart provides compared to the limited selection and higher prices of other stores?


Walmart is not a monopoly.  I have many options to purchase products from.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 10:55 am

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 10:42 am

>Thanks for the tip, Bambam!  You're not such a bad fellow afterall.
You're welcome.  Glad it works for you.  There's another way to do it, but it involves HTML.



dfgrbac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 102

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 10:56 am

Quote: chr33355 @ Feb. 27 2012, 5:06 pm

>

> You are confusing development with manufacturing who cares if people are developing robots what if no one wants to build them?

>


Today, people would be happy for the work!  But in a future we are envisioning, a small group interested in this problem could create a robot to build other robots.  We are almost doing that sort of thing now.


Don Grbac

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 10:57 am

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 10:56 am

Quote: chr33355 @ Feb. 27 2012, 5:06 pm

>

>

> You are confusing development with manufacturing who cares if people are developing robots what if no one wants to build them?

>

Today, people would be happy for the work!  But in a future we are envisioning, a small group interested in this problem could create a robot to build other robots.  We are almost doing that sort of thing now.

We're getting there.... I saw a commercial showing where assembly line robots can repair each other.


dfgrbac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 102

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 11:00 am

Quote: chr33355 @ Feb. 27 2012, 5:06 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 27 2012, 3:17 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 27 2012, 2:09 pm

>

>

>And you wonder why OWS protests?
I don't wonder at all.  I understand it.... It's called HATE and IRRESPONSIBILITY.

And envy


If you two guys believe this, you're way off!  This "world view" stuff drives me nuts.  We need to learn to work together.


Don Grbac

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 11:02 am

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 11:00 am

Quote: chr33355 @ Feb. 27 2012, 5:06 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 27 2012, 3:17 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 27 2012, 2:09 pm

>

>

>

>And you wonder why OWS protests?
I don't wonder at all.  I understand it.... It's called HATE and IRRESPONSIBILITY.

And envy

If you two guys believe this, you're way off!  This "world view" stuff drives me nuts.  We need to learn to work together.

Listen to the protestors.  They hate that others have more than them.  They don't want to work for their own money and demand redistribution of wealth.


 


At one time, Americans valued thrift and hard work and value, but nowadays, people have been brainwashed to think that they can just get stuff for "free" (by having someone else pay for it.)


dfgrbac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 102

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 2:15 pm

Quote: EllisWyatt @ Feb. 27 2012, 11:17 pm

>

>To address Dfgrbac's question directly, the lynchpin for human expansion beyond Earth is, and always will be, individual liberty. 

>(--- and much other stuff ---)

>/soapbox

>


 


Wow! Now there is a world view that most people don't share. How do I address those comments without writing a book? I guess I have to try.


Because the production of material goods is our specific mode of survival, the sovereign right to own the material sustenance one has earned, is a logical concomitant of the right to one's life.  IOW, to say "The most basic human right is the right to your life," then follow with "But you have no right to the material goods you produce to sustain that life," is a crude and vicious contradiction. 


When you build something, you use resources. Some resources need to be manufactured from natural resources. Now going back to caveman days, who would you say owns all the natural resources? No silly laws have been written yet, right. So all those wonderful (God given) natural resources are available to everyone – equally. Each person or group is free to figure out what to do with them. The advancement of mankind's economic thinking (right or wrong) does not change that. Unfortunately, a line of thinking was started by people like John Locke (and probably much further back than him; he just focused the idea) decided that if you chop down a tree to build a house, you not only own the tree and the house, but the whole forest! Duh. I don't think so.


The house builder has the God given right to sell his house for whatever currency is used at the time, because he built it! But he certainly does not have the God given right to take the forest for his personal profit. The outright stealing of these forests and all other natural resources is what is happening today. Maybe a family happening to live in the forest is offered some small amount to move out so our industrious entrepreneur can take the forest, and they move. But they move because they don't understand the value of the forest. Who's fault is that? This is an example of one person taking advantage of others. Is it okay to steal if you just happen to be more clever than the rest of society? Some people would call him sneaky or devious. Stealing is stealing.


To answer your last sentence above, you have a right to your house, but your life does not depend on you having the entire forest. There is nothing crude and vicious about that.


Collectivism comes into play when several families in and around the forest realize that, if they work together, they can quickly (very quickly) build houses for all their families using the forests materials and creating a little village for themselves. Doesn't this look better than one guy “owning” the forest and becoming rich from whatever the families can scrape together to pay him to build a shelter for them. He is likely to build these shelters as cheaply as he can so he can build, and sell, more of them. The community owned forest, though, would result in all houses being of equal quality.


Further, since man's method of survival is the alteration of nature, any ideology that demands that nature be left untouched by human hands, is antithetical to human life and therefore is raw evil.


Yoy! Talk about inflammatory language. But of course we can use the resources given to us collectively. We should only use what we need, however. Why waste something so valuable? So collectivism is not so bad. The beautiful high quality village is far preferable to the shanty town next to that guys mansion, don't you think?


America's collectivism exists generally in the form of endless government regulation of every imaginable facet of human action, from the toilets and light bulbs we're "allowed" to use to the kind of government-induced corporatist collusion with business that typified the Dodd/Frank/Bush/Obama mortgage meltdown. 


Well coming up to more current times, we were doing pretty will after WWII until 1980 as seen in the chart I posted. We had more than thirty years of solid economic gain and prosperity with everyone sharing in the wealth. This period of economic growth happened largely due to New Deal regulation that corrected many of the problems that caused the Great Depression. Yes, banks were controlled during this period. Wages for everyone continued to rise until they flattened out completely after 1980.


it has ceased to be capitalist and now closely resembles the corporatism imposed by Mussolini's government in 1930s Italy.


Now there's a statement I can totally agree with! But this is what happens when capitalism is unregulated. Without ant-trust enforcement, monopolies form and competition is squashed. Capitalism is self-destructive.





Don Grbac

dfgrbac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 102

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 2:26 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 28 2012, 10:50 am

>Why is it criminal for one store to compete with another?  Why shouldn't Walmart be allowed the same right as the small business to have a store and sell products?  Why do you not like the much larger diverse inventory and lowered prices that Walmart provides compared to the limited selection and higher prices of other stores?

>Walmart is not a monopoly.  I have many options to purchase products from.

>


Walmart has a large, diverse and cheap inventory - indeed.  That's why a small business that does not have that advantage of scale can't compete with them.  This is good capitalism?  One huge company instead of all those squashed competitors.




Don Grbac

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 2:29 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 2:26 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 28 2012, 10:50 am

>

>Why is it criminal for one store to compete with another?  Why shouldn't Walmart be allowed the same right as the small business to have a store and sell products?  Why do you not like the much larger diverse inventory and lowered prices that Walmart provides compared to the limited selection and higher prices of other stores?

>Walmart is not a monopoly.  I have many options to purchase products from.

>

Walmart has a large, diverse and cheap inventory - indeed.  That's why a small business that does not have that advantage of scale can't compete with them.  This is good capitalism?  One huge company instead of all those squashed competitors.


And if someone comes out and beats Walmart?  It's called competition.


At one time Honeywell was huge, but later got beat out by IBM who then got beat out by Microsoft who's now losing share and it'll probably be Apple next.


Nobody is stopping you from going to Walmart's competitors.  I do when it's appropriate for me.


dfgrbac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 102

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 2:32 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 28 2012, 2:29 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 2:26 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 28 2012, 10:50 am

>

>

>Why is it criminal for one store to compete with another?  Why shouldn't Walmart be allowed the same right as the small business to have a store and sell products?  Why do you not like the much larger diverse inventory and lowered prices that Walmart provides compared to the limited selection and higher prices of other stores?

>Walmart is not a monopoly.  I have many options to purchase products from.

>

Walmart has a large, diverse and cheap inventory - indeed.  That's why a small business that does not have that advantage of scale can't compete with them.  This is good capitalism?  One huge company instead of all those squashed competitors.


And if someone comes out and beats Walmart?  It's called competition.

At one time Honeywell was huge, but later got beat out by IBM who then got beat out by Microsoft who's now losing share and it'll probably be Apple next.

Nobody is stopping you from going to Walmart's competitors.  I do when it's appropriate for me.


Those are not little competitors.  How many common folks can compete with that?  None!


Don Grbac

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 2:38 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 2:32 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 28 2012, 2:29 pm

Quote: dfgrbac @ Feb. 28 2012, 2:26 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 28 2012, 10:50 am

>

>

>

>Why is it criminal for one store to compete with another?  Why shouldn't Walmart be allowed the same right as the small business to have a store and sell products?  Why do you not like the much larger diverse inventory and lowered prices that Walmart provides compared to the limited selection and higher prices of other stores?

>Walmart is not a monopoly.  I have many options to purchase products from.

>

Walmart has a large, diverse and cheap inventory - indeed.  That's why a small business that does not have that advantage of scale can't compete with them.  This is good capitalism?  One huge company instead of all those squashed competitors.


And if someone comes out and beats Walmart?  It's called competition.

At one time Honeywell was huge, but later got beat out by IBM who then got beat out by Microsoft who's now losing share and it'll probably be Apple next.

Nobody is stopping you from going to Walmart's competitors.  I do when it's appropriate for me.

Those are not little competitors.  How many common folks can compete with that?  None!

At one time, they were little.  After time, if they meet customer needs, they become big.  That's what happened to Walmart too - Sam Walton did one store and took the profits to create another and then another and then another.  He competed.


xXLadyDataXx

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2297

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 7:10 pm

I would definitely dedicate my time into making equal rights a reality. I don't want to sound like I'm ranting or anything but in the U.S we are made to believe that we have "equal rights" when we really don't. For example, a group of people can't protest near a federal building and if they do they are asked to leave. Another example, you can't sue the president if he violates you. Also the government can mistreat their employees (federal) and the employees can't do anything about it. On top of that the rich people have tax breaks while the middle class take the hit. In jobs men get paid more than women. So how can someone tell me that this is equality!!?


EllisWyatt

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 22

Report this Feb. 28 2012, 7:21 pm

[quote]


[quote]


Quote:

Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade the pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.
Partially correct - but the USA is going against this trend and instead of a ruling rich class, the majority is enslaving the rich.


[/quote]


How can that be?  The majority have no political power.  The major corporations are running the country. Actually, I should be referring to the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about in his parting address to the nation. They have been setting the nation's agenda since WWII.


The real workers of this country used to have some degree of power with unions, but that has been in decline over the years from continuous corporate pressure to change New Deal laws protecting workers.


[/quote]


Some basic myth-debunking here:

1. "...government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class..." - does not specify which governments, but the obvious assertion here is that American government - at least in the Founders' formulation, not today's inversion of it - is no different than the monarchies and tribalist forms of the pre-American period and the other collectivist tyrannies (but I repeat myself) that have emerged more recently. 


That assertion is utterly false.  As I alluded in my previous, the very essence of an individualist, Constitutional representative Republic, which is what America was at its inception, is a separation of economics and state, which by definition is: capitalism.  Under a separation of economics and state, the government is barred by law from "acting in the interests of" ...anyone, except the individual citizens of the country - and only in the capacity of night watchman, "...to secure these rights" (i.e., life, liberty, property.)  

The intellectual fraud being committed in the first paragraph at the top of this post is standard boilerplate for retro-Marxian dogma: that "big business" somehow exercises "power" over people that can be somehow equated with the brute force that is the necessary essence of government.


Corporatism - the government/corporate collusion that brought us the mortgage meltdown and the bailouts that followed it - cannot exist in a capitalist system, because in a capitalist system the government is forbidden from interfering with the economy in the first place. Businesses themselves have no power to take people's money via force - via taxation and "bailouts," for example - therefore no "power" in the sense that we use to describe political power.

2. The only "power" that businesses have, whether it's a small Mom & Pop shop on the corner or a multinational corporation, is what people within the marketplace choose to give them via buying their products - or just as easily choose to withdraw, via buying a competitor's products, via buying nothing at all, or via producing a competing product themselves. Corporations have no "power" over people in any coercive sense.  The statement "The major corporations are running the country" is repeated by Marxian ideologues as an article of faith, like a religious mantra that might somehow become true if it's believed in fervently enough and repeated often enough.  Like all arbitrary assertions, it's logically and factually null. Only government has a legal sanction to use force, nominally under the constraints of just law.  Similarly, the statement "The military-industrial complex...have been setting the nation's agenda since WWII" is the stuff of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.  I'd always thought it was the Templars, Freemasons and Rosicrucians.  Silly me.

Corporatism, by definition, is a fusion of government and business, initiated by government. It literally cannot exist without an initial intrusion of government into business - without a government-initiated system of pull-peddling, of subsidies, of bailouts, of monopoly status and other favors.


Businesses for their part are not automatically blameless in this collusion, though their participation is of necessity secondary to the initial actions of government: Some corrupt businesses dive into the government game enthusiastically in order to reap a quick windfall; others sign on reluctantly, out of a sense of self-preservation against competitors who have no such qualms; and some, such as Ford Motor Corporation, refuse to dance with government at all.

Regardless of the ethical status of particular businesses, the key fact is that no collusion with government can occur without government's initiation and facilitation of that collusion. Under the separation of economics and state which is laissez faire capitalism, all such collusion is prohibited by law.

In his 1996 treatise "Capitalism," (which Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan compared favorably to the work of Adam Smith,) Pepperdine University economist George Reisman directly addressed the issue we're seeing today:

"Closely and necessarily accompanying the destruction of freedom in the United States has been the growing corruption both of government officials and of businessmen, who are increasingly under the power of the officials. The ability to violate the freedom of businessmen gives to the government officials the power to deprive businessmen of opportunities to earn wealth or to retain wealth they have already earned. The power of the officials is fundamentally discretionary, that is, it may or may not be used, as they decide...


"This situation inevitably creates an incentive on the part of businessmen to bribe the officials, in order to avoid the passage of such laws or the enactment or application of such regulations and thus to go on with the earning of wealth or to keep the wealth they have already earned. It is a situation in which businessmen are made to pay the officials for permissions to act when properly they should be able to act by right—by the right to the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to the pursuit of profit.


"At the same time, the government's ability to violate freedom gives it the power to provide businessmen with subsidies and to damage their competitors. This creates corruption of a much worse character, one in which businessmen are led to offer bribes not to defend what is theirs by right, but as part of an act of depriving others of what belongs to those others by right. Few businessmen are moral philosophers, and those who may have begun their practice of bribing government officials in order simply to avoid harm to themselves cannot be counted upon always to keep in mind the distinction between an act of self-defense and an act of aggression, especially when they must operate increasingly in the conditions of a virtual jungle, in which competitors are prepared to use the government against them and in which large and growing numbers of other businessmen are all too willing to gain subsidies at their expense. The result is a powerful tendency toward the destruction of the whole moral fabric of business.


"The obvious solution for this problem of corruption is, of course, the restoration of the businessman's freedom and his security from the destructive actions of the government officials. When the businessman can once again act for his profit by right rather than permission, when the government has lost the power both to harm him and to harm others for his benefit, the problem of such bribery and corruption will shrivel to insignificance."


- from Reisman, "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics," Jameson Books 1996, pp. 26-27


In sum, Bill Gates or Donald Trump each make more money in a single day - maybe in a single hour - than I make in an entire year.  But neither Bill Gates nor Donald Trump has the slightest iota of "power" over me.  If I don't like Gates' computer systems, I buy an Apple or Linux.  If I don't want to stay at Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, I can book a room at any of the other casino/hotels there.

On the other hand, government is brute force by its very intent and essence.  As Washington put it, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  The reason we create governments - again, as stated in my previous post and which has been apparently evaded - is to wield retaliatory force against anyone who would choose to visit evil against others in the form of force (or fraud, which is a species of force.)  We guard ourselves against the ever-present prospect of the government itself engaging in criminal activity against the people, by means of our Constitution.  The Constitution is not a document to limit the people, but a document designed to strictly delimit the sphere and actions of government; which sphere is solely: the defense of individual rights.

What Outdoors We'll Squat, the Democrat-Socialist Party and a number of remaining "RINO" Republicans seek is a three-phase power-grab:
 
1 - obliterate the distinction between corporatism and capitalism;
2 - blame capitalism
for the crises resulting from government-induced corporatism; 
3 - nationalize industry entirely, by brute force, as did the governments of Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. 


3. Lastly, the statement that "unions... [have] been in decline over the years from continuous corporate pressure" is simply not supported by historical fact. 

Unions have been in decline over the last several decades because workers have left them of their own volition.  The reason they've dumped unionism is because what were once organizations that gave a voice to employees and fought for better working conditions, have themselves since become vast, power-and-money-hungry bureucracies working not on behalf of workers but rather on behalf of harcore Leftwing politics, and lining the pockets of a small clique of union bosses who've gotten fabulously wealthy on the backs of:  the workers they're supposed to be representing.  Workers have avoided unions of their own free will - wherever there are right to work laws that free them from the compulsion - again, government-backed brute force - of union membership.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum