Hey Signy.... by 6ixStringJack

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Capitalism" and the "Free Market" are on life support. You're closer to getting your wish now than Palin is to being president.

Well, if capitalism and the freemarket are on life-support, then capitalism and the free market have only themselves to blame.

Right?

Because capitalism is an unstable system which is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Capitalism inherently concentrates capital, which inevitably reduces aggregate demand. (You might have heard of "company towns? Well, what happens when the whole world is a company town???) In order to keep "the system" going, money has to be re-injected into the "lower classes" either through the extension of credit or the printing of money (or deliberately recycled downwards through tax policies, but that's another story and it's called socialism.)

Prez Bush made things worse by doing what the capitalists wanted him to do: shoveling money upwards even faster, de-regulating (inevitably leading to crazy speculation) and putting the government into hock. What those short-sighted capitalists didn't realize is that they NEED props to protect them from themselves because otherwise the system would have collapsed (again) about thirty years ago. Bush just knocked all the props out from under is all.

I know you have in your heart the ideal of a society of small producers competing in a fair market for your trade- a la Adam Smith- but that view of capitalism is like a rose-tinted view of religion: it never existed and never will.

So don't blame ME for capitalism's failings. All I'm doing is pointing them out.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 7:20 AM

I wouldn't call a "Government Sponsored Enterprise" or GSE as they are referred to, either Capitalism or Free Market.

These entities are no such thing, and while no great fan of Capitalism, I do find the Free Market does a decent job on a smaller scale in practice - so long as there is effective counterbalance in the form of strong Trade and Consumer Unions, which are effectively prohibited in our current system simply because of the way the laws are written.

What we're seeing is the inevitable failure of any Govt sponsored corporation due to lack of incentive or valid reason to play by the rules, lack of any real accountability or consequences, and letting the folks write the rules they will be held by.

That's always, always gonna blow up in our face.

Quote:
Well, what happens when the whole world is a company town

Like it's not already ?

When those that print the money can ruin the value of ours while holding an infinate source themselves - and slam ruinous taxes on just about everything we own and purchase ?

The USA has BEEN a company town since 1933.

So I take issue with calling this Capitalism or Free Market, and I take issue with the idea that it doesn't work in practice cause that statement doesn't fit the evidence at hand.

More correctly would be to say Vulture-Crony-Capitalism specifically, and perhaps even Capitalism in general, cannot function in the concurrent presence of Government, because barring some actually effective check against it the two concentrations of power tend to merge over time into a single entity and destroy themselves, as WOULD have happened to Musolinni's Italy even if it had been left completely alone.

Our current economy is based on what is more or less a Ponzi scheme, has been since 1933, and no matter how big a bandaid we apply, no matter how we shore up that leaning tower, unless we change the whole goddamn foundation, it IS eventually gonna fall over on us.

I don't have enough economic background to really tear into the heart of it, but I am not stupid enough to label our current situation as a failure of a system to which it only bears the vaguest, passing resemblance, and that only because people with an agenda keep calling it such.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 7:57 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I wouldn't call a "Government Sponsored Enterprise" or GSE as they are referred to, either Capitalism or Free Market.

These entities are no such thing, and while no great fan of Capitalism, I do find the Free Market does a decent job on a smaller scale in practice - so long as there is effective counterbalance in the form of strong Trade and Consumer Unions, which are effectively prohibited in our current system simply because of the way the laws are written.

I think what signy is saying is that 'free market capitalism' doesn't really work. And he's right, the closer you get to pure capitalism, the quicker wall street goes to the wall.

Something working in small scales is no indicator, there's some very successful communist communes out there on the small scale.

The only system that has really shown itself to be stable in it's own right is feudalism, and I'd rather not return to that anytime soon.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:00 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Oh, sure, blame it all on Signy...

And really, none of you should be bitching about any of it - the meltdown, the bailout, the trillion(s) that you're on the hook for - because, after all, Bush didn't raise your taxes!

Thank god for small miracles, huh?

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:02 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

The only system that has really shown itself to be stable in it's own right is feudalism, and I'd rather not return to that anytime soon.

You're assuming that we ever LEFT that system in the first place... We just changed the names from lords and serfs to CEOs and workers. Same rules, different names.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The USA has BEEN a company town since 1933.... Our current economy is based on what is more or less a Ponzi scheme, has been since 1933, and no matter how big a bandaid we apply, no matter how we shore up that leaning tower, unless we change the whole goddamn foundation, it IS eventually gonna fall over on us.

So, what happened in 1929 that made the Ponzi scheme necessary?

A failure of capitalism, perhaps?

You have to realize, frem, that booms and busts have been with us as for long as we've been industrialized, even when we were on the gold standard and well before "The Fed" ever came into existance. When you sift out all of the variables that aren't consistent, only one remains: capitalism.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
John McCain's chief economic advisor and UBS vice chair, Phil "Americans are Whiners" Gramm, deregulated the market that's shoved Wall Street into the abyss: As I posted, in 2000 Gramm snuck a little 262 page amendment into a government re-authorization bill that freed the Credit Default Swap (CDS) market from regulatory scrutiny. It rapidly grew to $62 trillion and contributed to the stunningly swift decline in the stock prices of former Wall Street titans.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:25 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're assuming that we ever LEFT that system in the first place... We just changed the names from lords and serfs to CEOs and workers. Same rules, different names.

Actually in a lot of ways peasants were better off under feudalism than we are today. Serfs paid less taxes (in the form of days working on the lords land) and I even heard they got more time off (the Church insisted on at least 90 'holy days' a year).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM_ So, what happened in 1929 that made the Ponzi scheme necessary? A failure of capitalism, perhaps?

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:12 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Actually in a lot of ways peasants were better off under feudalism than we are today.

Serfs had no HD TV's.

Ahhh- that changes the equation, eh? Eh?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:25 AM

Freedom just doesn't work. It's nice in theory and all, but come on, the failure of the insurance and banking industry clearly shows that a free market isn't viable.

Comrade X, reporting for duty.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Freedom just doesn't work. It's nice in theory and all, but come on, the failure of the insurance and banking industry clearly shows that a free market isn't viable.

Hey Sarge! So astute of you to conflate freedom with capitalism. So, when Patrick Henry said Give me liberty or give me death! he was really fighting for the banks! Right?

You've been making the friggin' mistake for years now. Apparently you can't figure out whats going on, even when it's been predicted (right here), it's happened before, and it's right in front of your face?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So astute of you to conflate freedom with capitalism!

Heh... ironic, given that I was mocking your efforts to conflate corporate/state collusion with a free market.

And I do equate freedom with a free market.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And I do equate freedom with a free market.

Well that's stoopid! You don't distinguish between government and the economy? STILL making that same damn mistake, huh!

Quote:
Heh... ironic, given that I was mocking your efforts to conflate corporate/state collusion with a free market.

Not at all. But thanks for misrepresenting my point.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And I do equate freedom with a free market.
Well that's stoopid!

... ok.

Seriously, Signy, if you're not free to make and spend your money the way you please, you're not free. If that's stupid, then I'm content being a dummy in your eyes.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But there are other freedoms, too: right to assembly, free speech, right to bear arms, right to privacy, represent your interests in government... yanno, all that "stuff" the FF thought was so important.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But there are other freedoms, too: right to assembly, free speech, right to bear arms, right to privacy, represent your interests in government... yanno, all that "stuff" the FF thought was so important.

Yup, and they recognized the futility of any of those freedoms without the freedom to earn a living - that's why the taxation issue was front and center of their greivances.

You control a person's money, you control the person. How are you not seeing that?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Of course I see it. But do you feel that Microsoft and ExxonMobil and MasterCard DON'T control your money? Or you think they DO control your money, but you think "they" do a better job at it than the government.

So consider this: The government has mixed motives, over which you have some direct control. Monopolies OTOH have but one aim: to fuck you over as a worker, and to take over the market so that you HAVE to come to them as a consumer. The "freedom to earn a living" depends buisness- including monopolies. It has fuck-all to do with taxation. Why do you keep mixing them up?

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course I see it. But you somehow feel that Microsoft and ExxonMobil and MasterCard DON'T control your money. Or you think they DO control your money, but you think "they" do a better job at it than the government.

Or, neither.

You know my position on this, but you doggedly ignore it. Corporations, under current law, aren't operating in a free market. It's a fixed game. They use regulation and their lobbying clout to stack the deck in their favor. They then take advantage of the morass of bureaucracy and use it against us. They can afford armies of lawyers to manipulate the rules in their favor. The more complicated the rules, the more advantage they have.

Further, they exist in perpetuity regardless of their liability or financial debacles. They even manage to get the government (us) to finance their failures. They have precious little incentive to behave responsibly because their owners (nameless investors) can never suffer criminal or liable penalties, regardless of the heinous acts performed on their behalf by the executives. The only mandate from the owners of corporations is - make me money.

Private owners of business can lose everything they own, not just the amount invested in the company. They can be held criminally responsible for the actions of their company. They have powerful incentive to maintain diligent oversight over the companies they profit from. Corporations exist free from these limitations and it's a tremendous advantage.

All of this exists at the arbitrary decree of government. It could all be taken away with the stroke of a pen. If we had anything close to a responsive democracy, it would be.

So don't try to tell me that the free market is a failure because these asshats have screwed pooch.

You're not the only one lining up to "cash in" on the current panic. Every statist in the country is frothing at the teeth to use this as an excuse to seize ever more power for the government. Unfortunately, our media brain-washed public is primed and ready to do as their told, to give up more and more of their freedom to the fearmongers.

I hate to say it, but it looks like your side will win. It's ugly and it's sad. Congratulations.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You know my position on this, but you doggedly ignore it. Corporations, under current law, aren't operating in a free market. It's a fixed game. They use regulation and their lobbying clout to stack the deck in their favor. They then take advantage of the morass of bureaucracy and use it against us. They can afford armies of lawyers to manipulate the rules in their favor. The more complicated the rules, the more advantage they have.

Any large business, indeed, ANY large financial entity.... even churches... can use money to skew the system. AFA using bureaucracy against us... my experience is that small companies are actually more flexible and on-the-ball in terms of not only meeting but exceeding regulations, but large ones have the money to just outright fight them. So the big automakers spent a ton-o-bucks fighting CAFE standards, and the upstarts... the at-the-time- startups like Honda .... not only met regulations, they exceeded them.

Quote:
Further, they exist in perpetuity regardless of their liability or financial debacles.They even manage to get the government (us) to finance their failures. They have precious little incentive to behave responsibly because their owners (nameless investors) can never suffer criminal or liable penalties, regardless of the heinous acts performed on their behalf by the executives. The only mandate from the owners of corporations is - make me money.

Are you saying that corporations as an economic entity SHOULDN'T exist?

Quote:
Private owners of business can lose everything they own, not just the amount invested in the company. They can be held criminally responsible for the actions of their company. They have powerful incentive to maintain diligent over the companies they profit from. Corporations exist free from these limitations and it's a tremendous advantage.

Oh, you mean privately-held companies like Blackwater, Cargill, Hearst, and Bechtel? www.forbes.com/lists/2006/21/biz_06privates_The-Largest-Private-Compan
ies_Rank.html

Quote:

All of this exists at the arbitrary decree of government. It could all be taken away with the stroke of a pen. If we had anything close to a responsive democracy, it would be.

yes, ALL of "this" exists at the stroke of a pen: your gun rights, your right to privacy, the internet, university research ... Goverment has created good as well as bad.

Quote:
So don't try to tell me that the free market is a failure because these asshats have screwed pooch.

Sarge, capitalism ALWAYS gets ugly. Some day, you'll understand "econonies of scale" and figure out how that all fits in to the big picture. But your economy of "mom and pop" shops would br quickly overwhelmed by Walmart. At least Frem has the honesty to admit that advanced technology woudl take a hit. And frankly, I don't think you could keep people away from advanced technology, efficient production techniques, and widescale trade.

Quote:
You're not the only one lining up to "cash in" on the current panic. Every statist in the country is frothing at the teeth to use this as an excuse to seize ever more power for the government. Unfortunately, our media brain-washed public is primed and ready to do as their told, to give up more and more of their freedom to the fear mongers. The sad fact is, you'll win. It's ugly and it's sad. Congratulations.

OH C'MON, Sarge! I called my reps and I told them I DIDN'T want the friggin' bailout.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sarge

One of the weird things is --- EVERY political group I'm signed up for - from TownHall and The Federalist to Credo and MoveOn - has sent me emails to take action AGAINST the bailout. So opposition IS a bipartisan thing.

And who's pushing it hardest ? Who's saying we must act NOW !, there's no time for THOUGHT ! Not the 'evil statist democrats', you'll notice. It's Bush, the 'free-market deregulation' repubican.

***************************************************************

I hope this messes with your idées fixes just a little.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let me be blunt Sarge. You have a religion and that religion is capitalism. And like all religious, you'll find a million excuses for why it doesn't work the way it "should". Because if you just take away greed, economies of scale, advanced technology, monopolism, concentration of wealth, the stranglehold on the media and government, speculation, regulation, poverty ... why, it'd be JUST GREAT!!!!!

ANY sytem that doesn't actively work against the concentration of power (including the concentration of wealth) is doomed to fall to it. Power concentrates, inevitably, unless you biuld a system to fight it. The FF did their best to create a goverment in which power is distributed. But they didn't address the economy, which has changed radically from the colonial/ frontier system of the day.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:03 PM

If I have religious devotion to any political conviction it's individual freedom. My only interest in a free market is that it respects that freedom. 'Capitalism' is a loaded term that, when you use it, includes modern corporatism. If and when I use it, it doesn't.

Regardless, a free market isn't any kind of 'system' at all. It's just the government staying out of our economic affairs. Unless there's fraud, theft, or violent crime involved, what I do with my money should be none of their business. If we give up that fundamental right to privacy and self-direction, all other freedoms are moot.

The most important constitutional limitations placed on our government are those that keep it distinct and separate from religion and the economy. The FF didn't fail to address the economy. They deliberately created a government designed to stay out of it.

As that separation has become diluted, as we've allowed banks and corporations to manipulate the economy through 'fiscal policy' and other government intervention, wealth and power have become more entrenched and concentrated. In light of the current crisis, we'll be handing even more of the economy over to government control. Why would we expect different results this time?

I have nothing 'invested' in capitalism. If you can show me some other away for people to cooperatively organize that respects individual freedom, I'll gladly sign up. But I'm not interested in handing over my right to make decisions for myself to someone else, not to a corporation, not to a government.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And who's pushing it hardest ? Who's saying we must act NOW !, there's no time for THOUGHT ! Not the 'evil statist democrats', you'll notice. It's Bush, the 'free-market deregulation' republican.

That's totally true. The Democrats may be more vocal about defending the spirit of government intervention, but the Republicans under Bush have done far more damage in that regard. And they barely even bother pretending it's about protecting the people.

That's why I've usually felt more at home around liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans. Even though I'm more likely to disagree with Democrats on a point by point basis, I trust their motivation moreso (voters that is, not necessarily the politicians). I guess what's always confused me about Democrats is the contrast between their idealistic aims and their cynical presumptions about human nature. (ie we should help each other out, but no one will do it unless their forced to).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:56 PM

Sarge is doin a better job of arguing a point I really don't have the background to, but again, I must point out...

That the Govt has also eliminated the natural check and balance of strong Trade, Labor and Consumer Unions by an extensive history of acting against them every goddamn chance it gets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

Still waiting for a single example of when the US Govt or Military came in shooting on the workers side...

We've been over this, time and time again, and it's kind of ironic to see someone accused of religious devotion to the corporations, by someone with religious devotion to the state, when both of those parties are effectively at fault here.

But that aside - tell me, what happens in nature to a voracious, prolific species if you exterminate into extinction it's natural predator ?

It's the same goddamn thing here, don't tell me it's not - cause while I might not be so knowledgeable about economics in general, I do know history, and THIS end of things, I damn well do know quite a bit about.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:28 PM

Frem, I'm assuming you know a good deal more about unions than I do - even though I worked in one for ten years and my girlfriend is a Reuther (of the Walther Reuther clan). Anyway, what I'm getting around to is that I don't really share your enthusiasm for unions. Though I recognize their potential, and their historical significance, my personal experience gave me plenty of reason to believe they've done as much to harm their own cause as the government or big business has.

My grandfather was instrumental in unionizing sheet metal work in the Kansas City area, and my dad was in the union as well. What I've seen is an organization, that originally stood up against abusive employers, turn into little more than an exclusive good ole boys club that was more about maintaining union wages at all costs than it was about improving working conditions in general. In general they were elitists (in their own redneck way) who looked down on those not in the union, even as they jealously limited membership.

I also saw firsthand a corrupt cycle where the union acted in concert with construction companies in a symbiotic way. The unions worked hard lobbying politically for exclusive rights on government projects and large corporate ventures - they made sure all the big projects would be union. This limited bidding access on these contracts to the large companies who played ball with the unions. In exchange for their near cartel status, the contractors happily payed inflated union rates - everybody wins. Everybody except taxpayers and non-union workers that is.

To give you an idea, the typical non-union sheet metal worker in the KC area made $12-$18 per hour in the nineties, while their union 'brothers' were making $30-$35. I was proud of my work, but in no way was I worth twice as much as the non-union guys.

I'm hoping my experience wasn't the norm, but what I saw was a me-first attitude more interested in protecting their own fiefdom than looking out for workers' rights.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's just the government staying out of our economic affairs. Unless there's fraud, theft, or violent crime involved, what I do with my money should be none of their business. If we give up that fundamental right to privacy and self-direction, all other freedoms are moot.

What you're failing to realize ... and apparently will NEVER realize... is that capitalism inevitably turns into monopolism. Without fraud or force.

Look, you distrust government because in your view it just gets bigger and bigger. What about business? As a business accumulates wealth it can turn that wealth into more wealth. Buy up other businesses. Acquire media. etc etc

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
is that capitalism inevitably turns into monopolism. Without fraud or force.

That's demonstrably untrue. Every persistent monopoly of note was propped up by government. Seriously, the usual imagined monopoly example, where one person or company has exclusive access to a resource or commodity, almost never happens. Invariably, companies secure exclusive access to markets and resources through government collusion.

There may be examples to the contrary, and I'll honestly look into them if you point me to something, but I've not seen any.

(EDIT: I'm going to look into this issue again. The last time I did so was nearly twenty years ago when I was mired in Ayn Rand Objectivism - not always the most "objective" point view. I'm still betting that lasting monopolies not involving government cooperation are exceedingly rare.)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:56 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FREM_ So, what happened in 1929 that made the Ponzi scheme necessary? A failure of capitalism, perhaps?

Hello,

As near as I can tell, people got scared and took a dump in their shorts, and then called for a nanny to wipe it up.

The fact is, no one knows what a purely free market would look like, except perhaps some early westward settlers.

If I may borrow a page from the comics...

Whenever things go tits up, the people of the world turn to the government and shout "Save us!"

And in a perfect world, the answer would be a whispered "No."

But in our world, there are a plethora of powerful people eager to save you... if you only give them everything you have.

And we, as a frightened people, hand it all over time and time again.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:36 PM

Sarge, most of the negative issues that infected unions in the post industrial age can actually be traced back to the historical actions of two men.

One was Carnegie, who, right after machinegunning a bunch of workers in their tents, came up with the idea of using a proxy to create a workers union on his terms as a control device, making them easier to pacify and sabotage at need.

You can see echos of this today in many unions, especially in the crossover of union and corporate officials back and forth, and the union taking the company line against it's workers, the UAW has gone back and forth through this phase a number of times.

The other, was a lowlife bastard of the worst order and I sincerely hope he's slow roasting in the deepest circle of hell reserved for traitors and mutineers... and his name was Samuel Gompers.

He was a racist, a sexist, easily bought into a pro-war position with a nice cushy cabinet appointment and between 1905 and 1920, actively HELPED the Gov and Corps crush the IWW by any means necessary, breaking IWW strikes, and by any yardstick you wanna measure by a downright corporate-monopoly minded son of a bitch.

And on that foundation, the bricks of the AFL, and later, AFL-CIO was formed, just as the motherfucking scumbag Pinkertons were the foundation that the USDOJ was formed upon.

Is it any wonder that with such a foundation that both collectives are so hopelessly and criminally corrupt to begin with ?

And then throw in the fact that the Gov has always sided against unions 100% of the time that it's come to blows - and been bribed to prettymuch outlaw any effective tactic, and all you have left other than the IWW (which is by any means far from perfect itself) is a bunch of corporate suckups looking for a pat on the head with no real bargaining power other than outright treachery to both sides.

Modern "unions" are in effect, just another corporation, just as monopolistic, just as rapacious, and every bit as anti-competition, anti-free market, as the corporations themselves.

And that's just Labor - but also I mentioned Consumer Unions, and Trade Unions as well, the former still does have some power in spite of the legal system hamstringing any actual recourse (like how the only people who really get paid in a class action is the lawyers) because they can kick an abusive corporation in the wallet...

And the latter being consumed by the so-called labor "unions" in borg-like fashion.

But seeing as they're built on a foundation of shit, is it really any wonder the whole building stinks ?

Believe me, when I am speaking of Unions, I am speaking of the real deal, not these half-ass co-opted rejects that are all that corporate domination of the legal system has left us, a token resistance offered backhandedly by the elite as a mere pacification gesture.

There's a whole lot more to it, and the truely ludicrous extension of copyright and patent law ain't helpin a whole lot neither, but it's all part of the same whole - fuckers with money setting the rules in such a way that they profit and we suffer.

And if the rulebook is gonna be written THAT way, ain't it far past time to wing it out the window and play rough ?

Imma be downright crass, imma say it, even though I know damn well that I ain't the only one thinkin it....

Take the sumbitches responsible, and instead of handing them 400+ million dollar severance packages and golden parachutes at taxpayer expense, drag the fuckers out into the street in front of the place and shoot them dead.

And that's 400 million less out of our pockets and a good strong lesson for the rest of the bastards, now, isn't it ?

And no, I ain't actually advocating it cause I know too damn much history to think it's a good idea cause of where it goes from there.

But damn me, I felt it should be said, cause so many people are thinkin it, and not a ONE had the guts to come out and say it.

Like I said before, I am watching the Gov weld shut the blowoff valve with the pressure rising - no good can come of that and I would rather take our lumps now, than take em ten times over later, or worse, inflict it on our children and their children.

Fuck that, if there's anything I cling to more than life itself, it's that I damn well owe my nieces something more than the sum of our failures as a future.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge:I don't know if you count "intellectual property" as "government collusion" or "property rights" but three current monopolies are Microsoft, Cisco, Intel.

I think Frem has quite nicely pointed out that large monopolies quite effectively can mind their own interests, use their own "security" etc. without government help.

Frem- You're a dick. If someone is anti-capitalist then the ONLY thing you can imagine is a statist? Just because you lack imagination doesn't mean I fall into your limited number of checkboxes, ya friggin' moron.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge:I don't know if you count "intellectual property" as "government collusion" or "property rights" but three current monopolies are Microsoft, Cisco, Intel.

Ahh... I see. So you're just talking about businesses with a large market share. That's not exactly what I'd consider a monopoly.

Anyway, I do want to revise my previous statement. To say that monopolies can't exist without government support is an overstatement. But not as much of an overstatement as saying that free markets inevitably lead to monopolies. The fact is, they very rarely do. In fact, with most goods and services it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish a monopoly.

So, I'll go with this. Monopolies are real, and a problem when they occur. But they're anomalies and in no way an inevitable outcome of free markets.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Ahh... I see. So you're just talking about businesses with a large market share. That's not exactly what I'd consider a monopoly.

YOUR definition of monopoly??? WTF does THAT mean????

Quote:
MONOPLY: A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.

www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html

The progression HAS BEEN from small independent businesses to larger and larger ones through consolidation. Mom and pop shops to Walmart. Hardware stores to Home Depot. Rosie's Burgers to McDonald's. Independent clinical labs to large ones. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3230/is_n7_v30/ai_21026530
Gina from down the street to "big business" home health care
www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas
/407437-1.html

Quote:
The crisis “will create a real winner takes all environment,” said Jason Trennert, chief investment strategist at Strategas Research Partners. “Well-run companies not dependent upon credit markets will take market share from companies which aren’t well run and are dependent on credit.”

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/39e13070-8995-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_ch
eck=1

Only a fool would deny the trend. You're as blind as Rapo to the realities of the day.

---------------------------------

Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:47 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

My intent here wasn't really to start a war on Signy.....

Just saying that either the "free" market will be manpulated into something else, ore the "free" market will be manipulated into something else.

This is big, guys and gals. The rest of the year is the beginning of a new era. Only thing stopping us from that fate is ourselves.

Don't worry.... we'll figure it out when it's too late. It's human nature.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Only a fool would deny the trend. You're as blind as Rapo to the realities of the day.

Mark me down as a fool then.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Mark me down as a fool then.

Done, and checked.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:33 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Mark me down as a fool then."

Personally, I see you more as a blinded ideologue. Well, OK, that's a type of fool. Nevermind.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
My intent here wasn't really to start a war on Signy

No worries, mate. In order for there to be a "war on Signy" there has to be significant damage done. So far, the only damage I've seen is Sarge and Frem taking careful aim at their feet.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Sarge and Frem...

You say you want "freedom" and you think that you'll get there with "no rules". But in the absence of rules it seems that psychopathy often wins.

Frem's answer to that? "People aren't born that way". Well, yes, Frem- they are. Many people are made psychopathic by circumstance, but just as people are born black-eyed to albino... or without eyes at all... some people are born without whatever it is that makes for empathy.

Frem's other answer? "Keep things small and low tech". Well, good luck on that. Small and low tech may have more survival value, but you ain't gonna get ppl to give up their big-screen TVs and antibiotics because of your ideological bent.

And Sarge?
"Capitalism will solve everything! We just need to get rid of the state and jigger the free market into what I think it should be!" Well, good luck on that too. Don't let market forces run you over on the way to your ideal.

I see the question differently:

Throughout human history, power has almost always concentrated. Whether it is the power of the priest-kings, armies, merchants, aristocracy, media, or robber barons, what starts out as a small wrinkle turns into a huge inequity that becomes even bigger as one form of power (example- money) slops over into another (law and politics) and another (media and religion).

IMHO the answer is not "no rules", because you will prolly wind up with the same shit that we have today. What you need is a system that specifically and assiduously decentralizes and distributes power. The challenge as I see it is this:

What is the minimum number of rules and procedures that you need to create a stable, self-perpetuating system that will not devolve into a system of highly concentrated power, given that MOST people are non-confrontational, that advanced tecnology requires large-scale coordination, and that power tends to concentrate more in large systems?

You figure that out, and you've won the Nobel Prize.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral

"Caral was inhabited between roughly 2600 BCE and 2000 BCE, enclosing an area of 66 hectares.[1] Caral was described by its excavators as the oldest urban center in the Americas, a claim that was later challenged as other ancient sites were found nearby. Accommodating more than 3,000 inhabitants, it is the best studied and one of the largest Norte Chico sites known.

Paul Kosok discovered Caral (Chupacigarro Grande) in 1948, but it received little attention until recently because it appeared to lack many typical artifacts that were sought at archeological sites throughout the Andes at the time. Archaeologist Ruth Shady further explored the 5,000 year-old city of pyramids in the Peruvian desert, with its elaborate complex of temples, an amphitheater and ordinary houses. The urban complex is spread out over 150 acres (607,000 m²) and contains plazas and residential buildings. Caral was a thriving metropolis at roughly the same time that Egypt's great pyramids were being built.

The main pyramid (Spanish: Pirámide Mayor) covers an area nearly the size of four football fields and is 60 feet (18 m) tall. Caral is the largest recorded site in the Andean region with dates older than 2000 BCE and appears to be the model for the urban design adopted by Andean civilizations that rose and fell over the span of four millennia.

No trace of warfare has been found at Caral; no battlements, no weapons, no mutilated bodies. Shady's findings suggest it was a gentle society, built on commerce and pleasure. In one of the pyramids, they uncovered 32 flutes made of condor and pelican bones and 37 cornets of deer and llama bones. They also found evidence of drug use and possibly aphrodisiacs. One find revealed the remains of a baby, wrapped and buried with a necklace made of stone beads."

It appears two complex civilizations (the other in India) escaped the trap of dominance-based societies even with agriculture-based abundance.

If we could find out how they did that we'd be a lot farther ahead.

BTW - the city 'fell' not to invasion but to a mega-drought lasting many decades.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I propose the Agean society as another that (mostly) escaped the dominance paradigm. They were also based on commerce and pleasure. They fell to a volcano.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:21 AM

Whatever Signym. You lost my attention with your insults and hysterics. Play those games with Auraptor. I'm not interested.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, it's a bitch when the facts don't go your way, innit Sarge? I gave you example after example of private companies just as irresponsible as corporations, of modern-day monopolies (backed up by definitions of "monopoly" since it doesn't fit YOUR ideology!). Of ongoing consolidation. FREM, of all people, showed you how big business can protect its interests even without government. And we have the current example of private enterprise exploding in a fireball of pure greed right before our very eyes. A replay, I might add, of 1893 and 1929.

Your response?

You shut your eyes and plug your ears! "It's all the government's fault!"

There is a very good reason why Frem talks about learning from history. Here is another old chestnut: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I am not proposing greater state involvement, a point which you ignore. But you just can't stand your pipe dream exploding all over your face, can you? You're boring, and certainly not worth talking to.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:47 AM

Nice....

You know, there are people around here I disagree with vehemently, but I love to engage in debate because they challenge me and post thought provoking arguments. You seem to have the potential do that - but you don't seem to want to.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I gave you example after example of private companies just as irresponsible as corporations, of modern-day monopolies (backed up by definitions of "monopoly" since it doesn't fit YOUR ideology!). Of ongoing consolidation. FREM, of all people, showed you how big business can protect its interests even without government. And we have the current example of private enterprise exploding in a fireball of pure greed right before our very eyes. A replay, I might add, of 1893 and 1929.

Stop telling me your fantasy of how thing might work, or should work in the ideal world. Engage in the facts.

How did we get in this friggin' mess, not once but at least three times? Why did it occur at the same income distribution as in 1929 and 1893? How do we STOP it from happening again?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, yeah, I know... "If we just got rid of the gummint"

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:53 PM

Firstoff, on the notion that imma asshole ?

Gee, what took you so long ?

And in fact, Siggy I was being ironic and mocking you just a little, cause I don't consider you a state-worshipper any more than I consider Sarge a corp-worshipper.

Don't you folk have ANY sense of subtlety at all ?
Or is it just that your brain shuts off when your sacred cows go on the grill ?

Quote:
Frem's answer to that? "People aren't born that way". Well, yes, Frem- they are.

I suggest you take that concept to CITIVAS, The Child Trauma Academy, or Dr. Bruce Perry M.D. and see what they have to say about it, cause you're saying the exact opposite of the folk I consider the foremost experts on the planet as far as the subject goes.

And you are in fact distorting my position, not listening to what I said, or at the very least applying it out of context.

Nobody pops out of the womb a full fledged, fully realized sociopath, it just doesn't happen that way - sure, they might be born with all the markers and a very strong tendancy in that direction, but that is NOT the same thing.

Genetics might load the gun, but it's environment that pulls the trigger.

Goddamn, it's not like the last time we went over this isn't so recent.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=34613

It's just the "born bad" theory all over again, a convenient excuse to not bother with the early intervention which is so damn critical in preventing things from coming to that - a philosophy, mind you, that hearkens back to the theory of devil children and changelings, and ranks right up there with burning witches, in my opinion.

And taken in that bent, and yes I *KNOW* you don't mean it like that, but if I wanted to play the same sophistry game you seem to be throwing at me, I could say it sounds a lot like you're advocating infanticide.

Quote:
Frem's other answer? "Keep things small and low tech". Well, good luck on that.

Which is never what I said in the first place.
My EXACT answer is that if we were to implicate radical change, yes, we probably would take a hit to our technological base, which for some reason, in spite of me correcting that every time it's been said, seems to be a persistant myth for you because it's a convenient attack position - and as for small, when you break down an economy of scale to it's smallest element, what do you have but people ?

People CAN work together towards a common goal without the Government or a Corporation forcing them to do it, and while perhaps not as efficient, it damn well certainly does work in practice - if it didn't there'd be no such things as barn raisings or protest marches, would there ?

Quote:
What you need is a system that specifically and assiduously decentralizes and distributes power.

And this ties in with a lot of the stuff you've been saying about paradigms and the mental and psychological foundations of our society, in my opinion a great part of the problem is that folk are working from a mental model that does not have sufficient checks and balances against this kind of thing internally, and lacks the moral and ethical boundries which are the first line of defense.

See my admittedly wince-worthy comment about infanticide further up - what was your reaction to that ? why, repugnant horror.

You find it horrific, I find it horrific - I don't think anyone here would NOT find the whole concept downright revolting and probably offensively so.

Now ponder for a moment a mentality in which deliberately exploiting your fellow humans for personal gain carried that same level of repugnance ?

That is what Me and HKCavalier have previously addressed as something that needs to be in place in order to prevent, as you say, the same shit, all over again.

Quote:
What is the minimum number of rules and procedures that you need to create a stable, self-perpetuating system that will not devolve into a system of highly concentrated power, given that MOST people are non-confrontational, that advanced tecnology requires large-scale coordination, and that power tends to concentrate more in large systems?/

You do realize, you have just summarised the methodology I have been proposing from the very start, yes ?

How many times have I said it, you start removing stuff, one thing at a time, and you keep cutting it down till you have an absolute minimum that is unanimously agreed upon.
(and it's not like we don't agree that the very FIRST thing that goes is Corporate Personhood.)

And Sarge has a point, cause frankly, you do engage in quite a bit of zealotry, sophistry, and insult when this topic comes up, which makes arguing it with you not exactly the most useful or pleasant thing in the world.

Interesting bit about Caral, hadn't heard of that before - but my bet would be on their society being based around the non-aggression principle, at least in some form, cause the primary check against that behavior seems to be internal, and in such a case even if you do get some mentally-bent sociopath or equivalent through the cracks, because of the way the society is structured they wind up naught more than an individual aberration, outcast and powerless, cause they can't get anyone else to jump on board their little plans.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I suggest you take that concept to CITIVAS, The Child Trauma Academy, or Dr. Bruce Perry M.D. and see what they have to say about it, cause you're saying the exact opposite of the folk I consider the foremost experts on the planet as far as the subject goes.

I suggest you go the the Mass General Neurowebforums
http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=115 and take a gander at all the ills that flesh is heir to. Read what those loving, anguished parents have to say.

I've already said that many ppl are made psychotic by experience, didn't I? BUT NOT ALL. To assume that humans are always born with perfectly functioning brains with their empathy circuits fully intact is folly. Brain development is prolly the trickiest part of fetal development; it's no wonder that things like schizophrenia and autism and bipolar disorder happen. I'm not advocating infanticide, what I AM saying is that a system HAS to account for the fact that some ppl WILL behave in a sociopathic manner. If you can't account for that, then your system is not durable. It's as simple as that.

Quote:
People CAN work together towards a common goal without the Government or a Corporation forcing them to do it, and while perhaps not as efficient, it damn well certainly does work in practice - if it didn't there'd be no such things as barn raisings or protest marches, would there ?

The problem is that the "more efficient" systems do seem to overtake the less efficient ones. Again, you have to build in a firewall to keep an efficient (but ruthless) system from "outcompeting" yours.

Quote:
mental model that does not have sufficient checks and balances against this kind of thing internally, and lacks the moral and ethical boundries which are the first line of defense.

The problem I have here is the SOLE reliance on a individual changes of heart, or mental models, to change the system. While I think it is necessary, I'm not sure that it is ENOUGH.

Quote:
You do realize, you have just summarised the methodology I have been proposing from the very start, yes ?

I was very aware that I was re-proposing your question, however, not your methodology. But I'm glad you recognized it, even coming from my angle!

Quote:
How many times have I said it, you start removing stuff, one thing at a time, and you keep cutting it down till you have an absolute minimum that is unanimously agreed upon.
(and it's not like we don't agree that the very FIRST thing that goes is Corporate Personhood.)

I think we agree on much, but where we disagree is the idea of "just take stuff away". The problem in my view is that you have to REPLACE some of what you took away with something else that actively distributes power. The FF didn't just say "Let's get rid of monarchy". No, they attempted to replace it with a form of distributed power. Similarly, I agree with the idea of getting rid of corporate personhood, but if we don't actively replace it with something else, it'll spring up anew (in the mileu of trans-national trade, money and profit).

Quote:
And Sarge has a point, cause frankly, you do engage in quite a bit of zealotry, sophistry, and insult when this topic comes up

And he doesn't?

BTW, that was Rue that came up with Caral. She DOES come up with the most interesting stuff! Along with Mohenjo-Daro and the Aegean cultures, they demostnrate that it is possible to exist w/o warfare.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:46 AM