Left wing thoughts by dreamtrove

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I think we all share an enemy: The merger of corporation and state

Authoritarian Lapdogs & well paid higher Management would beg to disagree, I conjure.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, October 7, 2010 5:29 PM

Chris,

I meant, we, here, on the forum. Or most of us. Sometimes people post things that make me think that they saw a different show than us. One in which they thought "Wow, this Alliance is awesome. If only we had a govt.-corp alliance that was this iron-fisted."

Meanwhile, any thoughts on the Caprica premier?

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

Thursday, October 7, 2010 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sometimes people post things that make me think that they saw a different show than us. One in which they thought "Wow, this Alliance is awesome. If only we had a govt.-corp alliance that was this iron-fisted."

Where is AURaptor- I saw him recently... this is the droid you're looking for...

Quote:

Meanwhile, any thoughts on the Caprica premier?

Not interested in leftovers from the new BSG... should I be?

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 12:55 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sometimes people post things that make me think that they saw a different show than us. One in which they thought "Wow, this Alliance is awesome. If only we had a govt.-corp alliance that was this iron-fisted."

Where is AURaptor- I saw him recently... this is the droid you're looking for

Actually, the Alliance is looking more and more like Obama's America.

How anyone would think I'd be in favor of any such thing, such as Obama Motors, has some serious comprehension issues.

( you know who you are )

As for Caprica, it still holds my interest. And talking about series left overs, it's far more compelling than the SGU nonsense.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 1:36 AM

PENGUIN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As for Caprica, it still holds my interest. And talking about series left overs, it's far more compelling than the SGU nonsense.

That doesn't take much. Watching SGU is like watching paint dry. A really dark and boring paint.

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 2:00 AM

WHOZIT

Left-Wing thoughts? Liberals don't think, that's why Rick Sanchez got fired at CNN.

Those arn't boobs, they're lies! - Stewie Griffin

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 3:02 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

Wow, I was going to tell Chris off but now I'll just say you're both tools.

As for Distributism, I think that the current system would be like that if it actually worked or TPTB weren't so inherently corrupt.

And as for Caprica, I flicked on the premiere to see if it was worth watching. The first line I saw was: "Praise to the one true God, so say we all". My response was "fuck off". BSG's ending was a shit-arse mindfuck and I don't wanna watch religious ramblings of lazy writers dressed up as sci-fi.

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 3:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:

And as for Caprica, I flicked on the premiere to see if it was worth watching. The first line I saw was: "Praise to the one true God, so say we all". My response was "fuck off". BSG's ending was a shit-arse mindfuck and I don't wanna watch religious ramblings of lazy writers dressed up as sci-fi

Wow. Such a narrow mind.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 3:43 AM

The Patriot act was pretty alliance-ish too.

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 3:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

How anyone would think I'd be in favor of any such thing,

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 6:35 AM

Rap,

I concur on Obama, but I would have said the same of Bush. Upon reflection, I would say it of Clinton as well, this is a force which has been growing for some time.

On Caprica I also agree. Stargate was an excellent show which produced some real junk as spinoffs. By contrast, I find BSG's efforts more compelling, plus we have a couple key members of the old Buffy team.

Chris,

Yes, you should give it a try, try to find the first season, it's a confusing serial.

I'll offer this warning: It's not as good as BSG, Buffy or Firefly, largely because it gets distracted by a large number of marginally relevant subplots.

That said, it *is* Jane Espenson, and is pretty solidly superior to anything else I've seen in TV programming (excluding anime). Espenson's strength is characters. They are believable and their interactions are believable, even if they are not as well defined as Buffy characters, given time, they could be.

Dmaan,

What are you smoking?

I mean, you made it through BSG and it never occurred to you that it was a christian show? It was conceived by Christians, the message is Christian, and the original show was originally called "Adama's Ark." That said, Caprica could hardly be said to be one sided in sympathy to Christianity (thinly disguised as monotheism). It's a very complex world view. Consider that the Christian STO holds the place of Al Qadea here, and the "legit" branch of the monotheist faith is not painted as being a moral superior of the STO.

Also, if you're going to fly off the handle at the mention of Christianity, how did you make it through Distributism, which is, admittedly, a christian economic philosophy (GK Chesterton and his assoc. were quite open about this, in fact, the idea was originally drawn up in the church.)

Our current system is rather centralist, IMHO, and has, sure, been on the slippery slope towards socialism for a long time. But as the economy gets more and more centralized, and more and more govt. control, as it has for the last century or so, we have not seen a move towards greater equality, but one towards greater inequality. I think it's time to examine other possibilities.

My point in posting is that it's clear that there are some solutions that not all of us will support, but that doesn't mean that there are no common ground we could reach.

All of that said, I think the most important part is that we stop blaming the past and trying to figure out whose fault it is, but rather try to figure out the nature of the mess we're in, and how we might, together, get out of it.

And no, these two topics don't have anything to do with one another. Don't you love how I wove them together though?

Quote:

The Patriot act was pretty alliance-ish too.

Points for Kane. It takes a lot of courage to attack your own side, and none at all to attack the opposition. I concur, the Patriot Act is pretty alliance-ish.

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 6:54 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:

And as for Caprica, I flicked on the premiere to see if it was worth watching. The first line I saw was: "Praise to the one true God, so say we all". My response was "fuck off". BSG's ending was a shit-arse mindfuck and I don't wanna watch religious ramblings of lazy writers dressed up as sci-fi.

How dare they use fiction to explore modern issues! That's never what science fiction was intended for.... oh, wait.... I'm sorry, that's what it was INVENTED for.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 9:08 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Few seem interested in responding directly to your question, DT, but I will:

I would. I wish. I don't think it could ever happen. Which is a shame.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 10:55 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)

Actually, it SHOULD be a serious question for those on the RIGHT. Those on the left have been working for this kind of system, or something very similar to it, for hundreds of years.

DT presents it as if it's some kind of legitimate offer, or a gift. "How about THIS? Would you settle for this?"

Ask those on the right if THEY would accept distributism. Then we might have something of substance to discuss.

Note: This is EXACTLY what GlenBeck is preaching against when he says that you should report your church to the authorities if you EVER hear the words "social justice" being spoken there. Inform on your family, inform on your friends, inform on your church, and soon, they won't even be able to hide in the attics!

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 12:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, shit, ANY system, properly administered in an honest fashion - is as effective as any other.

Problem is, when you start handing power to make decisions FOR other people to single individuals, it all goes wrong right there because you've just brought back the caste system, class-based society, you see ?

And so some of us think the best system, is no system - which kind of eliminates that really, really obvious problem there.

Oh, and don't get me started on Christianity... just don't.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 3:10 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

I'm not smoking anything, but the depressants and anti-depressants I take can cause me to fly off the handle. Anyway...

I liked BSG all the way through including the last season where episodes were very hit-and-miss, I even liked the first two parts of the finale and I thought the religious allegories were well done. And then the last episode was lazy and confusing. God did it. So, God wrote "All Along The Watchtower". So, Bob Dylan is a prophet.

And I'm not against ideas from or by religious people (otherwise I would be close-minded, Rappy) so why would i be unable to accept ideas from them?

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

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

Friday, October 8, 2010 3:51 PM

Dmaan,

I've been on those, and I know what you mean. It's not a place I'd go again. A lot of natural nutrients can help. But I actually has a couple issues with the Finale, it was a little too pat, and Caprica isn't perfect, but it's got a lot going on, sometimes too much, but Jane Espenson is just so much better a writer than you typically see on TV, and also, of course, former right hand of Joss, so there's decent chance of running into friction on the subject here. As for the show's topic matter, investigating christianity as a radical fringe, and at times terrorist movement is not historically inaccurate, and is an interesting introspective that she does show us all sides of. It's also, perhaps, a chance for us to look at ourselves and our current predicament in the world in a more objective light. Meanwhile, it's IMHO fairly enjoyable SF.

Niki,

Hmm, possible common ground?

Frem,

Quote:
Problem is, when you start handing power to make decisions FOR other people to single individuals, it all goes wrong right there because you've just brought back the caste system, class-based society, you see ?

You nailed it here.

On Christianity, I don't think there is a fair generalization which can be made. I don't think that GK Chesterton and CS Lewis would do well in a room with Jerry Fallwell and Ted Haggert. Lumping christians together is like lumping and group together. I'm not a proponent of Christianity, I'm a Taoist after all, and, sure, as an ideology, it had weakpoints, often exploited by petty people, but then again, what ideology doesn't?

Mike,

You make an interesting point. I'm actually somewhat surprised by the response, but perhaps you're right.

In circles I discuss, this is mentioned often as a fringe free-market idea, where as the central economic idea is one side of the other of a debate between hayek or mises vs. adam smith, as right vs. right, but chesterton is still considered of this school, albeit moderate.

While I don't see that this is what the left has been working towards, nor do I accept it, though apparently some members of the left seem to support the idea, I said what's passed is passed, and the answer right now seems to be "yes, some members of the left would accept this."

I sort of assumed that the right would accept this, but you make an interesting point. Not about Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is an ass who will say whatever will get him more viewers or dollars. I'm not sure he preaches a consistent message at all. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I think he's off his rocker. But you're right, I made an erroneous assumption. The people I know and talk to, being people similar to my political perspective (since, lets face it, unless we're gluttons for punishment, we tend to talk politics with people who share our perspective) I assumed that a fair number on the right would as well. I feel fairly sure that they would, but I might as well test it here.

To the right,

So, the same question to the right, on the above link. Would you accept Distributism, or something like it, as an acceptable alternative to the centralized power elite? (NWO, TPTB, whatever you call them, and whatever you call their Alliance-like authoritarian imperialism)

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

Saturday, October 9, 2010 5:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, DT, common ground, and I answered your question as if it were feasible, since that's how it was posited. But I think Frem's right in that it's not possible...might have been in a smaller society, or not even then, since I don't think it's ever been actually done, has it?

As to the right, I think you will find them pretty violently opposed to the idea. Just a guess.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 3:30 AM

Niki

I agree that in its form, as laid out by Chesterton and Co it would get steamrolled by economic opposition, but it could be the foundation of a future economic model.

I disagree that the right would be opposed to it. Right wingers aren't really adoring followers of merciless multinational corporations. That would be Mac users ;)

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:05 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Niki

I disagree that the right would be opposed to it. Right wingers aren't really adoring followers of merciless multinational corporations. That would be Mac users ;)

Obviously you've never been to a tea party.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:06 AM

"Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer, etc. The "co-operative" approach advances beyond this perspective to recognise that such property and equipment may be "co-owned" by local communities larger than a family, e.g. partners in a business."

This sounds familiar to me, hmmm, oh I know America. The problem with "most people would be able" is that most people are lazy sacks of shit. Anyone who wants to own a plumbing co., a farm, a machine shop, or a leather tannery can. If they work, save and buy it, or start it from the ground up. We have co-ops we just call it LLC, or public traded companies, even.

See, that academia drivel on that page is a joke. Distribution in the real world(seeing we can't just take things from people who have earned them and give to another who never did...to start over) is tax the rich and middle class so they can't spend it on boats, tvs, cars, cigars, concert tickets, new cloths, etc..send it to Obama, and let him spend it on 15 new solar panels....or a couple million dollar batteries

This exercise in fantasy land gets us nowhere. Let's go play D&D.....Well, it's true....

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The right would never accept it. Never. They'll come up with a bazillion reasons why, but in fact they're wedded to TPTB. Thanks to Rappy and Kaneman for making the point.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 6:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, for a serious reply...

Great idea. If it could be implemented, I'd accept it as a vast improvement over what we have now. BUT it'll never work in the long run, for several reasons

1) It's an attempt to step back in time. It was a reaction to the Industrial revolution, and a plea to revert to a sort of agrarian/ small business utopia which never actually existed. Most of the forms of business to which it applies are small businesses (family farms, services, trades). I don't see in this article any way to address businesses which require large capital investments, such as automaking or or telecommunication. Even Adam Smith was more realistic, in that he ceded that government would create large infrastructural elements (in his day, canals and water delivery systems).

Attempts to step back in time, IMHO, are always doomed to failure. It would require a step back in technology.

2) It is inherently unstable. There is one thing that I can see in human history, and that is that power almost always concentrates: tribes become cities-states; lords become kings; small businesses become monopolies; and states become empires. There are several forces driving this nearly universal phenomenon: (a) economies of scale leading to greater efficiencies (b) the inclusion of larger and larger numbers of people leading the more complex economic ecology; greater division of labor; and more advanced technology (c) the natural sifting of sociopaths into leadership roles and (d) the tendency of humans to look to authority, especially in times of stress.

Many attempts to redistribute power downwards has been thwarted by the tendency towards higher hierarchies. Look at the United States- the first modern experiment in distributed political power. It took only 200 years (some would argue much less) to be completely corrupted by corporations.

Any attempt to redistribute power has to be accompanied by strong sets of safeguards ... several of them, along moral, legal, political, and economic lines... which would ensure that power would not simply be re-concentrated in short order.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The right would never accept it. Never. They'll come up with a bazillion reasons why, but in fact they're wedded to TPTB. Thanks to Rappy and Kaneman for making the point.

What? Let's say I was all for this witchcraft. How would you ever go about fair distribution of property already owned by someone else, the general public, or me. Do we burn the constitution to give Kwicko a farm?

One can already buy their own tools and start a roofing company, paint, or any of the nonsense in that link. In our system one does not have to work with or on another's property. It just takes something called initiative. Some people are just meant to be minions.

Or we can give every person on earth an acre and see what happens....Mass starvation is my guess.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 7:50 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The right would never accept it. Never. They'll come up with a bazillion reasons why, but in fact they're wedded to TPTB. Thanks to Rappy and Kaneman for making the point.

Happily, too. The choice will always be for freedom over more Imperial Federal control.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 8:25 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, as you see, DT, plenty of evidence has been provided to prove you wrong about the right. I don't see it so much being wedded to multinational corporations (tho' the system is such that they are, as Sig said), as having a specific mindset, and anything beyond that being incomprehensible, given the mindset is "set" to view things from only one perspective. Anything outside that perspective is viewed as "wrong", and rationalizations need to be found to refute it--some of which provided here are humorous--the rationalizations need not bear any resemblance to reality, it's the refutation which is vital.

I think both you and Sig have expressed the reasons why such a concept would never work; I didn't respond to the question as if "can we?", but more as a theory and question which would reflect people's view of the concept. As I said, I agree with the concept; I equally recognize the unfeasibility of it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, as you see, DT, plenty of evidence has been provided to prove you wrong about the right. I don't see it so much being wedded to multinational corporations (tho' the system is such that they are, as Sig said), as having a specific mindset, and anything beyond that being incomprehensible, given the mindset is "set" to view things from only one perspective. Anything outside that perspective is viewed as "wrong", and rationalizations need to be found to refute it--some of which provided here are humorous--the rationalizations need not bear any resemblance to reality, it's the refutation which is vital.

I think both you and Sig have expressed the reasons why such a concept would never work; I didn't respond to the question as if "can we?", but more as a theory and question which would reflect people's view of the concept. As I said, I agree with the concept; I equally recognize the unfeasibility of it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

Hey slugMugg, we agree on something....it is unfeasible.

THREAD CLOSED

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 10:21 AM

Mike,

Actually, I have, but I doubt you've been.

Kane,

No, america is very centralized. A better example would be the Ukraine prior to the Soviet take over. America of the 19th century and early 20th would fit fairly well, but our farmers rely on giant centralized multinationals and govt. as do our industries. The internet is a decentralizing force.

Consider that this stuff was written 100 years ago, and times change. Then consider that if we had an actual distributed free market, the domination we see from the FED, the Bush&Obama administrations and the massive debt, capital-redistribution and overseas wars would be impossible without the overwhelming consent of the people, things to which the people are overwhelmingly opposed.

I'm not sure, but have you met economics before?

Sig,

1. I think I pre-empted this by saying: something based on this idea. Obviously it's a century out of date.

2. point taken, I think I said it would need a defense mechanism against hostile take-over.

Additionally, I think it would need to make room for large scale economic operations, because some modern things could not be done by individuals, such as running mass transit systems, etc., but any such thing would need to have redundancy and local protections to insure that it did not become a route for control by the centralized powers.

Something strange has happened here. People on the left, to the astonishment of me, accept the idea, and then claim this is what they were always fighting for, when I felt quite sure that what they were fighting for was centralized control, as that's the overarching tenet of most left wing ideologies including socialism and the democratic party, but I'm happy that people are being open minded.

But then the left has decided to taunt the right into rejecting what was in its essence, a libertarian idea that came from the christian right originally, which was in the article.

And the right seems to take the bait.

But

Rap,

Wedding yourself to TPTB is the exact antithesis of individual liberty and is becoming intentionally directly subservient to imperial federal control, since they *are* TPTB.

Niki,

No, you have. The divisive political tactics of the left has created a knee jerk reaction. I've already sailed this idea by a lot of right wingers with no problem at all, hell, one swung it by me originally. It's a tea party idea.

This is a curious little fishbowl we have here. I see that the ideals of the left are not a liability, it is the left themselves, and the loud mouths of the left that are divisive, and a liability.

And the same can be said of the right.

Alas, a political future undoubtedly must include none of us. We're a liability in our old world pre-divided thinking, and any substantive debate must take place in our absence. Those who see no enemies will make decisions for the future, and that's probably better. I fear that it's all becoming clear: We are all striving for the same thing, against the same opponents, but refuse to ever agree with one another because one wears a red shirt and the other wears a blue one.

I give up.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 10:56 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Something strange has happened here. People on the left, to the astonishment of me, accept the idea, and then claim this is what they were always fighting for, when I felt quite sure that what they were fighting for was centralized control, as that's the overarching tenet of most left wing ideologies including socialism and the democratic party, but I'm happy that people are being open minded.

I only think you're astonished because you've never understood anything about "the left", if those are the things you thought it stood for.

"Centralized control" as part of the tenets of the Democratic Party? Seriously? Hell, the exact OPPOSITE has been true for so long that it's a hoary old cliché (look up Will Rogers's take on Democrats, for example).

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 12:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Do we burn the constitution to give Kwicko a farm?

Where does the Constitution guarantee capitalism, or even private property? Bet you can't find it in there, but I challenge you to try.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 3:17 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Rap,

Wedding yourself to TPTB is the exact antithesis of individual liberty and is becoming intentionally directly subservient to imperial federal control, since they *are* TPTB.

I stand by my statement.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 3:50 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Where does the Constitution guarantee capitalism, OR even private property? Bet you can't find it in there, but I challenge you to try.

Ooo, a challenge!

Amendment IV

“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

Amendment V

“ No person** shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ”

*Oops, forgot one.

Amendment XIV - Section 1

“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

-----------------------------
MULDER: "Well, what about you, where do you stand?"

SKINNER: "I stand right on the line that you keep crossing."

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

Buffy: "When you look back at this, in the three seconds it'll take you to turn to dust, I think you'll find the mistake was touching my stuff."

*ETA
**One could interpret as individual; personal.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 3:53 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon got me thinking, when she said that she could identify with this:

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

the day I identify with a philospohy that was primarily produced by one of the biggest, most corrup corporations in the world ie the catholic church, will be a strange day indeed.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 4:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RALPH... first of all, you misquoted me. The first part of my statement was : Where does the Constitution guarantee capitalism?

You ignorantly think you know what the Founding Fathers wanted, but you don't. I've been through this before several times, so I'll say this once more and hope that it will stick:

Corporations were chartered by a STATE. Furthermore, there were SIGNIFICANT restrictions on corporations back then: They could only deal in one commodity or service. They had to have their headquarters in the state where they were chartered. They couldn't operate their own banks, nor be bought or sold or traded. Please, if you like to think of yourself as an knowledgeable person, do some research into the law governing the economy of that time. You would be as surprised as the Founding Fathers would be if they were to see today's situation. The idea of a large unrestrained corporation treated to the rights of an individual would horrify them.

What the remainder of the Constitution says is that the State cannot take away private property without compensation or cause. That's not a guarantee of private property. If the State were to decide that certain types of private ownership (for example, slavery) worked against the interests of the nation of a whole, it could outlaw it, provided due process was followed and compensation was given. IN fact, as I read it, what the Constitution says is that certain things can supersede private property... that state, for one.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:14 PM

I see the Tories appear to be on board with the idea.

Magon, there was a time when the Catholic Church was all consuming, like the Communist Party or Islam. In Latin America, it still is. I don't think that distributism gave rise to the Catholic Church, but, just checking, would you eschew environmentalism and charity for the same reason?

Mike,

Nah, I just watched the platforms of the left's candidates and the govts. they create. Sure, I denounce the recent republican govts. as thin shells on totalitarian war machines, and I've heard you do the same of democrats... yet somehow they always have a way of reeling you back in...

ps. I know what it is too: It's the morons on the right who lose you with their personal attacks. Take a moment to reflect, and realize that the left is doing the same to the right. We are our own worst enemies. We defeat ourselves, and TPTB laugh their asses off.

Rap, You still haven't answered my question I believe, and I think your statements just posted are self-contradictory.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 5:37 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
RALPH... first of all, you misquoted me. The first part of my statement was : Where does the Constitution guarantee capitalism?

Subtract the 'P' and switch the 'L' and 'H' around. Please and thank you.

Your question had two parts. I OBVIOUSLY skipped the first part.

Quote:

You ignorantly think you know what the Founding Fathers wanted, but you don't.

*groan* Please point out where I said: "I know what the Founders wanted." [ <- This doesn't count.] All I did was quote The Constitution (from Wiki).

Quote:

What the remainder of the Constitution says is that the State cannot take away private property without [just] compensation or cause. That's not a guarantee of private property. If the State were to decide that certain types of private ownership (for example, slavery) worked against the interests of the nation of a whole, it could outlaw it, provided due process was followed and compensation was given. IN fact, as I read it, what the Constitution says is that certain things can supersede private property... that state, for one.

Okay? Are you for the guarantee of private property, or not? (No, I'm not pro-slavery. People are people, not property.)

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 8:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Your question had two parts. I OBVIOUSLY skipped the first part.

Of course. However, many people consistently confuse democracy ("freedom") with capitalism, It's a common mistake. They think our nation was founded on "capitalism", It wasn't.

Quote:
*groan* Please point out where I said: "I know what the Founders wanted." [ <- This doesn't count.] All I did was quote The Constitution (from Wiki).

Oh, so you pulled up random quotes from the Constitution without even reading them just because they mentioned private property?

Quote:
Are you for the guarantee of private property, or not?

No, I'm not for a blanket guarantee of private property. How about I cook up some nice bioweapon in my basement? That's private property, isn't it? Better yet, should I be allowed to own the Mississippi? Should I own the air and make you pay for it? How about if I'm allowed to put you in jail for owning an unprotected DVD? After all, even if you didn't STEAL my movie or copy it, you MIGHT. I might not be able to own you, but can I own your DNA? Make you pay for it? If you thought you had any software ideas,,, heh, I beat you to the punch, 'cause I have software patents that let me own your IDEAS! So, you'll have to pay ME for using your ("my") ideas!

Isn't private property fun?

In future, I will not mis-spell your name,

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I'm not for a blanket guarantee of private property.
.... Should I own the air and make you pay for it?

"Cohagen, give deese people airh!" - Total Recall

They don't get it, Signy.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 10:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, I think Rahl does.

When people talk about private property, they think about their house and car, a backyard, tools, clothes. What they think is "private property" is actually personal property... what one owns for ones personal use or personal production.

That's not how a sociopath thinks, though. A sociopath thinks about what they can own that will give them power over others: mineral rights, the ocean, rivers, rainwater, clean air, ideas, genetic material. It used to be in feudal times that the king "owned" all the deer in the forest. Even if your family were starving, and the king had more deer than he and his retinue could eat for ten years, you could not hunt the king's deer on pain of death.

When there is a vast difference in power, the concept of "ownership" only serves the powerful.

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

Sunday, October 10, 2010 11:22 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I see the Tories appear to be on board with the idea.

Magon, there was a time when the Catholic Church was all consuming, like the Communist Party or Islam. In Latin America, it still is. I don't think that distributism gave rise to the Catholic Church, but, just checking, would you eschew environmentalism and charity for the same reason?

I know that distributism didn't give rise to the Catholic Church, but that it was a philosophy devised by major players in the Church in the first half of the 20th Century.

I don't mind theories based on the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus when the big CC is involved, I get suspicious. It is, as I stated, one of the world's most powerful institutions, not exactly enmeshed in democractic institutions. This is an all male power house, where one person reigns supreme and is considered infallible in their decison making, and the teachings deny women any power or authority over their bodies let alone anything else that may impact on their lives. So, it's kind of a black mark on that philosophy.

I'd also like to agree with Signy's assessment, that it's out of date, much like Marxism....arising in response to the affects of the industrial revolution and no longer really relevant in the highly technological, complex world of today.

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

Monday, October 11, 2010 6:21 AM