Yikes. I understand. But do you not see that people will still be separated by income in your plan???
my plan may be flawed, but you have to admit we can do better than what we have now....
And I find it odd that you don't support that spending. Just like we make "war for peace", you've adopted that logic in your "separate people by money in order to ensure no one is separated by money" plan.
I don't quite follow your logic here...equal income...no one is separated because of class or income, we have equal representation in society and gov't.
Good lord.
When your "field is levelled", you're going to discover something very important: food cannot grow itself. Medicine cannot invent itself. Money cannot give itself value. The key to each is labor. And when you've equally distributed all the resources of this country equally, you'll see for yourself what happens to people who don't understand where those resources came from in the first place: the unequal labor of those very same people.
You realize the United States capitalist based system failed in the 20's? It took massive gov't intervention to keep the system alive, and entire industries were created just to give people jobs, industries we don't even need. And wants were created in the public so that said industries would prosper.
The US turned to a military industrial complex, and is now forced to produce billions of dollars worth of destructive products to keep itself afloat...and why not use all those wmd's on defenseless third world countries and open up new markets and resources while were at it?
The way it stood, we could have turned to 20 hour work-weeks, paying laborers more, and dividing the labor equally. That would have ensured that every individual would have had all their needs met-food, clothing, housing, free-time. Instead they turned to creating entire industries that produce crap that no one needs, in order to keep the public occupied, and not participating meaningfully in the political process.
my plan may be flawed, but you have to admit we can do better than what we have now....
We can do better than what we have now, by going in the opposite direction from your proposal and actually giving people complete economic freedom.
I don't quite follow your logic here...equal income...no one is separated because of class or income, we have equal representation in society and gov't.
You're getting just the opposite. In your plan, those who contribute the least amount of labor have the highest income / labor ratio and the highest amount of representation, while those who contribute the highest amount of labor have the lowest income / labor ratio and no representation. You're going to be stealing from those who produce and giving to those who don't, and you're going to have to keep doing it for the entire history of your plan. You'll divide people at first by rich / poor to "equalize" them, and then you'll have to continue dividing people by producer / consumer to keep them "equal", all the while trying to ignore their completely unequal contributions.
You realize the United States capitalist based system failed in the 20's?
Sigh...no it didn't. The United States capitalist based system went into a recession in the 20s and 30s. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, a governmental institution, allowed the money supply, for which it is responsible, to shrink by over 30%. Furthermore, the entire dependence on currency, created by that very same government, instead of something with actual value such as gold, made that Depression possible.
It took massive gov't intervention to keep the system alive, and entire industries were created just to give people jobs, industries we don't even need. And wants were created in the public so that said industries would prosper.
That "massive gov't intervention" you speak of exacerbated the problem and led to increased unemployment, increased inflation, and increased waste within our economic system.
The US turned to a military industrial complex, and is now forced to produce billions of dollars worth of destructive products to keep itself afloat...and why not use all those wmd's on defenseless third world countries and open up new markets and resources while were at it?
Now this point is valid. I doubt we'll find much disagreement on the value of the military industrial complex. But if that complex died tomorrow, capitalism would continue. Your plans, on the other hand, require that complex more than you realize.
The way it stood, we could have turned to 20 hour work-weeks, paying laborers more, and dividing the labor equally. That would have ensured that every individual would have had all their needs met-food, clothing, housing, free-time.
Sweet fancy moses.....
Go ahead and "divide the labor equally" amongst your friends if you wish. But please god keep me out of that.
How many other dictators have supposedly won democratic elections as well? And no, you don't see, because you basically pay no attention to Chavez's human rights record, which completely sucks. All you see is the fight against "hegemony" or whatever buzzword you want to use.
One need only look at Gitmo or Rendition to witness the stellar human rights record of the USA in action.
We can do better than what we have now, by going in the opposite direction from your proposal and actually giving people complete economic freedom.
back to the days of Carnegie and co eh? So you would have the gov't (and hence the people as far as the country is democratic) out of business, and this would ensure a free society somehow? I don't follow...
You're getting just the opposite. In your plan, those who contribute the least amount of labor have the highest income / labor ratio and the highest amount of representation, while those who contribute the highest amount of labor have the lowest income / labor ratio and no representation. You're going to be stealing from those who produce and giving to those who don't, and you're going to have to keep doing it for the entire history of your plan. You'll divide people at first by rich / poor to "equalize" them, and then you'll have to continue dividing people by producer / consumer to keep them "equal", all the while trying to ignore their completely unequal contributions.
a value can be placed on labor. The way it stands now its backwards. Why shouldn't somebody in a factory that produces millions of dollars worth of products every month or year see a percentage of that profit? In reality he/she's doing all the work, the real labor. Seems they are worth more...
Sigh...no it didn't. The United States capitalist based system went into a recession in the 20s and 30s. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, a governmental institution, allowed the money supply, for which it is responsible, to shrink by over 30%. Furthermore, the entire dependence on currency, created by that very same government, instead of something with actual value such as gold, made that Depression possible.
Millions of apartments and homes stood empty while millions were homeless, simply because they couldn't afford rent. Warehouses held rotting food while millions were hungry. If that's not a breakdown of society I don't know whatis...
That "massive gov't intervention" you speak of exacerbated the problem and led to increased unemployment, increased inflation, and increased waste within our economic system.
very well could be true. However, industries were created to give people work, rather than change the fundumental structure of the system. They decided to keep the system, one that had clearly failed in terms of social well-being.
Now this point is valid. I doubt we'll find much disagreement on the value of the military industrial complex. But if that complex died tomorrow, capitalism would continue. Your plans, on the other hand, require that complex more than you realize.
Sweet fancy moses.....
Go ahead and "divide the labor equally" amongst your friends if you wish. But please god keep me out of that.
One need only look at Gitmo or Rendition to witness the stellar human rights record of the USA in action.
and then there's Abu Ghraib
Unless you happen to be arguing that we should ignore Chavez's human rights record because the Americans have also abused human rights, your statement, true as it may be, is irrelevent for the present discussion.
Still doesn't work for me. Any system wherein the worth of a person is defined by the state as opposed to the market can hold no title to recognizing the intrinsic value of a person. Thankfully, even your "democratic socialists" don't do completely this, since they know whom to loot, just like the undemocratic ones do.
How does this count as aid? Seems like a straight up trade to me. A discount on some oil in fair exchange for some knowledge regarding transportation.
I kind of agreed with this guy in the article: The agreement was criticized by London assembly Conservative spokesman Richard Barnes who said, “I think that for one of the richest cities in the world to be getting foreign aid like this is indefensible,” reported the Guardian.
On further thought, London made a pretty good deal for itself, so I can't really fault their Mayor for that, and neither should Barnes. What would he suggest? Paying full price instead?
when i first started working, i lived in harrow but work was in Brent. Livingstone was the leader of Brent Council and caused so much trouble. I remember the dustmen went out on strike for weeks so we had rubbish piling up and rat infestations. We had to sneak our rubbish across the other side of the road, which was back in Harrow, so it could get collected.
Latterly I was working in London, Southwark to be precise, when Livingstone became Mayor. He is systematically trying to destroy London Business with his hatered of the car and anyone who drives such a vehicle. The business I work for was forced out of London thanks to his congestion charge, which after an initial drop has seen congestion return to almost the level before this tax was imposed. Last week the congestion chrge zone was almost doubled westwards. Consultations were held and 75% of residents and business were against this but he ignored them. Conservative estimates calculate this will cost this area 6,000 jobs and £200 million.
He told a jewish journalist that he was hassling him like a nazi! very subtle that one.
We have people living on the streets in abject poverty in London and Livingstone was at the forefront of bringing the 2112 olympics to London which is going to waste up to £7 billion of public money which could be spent on the homeless, health, the police...
the sooner the man is kicked out the better it will be but fucking idiots in london keep voting for him, despite the damage he is doing. I'm just glad I don't actually live in London any more, so he doesn't get his dirty hands on any of my taxes.
Not at all. The only native tribe to have arguably ever occupied my land was the Occaneechi. That tribe was a common trading partner with the British, and their land wasn't stolen. Much of it, as a matter of fact, was abandoned by the Occaneechi as they settled within British forts and towns.
I should've known - I don't know why I didn't - but I should've known. Your idiom practically demands a history involving an obscure, assimilated tribe like the Occaneechi as opposed to the larger native issue I was trying to bring up; and it dovetails nicely with your spotless ideology. You dodged my point before you were even born. Now that's some fine Kung-Fu.
But can you blame me? I'm sure we both know what happened to the tribes who would not so willingly assimilate. Most land in this country that exchange hands now was, at some point, stolen.
I should've known - I don't know why I didn't - but I should've known.
You should have known because your entire accusation was based on a string of ridiculous assumptions. You accused me of stealing land from someone, or being party to stolen land, without even asking me where I live. It's a joke.
Like I said earlier, you're somehow trying to throw my own points back at me. And I'm probably the last person on this board you want to play that game with.
Your idiom practically demands a history involving an obscure, assimilated tribe like the Occaneechi as opposed to the larger native issue [I was trying to bring up;
Hehe...the "larger issue" of natives? Do you want me to say that many Indians had their land stolen? They did. Do you want me to say that many crimes other than theft were committed against Native Americans? There were.
However, do you want me to take responsibility for crimes I haven't committed? That's not going to happen. Do you want me to label America itself as stolen property? That's not going to happen either, since in order to do that you have to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. That's a game you could probably play with the "common good"-ers here, but not me.
and it dovetails nicely with your spotless ideology. You dodged my point before you were even born. Now that's some fine Kung-Fu.
I didn't dodge your point before I was born. I was simply born without the Original Sin you're trying to pin on me.
But can you blame me? I'm sure we both know what happened to the tribes who would not so willingly assimilate. Most land in this country that exchange hands now was, at some point, stolen.
You should have known because your entire accusation was based on a string of ridiculous assumptions. You accused me of stealing land from someone, or being party to stolen land, without even asking me where I live. It's a joke.
Like I said earlier, you're somehow trying to throw my own points back at me. And I'm probably the last person on this board you want to play that game with.
Hehe...the "larger issue" of natives? Do you want me to say that many Indians had their land stolen? They did. Do you want me to say that many crimes other than theft were committed against Native Americans? There were.
However, do you want me to take responsibility for crimes I haven't committed? That's not going to happen. Do you want me to label America itself as stolen property? That's not going to happen either, since in order to do that you have to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. That's a game you could probably play with the "common good"-ers here, but not me.
I didn't dodge your point before I was born. I was simply born without the Original Sin you're trying to pin on me.
I don't really blame you, no.
Is there any way you can address someone's point by just the point they make in its entire post rather than line by line which dilutes the point they are making. I know this is your tactic but its trite.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
We can do better than what we have now, by going in the opposite direction from your proposal and actually giving people complete economic freedom.
I know this is completely out of subject (sorry) but I just want to understand something. By giving people complete economic freedom I understand you mean having no government intervention in economic transactions? If so how do you deal with the probable breaches of moral/law leading to or after the transaction? (such as rip offs, ecological wastes, life threatening means to offer products, exploitation (child or adult).
This is a serious question.
edit : In other words, how do you stop possible abuse created by a capitalist system without government intervention?
On subject, I can't see what the fuss is about, worse transactions have been made concerning oil. Though Chavez should worry about his image dangerously sliding from a charismatic leader opposing occidental hegemony to a "let me care about myself before my people" dictator.
back to the days of Carnegie and co eh? So you would have the gov't (and hence the people as far as the country is democratic) out of business, and this would ensure a free society somehow? I don't follow...
The government is in the business of controlling people. So yes, in that regard, I'd certainly welcome it going out of business.
"The people" you refer to include Andrew Carnegie, those like him now, and those who work for and with them.
If you wish to be in the business of dealing with men, you have two choices. You may freely exchange with them on mutual terms, or you may force them to acquiesce to your terms and sanction the same from them. There is no other option. The former is the path of freedom. The last is the path of guns. You can pretend otherwise, but such pretensions will not save you from the reality of your choice.
a value can be placed on labor. The way it stands now its backwards. Why shouldn't somebody in a factory that produces millions of dollars worth of products every month or year see a percentage of that profit?
Unless he is a slave, he does see a percentage of that profit. It's called his salary.
In reality he/she's doing all the work, the real labor. Seems they are worth more...
Sigh....
The "real labor" you speak of is at worst impossible or at best pointless without the men and women who give purpose to that labor. Let's say your man/woman works in an automobile factory, piecing together steel to form a car that will one day take you to work. Now, answer this very simple question: if it weren't for the man or the woman who invented that car, the man or woman who conceived its idea and its potential, what value would that same labor have? If your man/woman did the exact same labor with a different outcome -- a pile of steel that could not be driven, what value would that labor have????
Anyone can put two pieces of steel together, Commy. It is the idea of the way to put two pieces of steel together that can drive you down the road at 65 miles an hour that transforms a world. The idea, the progress, and the benefits to mankind are where the value lies. When you purchase something, you don't purchase it because someone labored on that thing. You purchase it because that thing has value to your life. Do you understand?
Millions of apartments and homes stood empty while millions were homeless, simply because they couldn't afford rent. Warehouses held rotting food while millions were hungry. If that's not a breakdown of society I don't know whatis...
Yes, it was. It was a total breakdown of society. A breakdown caused by a government that did not understand what actually gives value to the paper they print -- the labor and investments of the American people.
very well could be true. However, industries were created to give people work, rather than change the fundumental structure of the system. They decided to keep the system, one that had clearly failed in terms of social well-being.
The "fundamental structure of the system" was to ensure that currency and power are monopolized in government. It was that way pre-Depression and it remains that way today. And what you propose makes it even moreso.
Is there any way you can address someone's point by just the point they make in its entire post rather than line by line which dilutes the point they are making. I know this is your tactic but its trite.
People tend to write posts with multiple assumtions leading to conclusions. Rather than just one-liners arguing conclusions, I think it is helpful to go back and pick apart the underlying assumtions.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I know this is completely out of subject (sorry) but I just want to understand something. By giving people complete economic freedom I understand you mean having no government intervention in economic transactions?
Yes.
If so how do you deal with the probable breaches of moral/law leading to or after the transaction? (such as rip offs, ecological wastes, life threatening means to offer products, exploitation (child or adult).
This is a serious question.
I'm probably going to need more information here. What do you mean by "rip-off", "ecological wastes", and "life threatening means to offer products".
As far as general pollution and slavery go, if that's what you're referring to in the last two, I have no problem with social bodies acting to minimize/eliminate such things. Both pollution and slavery are rejections of economic freedom, not examples of it.
Is there any way you can address someone's point by just the point they make in its entire post rather than line by line which dilutes the point they are making. I know this is your tactic but its trite.
Yes, there is a way I can address someone's points by just the point they make. Unfortunately, most posters here want to make 15 disparate points, all leading into what typically amounts to a ludicrous conclusion that is rarely even related to the 15 supporting wannabe-axioms they've posited while a whole host of other points are required by their conclusions that go unmentioned, typically because they'd be too horrific to mention by the author.
Let me give you two examples. Your post above presents a single conclusion (farfromglorified is annoying) supported by a handful of underlying points. It's an excellent post because your single conclusion is linked to those underlying points, and it fits tightly together as a cohesive paragraph. There's no need to attack the underlying points or individual sentences, because they're both correct and relevant. I do break up posts. It is trite. And I can certainly see how it would be exasperating for some.
Humans are social creatures. It's good to cooperate with each other. Capitalists are greedy and stupid and don't understand how to cooperate. They should be forced to work with us and profits should be capped. Social programs help bridge the gap between rich and poor. Therefore, laws should be passed to ensure the common good. And I feel democracy is the best way to have our voices heard.
Now, do you see the problem here? We have all sorts of conclusions intermingled with a lot of half-relevant facts or blatant generalizations. That leaves two options. I can either write a big missive that disproves the conclusions by filling in the inaccuracies and discussing all the other philosophical and practical issues at play that "Somebody" either hasn't thought about or has actively blocked from their mind. Or, I can simply go point by point to decouple all of the facts and conclusions from each other and demonstrate the shaky ground it's all standing on in the hopes that, as occassionally happens, someone sees the errors in their thinking. The former approach takes a lot of effort on my part. The latter approach puts most of that effort back on the original poster. I tend to choose the latter because a) I'm often lazy b) I really don't have the motivation or the patience to write a ten page response as would typically be necessary and, most importantly, c) missive-style posts tend to be simply ignored here and would really amount to a complete waste of my time.
So, yes, I can do what you're suggesting. But here's a suggestion for you:
If you don't like my posts, feel free to ignore them. I won't be insulted.
You should have known because your entire accusation was based on a string of ridiculous assumptions. You accused me of stealing land from someone, or being party to stolen land, without even asking me where I live. It's a joke.
Like I said earlier, you're somehow trying to throw my own points back at me. And I'm probably the last person on this board you want to play that game with.
Hehe...the "larger issue" of natives? Do you want me to say that many Indians had their land stolen? They did. Do you want me to say that many crimes other than theft were committed against Native Americans? There were.
However, do you want me to take responsibility for crimes I haven't committed? That's not going to happen. Do you want me to label America itself as stolen property? That's not going to happen either, since in order to do that you have to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. That's a game you could probably play with the "common good"-ers here, but not me.
I didn't dodge your point before I was born. I was simply born without the Original Sin you're trying to pin on me.
I don't really blame you, no.
Jesus, dude. Actually, you've pretty much dodged the entire point right in the here and now. Do even jovial posts need to be addressed with such airs?
Jesus, dude. Actually, you've pretty much dodged the entire point right in the here and now. Do even jovial posts need to be addressed with such airs?
Hehe...right back at you friend, since your middle point here is anything but jovial.
Now, if you'd like to make an actual point here, rather than just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks, I'll address it. But you've gone from a) this is just a trade between two nations to b) farfromglorified is an Indian-killer in a handful of posts.
Hehe...right back at you friend, since your middle point here is anything but jovial.
Now, if you'd like to make an actual point here, rather than just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks, I'll address it. But you've gone from a) this is just a trade between two nations to b) farfromglorified is an Indian-killer in a handful of posts.
I'm not the moving target here.
Perhaps we have different ideas of jovial.
It seemed to me you had an extremely broad definition for the word theft. I was just trying to find it's boundries. Turns out it's more selective than anything else.
It seemed to me you had an extremely broad definition for the word theft. I was just trying to find it's boundries. Turns out it's more selective than anything else.
late'
Perhaps I'm confused? Where have we differed on theft? I've agreed that a) British tax money is stolen and b) lots of American property is stolen.
If you want my definition of theft, just ask:
Theft happens whenever property is coerced against the will of the owner.
Do you want me to label America itself as stolen property? That's not going to happen either, since in order to do that you have to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities.
By this logic, taxes can't be considered theft, as it would require you to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. America has taken it from you. But maybe I'm confused.
You also seem - and I'm saying "seem" here - to believe in varying degrees of theft based not so much on the amount taken, but by how many hands what was stolen passes through.
By this logic, taxes can't be considered theft, as it would require you to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. America has taken it from you. But maybe I'm confused.
You are confused. Societies aren't taxed. People are. People have individual and singular wills. Soceities don't.
Perhaps this might help: you want to pay taxes, right? If so, taxes aren't being stolen from you.
You also seem - and I'm saying "seem" here - to believe in varying degrees of theft based not so much on the amount taken, but by how many hands what was stolen passes through.
You are confused. Societies aren't taxed. People are. People have individual and singular wills. Soceities don't.
Ah, so I got it backwards. I assumed you meant that America can't be considered stolen property because a society decided to take it - and a society has no singular will, so therefore can't steal. So you're saying a society can't be stolen from?
Assuming the government is paying for it, which it probably is, then yes. Theft did have to occur at some point. But you're comparing two thefts that are not equal. In other words, you've taken one core argument of mine and ignored the rest. It's a caricature. If Britain's actions were comparable, the British government would be walking into the advice-givers' offices here, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to participate. That's not the case. Yet in Venezuela, that's exactly what happened in the offices of those who produce the oil that Hugo Chavez is so graciously offering.
The British government is walking into British citizens' homes, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to pay taxes. Those taxes are then passed through the government, used to pay the salary of advisers, whose ideas are then traded to Venezuela. This stolen money was 'laundered' so to speak; therefore, it is "not equal" to Chavez's more direct thievery.
Ah, so I got it backwards. I assumed you meant that America can't be considered stolen property because a society decided to take it - and a society has no singular will, so therefore can't steal. So you're saying a society can't be stolen from?
Hehe...wow. I obviously need to be more specific.
America can't be considered stolen property because America wasn't owned by a single owner or stolen by a single theif. It wasn't a singular entity or property. In other words, if I steal an apple from the grocery store, you don't say "All apples were stolen". You say "that apple was stolen".
Much of America wasn't stolen at all and much of American wasn't claimed at the time. However, parts of America were certainly stolen from various individual by other various individuals. Make more sense now?
A society can only be stolen from when a society actually owns something. In the case of Native Americans, wherein a tribe owned a specific land as equal partners, yes we can certainly say that a "society was stolen from".
The British government is walking into British citizens' homes, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to pay taxes. Those taxes are then passed through the government, used to pay the salary of advisers, whose ideas are then traded to Venezuela. This stolen money was 'laundered' so to speak; therefore, it is "not equal" to Chavez's more direct thievery.
I actually agree with this in principle, but not in the terms you're speaking. The key is here -- the advisers, the primary element of the British trade here, are willing partners. Yes, some of the tax money is coerced, much as the oil is in Venezuela. I'm just not going to paint with a broad brush here and portray the British involvement as equal to the Venezuelan involvement. The economies and coersion of both nations are not equal, and therefore the governmental spoils and moral implications of those spoils are not equal.
America can't be considered stolen property because America wasn't owned by a single owner or stolen by a single theif. It wasn't a singular entity or property. In other words, if I steal an apple from the grocery store, you don't say "All apples were stolen". You say "that apple was stolen".
Much of America wasn't stolen at all and much of American wasn't claimed at the time. However, parts of America were certainly stolen from various individual by other various individuals. Make more sense now?
So we're back to my original point - though this time I know better than to specify you. People are living on stolen land that was sold to them by those who bought it from those who bought it from thieves themselves (actually, there should probably be a few more "those who bought it froms" in there). Hands and - a new element - time dilute the theft.
I actually agree with this in principle, but not in the terms you're speaking. The key is here -- the advisers, the primary element of the British trade here, are willing partners. Yes, some of the tax money is coerced, much as the oil is in Venezuela. I'm just not going to paint with a broad brush here and portray the British involvement as equal to the Venezuelan involvement. The economies and coersion of both nations are not equal, and therefore the governmental spoils and moral implications of those spoils are not equal.
So we're back to my original point - though this time I know better than to specify you. People are living on stolen land that was sold to them by those who bought it from those who bought it from thieves themselves (actually, there should probably be a few more "those who bought it froms" in there). Hands and - a new element - time dilute the theft.
Your original point was that I was living on stolen land, not "people". If that was your original point, I wouldn't have taken issue with it. Yes, people are living on stolen land. But, as I've said time and time again on this board, the dominant part of this society really has no issue with stealing things. So I wouldn't hold your breath on that "dilution" thing.
So theft isn't simply theft.
Why not? Theft is theft. The British are stealing. The Venezuelans are stealing. But, again, the mechanics and purposes of those thefts are both different in their extent and prevalence in this deal.
If you steal $1 and use it to buy something that's worth $50, you're a thief. But the dynamic is different than if you just went in and stole that $50 thing to begin with.
Your original point was that I was living on stolen land, not "people". If that was your original point, I wouldn't have taken issue with it. Yes, people are living on stolen land. But, as I've said time and time again on this board, the dominant part of this society really has no issue with stealing things. So I wouldn't hold your breath on that "dilution" thing.
My original point was that people are living on stolen land. My mistake was that I tried using one of the few people in this country that isn't as an example. But you already knew that.
Why not? Theft is theft. The British are stealing. The Venezuelans are stealing. But, again, the mechanics and purposes of those thefts are both different in their extent and prevalence in this deal.
If you steal $1 and use it to buy something that's worth $50, you're a thief. But the dynamic is different than if you just went in and stole that $50 thing to begin with.
I hit "quote" when this post still just said "Why not" - and I got a lot more in the quote field than I saw in the thread. You worded differently a similar claim I was just about to post.
So in other words, we agree - theft isn't simply theft. Less tangible things like "dynamics" and "morality" play key roles.
My original point was that people are living on stolen land. My mistake was that I tried using one of the few people in this country that isn't as an example. But you already knew that.
Few people? Most people in this country aren't an example of your original point.
I hit "quote" when this post still just said "Why not" - and I got a lot more in the quote field than I saw in the thread. You worded differently a similar claim I was just about to post.
So in other words, we agree - theft isn't simply theft. Less tangible things like "dynamics" and "morality" play key roles.
Of course, though I don't like the "less tangible" language. Morality and dynamics are quite tangible. But, if you mean harder to discern, then yes I definitely agree.
Comments
my plan may be flawed, but you have to admit we can do better than what we have now....
I don't quite follow your logic here...equal income...no one is separated because of class or income, we have equal representation in society and gov't.
You realize the United States capitalist based system failed in the 20's? It took massive gov't intervention to keep the system alive, and entire industries were created just to give people jobs, industries we don't even need. And wants were created in the public so that said industries would prosper.
The US turned to a military industrial complex, and is now forced to produce billions of dollars worth of destructive products to keep itself afloat...and why not use all those wmd's on defenseless third world countries and open up new markets and resources while were at it?
The way it stood, we could have turned to 20 hour work-weeks, paying laborers more, and dividing the labor equally. That would have ensured that every individual would have had all their needs met-food, clothing, housing, free-time. Instead they turned to creating entire industries that produce crap that no one needs, in order to keep the public occupied, and not participating meaningfully in the political process.
We can do better than what we have now, by going in the opposite direction from your proposal and actually giving people complete economic freedom.
You're getting just the opposite. In your plan, those who contribute the least amount of labor have the highest income / labor ratio and the highest amount of representation, while those who contribute the highest amount of labor have the lowest income / labor ratio and no representation. You're going to be stealing from those who produce and giving to those who don't, and you're going to have to keep doing it for the entire history of your plan. You'll divide people at first by rich / poor to "equalize" them, and then you'll have to continue dividing people by producer / consumer to keep them "equal", all the while trying to ignore their completely unequal contributions.
Sigh...no it didn't. The United States capitalist based system went into a recession in the 20s and 30s. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, a governmental institution, allowed the money supply, for which it is responsible, to shrink by over 30%. Furthermore, the entire dependence on currency, created by that very same government, instead of something with actual value such as gold, made that Depression possible.
That "massive gov't intervention" you speak of exacerbated the problem and led to increased unemployment, increased inflation, and increased waste within our economic system.
Now this point is valid. I doubt we'll find much disagreement on the value of the military industrial complex. But if that complex died tomorrow, capitalism would continue. Your plans, on the other hand, require that complex more than you realize.
Sweet fancy moses.....
Go ahead and "divide the labor equally" amongst your friends if you wish. But please god keep me out of that.
One need only look at Gitmo or Rendition to witness the stellar human rights record of the USA in action.
and then there's Abu Ghraib
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
back to the days of Carnegie and co eh? So you would have the gov't (and hence the people as far as the country is democratic) out of business, and this would ensure a free society somehow? I don't follow...
a value can be placed on labor. The way it stands now its backwards. Why shouldn't somebody in a factory that produces millions of dollars worth of products every month or year see a percentage of that profit? In reality he/she's doing all the work, the real labor. Seems they are worth more...
Millions of apartments and homes stood empty while millions were homeless, simply because they couldn't afford rent. Warehouses held rotting food while millions were hungry. If that's not a breakdown of society I don't know whatis...
very well could be true. However, industries were created to give people work, rather than change the fundumental structure of the system. They decided to keep the system, one that had clearly failed in terms of social well-being.
kk.
Unless you happen to be arguing that we should ignore Chavez's human rights record because the Americans have also abused human rights, your statement, true as it may be, is irrelevent for the present discussion.
True.
I like your sig, by the way.
I kind of agreed with this guy in the article:
The agreement was criticized by London assembly Conservative spokesman Richard Barnes who said, “I think that for one of the richest cities in the world to be getting foreign aid like this is indefensible,” reported the Guardian.
On further thought, London made a pretty good deal for itself, so I can't really fault their Mayor for that, and neither should Barnes. What would he suggest? Paying full price instead?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
yes, i live in england.
when i first started working, i lived in harrow but work was in Brent. Livingstone was the leader of Brent Council and caused so much trouble. I remember the dustmen went out on strike for weeks so we had rubbish piling up and rat infestations. We had to sneak our rubbish across the other side of the road, which was back in Harrow, so it could get collected.
Latterly I was working in London, Southwark to be precise, when Livingstone became Mayor. He is systematically trying to destroy London Business with his hatered of the car and anyone who drives such a vehicle. The business I work for was forced out of London thanks to his congestion charge, which after an initial drop has seen congestion return to almost the level before this tax was imposed. Last week the congestion chrge zone was almost doubled westwards. Consultations were held and 75% of residents and business were against this but he ignored them. Conservative estimates calculate this will cost this area 6,000 jobs and £200 million.
He told a jewish journalist that he was hassling him like a nazi! very subtle that one.
We have people living on the streets in abject poverty in London and Livingstone was at the forefront of bringing the 2112 olympics to London which is going to waste up to £7 billion of public money which could be spent on the homeless, health, the police...
the sooner the man is kicked out the better it will be but fucking idiots in london keep voting for him, despite the damage he is doing. I'm just glad I don't actually live in London any more, so he doesn't get his dirty hands on any of my taxes.
But can you blame me? I'm sure we both know what happened to the tribes who would not so willingly assimilate. Most land in this country that exchange hands now was, at some point, stolen.
You should have known because your entire accusation was based on a string of ridiculous assumptions. You accused me of stealing land from someone, or being party to stolen land, without even asking me where I live. It's a joke.
Like I said earlier, you're somehow trying to throw my own points back at me. And I'm probably the last person on this board you want to play that game with.
Hehe...the "larger issue" of natives? Do you want me to say that many Indians had their land stolen? They did. Do you want me to say that many crimes other than theft were committed against Native Americans? There were.
However, do you want me to take responsibility for crimes I haven't committed? That's not going to happen. Do you want me to label America itself as stolen property? That's not going to happen either, since in order to do that you have to think of entire societies as having singular wills and responsibilities. That's a game you could probably play with the "common good"-ers here, but not me.
I didn't dodge your point before I was born. I was simply born without the Original Sin you're trying to pin on me.
I don't really blame you, no.
Is there any way you can address someone's point by just the point they make in its entire post rather than line by line which dilutes the point they are making. I know this is your tactic but its trite.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
I know this is completely out of subject (sorry) but I just want to understand something. By giving people complete economic freedom I understand you mean having no government intervention in economic transactions? If so how do you deal with the probable breaches of moral/law leading to or after the transaction? (such as rip offs, ecological wastes, life threatening means to offer products, exploitation (child or adult).
This is a serious question.
edit : In other words, how do you stop possible abuse created by a capitalist system without government intervention?
On subject, I can't see what the fuss is about, worse transactions have been made concerning oil. Though Chavez should worry about his image dangerously sliding from a charismatic leader opposing occidental hegemony to a "let me care about myself before my people" dictator.
The government is in the business of controlling people. So yes, in that regard, I'd certainly welcome it going out of business.
"The people" you refer to include Andrew Carnegie, those like him now, and those who work for and with them.
If you wish to be in the business of dealing with men, you have two choices. You may freely exchange with them on mutual terms, or you may force them to acquiesce to your terms and sanction the same from them. There is no other option. The former is the path of freedom. The last is the path of guns. You can pretend otherwise, but such pretensions will not save you from the reality of your choice.
Unless he is a slave, he does see a percentage of that profit. It's called his salary.
Sigh....
The "real labor" you speak of is at worst impossible or at best pointless without the men and women who give purpose to that labor. Let's say your man/woman works in an automobile factory, piecing together steel to form a car that will one day take you to work. Now, answer this very simple question: if it weren't for the man or the woman who invented that car, the man or woman who conceived its idea and its potential, what value would that same labor have? If your man/woman did the exact same labor with a different outcome -- a pile of steel that could not be driven, what value would that labor have????
Anyone can put two pieces of steel together, Commy. It is the idea of the way to put two pieces of steel together that can drive you down the road at 65 miles an hour that transforms a world. The idea, the progress, and the benefits to mankind are where the value lies. When you purchase something, you don't purchase it because someone labored on that thing. You purchase it because that thing has value to your life. Do you understand?
Yes, it was. It was a total breakdown of society. A breakdown caused by a government that did not understand what actually gives value to the paper they print -- the labor and investments of the American people.
The "fundamental structure of the system" was to ensure that currency and power are monopolized in government. It was that way pre-Depression and it remains that way today. And what you propose makes it even moreso.
People tend to write posts with multiple assumtions leading to conclusions. Rather than just one-liners arguing conclusions, I think it is helpful to go back and pick apart the underlying assumtions.
Yes.
I'm probably going to need more information here. What do you mean by "rip-off", "ecological wastes", and "life threatening means to offer products".
As far as general pollution and slavery go, if that's what you're referring to in the last two, I have no problem with social bodies acting to minimize/eliminate such things. Both pollution and slavery are rejections of economic freedom, not examples of it.
Yes, there is a way I can address someone's points by just the point they make. Unfortunately, most posters here want to make 15 disparate points, all leading into what typically amounts to a ludicrous conclusion that is rarely even related to the 15 supporting wannabe-axioms they've posited while a whole host of other points are required by their conclusions that go unmentioned, typically because they'd be too horrific to mention by the author.
Let me give you two examples. Your post above presents a single conclusion (farfromglorified is annoying) supported by a handful of underlying points. It's an excellent post because your single conclusion is linked to those underlying points, and it fits tightly together as a cohesive paragraph. There's no need to attack the underlying points or individual sentences, because they're both correct and relevant. I do break up posts. It is trite. And I can certainly see how it would be exasperating for some.
However, I see a lot of posts like this:
Now, do you see the problem here? We have all sorts of conclusions intermingled with a lot of half-relevant facts or blatant generalizations. That leaves two options. I can either write a big missive that disproves the conclusions by filling in the inaccuracies and discussing all the other philosophical and practical issues at play that "Somebody" either hasn't thought about or has actively blocked from their mind. Or, I can simply go point by point to decouple all of the facts and conclusions from each other and demonstrate the shaky ground it's all standing on in the hopes that, as occassionally happens, someone sees the errors in their thinking. The former approach takes a lot of effort on my part. The latter approach puts most of that effort back on the original poster. I tend to choose the latter because a) I'm often lazy b) I really don't have the motivation or the patience to write a ten page response as would typically be necessary and, most importantly, c) missive-style posts tend to be simply ignored here and would really amount to a complete waste of my time.
So, yes, I can do what you're suggesting. But here's a suggestion for you:
If you don't like my posts, feel free to ignore them. I won't be insulted.
Hehe...right back at you friend, since your middle point here is anything but jovial.
Now, if you'd like to make an actual point here, rather than just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks, I'll address it. But you've gone from a) this is just a trade between two nations to b) farfromglorified is an Indian-killer in a handful of posts.
I'm not the moving target here.
It seemed to me you had an extremely broad definition for the word theft. I was just trying to find it's boundries. Turns out it's more selective than anything else.
late'
Perhaps I'm confused? Where have we differed on theft? I've agreed that a) British tax money is stolen and b) lots of American property is stolen.
If you want my definition of theft, just ask:
Theft happens whenever property is coerced against the will of the owner.
You also seem - and I'm saying "seem" here - to believe in varying degrees of theft based not so much on the amount taken, but by how many hands what was stolen passes through.
You are confused. Societies aren't taxed. People are. People have individual and singular wills. Soceities don't.
Perhaps this might help: you want to pay taxes, right? If so, taxes aren't being stolen from you.
Not really, no. Theft is theft.
The British government is walking into British citizens' homes, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to pay taxes. Those taxes are then passed through the government, used to pay the salary of advisers, whose ideas are then traded to Venezuela. This stolen money was 'laundered' so to speak; therefore, it is "not equal" to Chavez's more direct thievery.
Hehe...wow. I obviously need to be more specific.
America can't be considered stolen property because America wasn't owned by a single owner or stolen by a single theif. It wasn't a singular entity or property. In other words, if I steal an apple from the grocery store, you don't say "All apples were stolen". You say "that apple was stolen".
Much of America wasn't stolen at all and much of American wasn't claimed at the time. However, parts of America were certainly stolen from various individual by other various individuals. Make more sense now?
A society can only be stolen from when a society actually owns something. In the case of Native Americans, wherein a tribe owned a specific land as equal partners, yes we can certainly say that a "society was stolen from".
I actually agree with this in principle, but not in the terms you're speaking. The key is here -- the advisers, the primary element of the British trade here, are willing partners. Yes, some of the tax money is coerced, much as the oil is in Venezuela. I'm just not going to paint with a broad brush here and portray the British involvement as equal to the Venezuelan involvement. The economies and coersion of both nations are not equal, and therefore the governmental spoils and moral implications of those spoils are not equal.
So we're back to my original point - though this time I know better than to specify you. People are living on stolen land that was sold to them by those who bought it from those who bought it from thieves themselves (actually, there should probably be a few more "those who bought it froms" in there). Hands and - a new element - time dilute the theft.
So theft isn't simply theft.
Your original point was that I was living on stolen land, not "people". If that was your original point, I wouldn't have taken issue with it. Yes, people are living on stolen land. But, as I've said time and time again on this board, the dominant part of this society really has no issue with stealing things. So I wouldn't hold your breath on that "dilution" thing.
Why not? Theft is theft. The British are stealing. The Venezuelans are stealing. But, again, the mechanics and purposes of those thefts are both different in their extent and prevalence in this deal.
If you steal $1 and use it to buy something that's worth $50, you're a thief. But the dynamic is different than if you just went in and stole that $50 thing to begin with.
I hit "quote" when this post still just said "Why not" - and I got a lot more in the quote field than I saw in the thread. You worded differently a similar claim I was just about to post.
So in other words, we agree - theft isn't simply theft. Less tangible things like "dynamics" and "morality" play key roles.
Few people? Most people in this country aren't an example of your original point.
Of course, though I don't like the "less tangible" language. Morality and dynamics are quite tangible. But, if you mean harder to discern, then yes I definitely agree.
People aren't taxed. For the most part, transactions are taxed.
That's an awesome justification. Black people weren't slaves. For the most part, their efforts were.