Slashdot Mirror
What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times?
New submitter minstrelmike points outs a two-page editorial in the NYTimes "about what would have been different legally, morally, and security-wise," had the military information released through WikiLeaks been published by the Times instead.
"'If Manning had delivered his material to The Times, WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein. In fact, you might not have heard of WikiLeaks. The group has had other middling scoops, but Manning put it on the map.' The writers also discusses what the Times would and would not have done, admitting they probably wouldn't have shared with other news outlets, but also admitting they would definitely have not shared everything."
He wanted it to get out.
Do you produce anything besides drivel?
Spin:
"heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein"
Reality:
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
"A full audio recording of the whistleblower is released today despite a court prohibition on such recordings"
Okay, I'll bite.
The end result of a journalist's work is a product (called a newspaper even if it's only rehashes of things we all know and it's posted digitally).
What's your job, and what's the end product?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I thought Manning shopped it around to all the big existing media and they didn't want to know, it was only after Wikileaks picked it up that THEN they came back. And as to unedited, Wikileaks was working with the newspapers to get the redactions done until.. The Guardian in the UK started dropping unedited stuff? Don't know for sure, a lot of finger pointing, but 99% of it always appears to be at Wikileaks and from what appeared to be going on at the time, they were doing the best they could to release slowly and carefully to avoid putting people into danger (though as pointed out, anyone who wanted this data probably already had it).
Waiting for an amusing sig.
There is absolutely no way NYT would have touched Manning's cable archives. They would have feigned interest and then shopped him. Bill Keller knows this.
The OP is the biggest piece of self-serving balderdash I've read in weeks. It's nauseating, and teeming with distortions and outright lies about Manning and Wikileaks.
I wonder if they would have simply sat on them for a year, like they did with the NSA wiretapping matter just because the feds asked them to?
At this point, "Why didn't he leak to the Times?" is only slightly less risible than "Why didn't he just register his concerns with the chain of command?"
From the article:
As an American and Global citizen I want to fucking hug Bradley Manning. I want to thank him repeatedly for the great service he has provided the entire world. He is a true hero in my eyes.
However, he's also a fucking traitor and deserves the punishment which is coming to him. People who are true heroes do not think about the potential consequences they face and do not look for a way out when those happen. They do things to save others, bring about change, etc and they do so selflessly. Manning broke laws and oaths he had to this country just like many others practicing civil disobedience before him. They all paid their price and so will he and I will still love every last piece of information he released.
The fact that The Times would not have published everything shows what a bunch garbage the mainstream press in this country has become. Journalists are the lackeys of corporate legal teams, chickenshits and oppressive management.
Let the heroes shine and let them take whatever comes of them once the protections afforded to journalists run out and the source must be provided.
Again, thank you Manning; I personally put your accomplishments far higher than many of those who have received medals before you even though you deserve every punishment that is coming to you.
NYT to whistle blowers: "Give your leaks to us instead of lame ol' Wikileaks! *WE* will make money on.. err... I mean *WE* will keep your data safer!"
"If we'd been given the material by Manning, we wouldn't have done NEARLY as thorough a job as Wikileaks!"
I'll admit I didn't RTFA, as I don't have an account there :P
WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates
That's one whopper of a half truth.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Sadly news media like the New York Times are simply not free to publish. They are vulnerable to government and there can be no real recourse if government acts against them. Worse yet they are vulnerable to large and small business people. For example crime reporting does not encourage people to be out and about shopping, eating in restaurants, and simply being consumers. News media garner their money from advertizing and certain kinds of reporting simply generate ire from advertisers. The end result is the sing-song, happy faced, mild and gentle style of reporting that we so often are force fed. Conversely, hard hitting investigative reporting is expensive, is a legal mine field waiting to blow the legs off of a newspaper, and gets one in deep trouble with advertisers.
The results are a highly controlled news media. In many towns and cities if the public really was aware of what happens daily they would be at home hiding under their beds.
If Manning had leaked to the NY Times, only the Chinese hackers would know for sure what he leaked.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57566810/new-york-times-chinese-hackers-attacked-our-computers-for-months/
Come to think of it, why are all these news orgs outing themselves as being hacked? Is it to provide some sort of plausible denial that they are the ones who someone leaked something important?
> WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein
The unredacted cables were published by accident, with Wikileaks and The Guardian being about equally neglectful. The op-eds claim of "[publishing] heedless of the risk" here is a lie.
I know that it is an op-ed, and therefore not the New York Times' opinion, but the New York Times still have a responsibility to do a basic fact check before posting it.
My bird disagrees. He says it's just more war mongering, lapdog press, like the Washington Post.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What If The New York Times Still Mattered?
If he'd leaked to NYT then nobody would have read the cables at all because the site is paywalled.
somebody forgot to take their laxatives this morning...
"'If Manning had delivered his material to The Times"
I would bet 99% of the information would never had seen the light of day. The press and government are far too intertwined these days, investigative journalism is virtually dead. Most "articles" are press releases that are copy/pasted from their source with a few comments by the "writer" of the article.
The problem with Manning's case is that, rather than finding actual glaring examples of wrongdoing, he just copied everything and offered the raw data.
Supposedly, he was so outraged by the rampant abuses perpetrated by the US that he was compelled to get the truth out. But rather than actually highlighting those outrageous abuses and revealing them, he just dropped a huge infodump of mostly boring government paperwork and said, "Oh, yeah, there's some really heinous stuff in there, yeah, so heinous that I'll let you all dig through it all and find it for yourself!"
That doesn't exactly get journalists excited. Most of them have deadlines, after all.
NYT journalist?
Here's some fucking news, you cannot tax an economy into prosperity, unemployment is increasing and the cost of fucking hamburgers is going up thanks to Obama and all the socialists elected and supported by the NYT. They do not report news, they spin and transcribe what the elitists in government tell them to say. That's all.
What I do is none of your fucking business.
Sure you can tax into prosperity... Tax pays for services needed for prosperity, like security (police, defense), libraries, transport and communication infrastructure, education, a legal system etc at a minimum. This obviously doesn't mean that "more tax is always better", but some level of tax is needed. Providing care for the elderly and children increases the workforce and thus prosperity, but also requires funding.
The society might also find that handling things like health together through the tax system has benefits - when looked at purely through the numbers, US clearly pays far more (as %GDP) than anyone else with not very good results.
What the fuck planet is this author from? The government would have gotten wind of it, after they likely reported it to the government, and they would have immediately handed it all over with a court gag order in place as well. Receiving stolen property is illegal. Receiving stolen government classified intel is probably more illegal. Publishing it online and in the paper is mega ultimate super-illegal so no, not a damn word of it would have gotten out. I can't believe Slashdot let this idiotic of a fantasy story through.
Oh you think it's fucking funny huh? This is some kind of fucking joke? These socialist scumbags steal my money that I need to care for my family and you stupid elitist pricks all have a big laugh about the EVIL CONSERVATIVE and you pat each other on the back to cheer on yet more and more government, more regulations, more taxation, theft and erosion of the civil society.
Fuck off. Socialists are thieving lowlife scumbags and nothing else. Yes that's you.
You sound like a petulant child. There is no "socialism" in Somalia, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Then we would have never known about the leak or Manning as the NYT's are willing co-conspirators with our federal govmt.
WikiLeaks would not have been able to post the unedited cables, as it ultimately did, heedless of the risk to human rights advocates, dissidents and informants named therein.
Either if the poster is a troll, has political motives or is just ignorant of the facts I cannot say. What I can say, is that, there are no unedited cables in the open the cables where edited to remove the names and only 3 names came out to the public, for reasons explained by the WikiLeaks team.
I think it's funny as hell as I drive my Mercedes-Benz MG550 to go pick up a copy of the NYT. I voted for Obama twice.
The New York times would censor anything that would piss off major politicians. They simply would not want to lose their access to these folks and as such would have buried any cables on the backpages and censored anything too embarrassing.
Be careful what you wish for.
We could always move the tax rates back to where they were when Reagan was in office.
It might actually pay for all of our military traipsing around the world.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
None of this would be known: Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi
His business is being unemployed.
Also wealth redistribution can be good for an economy. It is what made the USA the powerhouse it was. WW2 and the programs of the great depression moved lots of money into the hand of the new middle class, they spent that money thus driving the economy. A single rich person has only so many needs they will spend money on, taking that money and giving it to people who will spend it will improve the economy. Today we see the reverse with a shrinking middle class and a slowing economy as wealth accumulates in the hands of a small few.
These are just facts, they have nothing to do with the morality of such action.
But see, that changes as soon as you call that rich person a Job Creator. A Job Creator can spend infinite money creating jobs, whereas the middle class will waste in on pointless things like mortgages, new technology, and transportation.
We just think it's funny that you keep calling Obama a socialist. All it shows is that you have no clue what the word means. Obama is not a socialist. The American Socialist Party doesn't even think he's a socialist.
I don't like or support Obama, but not because of his economic stance. The fact is that he'd be able to get a lot more done to help the country on the economic front if the Republicans weren't bound and determined to block everything he attempts to do.
Technoli
Haha, it's funny because you're stupid.
A yes the mythical supply side economic system. One in which the rich hire poor people because they simply have too much profit in their companies. No matter how many folks are standing around getting paid to scratch their asses the "Job Creator" hires more and more workers as his revenue goes up or taxes go down.
These people must believe that the rich are no smarter than your average house cat.
Make them all get real jobs and start producing like the rest of us.
Maybe your mother could teach them how to give handjobs and blowjobs for money.
Undo modding post...
Unless you show me an internal NYT document that can be clearly shown as having been written BEFORE the wikileaks thing that describes their policy on such matters, this is all revisionist history. How many times has the NYT published something they should have either a) confirmed or b) thought twice about because it would get someone killed?
Being a Patriot I think we should do all we can do to protect the country and that sometimes means keeping secrets.
I do think everyone should be treated the same. It does not seem fair to prosecute WikiLeaks for excepting information and reporting on it when other Media organization have done the same in the past.
In 1992, Ted Gup of the The Washington Post revealed a classified, underground facility, named "Project Greek Island" at The Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia. The bunker was completed in 1962 at a cost of $14,069,000 and remained secret for 30 years. Ted Gup was never charged for revealing government secrets or made to pay back any of the tax payers money that was lost.
I just think if a reporter from the Washington post can report on top secret data then we should allow any reporting agency to do the same.
Comeback without the strawman and total misunderstanding of systemic poverty and we can talk. Until then, fuck off.
By your own tautology, whatever you are doing, you aren't doing it well enough to be compisated by the free market to support your family. The other guy your arguing with can. Instead of complaing about the government, you should be focusing on earning enough to do it by yourself. The socialists aren't your problem, you are.
It would have ended up being some small little story, A summary of the events, and it would have ended there.
you stupid elitist pricks all have a big laugh about the EVIL CONSERVATIVE and you pat each other on the back to cheer on yet more and more government, more regulations, more taxation, theft and erosion of the civil society.
You know, it takes a truly exception level of delusion to think that it's the elite in this country who want more taxes on themselves, and the average working people who want to cut all benefit programs and social safety nets for the average working people.
Yes, I'm sure all the billionaire power-brokers in this country are all Democrats who just hate it when Republicans pass tax breaks and pro-corporate laws that benefit themselves greatly. "Oh no, please make me pay more taxes and take away these laws that allow me to lord over the poor like a God!" I can hear Donald Trump and the Koch brothers saying.
Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?
Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
Not sure why mods thought this was flamebait initially. It sure looks like a reasonable contribution to the thread, regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees.
Well, the first thing that would happend is the in-house spooks would have leaked it to their station chief ...
AccountKiller
Sure you can tax into prosperity... Tax pays for services needed for prosperity, like security (police, defense), libraries, transport and communication infrastructure,
education, a legal system etc at a minimum. This obviously doesn't mean that "more tax is always better", but some level of tax is needed. Providing care for the elderly and children increases the workforce and thus prosperity, but also requires funding.
One of the clearest indications that political thought is an oxymoron is the idea that everything must come in only 2 flavors and nothing between, and that all lines must be straight lines.
Reality isn't that tidy. There is a point where too little taxes fail society and a point where too much tax crushes. There's also a spot in between. Or actually, more of a blob, since there are a lot of variables in the equation. The blob can be larger or smaller or even inside-out depending on whether your demands exceed supply.
We are the most spoiled generation in all human history. We have all - even the eldest - spent all, or nearly all of our lives expecting things to become cheaper every day. Sure, we howl about inflation, but the truth is, anything electronic has been chasing Moore's law for decades, and almost everything we do any more ties into something electronic, even if it's just just sitting down at the PC and figuring out when to plant the South 40.
Matters only got worse when offshoring became economically viable. We've come to expect that Lower Prices Every Day is a right, and not simply being in the right place at the right time. No 16th-century farmer expected next year to require less effort or money to survive than last year.
So we do foolish things like lower taxes right before a recession is due when we should have been saving the money for when the rains came and lowering taxes afterwards. And compound it, by fighting to keep the taxes low even as we embark on expensive campaigns.
There's almost always something that isn't really necessary in any budget, whether it's personal, corporate, or government. And tough times help provide incentive for getting rid of it. Still, historically, we are used to being able to prosper while paying far more tax than we have for the last 10 years. And, frankly, the last 10 years have mostly been pretty miserable, so I don't buy the whole "lower taxes = more prosperity" line. If it can't work in a period that long, I'll likely die before it works at all - if it ever does. Ergo, it's useless for my purposes.
The one thing that more government money can do that no one else can, is spend money when no one else dares to. Governments don't have to show a profit (and shouldn't!), nor do they have to be concerned over-much about daily expenses. They can keep on cranking regardless, and if it isn't very efficient, nonetheless, it keeps money in circulation instead of being hoarded. Hoarded money doesn't really do anyone any good. Not even the hoarders. Until you spend it, money is just potential.
Because Troll and Flamebait are used since Slashdot has no "-1 conflicts with my ideology" moderation option.
I even address the fact that I was not supporting such a thing, but people still get upset if they see any remark that conflicts with their worldview.
Wikileaks was being actively supported by several media outlets at the time (which IIRC included the Associated Press). As such, they were acting agents of the press doing work that the papers themselves hadn't dared for decades.
However it was the Guardian's blunder that caused the real breech, IMO. There is no denying they bungled it.
Mayhaps when that time does come I'll look you up.
Why wait I'll drive down to the trailer park right now
A creationist can come onto here and "conflict with my ideology" and still sound like an idiot and get modded down appropriately. Some ideologies (namely those parroted by Fox "News" watchers) are stupid and deserve to be ridiculed.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
They made a deal with a London newspaper to redact, edit, and publish many of the documents.
Because the news agencies would lose "embedded" status and therefore have no breaking news on many things. They need to scoop or they'll lose advertisers willing to advertise there.
And what's to say that NYT would have edited the cables? DoD were asked to help WL but they preferred to risk their people than to aid a leak of actions that were not legal, so the NYT would either have had to not print them at all or dump them like WL did.
Sounds like your business is failing, but instead of looking at yourself for your failures, you blame everybody else. Maybe you need to look in the mirror for the reason why you don't have money to feed your family.
I see a good point in what you are saying. As you the lackluster performance (average cost and outcome) of our health care system shows, prosperity is about getting good results from your efforts.
The viability of using govt to spend us into prosperity depends on how efficient they are at it. I would argue that things big tend to be not very good at efficiency. (Big govt and big medicine come to mind.) Seems like the Soviet Union among other things, was an experiment in this direction that didn't work out so well. Perhaps the problem is that the bigger an organization gets, the more disconnected it gets from it's purpose (or customer?). This doesn't say the govt is always bad, just that some skepticism should be applied when someone says that they will improve our overall situation by adding yet another program. This skepticism is sorely missing in most of the current crop of folks inside the beltway.
I'd like to see govt more focused on setting up an environment where the folks can bring themselves up in economic status by hard work. This is different than paying folks not to work. It is different than not holding the banking community responsible for their actions. It is different from not holding the medical community responsible for their current average cost to benefit ratio. Govt has many opportunities to do good, they just often choose to do otherwise.
unemployment is increasing
Unemployment is actually decreasing.
I don't know what sort of Communist society you live in, but in America people create jobs for people because they profit from it, not for charity. Jobs will be created when there is demand for those jobs (or the products that those jobs create). If there is no demand (for example, if there is no middle class to buy the products) then the rich people will not the create jobs. And they shouldn't. But, if all the rich people decide to stop creating jobs ("going Galt"), then there will still be demand and middle class or poor people will create the jobs themselves (because there is potential to make money - this is how small businesses are created).
It boggles my mind that all these Republicans think they have to worship rich people as gods or they will take all the jobs away. I don't thank my boss for giving me a job. My boss thanks me for being hardworking and productive by giving me bonuses and raises. My boss (who is a conservative) made a joke right after the election that he is going to have to fire people because his taxes were going to go up. I told him (lightheartedly of course) that if I did not already make him more money than I cost, then he should go ahead and fire me because I don't work for charity. Guess what? I am still working (he did not fire me).
And those embedded reporters with the US army? Walking around with folks armed with RPGs and M16s.
And how can you see their identification if you can't tell the difference between a telephoto tv camera and an RPG?
Next up, what about the dad with their kids in the van, picking up the wounded and taking them to safety? Oh, I get it, they were near people who, until they were shot down, carrying RPG-looking objects and maybe AK47s and had no identification, right?
This is ridiculous. It wouldn't have made a bit of difference. Fact is the man leaked top secret information. Leaking it to WikiLeaks or a media outlet like the NYT makes no difference. The NYT would have made the info just as public getting it to our enemies so the same damage would have been done. The author is living in some fantasy world.
he sent them to WikiLeaks rather than the Times....
Blah blah blah,, socialist this, communist that. You people really don't know what these words mean or have any grip on reality, do you?
No wonder the NYT is struggling. Why are they publishing a two-page editorial about a what-if scenario instead of news? And they expect people to pay to get this from behind their paywall?
"Sounds like your business is failing"
As per usual, slashdot idiot gets it wrong.
"These people must believe that the rich are no smarter than your average house cat"
I have come to the conclusion that the rich, indeed, are not smarter than the average house cat.
The economy lives and dies by people spending money.
People without jobs and people with lower paychecks just cant do that.
But still, the "Job Creators" keep sending jobs to other countries, bolstering their economies, bleeding ours....
emt 377 emt 4
No, people are just running out of benefits and aren't counted anymore
republicans just want to blow money on rich people and the military. They are not fiscally conservative so what is the alternative?
I think you misread some sarcasm there. Poe's law. It's weird living in a country where there are 2 parties and one defines itself by being factually wrong as much as possible. It makes it impossible to satire.
Yea keep telling yourself that. I'm not speaking about incremental changes and I'm not talking about the "official" U3 numbers.
The government fudges things with the help of the NYT and the media in general - and you damn well know it.
People are unemployed for significant amounts of time, on unemployment, disability and SSI and many of them will never get back into the workforce. This is ruining generations of lives.
Oh but the price of gas went down last week 2 cents! Praise Obama.
You fucking morons.
If you can't take on their ideas in a thoughtful manner than you're just as stupid as they are.
Like many conservative arguments, it's the kind of thing that seems like it's an absolutely perfect argument. Right up until you take a look at the world around you, and how things really are.
Because taking everything you've ever earned and giving it to someone that hasn't earned it is bad, therefore, therefore, any sort of taxation, and any sort of social welfare is bad. You always think in absolutes, and the world isn't like this.
Yes, there are some people who would never work if they didn't have to. But the bulk of the country is made up of people who feel that the incremental gain they get from the destitution of welfare is something that's worth working for. And that benefits everyone.
Summation: the world is not entirely full of people who are trying to take all of your hard-earned money. Also, taxes pay for the police forces that arrest that crackhead when he tries to steal your TV. Try to base your arguments on the actual circumstances in the world around you, rather than trying to base the circumstances of the world around you on your arguments.
It's weird living in a country where there is one party with two sides but gimps still buy their lies and ask for more even though neither side of this one party has done anything progressive for the people in over 50 years.
Keep on voting for the royal scam, i kan reed. You'll be loving the outcome.
"A fire eater must eat fire even if he has to kindle it himself." -Isaac Asimov
Oh yes, because the problem is with the parties and not systemic issues built into the constitution and human psyche. Keep pretending that you're all rebellious and cool and fixing everything.
Thinking logically, I think that some of the issues that would preclude a 'blind dump' include:
1. Making sure it's paid attention to - places like the NYT probably get tinfoil and conspiracy stuff all the time. How do you even make sure they pay attention to the packet?
2. Confidentiality - If you want your identity protected, you probably want to make contact, otherwise if they can figure out who you are they are under no obligation to protect your identity. If you make some sort of contract, they can be. Though it gets complicated.... Illegal agreements are unenforceable, but if a news agency gets a reputation for NOT protecting their sources, they may not get that scoop in the future...
3. Use of information - If you just do a blind drop, the paper has full control. If you meet, you can work out specifics of presentation. You're going to have to let the paper get it's story, and a place like the NYT isn't going to anger it's readers by publishing details that will harm US troops and such, but there's some room for negotiation. What form said negotiations would take I don't know; I'm not an ideologically or revenge driven informant.
4. Payment. Of whatever form. Cash to the informant. Donation to the informant's pet charity. A billboard somewhere. Attribution. I don't know.
I don't read AC A human right
Republicans are on the record as vowing to block anything the Obama attempts to do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama
And yes, Obamacare is so socialist that it is virtually identical to a health care plan the the Republicans came up with several years back.
Obama is not trying to take away your guns or your Second Amendment rights. If you had been paying attention, you would have realized that he's trying to take away your Fourth Amendment rights.
Technoli
This is what this is about. The Times really didn't like Jullian Assage.
I think its because they are titled, old newspaper snobs who think its not only their duty, but their right to decide what the people get and do not get to hear. They are pissed that things like wikileaks exist in the first place and the old order of newsmedia is being shaken up.
The NYT thinks the people OWE the Times news stories, and they should just for them over, as if they are a perennial authority figure on everything news related.
Again with the leaks, they think it was their sole right to censor the government cables of what and what should not be shown to the public.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/opinion/keller-wikileaks-a-postscript.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/julian-assange-press-wikileaks-documentary_n_1116599.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/26/new-york-times-assange-wikileaks_n_814434.html
So althought it was not wikileaks who outed Manning, but a hacker named Adrian Lamo, who Bradley Manning bragged to about leaking the docs.
So what got Bradley Manning caught was ultimately his own big mouth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/03/adrian-lamo-bradley-manning-q-and-a
This article is nothing more than some weasel words to get potential informats to go back to the news media instead of new media, for all the wrong reasons. I wreaks of typical news trickery, and self-promotion.
did a great job covering the same topic earlier this month on his Common Sense podcast, including the Daniel Ellsberg angle. His Hardcore History podcast is also amazing for any history fans out there.
If you think wealth redistribution is a good thing let's personalize it for a moment. Let's say you go to work every day. You save for a year to buy a new flat screen TV. Your neighbor sits at home and smokes crack all day. He doesn't think it's fair that you have a flat screen TV and he doesn't. So he breaks into your house (while you're at work of course) and takes yours. He likes his new TV and hey you can always save for another year and go buy another one. Two days later he's out of crack and sells your TV for 10% of what you paid to buy more crack. That's the reality of wealth redistribution.
(a) If you have to save an year to buy a TV you would be at the receiving end of a wealth redistribution.
(b) Ditto for not being able to afford a home insurance that would cover burglaries.
(c) Maybe if your neighbor was not so poor he would have seen some future for his life and never got into drugs. Maybe some part of that wealth redistribution could pay for his rehab and actually become a productive tax-paying citizen.
The reason these people who are poor do not have weath is because they have not earned wealth making wise choices. The reason the ones that do have wealth have it is because they've earned it.
Wait, is that crack you're smoking?
Do you choose to born to a poor uneducated family who lives in a ghetto?
How have you earned the few million dollars you inherit when your grandparents or parents die?
A further consequence of course is that you're not very likely to go to work everyday if it means that everything you earn is just going to be taken from you.
So you mean like slavery? Like what the poor people get trapped into (like your crack-smoking neighbor)?
Sounds to me you have no clue. Go buy one.. though I suspect you may have to save a few years to afford one. And be careful your neighbor doesn't steal it when you finally get it.
Commenting on having no clue: Way to read too far into it.
My comment is saying that we spend waaaaay too much money being the world's police.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
These socialist scumbags steal my money that I need to care for my family
And our hearts would bleed for you if "taking care of your family" involved feeding, sheltering, educating them, or putting clothes on their backs. But since those evil socialists are arguing for progressive taxation, they're really only taking money from millionaires. So,
a) You have an income of less than $100,000/year and are confused about who the socialist scumbags are stealing from.
b) You have an income of more than $100,000/year and you're in the top 15% of America and roughly in the "upper-middle class". You are not struggling to feed your family. You may be struggling to afford the McMansion you bought in 2006, but that's a luxury you're suffering for, not basic care.
Now, if all that taxation did go away, you would indeed have more money in your paycheck. Initially. Of course, hiring blackwater to police your home owner's association to keep the disenfranchised gangs of baby-boomers from stepping on your grass might be expensive. And it's not going to be cheap to filter your HVAC intakes when the paper-mill opens next door. And those Mandarin classes aren't going to pay for themselves.
If you pay closer attention, you'll sort this one out... The problem is the parties and the systemic issues which they've build to subvert the constitution and manipulate the human psyche. You're almost there!
where is sue? sue is idle.
The constitution is and always has been a flawed legal document. It was amended before it even took effect to fix some of the flaws; it has been repeatedly amended since. It has too much bolt-on shit that's ineffective and poorly works around the framework it provides, and needs to be torn down and rewritten.
Gun crimes are committed by both legal and illegal gun owners--legal gun owners with your psychological profile are the likely to commit gun crimes, while those with more reservation and less paranoia are less likely. Legal gun owners with your mentality also commit more "justifiable homicide" because of a pattern of zero tolerance--of immediately and fatally employing a firearm where it would be legally and even barely justifiable, more concerned with "he had it coming, I was protecting myself" than trying to stay human. The strict, mechanical decision process of "there is a threat, I must eliminate it by any force" is inhuman.
Socialism is a good thing... in moderation. Socialist programs support and balance an economy, whereas pure socialism and pure capitalism both concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few.
Further, context is important: Extremely small economies--for example, colonies of less than 100 people--benefit from full scale socialism because any other economy is infeasible; but as the colony grows, these economies quickly fail. This is because a family unit is inherently socialistic, and a small community must be socially tight-knit to survive. Larger, socially disconnected communities (nations of hundreds, thousands, millions) quickly lose such motivation because they lose sight of the need, and then lose the need outright; thus capitalism comes into play. As nations get quite large, capitalism fails; thus regulations must come into play to retain the benefits offered by capitalism.
Political parties promise the world, while economic theorists are used to back up assertions about capitalism and socialism and how we'd be much better off in a feel-good socialist utopia or a freedom-driven capitalist free market. The truth is all systems can be exploited; on a small scale exploitation is impossible because the risk is unmanageable (exploit your power in a colony of 50 people barely trying to survive as is and you'll probably collapse the economy, then you die with everyone else--if they don't hang you first and get on with their lives), but on a large scale it's too easy.
Micro-managing an economy is simply impossible on a large scale: socialism works, but only when you absolutely understand the needs and constraints of the entire economic system on all levels; you can't, and so capitalism allows for these details to work themselves out (i.e. delegation).
Capitalism is ripe for exploit and stagnation, however, and so minor socialist practices--regulations, tax incentives, etc--are put in place to guide the system. Excessive or improper use of these practices is destructive to the economy, but so is not employing them at all.
There is a balance. Nobody seeks it. Those in power seek more power, or seek to push ideals they believe will universally solve all problems; they won't.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
They're still just as brave as they were when they lead the way on the Watergate scandal.
Oh, wait...
Some things are not worth dealing with.
For instance there is no point in arguing with someone who claims the earth is flat. Nor is there a need to go talk to the bum on the corner screaming about the aliens.
Not necessarily:
Side A: "The sky is blue."
Side B: "No, the sky is green."
Side A: "No, really, the sky is blue, look."
Side B: "I think the sky is really green, so it must be green."
Side A: "No it isn't. Use this camera, point it at the sky, and see what color the camera says the sky is."
Side B: "I still think it's green."
Side A: "See, as described by John Tyndall in 1859, the small particles in the air scatter the blue light more than the red light. This was later quantified by Lord Rayleigh when he determined exactly how large the effect is."
Side B: "Well, that's all well and good, but I still think it's green."
Now, is Side A being stupid because they stop taking Side B's arguments seriously at that point?
I am officially gone from
Do you have any sources on when and where socialism works and when it doesn't?
Technoli
Manual redistribution can in theory work, but only if the redistribution is done in a way that everyone understands the full implications and the way the money is applied is not sidetracked by political considerations and corruption. If you artificially buoy the standard of living in a country based on redistribution, eventually, everything will be redistributed and/or the rich will have departed for greener pastures. Then the standard of living will fail dramatically.
There is the strange idea that rich people's money sits in the Scrooge McDuck vault and they do nothing other than swim in it. I hear what people are saying about "trickle down" and supply side, but the investments of most rich people are either in their own companies, which a good number of them founded, or in stocks or other bank issues. All of that money has to be reinvested in something productive so that it keeps up with inflation.
Additionally, there is a benefit to giving resources to people who already have their basic needs met. If you only ensure enough money to provide basic needs, then no one will go beyond that. For much of his life, Mozart was sponsored by the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, someone who could afford to have an orchestra in his employ. Extravagant? Yes. Did it produce nothing? Certainly not. Many of the proponents of the Enlightenment were quite wealthy, and those who weren't had patrons.
I agree that we need to see what we can do to help meet people's needs. On the other hand, I don't consider the fact that there exist rich individuals to automatically signal that as the reason that other people have no jobs or a lower standard of living. The amount of money in people's hands is not the issue. Productivity is the issue. If you don't have productivity backing it, you can raise the minimum wage to a million dollars a year, and in the end, a loaf of bread will cost a few thousand dollars because handing people money doesn't make them better off unless they get more money than someone else does. Redistribution doesn't inherently increase productivity, it just shuffles around fiat currency.
I agree with you on considering the size of the area being governed. That is rarely considered, when people choose an economic model, even though it should be.
testing out my trending skills
Because here we have yet another slashdot post of an issue that is completely germane to the Internet and technology world and culture yet there isn't a Conservative here who hasn't used it as an opportunity to troll the ideological 'talking points' that roll out of the Republican echo chamber.
Obama is a socialist... in spite of the Dims having the same economic policy as the Gips since 1992.
The New York Times is liberal propaganda... as if there is such thing as a liberal mainstream media.
Taxes are going up... sure, for the poor, whom conservatives universally condemn as parasites while corporations paid nothing, at all!
All of which is OT. Oh, that's Internet talk for Off Topic! I didn't want the guys in the boiler room to be confused. ;p
Thank you. People need to quit bitching about Obama and go do something! Show us some of that good ole conservative self reliance. IME successful people are going to be successful regardless of whether it happens to be government or big business trying to claw at their money.
All that maybe true, but you still have yet to make a argument, all you do is support fear and call names.
Doesnt that just make you worse?
Good to know you're doing just peachy then. See from all your ramblings, I got confused and thought you were complaining about how much your life sucks, despite your greatest efforts...
Way to miss the forest for the trees.
Redistribution works by increasing the velocity of a given set of money. Sure too much can cause problems, and no not just that some people have more than other is not an issue. The problems only occur when demand is severely limited by too much wealth in the hands of too few.
The investments of the rich are not idle, but they do not magically lead to more jobs when they have more capital. Only demand can cause hiring. A lack of supply can restrict it, but that is not where we are right now. At this moment in time investments have low returns, I have money that could be invested sitting as cash (actual paper money, not in a bank) since the returns are just not worth it. From the economists point of view that is pretty bad, giving it to someone poorer would be one way to create some demand. Doing that would mean more opportunities to invest in companies that meet that new demand.
We have stifled demand and this is the result. I am only looking at one historical solution.
A minimum income like Milton Friedman proposed would I believe be the ideal solution. People would still work, for the extra money to improve their situation, and we would prevent a total loss of demand. Also I would be willing to then take more risk with my money since I would not have to worry about ending up in the poor house.
Leaking to NYT we would not have heard anything.
I am betting c) unemployed and paying $0 in income taxes... taking full use of the safety net.
One thing conservatives cannot legitimately do is complain about how they are at the very bottom because of President Leftist, then argue that President Leftist is taking all their money, since they just said they did not have any.
not only are we known as stupid around the world but we have been upgraded to fat and stupid. thanks for proving this stereotype of Americans to be true. ps: I am assuming your fat.
Let me tell you about this new religion I'm starting...
As many other intelligent posters have and will mention, the New Whore Times would have rolled over for the gov't (the Bush-Obama Administration) and never have published, as they have repeatedly demonstrated in times past.
lol, that's my new favorite place to refer to Libertarians. "You're free to do whatever you want there! Freedom in action man!"
It's usually moot. If your size-of-area is so small that pure socialism or pure capitalism works, there's no room for error and nothing else probably has come to mind. I mean, do you think they could be anything but socialists on Gilligan's Island? Capitalism between the six of them won't work.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You see, what you've failed to do here is propose a mechanism for change or alternative that would work. You've merely suggested that "everyone who votes is wrong" in a kind of roundabout way. There's no point for me to come into agreement with you about, which is counterproductive to a debate. Given the system as it stands, there is a most rational course of action with regards to voting.
I'd love to see real reform, but saying "Ha, I know something is wrong here, so I'm not participating" is a petulant immature attitude, and makes no progress on that front.
the person who turned over Watergate evidence remained anonymous.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Does it matter? Once you scale up past a few dozen people, the point becomes moot. You're on Feudalism or regulated Enterprise. Feudalism works where open markets won't, sometimes--if resources are too scarce for anything but socialism, but the whole thing is too big for socialism to work, you get feudalism. Feudalism has advantages: it has incentive, it has structured management (i.e. the landlord wants a tithe; he doesn't care who produces what or how much or how, as long as the tithe is paid), hell the landlord even protects the land and the serfs from invaders (because he has incentive--that's his wealth).
In other words: the scope is so small as to be uninteresting. Like a full review on when chewing gum solves engine problems.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I could bring a few, mainly specific governments. I will list a few you can look up the details on wikipedia.
Socialist systems that didn't work (not always due to their socialist policies but nevertheless): USSR, North VIetnam, DDR, Greece
Governments with many socialist policies that seem to work well for them: Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, China.
Bear in mind this is a complex issue, the difference between the way things are done in these different countries is massive. It is not possible to compare for example the policies of China and Finland in any meaningful way as their situations are too different. The countries that have had failures with socialist systems usually had their problems as a result of things that had nothing to do with socialism, also the countries that had success with socialist policies often had other advantages from the start and can't point purely at socialism for their success. Cuba is a nice example of both. Socialism has given them a fairly good national system in terms of wealth equality, education, medicine. On the other hand they are still a very poor country, they have a lot of enemies (well at least one major one). One nice way to compare different systems is through statistics.
A nice tool for this is google public data explorer. Things like literacy. life expectancy, child mortality, teachers per capita, doctors per capita, poverty etc. can be compared across different systems and the results can be surprising. On the other hand it is difficult to deduce causation from those statistics.
One of the strongest arguments in favour of socialist policies I have ever heard was from a TED video which showed that statistically economic inequality (unfair distribution of wealth) is a very strong indicator for almost every form of social of social problem, to such a degree that if all the rich people in an inequal country were to give 90% of their wealth to a trust to support the poorest in society, even those rich people would be better off.
The word is "then"
"than" is used for comparisons. For example, "A is less than B"
This is pretty basic elementary school grammar; and if you are incapable of grasping it, then you're really too stupid to be involved in this debate.
Manning is a great Hero for rest of the people and mankind even though he will be convicted traitor in U.S mock courts.
He will be remembered by history many generations unlike those petty haunting now him for revealing great unjust will be left in vain. He may suffer now and be made suffer more rest of his life, but that doesn't change any of that said.
Rest of the world Thanks him dearly.
...the cost of fucking hamburgers is going up
Uh... you're supposed to eat them?
What I do is none of your fucking business.
Then why bring it up on slashdot?
Sounds familiar. It probably would have went down like this.
Happy people make bad consumers.
I think a true minimum income that you can meet all your needs on is probably the stuff of post-scarcity fantasies. Perhaps not impossible, but demand and supply are independent variables, and there are other considerations about how it is managed. Much like the minimum wage, it will either be ineffective enough to have to be constantly adjusted for inflation, or it will be so effective that it becomes a major cause of inflation.
Since he didn't spill to the times, and since the Times wouldn't have published it, there is an automatic admission of collusion there. The Times, in the name of "Responsible Journalism" is a puppet of the government. Knowing this, what other stories that should have been published in the times that would could cast a critical light on truth in the US, but because of corporate interests, government interference or both have been killed? Wikileaks is clearly too much truth for either the Times or the Government to handle. Its true: "The truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" Note that the US government has very quickly killed the messenger in this case. Inquiry into the US killing of innocents overseas? NONE! Bradley Manning and Julian Assange? Incarcerated! And even if he isn't in a US jail, the case against him --complete with trumped up charges courtesy the CIA-- casts him in a 'never trust this guy again' light that some point to as if it were the truth. The N.Y. times isn't a puppet with two arms in its back, only the government pulls the strings there. Corporate interests control the US government (so its puppet controlling puppet).
It's owned by the richest man in the world. I'm sure those mega wealthy types always have the interest and well being for the common man in mind. I'm sure he would have released it /s
...second time today that I've seen someone do this. It isn't the Times. That's a London newspaper. It's the New York Times. Shortening the name after the first referral only works if nothing else already has that name....and ultimately, a real Journalist would not need this pointed out to them.
"Ha, I know something is wrong here, so I'm not participating" is a prudent and efficient attitude, but I think you are, perhaps, selling the idea a bit short. It would look more like, "Ha! I know something is wrong here and I cannot fix it, so I'm not participating."
It may be petulant, but it is far from immature. One need not jump from a cliff to understand the impact of landing. Similarly; the fact of some people choosing to jump from that cliff to the left, while others prefer to jump to the right does not make the act of jumping off of the cliff a rational course of action.
where is sue? sue is idle.
Also wealth redistribution can be good for an economy. It is what made the USA the powerhouse it was. WW2 and the programs of the great depression moved lots of money into the hand of the new middle class, they spent that money thus driving the economy. A single rich person has only so many needs they will spend money on, taking that money and giving it to people who will spend it will improve the economy. Today we see the reverse with a shrinking middle class and a slowing economy as wealth accumulates in the hands of a small few.
These are just facts, they have nothing to do with the morality of such action.
Nonsense. What made the USA a powerhouse after WW2 was that we were effectively the only ones with a functioning factories since the rest of the industrialized world was smashed and left smoldering from war. Also, many nations shipped their gold to the US for safekeeping and were willing to accept (gold-backed at the time) dollars since they were spending those dollars to rebuild, and unilaterally revaluing the dollar to gold ratio effectively stole the relative wealth from the rest of the world.
Look: 60% of potential voters don't vote in major non-presidential elections. The effect of not voting is just for people to say "look, Americans don't care, we can get away with anything"
Most Job Creators aren't necessarily a single rich person creating jobs. Very often they are a large group of people who decide to hire a few more people to help out. And even a poor person who pays for child care or who spends money at a discount store is also a job creator. Economies are complex chaotic systems.
If Manning had leaked to The Times, they would have read closely filtered all the memos to find actual stories, and not mindlessly dumped the data into the public sphere. Asset names would have been protected.
Wikileaks DID NOT RELEASE the cables unedited until they'd already been leaked by one of their other media partners.
Poor people getting trapped would require that they are actually working for a living, which, in the US, is more often than not, not the case...
somebody forgot to take their laxatives this morning...
No I'm pretty sure he's spewing shit just fine.
Give it a year or two and everyone will move on without Mr. Manning. He will be forgotten until he is up for parole, actually released, commits suicide, or killed.
It's funny to me that the NYT posted this at all, because they're engaging in a counterfactual about what could have happened if they had done their fucking jobs.
Bradley Manning tried to get in touch with a number of traditional media outlets, the NYT included, before giving up on traditional outlets and just dumping the files to Wikileaks. He discussed this, and many other things, in a statement he read at his pre-trial hearing. The Times tries to blame their failure on Bradley, but the ball was in their court and they chose not to follow up on it.
It matters not
Manning is a traitor. He should be shot. Or at least forced into hard labor for the rest of his days.
The people that posted it should be found, fixed and destroyed.
In the least they should be pounding rocks next to that douchetastic traitor manning.
While I agree with your general point, I'm not sure public libraries are truly necessary for prosperity, particularly these days. I'm an avid reader, and haven't been in a library in years. If government stopped wasting (a very tiny fraction of) my money on public libraries, I'd be able to afford (a fractional part of) an extra book to read!
I'm confused. How exactly did WW2 move money (or more usefully, wealth, as inflation/deflation happened a lot in that period of time) into the hands of the middle class? By destroying large amounts of infrastructure, property and capital? By killing off a sizable number of said middle class?
Wars are inherently destructive. Claiming they help the economy is the fallacy of the broken window.
No matter how many folks are standing around getting paid to scratch their asses the "Job Creator" hires more and more workers as his revenue goes up or taxes go down.
These people must believe that the rich are no smarter than your average house cat.
Not really. The truly stupid people think demand is completely inflexible.
Or rather, I hope you concluded they are about as self-interested as said housecat. Until housecats prove as adroit at maximizing personal income and success, I'm going to maintain the 'Job Creators' are much smarter.
Obama is not trying to take away your guns or your Second Amendment rights.
What's funny is the left wants everyone to believe that, while in the same breath swearing up and down that people who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights in a responsible manner are bloodthirsty savages intent on being able to kill anyone on a whim with zero reprecussions...
How much more wealthy and successful could a cat get? And nothing to worry about.
emt 377 emt 4
People are most creative in find ways to be wealthier and more successful. Another way they're smarter than cats; if I was a cat, I'd want a pet Roomba to chase around. :)
Uh, duh. I was lambasting a stupid concept, not endorsing it. Poe's law is more powerful that I could imagine.
Yep, after discovering Kirk Sorensen's 10-min talk on TED.com,
I've convinced myself that a dual-stream Nuclear program (with:
Stream 1 comprising our current reactors (to supply military's
Plutonium requirements) -AND-
Stream 2 comprising, eg, Liquid Fluoride THORIUM Reactors
(to supply our domestic & industrial needs for electrical &
hat energes).
Lower cost for each LFTR bult + fewer "oil wars" fought, etc.
Just maybe NO ONE would have had to take risk of leaking
-any- of those secrets.
I get what you're going after... I just disagree. If absolutely everyone abstained from voting, it is just as unlikely that anything would change any more than if there was 100% voter turnout. Though; Neither your point nor mine have any direct bearing on the machinations of a two party system which has perfected the art of undercutting itself while also promoting itself... A system which emphasizes the importance of 'being' right while demeaning any attempt at figuring out how to actually 'do' what is right. A system which is designed (or has evolved) to exist as a stalemate.
There is a South Park episode which parodies this topic quite effectively... When a "vote" has to benefit either a giant douche or a turd sandwich; I'd rather just find something productive to do.
I can't speak for the 60% voter apathy which you referenced, but can expound on personal electoral antipathy at length!
Have a good day!
where is sue? sue is idle.
We just think it's funny that you keep calling Obama a socialist. All it shows is that you have no clue what the word means. Obama is not a socialist. The American Socialist Party doesn't even think he's a socialist.
I don't like or support Obama, but not because of his economic stance. The fact is that he'd be able to get a lot more done to help the country on the economic front if the Republicans weren't bound and determined to block everything he attempts to do.
===
I guess you are saying that the expression "Bite your nose to spite your face" applies to the Republicans. They are truly not in the majority, if you count the election day popular vote, but are there because of gerrymandering. The USA has millions of baby boomers, and some are in retirement, others are just entering. These BBs were in the war, protecting the nation, and now the republicans are saying "Its their tough luck that they were drafted into fighting to save our nation. We owe them nothing!"
At some time, you have to look after your citizens, young and old. If it means you don't upgrade your car every three years, or buy that 55 inch 3D TV, or the new toy, so be it. Take care of your retired seniors that cannot pay and have to choose between medicine or food.
Obama reaches out to people with understanding. Not everything is corporate profits.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Socialism is a good thing... in moderation.
Really? Then give me two-thirds of your money and shut the fsck up until we tell you it's ok to describe socialism as anything but "greatness".
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
I don't know what sort of Communist society you live in, but in America people create jobs for people because they profit from it, not for charity. Jobs will be created when there is demand for those jobs (or the products that those jobs create). If there is no demand (for example, if there is no middle class to buy the products) then the rich people will not the create jobs. And they shouldn't. But, if all the rich people decide to stop creating jobs ("going Galt"), then there will still be demand and middle class or poor people will create the jobs themselves (because there is potential to make money - this is how small businesses are created).
It boggles my mind that all these Republicans think they have to worship rich people as gods or they will take all the jobs away. I don't thank my boss for giving me a job. My boss thanks me for being hardworking and productive by giving me bonuses and raises. My boss (who is a conservative) made a joke right after the election that he is going to have to fire people because his taxes were going to go up. I told him (lightheartedly of course) that if I did not already make him more money than I cost, then he should go ahead and fire me because I don't work for charity. Guess what? I am still working (he did not fire me).
===
When you take actions to keep the rich corporations that way, ever rich, then the poor get poorer. And poor people, at some point, can't buy the goods and services to sustain the wealthy. As proof, look at Walmart. They grew to 34000+ stores by purchasing foreign goods, and killing local jobs. They killed small businesses and created new jobs at minimum wage, which means that these Walmart employees are not able to take that vacation, to easily buy the new 55 inch TV, and most of all, took away from their communities, all discretionary income. Now these communities suffer from not being able to raise taxes to cover infrastructure repairs due to the populations inability to pay, and the people, mostly baby boomers are entering retirement, are needing what I get in Canada. Canada is a very democratic capitalistic country, with a social safety net to ensure that I will be able to live out my life without fear of starvation, without having to choose between medication or food, and with very affordable access to medicare. I worked for 50 years in Canada, as did most of the Americans that did the same for their richest country in the world, and I am better off.
Canada is not communist, Canada respects and cares for its citizens. The Republicans, according to their latest proposals, want to kill all social safety nets, want to wash their hands of responsibility to look after grandparents, or parents, and just keep the status quo. The Republicans last pronouncement was to kill social safety nets, but not one word about closing tax loopholes.
I feel sorry for the American seniors who slaved all their lives, have no discretionary income, and yet cant live without fear from unexpected medical billhttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/12/137239/what-if-manning-had-leaked-to-the-new-york-times#s or high inflation. Your comments make me sad.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
===
When you take actions to keep the rich corporations that way, ever rich, then the poor get poorer. And poor people, at some point, can't buy the goods and services to sustain the wealthy. As proof, look at Walmart. They grew to 34000+ stores by purchasing foreign goods, and killing local jobs. They killed small businesses and created new jobs at minimum wage, which means that these Walmart employees are not able to take that vacation, to easily buy the new 55 inch TV, and most of all, took away from their communities, all discretionary income. Now these communities suffer from not being able to raise taxes to cover infrastructure repairs due to the populations inability to pay, and the people, mostly baby boomers are entering retirement, are needing what I get in Canada. Canada is a very democratic capitalistic country, with a social safety net to ensure that I will be able to live out my life without fear of starvation, without having to choose between medication or food, and with very affordable access to medicare. I worked for 50 years in Canada, as did most of the Americans that did the same for their richest country in the world, and I am better off.
Canada is not communist, Canada respects and cares for its citizens. The Republicans, according to their latest proposals, want to kill all social safety nets, want to wash their hands of responsibility to look after grandparents, or parents, and just keep the status quo. The Republicans last pronouncement was to kill social safety nets, but not one word about closing tax loopholes.
I feel sorry for the American seniors who slaved all their lives, have no discretionary income, and yet cant live without fear from unexpected medical bills or high inflation. Your comments make me sad.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
What would you do instead? Let Rockerfeller continue to use his railroads to block oil competitors, buy out Microsoft and IBM, take control of Monsanto, gain a crippling hold over all shipping for the farming industry so he can permanently shut down any farm that doesn't follow his policies, and rule the world by dictate?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And the summary of the Times article suggests that.
And the Times, "left wing"? What Americans know of socialism is identical to what "good Germans" knew of Jews in the late thirties.
mark
What would you do instead? Let Rockerfeller continue to use his railroads to block oil competitors, buy out Microsoft and IBM, take control of Monsanto, gain a crippling hold over all shipping for the farming industry so he can permanently shut down any farm that doesn't follow his policies, and rule the world by dictate?
By "Rockefeller" I assume you mean the J.D. Rockefeller who died in 1937.
I don't mean to alarm you but if you think it's 1937 you probably ought to know that tomorrow Jack Benny and Fred Allen will start a feud that lasts 12 years. Later on in December Japan will occupy Nanking, even after Chiang Kai-shek destroyed the dikes along the Yellow River. Joe Medwick of the St. Louis Cardinals was baseball's MVP. You might also want to know that War Admiral won the Triple Crown in horse racing in case you wish to place a bet.
What would I do?
I would welcome you to 2013 where your loosely associated academic tidbits of perfunctory bullshit from 76 years ago have absolutely no context today. Get a sense of humor would you! My original reply on 12:26 PM March 13th, 2013 was a freakin' joke!
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Why does a Private get access to all of this secret stuff should be the first question on the mind of security. The fact that he could see the inner workings of the government is astounding.
Well, welcome to 2013 where it's Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, and such; and where 'Perfunctory Bullshit from 76 years ago' doesn't happen because we have... well, socialist laws that tell businesses what they can and can't do. Notably, the Government dictates to the businesses how they're allowed to conduct certain business. We call these "Anti-Trust Laws" and they control who can own what and how--you can't buy up all your little competitors because the Government says that would be bad economy, you can't use your economic advantage in one sector to invade another sector.
Socialism is the hammer and sickle. Capitalism is the nails. What we need are the hammer and nails.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Socialism is the hammer and sickle. Capitalism is the nails. What we need are the hammer and nails.
I'm assuming this is so you can hammer your own nails, in the lid of your own coffin, as you are forced to give 2/3 or more of your wealth to the state. Well I guess you could rest in peace knowing that everyone else paid the same amount for their nails and hammer as you did!
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
We have direct socialized infrastructure for roads, as well as socialized power--Nuclear power plants are propped up by government subsidies, always have been. They're a Government function pretending to be private enterprise, by way of the Government giving money to private enterprise on a smoke-and-mirrors type dance. Would you like to move to capitalism, where the private enterprise fixing the roads won't allow you to pass without paying a toll? They have to get the money to fix roads and turn a profit somehow. Also your town is useless and stupid, so no roads for you rednecks.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
We have direct socialized infrastructure for roads, as well as socialized power--Nuclear power plants are propped up by government subsidies, always have been. They're a Government function pretending to be private enterprise, by way of the Government giving money to private enterprise on a smoke-and-mirrors type dance. Would you like to move to capitalism, where the private enterprise fixing the roads won't allow you to pass without paying a toll? They have to get the money to fix roads and turn a profit somehow.
You seem to confuse "public" with "socialized" ... a lot actually
Also your town is useless and stupid, so no roads for you rednecks.
It's your story. Tell it like you want.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
It's not really a confusion; it's domain-specific vocabulary. If the government takes your money for $economic_pursuit_A, it's "Public Infrastructure". Unless socialism. For example, "Public communications infrastructure"--the Government control of telecommunications--and "public utilities"--the government control of electricity and water--are accepted terms; however in both cases, private enterprise also exists in other models: private businesses provide electricity, gas, and even water service in some municipalities. All a "Public" utility such as roads, phones, Internet, power, or water is is a socialized economic function--the government decides what the market needs, hires workers, etc.
Semantics. It's not very "capitalist" "Free Market" "lazze faire" whatever to have the Government control your utilities, rather than private enterprise. Those utilities "belong to the taxpayers," they are "The Peoples'", etc. Socialized, socialism.
We need some of it. We don't need all of it.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's not really a confusion; it's domain-specific vocabulary.
Since you admit it is specific to a particular domain then shall "We" get specific?
If the government takes your money for $economic_pursuit_A, it's "Public Infrastructure".
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state ... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Unless socialism. For example, "Public communications infrastructure"--the Government control of telecommunications--and "public utilities"--the government control of electricity and water--are accepted terms; however in both cases, private enterprise also exists in other models: private businesses provide electricity, gas, and even water service in some municipalities. All a "Public" utility such as roads, phones, Internet, power, or water is is a socialized economic function--the government decides what the market needs, hires workers, etc.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights. Only privileges which can be rescinded without due process. If you, or anyone else, dislike the process ... well ... as they used to say in the former Soviet Union. Toughski Shitski.
Semantics. It's not very "capitalist" "Free Market" "lazze faire" whatever to have the Government control your utilities, rather than private enterprise. Those utilities "belong to the taxpayers," they are "The Peoples'", etc. Socialized, socialism.
"Semantics" ... meaning. Yes, let's discuss meaning. Socialism is a political system, controlled by a few, where it's subjects have little, or no, opportunity for due process, representation, or individual rights. In other words it means no freedom. So you are right ... it's not very capitalist. In Capitalism, which is not itself a political system, at least one has the opportunity to grow and profit from one's own efforts when paired with a political system that emphasizes individual freedoms over that off the state.
We need some of it. We don't need all of it.
Still no!
But you keep straying from the original topic of this /. article. It was "What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times"!
It doesn't matter because in both Socialist countries, and countries such as the U.S., he would have been brought up on charges. I would dare say at least in the U.S. he will have his day in court. In Socialist flagship countries such as China and the DPRK he wouldn't even have the right to shut the fuck up!
Now go back to reading your "Pol Pot for Dummies" book.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state ... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Try not paying your taxes and not going to court. The IRS sends OIG to your house. With guns.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights.
Actually that system is called 'totalitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', and is an administrative system whereas socialism is an economic system. You can have a totalitarian dictator in a free market capitalist state. As long as your glorious leader has no qualms with your business operations, you can do what you want; when he does, his all-mighty decree immediately bans that action, or simply jails those responsible for offending his sensibilities.
This is actually a common form of government. Socialist leaders ostensibly claim concern for the people they govern; while authoritarian leaders do not need to. Therefor, evil dictators generally do whatever the hell they want and leave everyone else to do "anything that doesn't offend me." Their religious beliefs, their egomania, or other personal issues are the law of the land; beyond that, the economic influence is nil.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state ... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Try not paying your taxes and not going to court. The IRS sends OIG to your house. With guns.
Comparing one system where citizens have due process versus one, such as socialism, where one does not to evading taxes is pretty disingenuous! Try the same scenario in a socialist country like China or DPRK and not only will the state come in with guns drawn ... but they may very well shoot you and imprison your family as well. I think most would rather have laws and rules, as well as penalties for violating them, drawn by someone they've elected to represent them than by socialist party power brokers who have no regard for individual freedoms and rights.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights.
Actually that system is called 'totalitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', and is an administrative system whereas socialism is an economic system. You can have a totalitarian dictator in a free market capitalist state. As long as your glorious leader has no qualms with your business operations, you can do what you want; when he does, his all-mighty decree immediately bans that action, or simply jails those responsible for offending his sensibilities.
This is actually a common form of government. Socialist leaders ostensibly claim concern for the people they govern; while authoritarian leaders do not need to. Therefor, evil dictators generally do whatever the hell they want and leave everyone else to do "anything that doesn't offend me." Their religious beliefs, their egomania, or other personal issues are the law of the land; beyond that, the economic influence is nil.
One cannot have a free market economy in a socialist state. By the very definition of socialism free markets cannot exist because socialism does not allow it to exist.
LOL. Economic influence is nil? Like they never manipulate currency to gain unfair advantage in world markets. Like they never starve their population while the "Dear Leader" buys expensive jewelry, cars, and a Western education.
At least be honest!
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
One cannot have a free market economy in a socialist state. By the very definition of socialism free markets cannot exist because socialism does not allow it to exist.
You respond to my discussion about socialism vs authoritarianism by pretending I wrote "Socialist" instead of "Authoritarian".
Let's simplify: Republicans are Authoritarian Capitalists. Democrats are Libertarian Socialists. That means Republicans are more for free market capitalism, but more for social control--for arresting people and jailing them for shit like sex and drugs, for offending their puritin values, etc. Democrats are more for more government control of the economy, but the more liberal democrats tend to be hippies who want drugs legalized (and want free everything for everyone).
Monarchies, dictatorships, and the like can be capitalistic economically. Democracies can be socialistic in nature--Germany just before WW2 was quickly becoming a Socialist Democratic state, which is what Hitler reversed (he deduced that people were becoming Social Democrats because of the Jewish run media, so decided to exterminate the Jews and implement fascism). America is becoming a Socialist Democratic state as well--one where we ostensibly have Due Process, Rights, etc, but are spiraling toward bigger government with more government services such as socialized healthcare and socialized economic bounding (i.e. "bail-outs" because "big businesses can't fail, it hurts jobs", among other stupid shit like the government purchasing 400,000 pounds of CANE SUGAR to KEEP SUGAR PRICES HIGH because "we need to support the sugar industry" ugh... at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in GDP economic activity).
You don't understand systems of government and systems of economics. At all.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You respond to my discussion about socialism vs authoritarianism by pretending I wrote "Socialist" instead of "Authoritarian".
Actually I responded to this specific point in your comment with a joke before you took off on a tangent, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" posted on 12:56 PM March 12th, 2013.
I also could have swore you were the one who just wrote, "Let's simplify: Republicans are Authoritarian Capitalists. Democrats are Libertarian Socialists.". There was no pretending. You wrote it.
Since we're simplifying maybe if you acknowledged that one who practices "socialism" is a "socialist" and one who practices "capitalism" is a "capitalist" we would be able to get somewhere, but then again I doubt you even want to see the forest through those trees.
Since we're simplifying let's consider that your stated position, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" is a lot like saying, "Taking 2/3 of your wealth and restricting basic freedoms is a moderation we can live with." I'm sorry ... I prefer to keep the wealth I create and maintain the freedoms I have based on a government "By the People, For the People" instead of "From the People, In spite of the People".
You don't understand systems of government and systems of economics. At all.
Like I said before. It's your story tell it anyway you want.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Someone who advocates socialism as a complete system is a socialist. That much is pretty much clear: you join the socialist party, you say the Government should control and dictate all economic behaviors.
Someone who advocates capitalism is a capitalist. That much is pretty clear: you join the capitalists party (I guess there really is none--the Libertarians sometimes pretend theirs is, but it's not really), you advocate the removal of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, you advocate that businesses should do whatever they want, non-interference, laisse faire.
The problem is (we agree that Socialism doesn't work, so we'll ignore this completely) that capitalism doesn't work. Free market capitalism means Microsoft doesn't abuse its monopoly and Disney doesn't own everything... because John D. Rockerfeller got there first and bought Carnegie Steel (nice try, Andy, but you're the smaller giant). John D. Rockerfeller's estate, now in the hands of people several generations down the line, later acquired Disney, IBM, Microsoft, Ford, Chrysler, GM, General Foods, Kraft, Monsanto, all the farm land, the New York Stock Exchange, the banks, etc. If you want to eat, you do business with the surviving estate of John D. Rockerfeller. Rockerfeller everything.
And I'm wrong. Roads cost too much money and are uncontrollable; Rockerfeller Rail would have sponsored mass transit. For a constant fee. Ford wouldn't be a thing because cars wouldn't be a thing because rail is the only thing and Rockerfeller Rail owns rail.
To avert this, we had anti-trust laws; but anti-trust laws didn't exactly do it. The Government laid roads and continues to maintain them with Taxpayer money. Now mass transit kind of fails and the railroads barely exist; those that do exist are largely subsidized by government. Now, if you ask any socialist, they'll tell you that public transit and rail are a good thing, and the Government should step in and take over all rail, build rail lines, and just raise taxes to pay for it. You know, socialism applied specifically to rail transit just as socialism has been applied to road transit.
While we're at it, how about we also put the socialist hat on and have the Government take over all US airline companies and control air travel? Sea travel? The government controls water; why not Government phone, Government electricity? While we're doing power and utilities, why not Government gas, and thus Government oil, and Government mining for Government coal?
That's socialism.
However, what private enterprise could maintain roads? How would we feel about private enterprise maintaining roads? What would be the downsides? Do we instead want the Government to maintain the roads? We have socialist road infrastructure, and socialist public school, and semi-socialist farms and universities. Some of this is good, some is bad. You call it "Public Infrastructure," but it's really just "Applied Socialism in moderation". The Government has taken away a market and chosen to run it itself, with money it takes away from the people, and with restrictions on the people running in that market. Like the Post Office.
Notice this is all economics, not really so much individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc. This is a matter of infrastructure and of business, not of established individual rights. We, as a people, could vote to have the Government throw out the banks, the auto makers, and the utility companies, so that we have socialized Internet, phone, energy, gas, healthcare, roads, banking, and so on. Some would be by fee (like water, energy, etc) and some would be by tax (like roads). We would still be a free, democratic people with individual rights and due process and all; just with a socialist economic system. Too much socialism, really.
We could vote it back away, too... but the transition would be hard, and people abhor change.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Notice this is all economics, not really so much individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc. This is a matter of infrastructure and of business, not of established individual rights.
Pardon me as I quote the relevant part of your argument. You're not exactly pithy.
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component. So the " individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc" is a central part of socialism. The socialist state oppresses individual rights by using authoritarianism to manipulate and control elections, due process, and prohibit democracy. Usually by force.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
Considering that we go back to your comment that "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation". No amount of oppression by state controlled anything, even if in moderation, can remotely be considered "a good thing".
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component.
The theory exists without the political component. The practice exists ... when you're on Gilligan's Island and can't survive in any other form (yeah, full-scale socialism is the only viable way for a group to survive when there's all of 6 of you and resources are extremely low... once you're bigger than a classroom full of school children, not so much). Trying to quantify that the practice can't exist without the political component is short-sighted in two ways: First off the practice doesn't exist in any meaningful way; and second, in the extreme situations where such practices do exist (a few people stranded on a remote island), the natural leader is essentially elected--when he becomes bad for the group, he is swiftly removed. It seems that, perhaps, socialism *only* exists with strong democratic rights... though it only exists in effectively meaningless situations.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
You mean like the Police, the US. Department of Agricultural; the Federal Food and Drug Administration; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Federal Communications Commission; the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration; Congress; etc?
I'm going to show up at your house and steal your truck (no, your little shotgun won't help; I'll watch from 2 miles away with binoculars and steal it when you're preoccupied elsewhere out with your buddy tailgating in HIS truck, I'm not dumb), and when the police show up I'll tell them I'm being oppressed and they can't tromp on my rights because they're part of a socialist empire of regulations funded by money stolen by the government.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component.
The theory exists without the political component. The practice exists ... when you're on Gilligan's Island and can't survive in any other form (yeah, full-scale socialism is the only viable way for a group to survive when there's all of 6 of you and resources are extremely low... once you're bigger than a classroom full of school children, not so much). Trying to quantify that the practice can't exist without the political component is short-sighted in two ways: First off the practice doesn't exist in any meaningful way; and second, in the extreme situations where such practices do exist (a few people stranded on a remote island), the natural leader is essentially elected--when he becomes bad for the group, he is swiftly removed. It seems that, perhaps, socialism *only* exists with strong democratic rights... though it only exists in effectively meaningless situations.
When you're trapped on an island with 5 other people or you emerge from your classroom let me know. Until then enjoy your fantasy world.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
You mean like the Police, the US. Department of Agricultural; the Federal Food and Drug Administration; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Federal Communications Commission; the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration; Congress; etc?
Yes just like those. Those institutions are not beyond reproach such as those that exist in a socialist state.
I'm going to show up at your house and steal your truck (no, your little shotgun won't help; I'll watch from 2 miles away with binoculars and steal it when you're preoccupied elsewhere out with your buddy tailgating in HIS truck, I'm not dumb), and when the police show up I'll tell them I'm being oppressed and they can't tromp on my rights because they're part of a socialist empire of regulations funded by money stolen by the government.
I wonder if that will still work for you when Bubba bends you over the bunk in the cell block after the po po locks you up? I suppose you'd be fine giving up 2/3's of your colon since Bubba needs some love too! All for the greater good huh?
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Those organizations are not beyond reproach, nor are the 'po po' as you put it. In fact modern police are militarized assholes and the modern prison system is effectively a source of slave labor for private enterprise, essentially an economic subsidy by which American jobs are undermined by locking up Americans and forcing them to work for a quarter an hour doing a job that would normally be filled by an un-incarcerated American at $15/hr. This is vastly less capital-intensive for businesses, hence why it's a 'subsidy'.
I'm sure you don't want to abolish the police and prison systems, though. Just as well, the number of government economic functions we have are in some cases overreach and in other cases not enough; we need to trim the overreach and prop up the ones doing not enough--without giving them more powers they're not supposed to have in the process.
Healthcare is one of the best examples, because it's so tricky to get right. Socialized healthcare systems are either expensive or ineffective (or both); privatized healthcare systems tend to develop into a web of terrible, terrible problems. Some measure of insurance regulation has kept our systems from spiraling out of control into a mess of rent-seeking behavior, but it's still fugly; and then there's the litigation machine that attacks doctors for not being perfect (and often for not making any mistakes, just not magically curing the incurable). Further, even in a healthy private system, a baseline of public healthcare additionally provides great benefits to the economy: it reduces the spread of disease and the incidence of crippling injury (i.e. an untreated sprain, something that simple, can disable you for life), providing a bigger and more stable labor base and reducing sickness among the upper class (who can pay for healthcare, but are always getting infected by diseases that fester among the poor); yet a full-scale public health system is, again, expensive and/or ineffective.
One of the best ways to handle public healthcare services is to assess operating fees and indicate that healthcare providers must provide a baseline of X% service to the public. Let doctors roll into the location they're at, so a private practice taking in $10M/year has to supply 1% of $10M or $0.1M, while a $100B hospital has to supply $1B of public service. Specify that the service supplied has to be actual cost (so a $150k heart surgery that the hospital spends all of $5000 on after salaries, equipment, medications, etc. cuts in by $5000), and that a baseline of general healthcare services (vaccination, bone and sprain sets, etc) must be supplied and all else is elective. Thus it's not any better for the hospital to supply 1 chemo treatment to waste $1B than it is to give 100 million cold vaccinations at $10 each total cost.
Why is this one of the best ways? Because it satisfies the need for a baseline public healthcare system to keep the labor force viable and to prevent the spread of debilitating disease; but it imposes as little government fuckery on the healthcare industry as possible. The business already has to do accounting (you can't run a business without doing this, your business will fail even if the government stays out of it); we're just asking to see a certain set of pages out of their books. The hospitals and doctors are being told to be hospitals and doctors, nothing more. Taxes aren't levied. Business is adjusted, the market decides how. The whole thing becomes a cost of entry into a certain market (like paying for the lease on the building and land), with a minimal of actual regulation and dictation of how to be a hospital or a doctor.
Instead, we have Obamacare, which is Romneycare, which is a cash cow for insurance providers (and even then, the insurance providers hate it because it's expensive as hell for them to comply with) and bad for taxpayers and consumers. Canada, England, etc have their own iffy systems. Germany seems to do okay. Canada gets by because it's a private healthcare system: Canada
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Kind of sums it up for you!
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.