Really? Like the 'few remaining insurgent groups' couldn't figure out that, oh hey! the Americans are gone. Because after we are gone, they have all the time to prepare that they need. And why, exactly, would they need to attack exactly on the date we leave? This is just more Obama Derangement Syndrome, fear of the Big Black President causing people to throw all logic and common sense by the wayside and find something, anything, to justify their fears. So our President has a bigger dick than you, and can please women in ways you'll never be able to. Is that any reason to hate him?
Ah, okay, sure. Saying "companies like Halliburtone knew they would be paid in oil that mysteriously fell off the back of a truck" is speculation.
The facts are, huge amounts of oil revenue and reconstruction money are missing and unaccounted for. This sort of thing is common in war. Heck, my grandad was demoted from base commander after World War II for calling out corruption. In the chaos of war, there has always been money to be made under the table. That is not speculation, that is history. Saying that Halliburton and other companies like Blackwater knew they would be paid under the table is more than speculation, I'd call it a well educated guess.
But of course, I can't come up with a memo proving this, as you know. But don't get smug thinking you've proved anything to the contrary. I think anyone reading this will think, "Hmm, you know, spun may be guessing, but it sounds like a reasonable guess to me, based on the history of warfare."
I did read the article and it does not support your assertion that their success is independent of the rest of the economy of Spain or the global debt ponzi scheme.
You think? Okay. I think you're an idiot, and I'm not here to convince idiots who refuse to be convinced. You don't want a debate, you don't care about facts, you'll distort and lie to 'win' but when you do that, we all lose because the truth is the truth, no matter how you wish it weren't.
This has nothing to do with Spain as a whole, Mondragon is entirely self funded. They are Basques, the rest of Spain has very little to do with them. It's so obvious you did not read one word in the linked article, just picked up on 'Spain' and ran with that. To bad it was the wrong direction.
You know what? We're splitting hairs here, and I'm in no way married to the carbon tax as a policy. Now I'm going to totally flip positions and argue the other side, from two points: First principles and practical experience.
For first principles we turn to behaviorism, which deals in punishment and reward. Punishment is a demotivator and reward is a motivator. Curbing bad behavior does not necessarily lead to right behavior.
For practical experience we turn to other countries, in Europe say, where they have enacted this policy. Theory says we will see curbing of the bad behavior (that is to say, the exact bad behavior we are punishing) and an increase in new behaviors. Well, we see that, but worse, the new behaviors often offset any decrease in the real behavior we want to decrease, because we can not actually punish specifically enough.
Okay, now I feel stupid for even arguing my first position, but that's how real skepticism and real dialectic works.
I'm not moving the goalpost, I'm pointing out where they actually are. We ARE talking about MY position, right? I would think I know it. So, go back to the post you had such problems with, and insert my definition rather than your own, and perhaps we can have a conversation about what I actually said, rather than what you thought I meant.
To be fair, that is what I would technically a 'third way' system, somewhere between the free market and pure socialism. But that's exactly what I'm after! I love small businesses in general, and the people who risk it all to start them. That's a real free market, and I've come a long way from my radical youth, I now accept that a regulated free market is better than a planned economy, in most circumstances.
It's amazing that a small, impoverished, culturally isolated region of Spain could turn itself into a highly educated and wealthy industrial powerhouse in under fifty years, share the wealth, and still encourage innovation and entrepreneurship while maintaining a 50 to 1 income disparity ratio. Did you know only one in ten new businesses fails over there? That's the magic of cooperatives for you. Every new business gets a cooperative business planner, investment banker, ad agency, staffing company, and administrative company. All you have to do, as a small businessman over there, is the thing you actually love doing. Other people who love being ad men or staffing gurus or what have you, do those things, and everyone profits.
Obviously, Republicans only shrink the parts their rich masters don't like, like services to the poor. But why do they say they want less government if it would not help them? I think they would get more from being able to rape the populace unchecked by government than they get from government handouts.
Whoah there, pardner, where did you see me claiming that corporate capitalist tool Obama has done anything useful? Okay, he did keep the economy from crashing. And he did pass Wall Street reform, which Republicans tried to block, but failed. He is repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and keeping the tax cuts for the middle class, while the Republicans try to keep the tax cuts for the rich and tax the middle class. And he did hire a pay czar to claw back that stolen money, which did work, even though the (who? who could it be?) Republicans tried to stop that, too, calling it, I believe 'socialist.'
Funny thing, the right wing calls him socialist. Now you're saying he's not a socialist at all?
You know, now that I think about it, Obama may be a capitalist, corporatist tool, but he is no Smirking Frat Boy Bush. Worlds of difference, as I have pointed out.
Then how do you keep the leaches from benefiting from other people's voluntary cooperation? If we socialists fix the problem of poverty so you capitalists don't have thieves knocking on your doors, will you pay us for that benefit? Nope. If we reduce pollution and global warming, will you pay us for the benefits you incur? Of course not, that would be 'wealth redistribution' and you never agreed to it. So, we need arms to keep you leaches from benefiting. If you don't want to pull your weight, GTFO and stop leaching. It's called the social contract, if you don't abide by it, then you are not respecting our property rights and you can expect to be punished the same as any other thief.
Capitalists, by definition, make their money from lending capital. If they do not make most of their money by lending, they are not capitalists. If they do make most of their money by lending, they are leaches. Simple as that.
You know, the ones who are buying the laws to make themselves richer, the CEOs and board members of fortune 500 companies in general, those making over $1,000,000 a year, the top 1% (the regular population has about 3-5% sociopaths, how many do you think have wormed their way into the top 1%?) The ones in power, just like you said!
Republicans. Teabaggers. Conservatives of all stripes. They are either sociopaths or patsies of sociopaths. The ones trying to get rid of government are the exact ones who will profit by removing government. Scratch a small government Randroid, find a sociopath.
Oh, that's rich. Your childish antics are giving me a good chuckle. Anyone reading this can get a very clear picture from your responses, and chuckle along with me. You just told me to put down the crack pipe, and when I called you on the utter bankruptcy of your ad hominem, you called me histrionic.
The rich sociopaths are the ones pushing to get rid of government. Explain that. They are saying, "Please throw me in that briar patch of deregulation and smaller government." And useful idiots like you say, "Dur hur, okay, that will show you!"
What is your solution to the problem of the rich using legislation to redistribute wealth to themselves? Or do you simply not see that as a problem?
The solution is very simple: reduce the amount of power the government has, then rich people won't be able to do that. Get rid of corporate welfare, farm subsidies that only help ADM, Monsanto & Tyson, etc.
Ahaha, yes, that's just what they'd like us to do. If that is the solution, then why are the rich the ones pushing for it? They already have the power, they don't need government. Face it: the rich and their Republican cabana boys are the ones hawking deregulation and a smaller government, are they just doing it to fool us, is it reverse psychology or what?
Oh my God! Your argument has destroyed me utterly. I bow before your superior wit and grasp of logic. You demonstrate true productiveness in your comment. If only I could be a producer like you.
Fortunately, most people are not sociopaths. They desire fairness and reciprocity, not selfish gain. They will reject the sociopath's agenda.
The bankers and other ultra-rich will continue to redistribute wealth, and one of the quickest ways for them to do it would be to get rid of government altogether. Without regulation, there would be nothing stopping them. The playing field is not level, they have far more power than the majority do, and without government, they will use that power ruthlessly. As they have been proven to do in the past when there was no regulation, look at the robber baron era.
Yes, it was but the principal behind it is not. More people are opting out than you think.
Then they are not the producers. We are. In fact, the leaches are opting out when they find they can't leach anymore. We don't need the leaches, thank you very much, let them opt out all they like. Capital without labor will get you jack shit. Labor without capital can do anything in the world. Labor can make its own capital, but capitalists are simply lazy leaches who refuse to labor.
You can get a degree in Objectivism, its called a Philosophy degree. You'll learn about Objectivism, along with plenty of other philosophical ideas throughout history. If you want to learn just about Objectivism, save youself $40K and read and Ayn Rand book.
Or just hit yourself in the head with a hammer repeatedly, the effects are much the same.
Given that we have a functioning democracy here, I'd say, we don't need a revolution and the attendant violence that allowed the sociopaths in Russia to rise to the top. We can do it through our democratic process, and keep money out of politics. Remember, it is one man one vote, not one dollar one vote, so we can win.
What is your solution to the problem of the rich using legislation to redistribute wealth to themselves? Or do you simply not see that as a problem?
If someone truly believes in the principal that one person's production should be forcibly taken and given to someone that an arbitrary authority has decided needs it more then that person should lead by example.
You're arguing from a faulty premise: that of the myth of one person's production.
Anything a person who dwells in civilization produces is the result of a partnership between that person and the society in which they live, without which their production (to some small or large degree) would be either impossible or less. Therefore, logically, the fruits of that production also logically belong in part to that person and in part to society.
It's not about redistributing what's yours; it's about your partner in a venture getting their cut.
Nice and succinct. I'm totally redistributing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Like the 'few remaining insurgent groups' couldn't figure out that, oh hey! the Americans are gone. Because after we are gone, they have all the time to prepare that they need. And why, exactly, would they need to attack exactly on the date we leave? This is just more Obama Derangement Syndrome, fear of the Big Black President causing people to throw all logic and common sense by the wayside and find something, anything, to justify their fears. So our President has a bigger dick than you, and can please women in ways you'll never be able to. Is that any reason to hate him?
Ah, okay, sure. Saying "companies like Halliburtone knew they would be paid in oil that mysteriously fell off the back of a truck" is speculation.
The facts are, huge amounts of oil revenue and reconstruction money are missing and unaccounted for. This sort of thing is common in war. Heck, my grandad was demoted from base commander after World War II for calling out corruption. In the chaos of war, there has always been money to be made under the table. That is not speculation, that is history. Saying that Halliburton and other companies like Blackwater knew they would be paid under the table is more than speculation, I'd call it a well educated guess.
But of course, I can't come up with a memo proving this, as you know. But don't get smug thinking you've proved anything to the contrary. I think anyone reading this will think, "Hmm, you know, spun may be guessing, but it sounds like a reasonable guess to me, based on the history of warfare."
I did read the article and it does not support your assertion that their success is independent of the rest of the economy of Spain or the global debt ponzi scheme.
You think? Okay. I think you're an idiot, and I'm not here to convince idiots who refuse to be convinced. You don't want a debate, you don't care about facts, you'll distort and lie to 'win' but when you do that, we all lose because the truth is the truth, no matter how you wish it weren't.
Good day, sir.
This has nothing to do with Spain as a whole, Mondragon is entirely self funded. They are Basques, the rest of Spain has very little to do with them. It's so obvious you did not read one word in the linked article, just picked up on 'Spain' and ran with that. To bad it was the wrong direction.
You know what? We're splitting hairs here, and I'm in no way married to the carbon tax as a policy. Now I'm going to totally flip positions and argue the other side, from two points: First principles and practical experience.
For first principles we turn to behaviorism, which deals in punishment and reward. Punishment is a demotivator and reward is a motivator. Curbing bad behavior does not necessarily lead to right behavior.
For practical experience we turn to other countries, in Europe say, where they have enacted this policy. Theory says we will see curbing of the bad behavior (that is to say, the exact bad behavior we are punishing) and an increase in new behaviors. Well, we see that, but worse, the new behaviors often offset any decrease in the real behavior we want to decrease, because we can not actually punish specifically enough.
Okay, now I feel stupid for even arguing my first position, but that's how real skepticism and real dialectic works.
Okay, NOW I see your point. Sorry I was being dense. Good thoughts on the subject, actually. I'll try to tone it down a little. ;)
I'm not moving the goalpost, I'm pointing out where they actually are. We ARE talking about MY position, right? I would think I know it. So, go back to the post you had such problems with, and insert my definition rather than your own, and perhaps we can have a conversation about what I actually said, rather than what you thought I meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
To be fair, that is what I would technically a 'third way' system, somewhere between the free market and pure socialism. But that's exactly what I'm after! I love small businesses in general, and the people who risk it all to start them. That's a real free market, and I've come a long way from my radical youth, I now accept that a regulated free market is better than a planned economy, in most circumstances.
It's amazing that a small, impoverished, culturally isolated region of Spain could turn itself into a highly educated and wealthy industrial powerhouse in under fifty years, share the wealth, and still encourage innovation and entrepreneurship while maintaining a 50 to 1 income disparity ratio. Did you know only one in ten new businesses fails over there? That's the magic of cooperatives for you. Every new business gets a cooperative business planner, investment banker, ad agency, staffing company, and administrative company. All you have to do, as a small businessman over there, is the thing you actually love doing. Other people who love being ad men or staffing gurus or what have you, do those things, and everyone profits.
Obviously, Republicans only shrink the parts their rich masters don't like, like services to the poor. But why do they say they want less government if it would not help them? I think they would get more from being able to rape the populace unchecked by government than they get from government handouts.
I was talking about your prior post.
Be more specific or I can't help you fix your reading comprehension problem.
Whoah there, pardner, where did you see me claiming that corporate capitalist tool Obama has done anything useful? Okay, he did keep the economy from crashing. And he did pass Wall Street reform, which Republicans tried to block, but failed. He is repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and keeping the tax cuts for the middle class, while the Republicans try to keep the tax cuts for the rich and tax the middle class. And he did hire a pay czar to claw back that stolen money, which did work, even though the (who? who could it be?) Republicans tried to stop that, too, calling it, I believe 'socialist.'
Funny thing, the right wing calls him socialist. Now you're saying he's not a socialist at all?
You know, now that I think about it, Obama may be a capitalist, corporatist tool, but he is no Smirking Frat Boy Bush. Worlds of difference, as I have pointed out.
Then how do you keep the leaches from benefiting from other people's voluntary cooperation? If we socialists fix the problem of poverty so you capitalists don't have thieves knocking on your doors, will you pay us for that benefit? Nope. If we reduce pollution and global warming, will you pay us for the benefits you incur? Of course not, that would be 'wealth redistribution' and you never agreed to it. So, we need arms to keep you leaches from benefiting. If you don't want to pull your weight, GTFO and stop leaching. It's called the social contract, if you don't abide by it, then you are not respecting our property rights and you can expect to be punished the same as any other thief.
Capitalists, by definition, make their money from lending capital. If they do not make most of their money by lending, they are not capitalists. If they do make most of their money by lending, they are leaches. Simple as that.
You know, the ones who are buying the laws to make themselves richer, the CEOs and board members of fortune 500 companies in general, those making over $1,000,000 a year, the top 1% (the regular population has about 3-5% sociopaths, how many do you think have wormed their way into the top 1%?) The ones in power, just like you said!
Republicans. Teabaggers. Conservatives of all stripes. They are either sociopaths or patsies of sociopaths. The ones trying to get rid of government are the exact ones who will profit by removing government. Scratch a small government Randroid, find a sociopath.
I never grow tired of lecturing those who need it. Come back any time you'd like some more.
Oh, that's rich. Your childish antics are giving me a good chuckle. Anyone reading this can get a very clear picture from your responses, and chuckle along with me. You just told me to put down the crack pipe, and when I called you on the utter bankruptcy of your ad hominem, you called me histrionic.
Comedy gold, man, comedy gold.
The rich sociopaths are the ones pushing to get rid of government. Explain that. They are saying, "Please throw me in that briar patch of deregulation and smaller government." And useful idiots like you say, "Dur hur, okay, that will show you!"
What is your solution to the problem of the rich using legislation to redistribute wealth to themselves? Or do you simply not see that as a problem?
The solution is very simple: reduce the amount of power the government has, then rich people won't be able to do that. Get rid of corporate welfare, farm subsidies that only help ADM, Monsanto & Tyson, etc.
Ahaha, yes, that's just what they'd like us to do. If that is the solution, then why are the rich the ones pushing for it? They already have the power, they don't need government. Face it: the rich and their Republican cabana boys are the ones hawking deregulation and a smaller government, are they just doing it to fool us, is it reverse psychology or what?
Seriously - put down the crack pipe.
Oh my God! Your argument has destroyed me utterly. I bow before your superior wit and grasp of logic. You demonstrate true productiveness in your comment. If only I could be a producer like you.
Fortunately, most people are not sociopaths. They desire fairness and reciprocity, not selfish gain. They will reject the sociopath's agenda.
The bankers and other ultra-rich will continue to redistribute wealth, and one of the quickest ways for them to do it would be to get rid of government altogether. Without regulation, there would be nothing stopping them. The playing field is not level, they have far more power than the majority do, and without government, they will use that power ruthlessly. As they have been proven to do in the past when there was no regulation, look at the robber baron era.
Yes, it was but the principal behind it is not. More people are opting out than you think.
Then they are not the producers. We are. In fact, the leaches are opting out when they find they can't leach anymore. We don't need the leaches, thank you very much, let them opt out all they like. Capital without labor will get you jack shit. Labor without capital can do anything in the world. Labor can make its own capital, but capitalists are simply lazy leaches who refuse to labor.
You can get a degree in Objectivism, its called a Philosophy degree. You'll learn about Objectivism, along with plenty of other philosophical ideas throughout history. If you want to learn just about Objectivism, save youself $40K and read and Ayn Rand book.
Or just hit yourself in the head with a hammer repeatedly, the effects are much the same.
Given that we have a functioning democracy here, I'd say, we don't need a revolution and the attendant violence that allowed the sociopaths in Russia to rise to the top. We can do it through our democratic process, and keep money out of politics. Remember, it is one man one vote, not one dollar one vote, so we can win.
What is your solution to the problem of the rich using legislation to redistribute wealth to themselves? Or do you simply not see that as a problem?
The rich are redistributing wealth by buying laws that favor them. I'm just suggesting we do the same back to them.
Also, see here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738326&cid=33088198
If someone truly believes in the principal that one person's production should be forcibly taken and given to someone that an arbitrary authority has decided needs it more then that person should lead by example.
You're arguing from a faulty premise: that of the myth of one person's production.
Anything a person who dwells in civilization produces is the result of a partnership between that person and the society in which they live, without which their production (to some small or large degree) would be either impossible or less. Therefore, logically, the fruits of that production also logically belong in part to that person and in part to society.
It's not about redistributing what's yours; it's about your partner in a venture getting their cut.
Nice and succinct. I'm totally redistributing that.