Did unions protect steel workers? Or textile workers or airline employees here in the US?
Steel and textiles are pretty much gone from the US. Why do you think an IT union would stop offshoring?
Unions don't matter in that respect. What does matter is a legal/tax structure which encourages corporations to ship work overseas. Not to mention a system that favors large corporations over smaller ones.
If you want to protect jobs, then ban multi-national and even multi-state corporations. Then put back the limits that a corporation can only work in the one field it was originally incorporated for.
Of course there will be more revolutions. Recent example, East Germany and the former Soviet Union. Two police states with powerful secret police organizations, citizen monitoring internal passports etc.
Why do you think those states were unable to stop a revolution but a despotism here in the US would be able to prevail?
Revolution typically comes about during periods of economic instability. This is precisely what the US is moving towards. When it becomes apparent over the next few years that the country has bankrupted itself, and the middle class starts losing all its toys, all bets are off IMO.
"Even if by some freak accident they won, what then? How would you go about making, from scratch, a system better than the one that's already in place?"
I'd settle for going back to the original intent of the constitution or the articles of confederation
John Kerry/Hillary Clinton/et. al. should believe the same things I do
Well, if you believe that governmental power should be used to promote or punish behavior than they do. Where you differ would be on which issues such power should be applied to.
Really? I once read a quote from one of the former socialist prez candidates regarding the collapse of the SP after the new deal. He stated something to the effect that the parties collapse was moot considering that the democratic party had in large measure adpoted all the core SP plank issues.
Couple that with the fact that the socialists encouraged their members to vote for FDR, and I think you've got a strong case made.
if this is true, then logically, wouldn't the Republicans be the most "socialist" party in the US. They love government control of behavior - like banning gay marriage, punishing environmentalists, rewarding corporate behavior, restricting freedom, promoting religion, spying on citizens, etc.
Yes, IMO they currently tread the line of national socialism. This is the age of socialism, I think it will be remembered in history as such. When it comes right down to it, political socialism rests on the assumption that inequties can be and should be "fixed" by gorvernment intervention. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with socialism if it is strictly voluntary. E.G. communes etc. In fact I think they are a very viable option for some people.
As an aside, you claim I know very little about socialism. Very well. Please enlighten me as to why you think socialism in the political realm does not rest upon the ideal of using governmental power to punish/reward behaviour...
I did not say Nazis. I said Authoritarian, or National socialist. E.G. The means of production is controlled either by the state or a few large corporations which are beholden to the state, and that production is used for the state interest. You can clearly see the pattern by looking at the growth of federal employment, federal expendatures on military hardware, and corporate consolidation. Not to mention the Neo-con propaganda served up by corps such as FOX.
BTW I consider myself a Classical Conservative/Classical Liberal.
Thus the things I support:
The right to keep and bear arms, Minimal governmental spending, Isolationist foreign policy, Strong borders (E.G. the National Guard patrols them), No governmental intrusion into private life. No US involvement in the U.N. (except for international weapons treaties or treaties such as the geneva convention). Dismemberment of the Federal reserve.
Do you mean US American liberals or liberals in general? A fair portion of US American 'liberals' (the ones the fair and balanced Fox news channel delights in presenting as the worst plague to afflict humantiy since the appearance of smallpox) would be considered as being either moderate conservatives or as occupying the political center most other parts of the world. What the rest of the world calls 'liberals' would be closer to Social democrats with whom US American liberals have some ideals in common. However, 24ct Socialists and Communists are way, way to the left of even the Social Democrats.
I mean US Liberals. BTW I am not comparing them to other "liberals" around the globe, rather I am comparing them to the original meaning of the word. True they may be less socialist than europe, but compared to classical liberalism they are socialist.
The Democratic party adopted the socialist party platform in large measure during the depression.
Socialism IMO seeks to use the power of the government to enforce ideals of equality, both economically and socially. The core ideal is the use of governmental power to punish and reward behviour. This is diametrically opposed to classical liberal ideals.
This is why conservatives don't trust American liberals (leftists).
And its sad that both words have been hijacked. Today's liberal is in reality a socialist, while today's conservative would be either authoritarian or national socialist.
"Lets say a rapist gets into your house and you have your daughter with you. You can lock yourself in a room (hence safety, but can't go any where yet freedom), to protect her. You only have to give it up untill he's gone, now it may just be me but I think I know what I'd do. Do I suddenly not deserve freedom any more?"
Hmmm, cower and HOPE he goes away? Hope that he doesn't break through a door, just like how he broke into your house? Fuck that.
He dies or I die, and if I go I sure as hell will try to take him with me. Cops do not stop crime, they are there to pick up the pieces, and to try and stop FUTURE crime by the same offender.
Freedom is only yours if you are willing to defend it.
"That's right. You heard it here first. National ID cards == The Holocaust."
Not quite. But historically they have been the first step towards it.
from the link above:
The most elaborate identification system created was that of Nazi Germany, though it was not applied uniformly in all territories occupied by Germany. Raul Hilberg describes that system and its impact upon Jews in especially great detail in his 1985 edition of The Destruction of the European Jews, summarizing as follows:
"The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims. The system induced the Jews to be even more docile, more responsive to command than before. The wearer of the star was exposed; he thought that all eyes were fixed upon him. It was as though the whole population had become a police force, watching him and guarding his actions. No Jew, under those conditions, could resist, escape, or hide without first ridding himself of the conspicuous tag, the revealing middle name, the telltale ration card, passport, and identification papers. Yet the riddance of these burdens was dangerous, for the victim could be recognized and denounced. Few Jews took the chance. The vast majority wore the star and, wearing it, were lost."
"everyone's getting so worked up about this 'big brother state', but what are you *honestly* doing that's gonna cause any serious concern/suspicion on the part of the ruling authorities?"
And that my friend is exactly why so many jews ended up in crematoriums.
1. "Okay the don't like us but we can still work, this is as far as they'll go" 2. "Okay we have to register and wear these stars, be we can still own our business. this is as far as they'll go" 3. "Okay, our property has been siezed, and we cant get a permit to leave. but they'd be crazy to go any farther...."
Right now it's a nebulous group. Next it becomes people who don't have "acceptable" viewpoints. Here in the US both the FBI and pentagon have been caught spying on quakers for gods sake.
Every time any government tries to increase its power, the citizens should always ask themselves "would I want (insert your least favorite politician or political group here) to have this power?"
A completely free market inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth in a few hands, because as people become successful they erect barriers to prevent other people from following in their footsteps
100% free capitalism cannot sustain itself over the long term, we've seen that before. This is why the government has a role to play in the economy. There is a vast middle ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism, and neither extreme can produce a sustainable economy.
Can you say disconnect? 100% free capitalism means NO government involvement. What we have is state capitalism, e.g. corps pay for government roadblocks against competition.
Sorry, that is a cop out IMO. WE as in WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for what the administration does. We the people are to blame, and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it.
WE the people have voted for bread and circuses, even though anyone with financial sense who looks at the numbers KNOWS it cant go on for much longer. WE the people have voted for cheap oil, even if it means financing war debt on the backs of our children and our children's children.
Granted, I have voted against these things, and spoke out against what was going on, but I am still culpable because these are supposed to be my representatives acting in my name.
We have been going down this road for a long time. The Bread and Circuses are coming to a stop soon. This is a very interesting read (sorry PDF).
With Iran opening their oil exchange in late March, the US will most likely be forced into some sort of military action.
If oil trading in non-dollar assets catch on, our debt will no longer be sustainable. The powers that be know this. If you read the first link you'll see just how bad the situation is. The goal right now is to stretch the game out as long as possible.
I think its inevitable that we will find some reason to hit Iran soon after their exchange opens.
Do you really think so? I need to do some research, but it doesn't appear to me that, historically, in countries where personal freedom was completely revoked there is little record of terrorist attacks.
Its not personal freedom per se, but the economics of the situation as well. I think it is also tied to your previous perception of your wealth.
I have a grand understanding of the way things really work, and they don't always go by the damn Constitution and Bill of Rights...
And this IMO is precisely why our country is having problems. If the government does not abide PRECISELY by the Constitution, and instead ignores it upon a whim then we are not a nation that abides by THE RULE OF LAW.
The Constitution and the BOR are not something that can be swept under the rug when inconvenient. They are the documents from which the government gets its authority. As the precedent of ignoring the Constitution becomes more and more ingrained, we WILL slide into dictatorship.
And as for hyperbole - apparently, you didn't lose any loved ones in 9/11/01, nor know anyone that did. Fact is fact, over 3,000 people were murdered, millions of dollars in damage done, billions in after-effects on the American economy.
yeah, I'd say that is hyperbole. 10,000 people are murdered every year in the US, something like 20,000+ die in auto accidents., the list goes on. I am not willing to trade my freedoms because some pissed off guys are willing to kill americans. Nor am I willing to trade my rights (such as owning a gun) because some criminals use them to commit crimes.
If we were serious about terrorism, we'd stop playing global cop, bring the army home and use it to secure our borders.
However the difference is that gold cannot be printed And fortunately you can't dig it out of the ground either. Er... wait...
Yeah, and which takes more effort, printing a sheet of bills with $100 on them, or digging up, and refining 100 oz of gold?
There is NOTHING stopping fiat money from inflation. Indeed that is why the federal government can spend like a drunk on a binge. They create money out of nothing. At least with gold the money supply cannot grow easily, thus keeping a fairly stable value.
Think about this, do you save money? If you do, it loses about 4% of its value every year through inflation. This means even after you pay your taxes any money you save has an additional 4% tax placed on it year after year.
Go back and look at the value of a dollar throughout our history. A Dollar kept roughly the same purchasing power until we abrogated breton/woods (left the gold standard completely) it has since lost over 80% of its value.
Anything? How about summary executions or travel document requirements for movement between cities? Maybe you would prefer racial profiling and detention camps? Drastic enough measures will stop terrorism, but at what price?
Actually, I think "drastic enough" measures will increase terrorism. The harder a government clamps down, e.g. subjecting individuals to racial profiling, etc. the greater the pool of discontented and potential terrorists become. Its a positive feedback loop. The harsher they are the worse it will become.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm not sure that's entirely fair. What if that field dries up?"
Why is this unfair. Corporations are in essence legal bodies. Why should they
not grow old and die like we do?
Did unions protect steel workers? Or textile workers or airline employees here in the US?
Steel and textiles are pretty much gone from the US. Why do you think an IT union would
stop offshoring?
Unions don't matter in that respect. What does matter is a legal/tax structure which
encourages corporations to ship work overseas. Not to mention a system that favors
large corporations over smaller ones.
If you want to protect jobs, then ban multi-national and even multi-state corporations.
Then put back the limits that a corporation can only work in the one field it was originally incorporated for.
Of course there will be more revolutions. Recent example, East Germany and the former Soviet Union. Two police states with powerful secret police organizations, citizen monitoring internal passports etc.
Why do you think those states were unable to stop a revolution but a despotism here in the US would be able to prevail?
Revolution typically comes about during periods of economic instability. This is precisely what the US is moving towards. When it becomes apparent over the next few years that the country has bankrupted itself, and the middle class starts losing all its toys, all bets are off IMO.
"Even if by some freak accident they won, what then? How would you go about making, from scratch, a system better than the one that's already in place?"
I'd settle for going back to the original intent of the constitution or the articles of confederation
Perhaps we need to change the last line....
"O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free or the home of the slave?"
John Kerry/Hillary Clinton/et. al. should believe the same things I do
Well, if you believe that governmental power should be used to promote or punish behavior than they do. Where you differ would be on which issues such power should be applied to.
Keyenesian, yes, socialist? No.
Really? I once read a quote from one of the former socialist prez candidates regarding the collapse of the SP after the new deal. He stated something to the effect that the parties collapse was moot considering that the democratic party had in large measure adpoted all the core SP plank issues.
Couple that with the fact that the socialists encouraged their members to vote for FDR, and I think you've got a strong case made.
if this is true, then logically, wouldn't the Republicans be the most "socialist" party in the US. They love government control of behavior - like banning gay marriage, punishing environmentalists, rewarding corporate behavior, restricting freedom, promoting religion, spying on citizens, etc.
Yes, IMO they currently tread the line of national socialism. This is the age of socialism, I think it will be remembered in history as such. When it comes right down to it, political socialism rests on the assumption that inequties can be and should be "fixed" by gorvernment intervention. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with socialism if it is strictly voluntary. E.G. communes etc. In fact I think they are a very viable option for some people.
As an aside, you claim I know very little about socialism. Very well. Please enlighten me as to why you think socialism in the political realm does not rest upon the ideal of using governmental power to punish/reward behaviour...
I did not say Nazis. I said Authoritarian, or National socialist. E.G. The means of production is controlled either by the state or a few large corporations which are beholden to the state, and that production is used for the state interest. You can clearly see the pattern by looking at the growth of federal employment, federal expendatures on military hardware, and corporate consolidation. Not to mention the Neo-con propaganda served up by corps such as FOX.
BTW I consider myself a Classical Conservative/Classical Liberal.
Thus the things I support:
The right to keep and bear arms, Minimal governmental spending, Isolationist foreign policy, Strong borders (E.G. the National Guard patrols them), No governmental intrusion into private life. No US involvement in the U.N. (except for international weapons treaties or treaties such as the geneva convention). Dismemberment of the Federal reserve.
Do you mean US American liberals or liberals in general? A fair portion of US American 'liberals' (the ones the fair and balanced Fox news channel delights in presenting as the worst plague to afflict humantiy since the appearance of smallpox) would be considered as being either moderate conservatives or as occupying the political center most other parts of the world. What the rest of the world calls 'liberals' would be closer to Social democrats with whom US American liberals have some ideals in common. However, 24ct Socialists and Communists are way, way to the left of even the Social Democrats.
I mean US Liberals. BTW I am not comparing them to other "liberals" around the globe,
rather I am comparing them to the original meaning of the word. True they may be less socialist than europe, but compared to classical liberalism they are socialist.
The Democratic party adopted the socialist party platform in large measure during the depression.
Socialism IMO seeks to use the power of the government to enforce ideals of equality,
both economically and socially. The core ideal is the use of governmental power to punish and reward behviour. This is diametrically opposed to classical liberal ideals.
This is why conservatives don't trust American liberals (leftists).
And its sad that both words have been hijacked. Today's liberal is in reality a socialist,
while today's conservative would be either authoritarian or national socialist.
Classical Liberalism
Classical Conservatism
It is truly a shame that the country has wandered so far from its roots....
"Lets say a rapist gets into your house and you have your daughter with you. You can lock yourself in a room (hence safety, but can't go any where yet freedom), to protect her. You only have to give it up untill he's gone, now it may just be me but I think I know what I'd do. Do I suddenly not deserve freedom any more?"
Hmmm, cower and HOPE he goes away? Hope that he doesn't break through a door, just like how he broke into your house? Fuck that.
He dies or I die, and if I go I sure as hell will try to take him with me. Cops do not stop crime, they are there to pick up the pieces, and to try and stop FUTURE crime by the same offender.
Freedom is only yours if you are willing to defend it.
"That's right. You heard it here first. National ID cards == The Holocaust."
Not quite. But historically they have been the first step towards it.
from the link above:
The most elaborate identification system created was that of Nazi Germany, though it was not applied uniformly in all territories occupied by Germany. Raul Hilberg describes that system and its impact upon Jews in especially great detail in his 1985 edition of The Destruction of the European Jews, summarizing as follows:
"The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims. The system induced the Jews to be even more docile, more responsive to command than before. The wearer of the star was exposed; he thought that all eyes were fixed upon him. It was as though the whole population had become a police force, watching him and guarding his actions. No Jew, under those conditions, could resist, escape, or hide without first ridding himself of the conspicuous tag, the revealing middle name, the telltale ration card, passport, and identification papers. Yet the riddance of these burdens was dangerous, for the victim could be recognized and denounced. Few Jews took the chance. The vast majority wore the star and, wearing it, were lost."
"everyone's getting so worked up about this 'big brother state', but what are you *honestly* doing that's gonna cause any serious concern/suspicion on the part of the ruling authorities?"
And that my friend is exactly why so many jews ended up in crematoriums.
1. "Okay the don't like us but we can still work, this is as far as they'll go"
2. "Okay we have to register and wear these stars, be we can still own our business. this is as far as they'll go"
3. "Okay, our property has been siezed, and we cant get a permit to leave. but they'd be crazy to go any farther...."
Right now it's a nebulous group. Next it becomes people who don't have "acceptable" viewpoints. Here in the US both the FBI and pentagon have been caught spying on quakers for gods sake.
Every time any government tries to increase its power, the citizens should always ask themselves "would I want (insert your least favorite politician or political group here) to have this power?"
Scene - cold, dark, run down storage room in a lab complex.
:Eat the Red cheese and go back to your normal running wheel life.
Mouseus
Eat the Blue cheese and see just how deep the mousehole goes.
Welcome to the mouseterix....
Sorry it had to be said......;-)
Although if this did turn out to be a micro-singularity it might not be so funny.
Just one of the reasons God is clearly a son of a bitch.
Didn't you get the Memo?
God IS the CEO, so son of a bitch is clearly in the job description!
A completely free market inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth in a few hands, because as people become successful they erect barriers to prevent other people from following in their footsteps
100% free capitalism cannot sustain itself over the long term, we've seen that before. This is why the government has a role to play in the economy. There is a vast middle ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism, and neither extreme can produce a sustainable economy.
Can you say disconnect? 100% free capitalism means NO government involvement.
What we have is state capitalism, e.g. corps pay for government roadblocks against competition.
ALL HAIL THE CURCH OF THE MIRACULOUS HERPES(tm)!
Coming to a street corner near you...
Great God Herpes, thank you for stepping in and creating multicellular
life!
Sorry, that is a cop out IMO. WE as in WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for what the administration does. We the people are to blame, and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it.
WE the people have voted for bread and circuses, even though anyone with financial sense who looks at the numbers KNOWS it cant go on for much longer. WE the people have voted for cheap oil, even if it means financing war debt on the backs of our children and our children's children.
Granted, I have voted against these things, and spoke out against what was going on, but I am still culpable because these are supposed to be my representatives acting in my name.
We have been going down this road for a long time. The Bread and Circuses are coming to a stop soon. This is a very interesting read (sorry PDF).
With Iran opening their oil exchange in late March, the US will most likely be forced into some sort of military action.
If oil trading in non-dollar assets catch on, our debt will no longer be sustainable. The powers that be know this. If you read the first link you'll see just how bad the situation is. The goal right now is to stretch the game out as long as possible.
I think its inevitable that we will find some reason to hit Iran soon after their exchange opens.
Do you really think so? I need to do some research, but it doesn't appear to me that, historically, in countries where personal freedom was completely revoked there is little record of terrorist attacks.
Its not personal freedom per se, but the economics of the situation as well.
I think it is also tied to your previous perception of your wealth.
Historical examples:
America
French Revolution
Russian Revolution
The first two show interesting parallels to the USA today. Both had an unmanagable debt burden.
I have a grand understanding of the way things really work, and they don't always go by the damn Constitution and Bill of Rights...
And this IMO is precisely why our country is having problems. If the government does not abide PRECISELY by the Constitution, and instead ignores it upon a whim then we are not a nation that abides by THE RULE OF LAW.
The Constitution and the BOR are not something that can be swept under the rug when inconvenient. They are the documents from which the government gets its authority. As the precedent of ignoring the Constitution becomes more and more ingrained, we WILL slide into dictatorship.
And as for hyperbole - apparently, you didn't lose any loved ones in 9/11/01, nor know anyone that did. Fact is fact, over 3,000 people were murdered, millions of dollars in damage done, billions in after-effects on the American economy.
yeah, I'd say that is hyperbole. 10,000 people are murdered every year in the US, something like 20,000+ die in auto accidents., the list goes on. I am not willing to trade my freedoms because some pissed off guys are willing to kill americans. Nor am I willing to trade my rights (such as owning a gun) because some criminals use them to commit crimes.
If we were serious about terrorism, we'd stop playing global cop, bring the army home and use it to secure our borders.
However the difference is that gold cannot be printed ... wait ...
And fortunately you can't dig it out of the ground either. Er
Yeah, and which takes more effort, printing a sheet of bills with $100 on them,
or digging up, and refining 100 oz of gold?
There is NOTHING stopping fiat money from inflation. Indeed that is why the federal
government can spend like a drunk on a binge. They create money out of nothing.
At least with gold the money supply cannot grow easily, thus keeping a fairly stable value.
Think about this, do you save money? If you do, it loses about 4% of its value every year through inflation. This means even after you pay your taxes any money you save has an additional 4% tax placed on it year after year.
Go back and look at the value of a dollar throughout our history. A Dollar kept roughly the same purchasing power until we abrogated breton/woods (left the gold standard completely) it has since lost over 80% of its value.
Anything? How about summary executions or travel document requirements for movement between cities? Maybe you would prefer racial profiling and detention camps? Drastic enough measures will stop terrorism, but at what price?
Actually, I think "drastic enough" measures will increase terrorism. The harder a government clamps down, e.g. subjecting individuals to racial profiling, etc. the greater the pool of discontented and potential terrorists become. Its a positive feedback loop. The harsher they are the worse it will become.
Hey guys, please let me know when Hate Week starts.
I'd like to visit Airstrip One before I'm re-educated.
Ahem. "we have always been at war with islam....."