Not at all! If there's no jack-booted thug standing behind us with a gun pointed at our backs, we're free to pool our resources. We can set up whatever agreement we like, and arrange what happens if I'm stupid enough to step into the street in front of a bus tomorrow morning.
Any "corporation" that grows "too big to fail" needs to be broken into smaller pieces so it isn't. This isn't just a matter of "general welfare." It's a matter of national security.
Ouch. What I saw in your response was "regulation, regulation, and more regulation." My whole point is to drop those, along with the regulations that allow corporations to take advantage of them.
I don't have *anything* against people joining together to "mitigate risk, amass capital for large investments, etc." My problem is when they do that and then drive bluefin tuna further toward extinction (does writing this make me a treehugger?).
Not to mentioning the wholesale slaughter of (what was it?) 13 of your employees.
I think we're writing the same thing about holding owners personally accountable.
The Supreme Court decided back in the 1860's that corporations are people, with rights. That same court has been giving the more and more rights ever since.
Anything that treats a corporation as a person is evil and should be abolished. The Supreme Court decision that turned corporations into people (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad) was one of America's first big steps down the road back to feudalism.
Yeah, but...it's amazing how many "teabaggers are all stoopid" conversations I've had lately when I explain what the original points were. And I've been pleasantly surprised how many have ended up with "OK, I can respect that," or even "You know what? I totally agree with you."
The mission hasn't changed. Who cares if they stole our symbol? Their noise gets enough attention for us to get at least a little signal through. We're a lot closer to the mainstream than we were 4 years ago.
Originally it was mainly about the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, and ending the Federal Reserve. The reduced taxes we'd all pay for less government and more freedom were really just gravy. At least, as far as I was concerned.
I'm curious how you explain the sequence of events. A bunch of libertarians find each other and discover they enjoy each others' company, so they decide to start hosting tea parties, protesting George Bush's policies.
Some Conservative Republican notices, decides it's a great idea, they jump on the bandwagon. It gets noticed and starts getting media attention sometime around the election. Apparently, somewhere in the same time frame, Koch eagerly leaps in and starts throwing around money to his leaders to brainwash his minions to...be more right wing conservative?
There's a lot that's fishy about the whole story. But blaming Koch just doesn't add up. Unless the family's secretly been closet Republicans the entire time they've been pretending to be Libertarian? Do you think David's vice-presidential candidacy in 1980 was a clever plot to infiltrate the party and subvert them with Conservative ideas from within?
I hate to say it, but any of the Libertarians founders who still consider themselves members are now a fairly small minority. At least, that's been the impression I've gained at the last few rallies I've dropped in on.
I'll leave the rest of it alone, since we'll just have to agree to disagree about the tea party...and I don't really disagree about the most visible parts of it. But:
No, corporate mon/oligopoly is the most inefficient way to distribute resources or run anything. And that's the alternative to big government.
I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other less efficient systems. But I understand and agree with what you're saying about corporate mon/oligopolies (great term, BTW).
There are plenty of possible other alternatives. The most obvious one is an actual free market. Not the monstrosity that people like Bush and Greenspan promoted as a free market. No bailouts, no safety nets, no corporate subsidies, no preferential tax breaks, no "too big to fail," no hiding behind corporate entities when someone in a company commits a crime. No corporations at all.
We've tried some degree of central planning for most of our history. It's wound up turning us into a mostly fascist country. Why don't we give the alternative a chance?
My version of the history books disagrees. Hoover did pretty much exactly the same things FDR did. FDR just did them bigger, and he made people feel better about the disaster. All the Austrian economists I've read blame Hoover's interference for turning a fairly minor recession into the Depression and FDR's for making it last so long.
Considering the fact that we're seeing pretty much mirror-image responses, I'm feeling more than a little pessimistic about the future.
The 1920 crash was probably bigger than the one that kicked off the Great Depression. Harding backed off, cut government spending, cut taxes, and it was over in 18 months.
It's part of the religion to care less about possible adversities as a result of your good action.
I read the emphasis on "result of your good action."
You interpretation could be completely correct. Communication over the internet is difficult. I was just trying to show you my point of view so my original comment about Gandhi would (hopefully) make sense.
I think we saw the OP at completely 180 degrees. I interpreted it as saying "Choose the right course of action and follow it. Don't fear the consequences." In their case, the course they decided was "right" included the non-violent resistance. Considering that the example he gave seems to have been about a terrorist bomb squad...I don't think he was advocating just sitting around and accepting the things in life that you hate.
Of course, I could be reading it completely backwards.
If you stretch it out a bit further, though, this mindset has been responsible for a lot of good as well.
Not the "ignore everyone and everything else" part. But the "willingness to do it despite possible consequences" part. Think William Wallace, the Declaration of Independence, Rosa Parks, sit-ins protesting segregation, etc.
Sometimes, when the rules are wrong, the only acceptable response is to break them.
Once they've committed the bad acts, or indicated they're about to do so, they've initiated force. There's nothing wrong with defending yourself (or others) from someone determined to do harm.
Protecting people from their own stupidity is just delaying the inevitable. The only way they can learn from their mistakes is by committing. I'm fine with advising people to wear seat belts, not requiring their insurance to pay the medical bills if they're in an accident without one, and even with the hospital turning away someone who can't possibly pay because they put themselves in that situation. But forcing them to wear a one is just wrong.
In order to get a warrant, the cop has to swear to the judge that there's probable cause to believe there's some connection with a crime.
The 4th Amendment was written for situations like this and civil asset forfeiture. Our legal system has gotten turned completely upside down. Judges have forgotten that they're supposed to protect innocent victims, whether the perpetrators were other civilians or Congress.
Yes, there is the point about having a cop follow the suspect around all day. But cops are always short-handed, and technology like this lets them crack down tighter on the whole "Big Brother" thing. If they have to have an actual person dedicated to following the kid around, odds are they'll limit themselves to suspects who are actually worth investigating.
I've had pretty much exactly this same argument on several occasions.
It always seems to boil down to the Christian saying "Sure, an omniscient God would know the outcome of everything before setting up the conditions. But being omnipotent, He could have still arranged for us to have free will. Even if that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We're talking about God here."
It's an entertaining mental game, but, for a lot of people, belief and emotions trump logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all! If there's no jack-booted thug standing behind us with a gun pointed at our backs, we're free to pool our resources. We can set up whatever agreement we like, and arrange what happens if I'm stupid enough to step into the street in front of a bus tomorrow morning. Any "corporation" that grows "too big to fail" needs to be broken into smaller pieces so it isn't. This isn't just a matter of "general welfare." It's a matter of national security.
Ouch. What I saw in your response was "regulation, regulation, and more regulation." My whole point is to drop those, along with the regulations that allow corporations to take advantage of them.
I don't have *anything* against people joining together to "mitigate risk, amass capital for large investments, etc." My problem is when they do that and then drive bluefin tuna further toward extinction (does writing this make me a treehugger?).
Not to mentioning the wholesale slaughter of (what was it?) 13 of your employees.
I think we're writing the same thing about holding owners personally accountable.
The Supreme Court decided back in the 1860's that corporations are people, with rights. That same court has been giving the more and more rights ever since.
Anything that treats a corporation as a person is evil and should be abolished. The Supreme Court decision that turned corporations into people (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad) was one of America's first big steps down the road back to feudalism.
Nah. The government would just spend that much more and make the deficit that much higher.
Yeah, but...it's amazing how many "teabaggers are all stoopid" conversations I've had lately when I explain what the original points were. And I've been pleasantly surprised how many have ended up with "OK, I can respect that," or even "You know what? I totally agree with you."
The mission hasn't changed. Who cares if they stole our symbol? Their noise gets enough attention for us to get at least a little signal through. We're a lot closer to the mainstream than we were 4 years ago.
Originally it was mainly about the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, and ending the Federal Reserve. The reduced taxes we'd all pay for less government and more freedom were really just gravy. At least, as far as I was concerned.
I'm curious how you explain the sequence of events. A bunch of libertarians find each other and discover they enjoy each others' company, so they decide to start hosting tea parties, protesting George Bush's policies.
Some Conservative Republican notices, decides it's a great idea, they jump on the bandwagon. It gets noticed and starts getting media attention sometime around the election. Apparently, somewhere in the same time frame, Koch eagerly leaps in and starts throwing around money to his leaders to brainwash his minions to...be more right wing conservative?
There's a lot that's fishy about the whole story. But blaming Koch just doesn't add up. Unless the family's secretly been closet Republicans the entire time they've been pretending to be Libertarian? Do you think David's vice-presidential candidacy in 1980 was a clever plot to infiltrate the party and subvert them with Conservative ideas from within?
I hate to say it, but any of the Libertarians founders who still consider themselves members are now a fairly small minority. At least, that's been the impression I've gained at the last few rallies I've dropped in on.
Well, that's the thing about liberals. Their idea of "charity" is giving away other people's money.
I'll leave the rest of it alone, since we'll just have to agree to disagree about the tea party...and I don't really disagree about the most visible parts of it. But:
No, corporate mon/oligopoly is the most inefficient way to distribute resources or run anything. And that's the alternative to big government.
I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other less efficient systems. But I understand and agree with what you're saying about corporate mon/oligopolies (great term, BTW).
There are plenty of possible other alternatives. The most obvious one is an actual free market. Not the monstrosity that people like Bush and Greenspan promoted as a free market. No bailouts, no safety nets, no corporate subsidies, no preferential tax breaks, no "too big to fail," no hiding behind corporate entities when someone in a company commits a crime. No corporations at all.
We've tried some degree of central planning for most of our history. It's wound up turning us into a mostly fascist country. Why don't we give the alternative a chance?
My version of the history books disagrees. Hoover did pretty much exactly the same things FDR did. FDR just did them bigger, and he made people feel better about the disaster. All the Austrian economists I've read blame Hoover's interference for turning a fairly minor recession into the Depression and FDR's for making it last so long.
Considering the fact that we're seeing pretty much mirror-image responses, I'm feeling more than a little pessimistic about the future.
The 1920 crash was probably bigger than the one that kicked off the Great Depression. Harding backed off, cut government spending, cut taxes, and it was over in 18 months.
Thanks. I agree.
That's the way I understand it as well. Those things are just evil...we should never have let this happen.
Good points.
It's part of the religion to care less about possible adversities as a result of your good action.
I read the emphasis on "result of your good action."
You interpretation could be completely correct. Communication over the internet is difficult. I was just trying to show you my point of view so my original comment about Gandhi would (hopefully) make sense.
I think we saw the OP at completely 180 degrees. I interpreted it as saying "Choose the right course of action and follow it. Don't fear the consequences." In their case, the course they decided was "right" included the non-violent resistance. Considering that the example he gave seems to have been about a terrorist bomb squad...I don't think he was advocating just sitting around and accepting the things in life that you hate.
Of course, I could be reading it completely backwards.
I dunno...it worked out pretty well for Gandhi. Then again, maybe he's the exception that proves the rule.
If you stretch it out a bit further, though, this mindset has been responsible for a lot of good as well.
Not the "ignore everyone and everything else" part. But the "willingness to do it despite possible consequences" part. Think William Wallace, the Declaration of Independence, Rosa Parks, sit-ins protesting segregation, etc.
Sometimes, when the rules are wrong, the only acceptable response is to break them.
Once they've committed the bad acts, or indicated they're about to do so, they've initiated force. There's nothing wrong with defending yourself (or others) from someone determined to do harm.
Protecting people from their own stupidity is just delaying the inevitable. The only way they can learn from their mistakes is by committing. I'm fine with advising people to wear seat belts, not requiring their insurance to pay the medical bills if they're in an accident without one, and even with the hospital turning away someone who can't possibly pay because they put themselves in that situation. But forcing them to wear a one is just wrong.
I'm sad you posted this AC. It deserves better than what it'll get.
LOL.
Yes!
In order to get a warrant, the cop has to swear to the judge that there's probable cause to believe there's some connection with a crime.
The 4th Amendment was written for situations like this and civil asset forfeiture. Our legal system has gotten turned completely upside down. Judges have forgotten that they're supposed to protect innocent victims, whether the perpetrators were other civilians or Congress.
Yes, there is the point about having a cop follow the suspect around all day. But cops are always short-handed, and technology like this lets them crack down tighter on the whole "Big Brother" thing. If they have to have an actual person dedicated to following the kid around, odds are they'll limit themselves to suspects who are actually worth investigating.
I've had pretty much exactly this same argument on several occasions.
It always seems to boil down to the Christian saying "Sure, an omniscient God would know the outcome of everything before setting up the conditions. But being omnipotent, He could have still arranged for us to have free will. Even if that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We're talking about God here."
It's an entertaining mental game, but, for a lot of people, belief and emotions trump logic.