  (Click photo to enlarge.) |
You’ve got to give them credit. They’re consistent in their protection of greed.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced on Monday a crackdown on offshore tax havens that could produce $210 billion in new tax revenue over the next decade.
The White House will face opposition to the proposal from the business community and Congress. Before the announcement, a Republican leadership staffer circulated an email citing a Bloomberg report saying the proposal “would be the biggest tax increase on U.S. corporations since 1986.” And Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ken.) said later on Monday that he could not endorse Obama’s plan since it “gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies.”
You gotta give credit to the GOP for having huevos.
Defending an indefensible position takes guts, if outright arrogance.
#64, Liberty Liar,
Ayn Rand was wrong then and your quote is still wrong today.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
Wrong. The creation of America supplanted the British overlords with American overlords. The elite still ran the show for years to come.
The US was the first moral society in history.
Even for a fuzzy word such as moral, very wrong. Greek City States were based upon law. So was Rome, Carthage, and several others. Iceland started the whole democratic representative assembly and they didn’t have slaves, many years before the American revolution.
Washington has convinced the majority of Americans of the same thing — “it’s for their own good.”
Usually Washington is right too. But if the majority of Americans don’t want our most vulnerable citizens to be homeless, then who are you to say “No, my individual rights to keep my money are more important than that homeless person’s right to live”.
Do I expect them to twist the words of that document to further their careers and prestige? No.
In other words, YOU will respect the democratic process until it does something you don’t agree with. When you disagree it is because they are twisting the Constitution to mean something else.
In short, the whole Libertarian platform is based upon “I got mine Jack, fuck you”.
#66
Ayn Rand was wrong then and your quote is still wrong today.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
Wrong. The creation of America supplanted the British overlords with American overlords.
You are really a cynic. You really think this country was founded on the same foundation as England?
Why do hate America?
The elite still ran the show for years to come.
If you mean educated individuals, then yes I have to agree.
The US was the first moral society in history.
Even for a fuzzy word such as moral,
Fuzzy? FUZZY??? Not really! There is right and wrong. There is no gray.
Greek City States were based upon law. So was Rome, Carthage, and several others. Iceland started the whole democratic representative assembly and they didn’t have slaves,
Um, you need to read up on your history. When Iceland was founded, they brought their slaves with them (mainly Irish and Scots). The Chieftains ruled for generations.
AFA law, the USSR had laws, too. Every society has them.
Washington has convinced the majority of Americans of the same thing — “it’s for their own good.”
Usually Washington is right too.
That’s what they said about Stalin and Hitler.
But if the majority of Americans don’t want our most vulnerable citizens to be homeless, then who are you to say “No, my individual rights to keep my money are more important than that homeless person’s right to live”.
You are still missing the point and I honestly think you do get it, but just refuse to admit it publicly. Nobody with any intelligence can honestly believe the things you claim to.
Do I expect them to twist the words of that document to further their careers and prestige? No.
In other words, YOU will respect the democratic process until it does something you don’t agree with. When you disagree it is because they are twisting the Constitution to mean something else.
It is pretty clear the federal government has taken power it was never intended to have. That’s why every few years the OTHER party gets elected. But with only a two party system in name only, people’s choices are limited.
In short, the whole Libertarian platform is based upon “I got mine Jack, fuck you”.
I going to pull a “you.” Show me where it says that.
Liberty Liar,
You are really a cynic. You really think this country was founded on the same foundation as England?
Yup. In fact, there was a strong movement to crown George Washington.
The concept that all men suddenly became free is wrong. Slavery, indentured servitude, debtors prison, votes predicated upon wealth, women chattel of their husbands, and a wealth of other “British” cultures continued. Those of the governing elite and their friends ran the country.
When Iceland was founded, they brought their slaves with them (mainly Irish and Scots). The Chieftains ruled for generations.
You haven’t been up on your history. Slaves were usually integrated into the owner’s family within a generation. In Iceland, slavery as an institution died out in the 11 century through cultural means. The same happened in most of Scandinavia during that time.
AFA law, the USSR had laws, too. Every society has them.
But you were the one that brought up.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
That’s what they said about Stalin and Hitler.
Neither of whom were democratically elected. Although Hitler was Prime Minister, he assumed the mantle of Chancellor and never was elected again.
Say what? Instead of countering with an argument, you merely deny anyone could correctly think that way. It is obvious you don’t. It is equally obvious that the majority of Americans disagree with you. So now you believe the majority of Americans are unintelligent. That seems pretty pretentious to me.
It is pretty clear the federal government has taken power it was never intended to have.
You don’t provide any examples. Let’s see, how about railroads, nope, every railroad I know of crosses State lines. Maybe roads, well most local roads don’t but all major roads do cross State lines. Gee, both of them contribute to interstate commerce, but is that a bad thing?
Well how about drugs? OK, so we could leave every State to install their own evaluation agency and make all the manufacturers pass all 50 tests before selling their drugs. Or any other agency run by the Federal Government. Then we could have States refusing to allow drugs from another State because they aren’t safe.
In short, the whole Libertarian platform is based upon “I got mine Jack, fuck you”.
I going to pull a “you.” Show me where it says that.
It is called a summation. I don’t think the Editors would like it if I posted the whole Liebertarian Manifesto. And no. This is not a blind attack but an honest assessment. Disagree all you like, but then YOU can show us how I am wrong.
#62 – LibertyLoser,
Godin’s Law. You lose.
I mean Godwin’s Law, of course. And you still lose.
You should be aware that there is reason for this. It is highly insulting to the people who survived and to their family members to compare completely dissimilar situations as you have done.
#68, You are really a cynic. You really think this country was founded on the same foundation as England?
Yup. In fact, there was a strong movement to crown George Washington.
That’s because they didn’t know what to call him. Society had only ever known servitude. The thought of having the man in power step down scared a lot of people. We can thank him for setting the stage for all presidents until FDR.
And you know that so why try to compare the morals of a new idea to the old one based solely on what they wanted to call the president. That’s like saying because the languages were the same, the ideas were the same.
The concept that all men suddenly became free is wrong. Slavery, indentured servitude, debtors prison, votes predicated upon wealth, women chattel of their husbands, and a wealth of other “British” cultures continued. Those of the governing elite and their friends ran the country.
All “men,” did. Slaves and women were not considered “men.” Does that mean the ideas of freedom for all “men” were any less revolutionary? It had to start somewhere. Yes, slavery was bad. Yes, women as chattel was bad. In the process of freeing them, we somehow managed to enslave ourselves to the collective.
And I was hoping you would bring up the “votes predicated upon wealth.” It wasn’t wealth, but landowners.
Do you feel it is right for someone without any property to vote to take away the property of someone else? Example: Should people who live in apartments have the right to vote to increase the property taxes on someone who owns land?
I already know your answer. So, you have to ask yourself, what is the difference between that and Soviet farms?
When Iceland was founded, they brought their slaves with them (mainly Irish and Scots). The Chieftains ruled for generations.
You haven’t been up on your history. Slaves were usually integrated into the owner’s family within a generation. In Iceland, slavery as an institution died out in the 11 century through cultural means. The same happened in most of Scandinavia during that time.
In name only:
But slavery does seem to have been dying out in Iceland even prior to the Christian “conversion” — not out of any moral enlightenment, however, but because the ecology of Iceland necessitated a shift in emphasis from agriculture to pasturing, which requires a higher degree of unsupervised labour, making slavery less viable.
They did it out of necessity and not out of any superior moral ethics.
AFA law, the USSR had laws, too. Every society has them.
But you were the one that brought up.
You missed the point. Just because a society has laws, doesn’t make those laws, or societies, just.
Neither of whom were democratically elected. Although Hitler was Prime Minister, he assumed the mantle of Chancellor and never was elected again.
And that has what to do with popular support? Stalin led a revolution that turned into four generations of slavery. Hitler had the support because Germany was in such dire straights after WWI.
Say what? Instead of countering with an argument, you merely deny anyone could correctly think that way. It is obvious you don’t. It is equally obvious that the majority of Americans disagree with you. So now you believe the majority of Americans are unintelligent. That seems pretty pretentious to me.
Actually, I believe that the majority of Americans are smart enough to fend for themselves. How about you?
[snip]
Let’s put this in simple terms. Do you believe the majority has the right to take 50% of someone’s salary to satisfy themselves?
What about 60%? 70%? 100%?
These are simple yes/no questions.
In short, the whole Libertarian platform is based upon “I got mine Jack, fuck you”.
I going to pull a “you.” Show me where it says that.
It is called a summation.
And an incorrect one at that.
Read this. The title is definitely shocking, but the book will explain everything in detail.
http://tinyurl.com/chp3ht
I don’t actually expect you to read it, but I think you should. You have this misconception of what Libertarianism is all about.
#64 – Liberty Loser,
Where’d you get the propaganda?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#History
Oh … some young cult. I get it. I didn’t know you followed L. RAyn HubbRand. Young cults are no better than old ones.
#70, Ah, the “Appeal to Authority” argument.
Perhaps I should just start calling him Hitler Twin and get it over with right at the start then.
Liberty Loser,
You’re also missing a key point of morals. They are a sliding scale. Chimps have ’em. Monkeys have ’em.
Do you deny evolution?
If not, why do you think that morals evolved in single step evolution fully formed from nothing? There are plenty of examples of non-human animal morality. If it’s not uniquely human, and it isn’t, then it didn’t get invented here in the GOUSA 140 years ago, to pick a time after slavery, which you seem to consider evidence for immorality in Iceland.
#72, I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the American concept of Freedom wasn’t born with the American Revolution?
#74, Morals are indeed a human construct because we have a choice. Animals do not unless you consider animals to be sentient.
Animals are motivated by a survival instinct, just as humans are. The difference is we can choose to be brutes and take what we want from our fellow man or we can choose to work with our fellow man, exchanging the goods each of us has produced.
#75, Liberty Liar,
Are you saying that the American concept of Freedom wasn’t born with the American Revolution?
It wasn’t. The freedom we experience today is not the same experience of 225 years ago.
The rest of your arguments all seem to be just apologies and explanations of why something happened rather than admit they did, for example Washington being offered a crown. The US does not own nor did it originate the concept of individual freedom.
Most Americans are quite deluded into thinking we have the best freedom in the world. While you obviously concur, the freedom to die from cancer while living under a bridge is not what most other countries would call freedom. Even still, most American’s morals dictate we don’t let people die under bridges for lack of medical treatment.
Do you believe the majority has the right to take 50% of someone’s salary to satisfy themselves?
Yes. When we as a society decide that YOUR fair share of the cost of the society is a certain percentage of your salary, then it becomes your obligation to contribute. So what if you don’t feel you are getting your money’s worth. None of us get to chose which services the collective should offer others. If some grandfather in East Bumphuk Iowa, living under a bridge, needs an operation then give it to him and improve my road later.
That you would rather the man die so as not to inconvenience you is a demonstration of the “I got mine Jack, fuck you” mentality you espouse.
The wealth you accumulate isn’t all your’s. It was gained through the use of our society. Yup. Our police protected you by putting the bad guys behind bars. The transportation departments built and maintained the roads so you could get to work every day. Our military guarded our borders to keep invaders away. Our schools taught you and your employers and employees. Our dollars built the hospitals and universities. In other words, we built this society.
Then we enacted laws to protect the individuals in it from those unscrupulous characters that would steal, the hucksters and con artists. We made laws that provided for orderly behavior of the citizens.
If you don’t want to be a part of that society, try the Caymans or some other place.
Liberty Liar,
When the federal government sticks its nose in the business dealings of companies and interferes with free trade, you are no longer free, I don’t care how you try to spin it.
Show me when there has ever been free trade. It has never existed.
WalMart tells it suppliers, “Give me this at that price or else”. The business can’t afford to supply at that price and loses the business to WalMart sourcing from China. And you think that is fair that WalMart not support domestic suppliers that contribute to the same society?
Because WalMart refuses to pay its suppliers or even their own employees a fair wage, the cost of their medical benefits fall upon all taxpayers. But you think that is fair.
The US still won’t allow Canadian lumber into the country because of the damage (ya right) to American producers. But Canadian lumber producers pay less for their trees than American producers. Is that free trade?
American manufacturers help pay for all the infrastructure, is it fair trade that Chinese imports use those facilities without paying?Is it fair to charge foreign traders more to use the facilities than it is domestic traders?
Nope, commerce is the rightful property of all of society. That is why trademarks, copyrights, and patents all have expiry dates. If you want to do business in our society, you play by our rules.
#78,
Perhaps not in the way you envision it, but the US was the first to codify it into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
Tell that to the ancient Athenians and Spartans. I think they might disagree with you. But then most right wing nuts like to invent their own version of history.
#79,
WalMart tells it suppliers, “Give me this at that price or else”. The business can’t afford to supply at that price and loses the business to WalMart sourcing from China. And you think that is fair that WalMart not support domestic suppliers that contribute to the same society?
Do you really think this is WalMart’s fault or the economic environment created by the lawyers trying to be economists? Or the Fed inflating the dollar to the point where you have to make $X/hr and thus the manufacturer you work for has to charge more for the final product? Or lobbyists pushing for laws that favor their clients instead of being equal for all?
You can blame the businesses all you want, but the problem is Congress passing laws that favor these kinds of problems.
Because WalMart refuses to pay its suppliers or even their own employees a fair wage, the cost of their medical benefits fall upon all taxpayers. But you think that is fair.
No, it’s not fair. But what can you do? Nationalize WalMart and fix prices? That didn’t work out too well for the Soviets.
No, you remove the trade barriers, you remove minimum wages, you use anti-trust regulation to break up unions into state entities instead of national entities.
The US still won’t allow Canadian lumber into the country because of the damage (ya right) to American producers. But Canadian lumber producers pay less for their trees than American producers. Is that free trade?
Now, you are making sense. I am very anti-protectionist.
Nope, commerce is the rightful property of all of society.
Commerce, yes. The infrastructure, no.
That is why trademarks, copyrights, and patents all have expiry dates. If you want to do business in our society, you play by our rules.
Does that include increasing the copyright time limit?
#80,
Tell that to the ancient Athenians and Spartans. I think they might disagree with you. But then most right wing nuts like to invent their own version of history.
Sparta had kings. And a VERY large slave contingent as all male had to be soldiers first.
Athens was mob ruled. They were subservient to society.
Next?
#76 – LibertyLover,
#74, Morals are indeed a human construct because we have a choice. Animals do not unless you consider animals to be sentient.
I do. I also believe sentience to be based on a number of factors. I also believe it to be a sliding scale. You seem to believe it to be a binary on/off switch. What do you have to support such a claim? Do you not see that it denies evolution by being far more sudden a step in evolution than even punctuated equilibrium would allow?
Animals are motivated by a survival instinct, just as humans are. The difference is we can choose to be brutes and take what we want from our fellow man or we can choose to work with our fellow man, exchanging the goods each of us has produced.
As can non-human animals to varying degrees, just as one might expect if one believes in evolution.
In fact, one can even view the studies showing fMRI scans that show not only that animals perform similarly on certain tests in exchanging goods and moral behavior but that the same exact structures in the brains of animals light up when performing the task as do in humans.
Why is it that Objectivists, who IME claim to be atheists, tend to believe in behaviorist psychology … and why only for non-humans?
The behaviorist view is flat dead wrong on so many counts, first and foremost being that if it were true, behaviorist psychologists could not have thought of behaviorist psychology in the first place.
But, to apply it only to non-human animals and deny such obvious facts as chimps having the same facial expressions and emotions as humans or sperm whales having 20 lb brains or all of the tremendous number of studies on animal intelligence is just plain silly.
And, it flies in the face of evolution by making the claim that intelligence/morality/ethics and the rest all evolved in single step evolution with the human species.
This makes no sense.
#75 – LibertyLoser,
#72, I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the American concept of Freedom wasn’t born with the American Revolution?
What a stupid and loaded question! You try to veil your assertion that the American Freedom is the only freedom that exists and that it, of course, was born with the American Revolution.
This is stupid. No. I’m saying that the concept of Freedom (scratch the word American) did not start in America.
And, since you argued that slavery made Iceland not free, clearly the concept of freedom that you consider to be freedom did not start in this country until after the Civil War.
Boy you make strange assumptions, assertions, and self-contradictory statements!
#78 – LibertyLoser,
Perhaps not in the way you envision it, but the US was the first to codify it into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
I must have missed when that happened. I thought some states still had vastly better education systems than others, especially the states with higher per capita income. Ditto and even more so when looking at local school districts where some districts outspend other nearby districts by over 2.5 times the amount spent per pupil.
So, when exactly did we all become equal?
I still work toward that goal and hope that one day we can achieve it. Do you?
Liberty Loser,
When the federal government sticks its nose in the business dealings of companies and interferes with free trade, you are no longer free, I don’t care how you try to spin it.
Wow you’ve really drunk the corporate Kool-Aid!! Here’s a tip, when it smells like almonds, don’t drink it.
Here’s the problem with your
incredibly stupidstatement.[b]Corporations are not life forms.[/b]
Corporations are tools created by human beings, like hammers and screwdrivers. The purpose of a corporation is to limit one’s liability to only what s/he has invested in a business.
It is not to protect one from prosecution for crimes.
It is not to allow one to evade taxes.
It is not to allow one to shirk responsibility for one’s actions.
That it has been used for all of the above is a crime. Corporations have whatever rights we choose to give them. They do not have any inalienable rights. They do not even have the right to exist if we decide against them.
I would personally choose to allow them to exist for only their original purpose.
To say that real live human beings with real rights can only be free when MalFart, Home Despot, Blood Bath and Beyond, and all the rest are free to trample us to death and not pay any taxes is ludicrous in the extreme.
If you were really for liberty, you would support liberty for individuals and strict regulation of corporations. But alas, you have drunk the Kool-Aid and are willing to give up your own right to live and be healthy so that corporations may rob you blind.
#81 – Liberty Loser,
Do you really think this is WalMart’s fault or the economic environment created by the lawyers trying to be economists?
Follow the money. MallFart’s executives bought the politician and paid to make the law what it is. I think we can hold the executives responsible for their actions.
Corporations do not do anything. They are a legal fiction, not a life form.
You can blame the businesses all you want, but the problem is Congress passing laws that favor these kinds of problems.
When business buys congress, how do you separate the two?
No, it’s not fair. But what can you do? Nationalize WalMart and fix prices? That didn’t work out too well for the Soviets.
You can regulate them within an inch of their non-lives and require them to play by the rules if they want access to the number one consumerist market in the world.
No, you remove the trade barriers, you remove minimum wages, you use anti-trust regulation to break up unions into state entities instead of national entities.
All to make MallFart executives happy at the expense of the rest of us? Why?
The US still won’t allow Canadian lumber into the country because of the damage (ya right) to American producers. But Canadian lumber producers pay less for their trees than American producers. Is that free trade?
No. It means both Canada and the U.S. subsidize and industry ridiculously, which is most definitely not free trade by either of us.
How much is an 800 year old tree worth?
How much would it cost to grow one?
But, here in the U.S., we sell it for a dollar to a timber company and then get nearly zero job creation from it because … WE SELL THE UNPROCESSED TIMBER OVERSEAS!! Oh yeah, and the government will pay to cut the roads to the tree so that you don’t have to do much work to get it out of there.
We are idiots.
#76, Sentience
I don’t claim any special knowledge on whether animals are on any evolutionary track. I don’t make any claims as to when we became sentient*. I do know when the US codified true morality is when they codified freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
I will say that animals have not constructed any recognizable civilizations.
Based on that, I have to worry about getting along in the world I know, exchanging goods I produce with goods other people produce.
#84, No, I wasn’t trying to assert anything. That’s just what it read like.
What I am saying is the US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
#85, I never said we were all equal. I said, again, the US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
Where in that quote did I state that all men were equal or not equal? But since you brought up the subject of equality, I want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
#86 That it has been used for all of the above is a crime. Opinion, but still law.
I also feel because we have to pay federal income taxes, it’s a crime. Opinion, but still law.
YMMV.
I would personally choose to allow them to exist for only their original purpose.
I agree. So, you have to ask yourself who gave these powers to corporations? Who stuck their noses in free trade and twisted it so? Perhaps we should regulate Congress, too . . . oh, wait, the Constitution is supposed to do that. Why hasn’t it?
#87, You can regulate them within an inch of their non-lives and require them to play by the rules if they want access to the number one consumerist market in the world.
What rules? It’s the rules that got us in the mess we’re in now!
I know what you are saying and I really do agree to a certain extent but applying MORE regulations is not the answer because you are not going to be the one writing the regs. The corps are though their lobbyists.
The only workable solution is to remove all regulations AND protections from corporations. If they have to compete on equal footing AND be liable for their own mistakes (violation of property rights), then there will be no choice but to clean up their act. Otherwise, they will be sued out of existence.
*However, I did read a book a few years back that discussed this very subject, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.” It’s not the definitive answer but it did cause me to re-evaluate my own dogs 🙂
http://tinyurl.com/o49t8m
#88, Liberty Liar,
The point you miss is that every argument you have made is hollow, a distortion, or just plain wrong. You will continue to believe you are correct and I don’t have a problem with that. My issue concerns your insistence on stupid claims such as Congress doesn’t have the authority to cap CEO’s salaries or that Federal Income tax is illegal.
Calling you disillusioned is an understatement. If you need to depend upon others’ writings to form your own opinions then you don’t have much of a critical thinking capacity.
Understand, this is the clue that you are a poser. You get your ideas from others. A mature person might be shaped and influenced by others, but will rely upon his own thinking process to come to a conclusion. A mature person will use quotes to bolster his argument, not to make it.
Suggesting I (we) read a specified text won’t work. I am quite sure Scott and I can understand propaganda when we see it. We know better than to fall under its seductiveness. We also know how to decipher the bull shit from the facts as has been done here.
You made unsubstantiated claims by quoting someone else. When shown those claims were distorted or false you tried to twist them into some minutia of veracity. It didn’t work. An example of “drinking the Kool-Aid” (a term I hate) formed your opinions because you weren’t critical.
Many years ago I had a friendly argument with someone about selling aspirin. He extolled the benefits of capitalism and free markets that allowed all these different companies to get in the game. Competition is good; it gives us better products at a good price. Plus he had just finished reading Ayn Rand.
Only, there were a total of three plants that manufactured aspirin under license for all the retailers. And there was one supplier of the precursors or raw materials. The formula for aspirin hadn’t changed since 1896. Yup, a lot of competition there.
There is no free market. Those in it don’t want a free market, they want to dominate and control the market to the exclusion of competitors. They want immunity from torts and paying for their share of society. Although the quote “What is good for GM is good for America” is actually a misquote, the substance is the mindset of capitalism.
Well, I have to go. Have a good day.
#88 – LibertyLover,
I do know when the US codified true morality is when they codified freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
When was this? Certainly not in the constitution that counted slaves as 1/3 of a human and “indians” meaning native americans who didn’t count at all.
Today we have a system where 47 million people have no health care. Some schools are dramatically underfunded. Some states set reading proficiency dramatically higher than others. Racial profiling still exists to some degree and has officially existed within this decade.
So, when did this mythical equality begin?
Better yet, how do we get there from here?
From your post:
Quote 1: I never said we were all equal.
Quote 2: No man is above another man in social status.
These two statements are contradictory.
What rules? It’s the rules that got us in the mess we’re in now!
Actually, it’s the systematic removal for the last 28 years through all administrations of the rules that used to be in place prior to Ronald Reagan that got us where we are.
This country thrived when corporations had strict regulation and has been going downhill as a direct result of deregulation.
http://tinyurl.com/dxzanh
The only workable solution is to remove all regulations AND protections from corporations. If they have to compete on equal footing AND be liable for their own mistakes (violation of property rights), then there will be no choice but to clean up their act. Otherwise, they will be sued out of existence.
I don’t agree that one can remove the protections without creating regulations. One of the regulations we need is for deep accounting principles. We simply can’t survive as long as the corporations are privatizing profits while socializing costs and risks. This is today’s problem.
As for stopping the corps from lobbying, that should be job 1. We must stop all lobbying, especially by foreign corporations, but even by domestic ones.
#89, If you need to depend upon others’ writings to form your own opinions then you don’t have much of a critical thinking capacity.
Again, you are wrong. How does it feel to be wrong so much?
I quote from other people’s writing when they say more eloquently what I believe. I found the theories. I didn’t have to be convinced of them.
Well, I have to go. Have a good day.
You always seem to run off when confronted with a lucid argument. Why is that?
#90,
When was this? Certainly not in the constitution that counted slaves as 1/3 of a human and “indians” meaning native americans who didn’t count at all.
Already answered. The culture at the time only counted White Men as “men.”
But to state because of that, the idea that no man is beholden to no one thing or person is not revolutionary, is missing the entire point of the Constitution.
The culture has evolved to include women, indians, blacks, asians, etc into the definition of “men.” The idea of freedom in that regard has not changed.
How all men end up after taking or not taking advantage of their freedom is irrelevant. They are free.
Quote 1: I never said we were all equal.
Quote 2: No man is above another man in social status.
Equality and freedom are not the same thing.
Soviet surfs were all equal. They were not free. They were beholden to someone. Equality of outcome.
Bill Gates wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth but he became the richest man in the world. In America, you have (in theory) equality of opportunity.
Don’t confuse equality with freedom. They are two different things.
We simply can’t survive as long as the corporations are privatizing profits while socializing costs and risks. This is today’s problem.
Agreed. These bailouts are horrendous miscarriages of justice.
As for stopping the corps from lobbying, that should be job 1.
I am not sure how you can do that unless you wish to stop “freedom of association.” It’s a slippery slope when you start that.
#92 – LibertyLoser,
When was this? Certainly not in the constitution that counted slaves as 1/3 of a human and “indians” meaning native americans who didn’t count at all.
Already answered. The culture at the time only counted White Men as “men.”
But to state because of that, the idea that no man is beholden to no one thing or person is not revolutionary, is missing the entire point of the Constitution.
Incorrect again. At the time, only white men counted as men and women presumably didn’t count at all. However, by today’s standards, men were indeed beholden to others, as were women. So, your point is flat dead wrong. In fact, I think you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
Quote 1: I never said we were all equal.
Quote 2: No man is above another man in social status.
Equality and freedom are not the same thing.
However, freedom is not in either of the statements I claim are contradictory. So your answer is neither an answer nor a correction. The statements are still contradictory.
Bill Gates wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth
Not gold perhaps, but definitely silver, yes.
From wikipedia:
I am not sure how you can do that unless you wish to stop “freedom of association.” It’s a slippery slope when you start that.
Actually, I just plan to take human rights away from non-human corporations. In practice, this will indeed be difficult precisely because we live in a corporatocracy. However, we cannot be free when corporations, mere legal fictions, have more freedoms and liberties than live flesh and blood human beings.
#93, However, by today’s standards, men were indeed beholden to others, as were women.
Who were they beholden to? And I do believe I included women in my statement as not being “men.”
Quote 2 . . .
However, freedom is not in either of the statements I claim are contradictory. So your answer is neither an answer nor a correction. The statements are still contradictory.
Ah, I see your confusion. You only took the one sentence out of my statement and tried to fit all the others into it. If you read it in the context it was supposed to be read in, I think you’ll see I was talking about freedom:
The US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
If you are subservient to someone/thing, you are not free. Do you agree with that?
Where in the Constitution does it say that men were subservient to someone/thing? It doesn’t nor is it implied. In fact, the BOR specifically states that government is subservient to men. It’s gotten twisted.
Re:Gates
Without getting in a subjective opinion argument on what constitutes a silver spoon, do you think it was his parent’s wealth that made him the richest man in the world or his business sense?
#94 – LibertyLoser,
#93, However, by today’s standards, men were indeed beholden to others, as were women.
Who were they beholden to? And I do believe I included women in my statement as not being “men.”
The men (black men) were slaves to other men (white men). The women were chattels and had no vote. Is that not beholden? Slaves are explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
I was incorrect. Apparently a slave counted as 3/5ths of a human being. So, were the slaves free? Were the slaves men? Do you claim that because they were not considered men at the time of the framing of the constitution that they still may not be considered men?
Ah, I see your confusion. You only took the one sentence out of my statement and tried to fit all the others into it. If you read it in the context it was supposed to be read in, I think you’ll see I was talking about freedom:
The US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
Yes, but two of the sentences in your paragraph are still contradictory to each other.
If you are subservient to someone/thing, you are not free. Do you agree with that?
Of course!! Do you agree that if one was a man by today’s standards but not by 1792 standards and was a slave, that one was still an enslaved man?
Where in the Constitution does it say that men were subservient to someone/thing? It doesn’t nor is it implied. In fact, the BOR specifically states that government is subservient to men. It’s gotten twisted.
Quoted above, note the bit about free men, Indians, or “other persons”. Other persons were slaves.
Re:Gates
Without getting in a subjective opinion argument on what constitutes a silver spoon, do you think it was his parent’s wealth that made him the richest man in the world or his business sense?
I think he had an advantage not available to many in the nation that gave him the ability to become the richest man in the world. Some who may be just as smart do not have the opportunity he had. So, I don’t see it as either or. I see it as a combination of factors. One contributing factor in his wealth was his business sense. Another was the advantage of his birth.