It could be done, but you might have to sacrifice the one car per person ideal. Trains instead of cars etc.I prefer to think of us as the "Bacon of Human Rights". Everything is better with bacon, yummmm.
As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.
Only if you are going to replace all roads with tracks, otherwise that isn't remotely a workable solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal
-Which is why you buy arizona.
Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family.
700 billion will buy a heck of a high speed rail system.
Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable.
Right, but somehow killing 100,000 people so our corporations can milk Iraq for oil is the ACCEPTABLE option.
Lets kill 100,000 people... YAY!
Lets have an integrated national energy grid: INSAAAANITY!
Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.
Fear mongering spread by the corporations who control our govenment. The plan is perfectly fiesable and would lead to a better society but would not benefit the people currently in power so its going to get squashed.. unless we can change how corporations interact with the government.
Only if you are going to replace all roads with tracks, otherwise that isn't remotely a workable solution.It could be done, but you might have to sacrifice the one car per person ideal. Trains instead of cars etc.I prefer to think of us as the "Bacon of Human Rights". Everything is better with bacon, yummmm.
As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.
You're under the impression that if the mode of transportation doesn't drop you off within 10 feet of your specific destination it isn't a valid one. Walk a bit, friend. I think what we mean though is a high speed train infrastructure for interstate transportation. Like they have in Europe.
Also, you don't have to make cars work completely electric. Right now our goal with energy consumption should be making everything efficient enough as to use less fuel and buy us more time to find a better solution. Wind, solar, nuclear are all viable options to me, we just don't have an economy that is incentivizing research in these areas to make them more viable.
|
Only if you are going to replace all roads with tracks, otherwise that isn't remotely a workable solution.It could be done, but you might have to sacrifice the one car per person ideal. Trains instead of cars etc.I prefer to think of us as the "Bacon of Human Rights". Everything is better with bacon, yummmm.
As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.
You are going to need to replace the interstate system pretty soon anyways...
Fear mongering spread by the corporations who control our govenment. The plan is perfectly fiesable and would lead to a better society but would not benefit the people currently in power so its going to get squashed.. unless we can change how corporations interact with the government.
To be fair I think he was referring to fear mongering from environmentalists who have a genuine gripe. The stuff is incredibly damaging ecologically if it gets loose of those containers. But again if I was to choose between burying in New Mexico or Yucca Mountain and hoping for the best or slaughtering tens of thousands if not more in a pursuit for oil my choice would be the former, environmentally conscious though I am.
The waste disposal is only really a problem because of the transportation. Transportation is only a problem because the power plants are spread out all over the US. They're only spread out over the US because we don't have a national power grid. We don't have a national power grid largely because the state run companies enjoy jacking up the prices too much when the ad hoc system crashes.
The waste disposal is only really a problem because of the transportation. Transportation is only a problem because the power plants are spread out all over the US. They're only spread out over the US because we don't have a national power grid. We don't have a national power grid largely because the state run companies enjoy jacking up the prices too much when the ad hoc system crashes.
Well it's the same reason that we don't have a strong rail system, as I see it. We have a bicoastal country. There's some civilization up near me (Great Lakes area) but there's an awful lot of nothin in the middle. There are breadbasket states and then there are mountain/desert states with incredibly sparse populations and yet equal representation in government.
I'm not arguing against a national power grid, understand, just that the cynic in me sees it as little more than a pipe dream. Do you know of anyone talking about/suggesting institution of a national power grid? I'd love to get some literature.
As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.
The market will sort the battery problem.
As for nuclear power -- bring it on. Let us use some up-to-date designs while you're at it...
The waste disposal is only really a problem because of the transportation. Transportation is only a problem because the power plants are spread out all over the US. They're only spread out over the US because we don't have a national power grid. We don't have a national power grid largely because the state run companies enjoy jacking up the prices too much when the ad hoc system crashes.
Well it's the same reason that we don't have a strong rail system, as I see it. We have a bicoastal country. There's some civilization up near me (Great Lakes area) but there's an awful lot of nothin in the middle. There are breadbasket states and then there are mountain/desert states with incredibly sparse populations and yet equal representation in government.
I'm not arguing against a national power grid, understand, just that the cynic in me sees it as little more than a pipe dream. Do you know of anyone talking about/suggesting institution of a national power grid? I'd love to get some literature.
Considering that line losses are a major source of inefficiency in our current system, and they are trying to decentralize the power system more to reduce this, a central power system would be a pretty poor idea.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-wallstreet-protests-boston-idU STRE79A0P320111011
Something went down in Boston last night.
Hmm. Some of my newfound comrades were going to Boston yesterday. I'm going down for another socialist meeting Thursday with one of the other new comrades (and female! ka-ching!) and I'm sure I'll hear stories.
Anyway, word was that the Occupy Boston people had cleared the use of Dewey Square with Mayor Menino and he had told them that that was fine, but the state had just dumped a lot of money into another park (presumably the Greenway) and socialist hippies were to STAY OUT!
Which seems a reasonable compromise, but, whatever. Who's streets? Our streets!
|
Well at least you're honest about your murderous intent.The issue came up at the General Assembly and I turned to the organizers and said, "I want you to know right now that I am not an agent provocateur, but I am a communist who believes in armed revolution."
I'm starting to suspect that you're not a fan.
Regardless, a successful armed revolution would be less murderous than the Republican/Democratic regime that we've had for the last 20 years.
And, generally speaking, when you go ahead and alter someone's post, you're supposed to indicate it by stating something like: "emphasis mine".
Why, were you trying to hide the fact that you said something so stupid?
And no, it wouldn't be less murderous, millions if not billions would die just on collapsing infrastructures alone. The wars/armed conflict would be another body count.
Every institution you rely on would be gone. The technology you use, the music you listen to (unless State approved) and any games you play (waste of resources) would all change or disappear. Many would die in the initial revolution - people would need be to re-educated or be exterminated if they do not fit into the new scheme and way of thinking. There would be massive shortages, starvation and then secondary "Revolutions" (to thin the the herd), where more - millions more would die. What you want is take away everyone's freedom while you turn the world into a graveyard.
He's not a big fan of personal freedom either (specifically the right to choose who to assemble with).
No, I'm not.
Personal freedom and right to assemble end when you start planning the extermination/genocide of one raced or class (Nazi or Commie) of people. So, yeah - I do not support the freedom to cut one's own throat (as a country). Should I be ok that some joker wants to kill my family and my friends in his Glorious Proletariat Revolution? No, there are limits to his freedom, planning the demise of the US and millions of people is one of them.
re: energy
There is one singular reason why the US hasn't been working toward alternative energy for the last 40 years (at least): Big Oil. They want to charge top dollar for every last drop of oil they can get.
Meanwhile battery technology, engine technology, and energy efficiency across the board limp along, barely evolving. (I say "meanwhile" but I really mean "because that's how Big Oil wants it so they can make more money.")
The money spent on the Iraq war could have rebuilt this country's entire electric infrastructure several times over, with money left over for things like producing wind/solar that works, buying Arizona, etc. Heck, the money from the bailout could have rebuilt the grid. Twice. But where did the money go instead? Big Oil and Big Speculation.
re: controversy over corporate personhood
/baffled.
Although I will say I was incorrect in stating corporations have the ability to make donations. They do not--only advertisements. Per the wiki linked earlier on Citizens United.
Wow. It seems the problem was there were too many protesters to fit in the designated area, and so it was suddenly an "unlawful assembly." And what about the "civil disobedience will not be tolerated" bit? Going on record with that should be a career-ender for a public official.
Couldn't agree more.
re: armed revolution snafu
I suspect the goblin's rhetoric has always been a bit hyperbolic. I think you're overreacting. No one wants to kill your family.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-wallstreet-protests-boston-idU STRE79A0P320111011
Something went down in Boston last night.
Wow. It seems the problem was there were too many protesters to fit in the designated area, and so it was suddenly an "unlawful assembly." And what about the "civil disobedience will not be tolerated" bit? Going on record with that should be a career-ender for a public official.
From what I gather, pamphlets were handed out to the crowd by the police that day and evening outlining the boundary that could be slept in, an they spent a significant time trying to disperse the croud via megaphone announcements before people ignored them and were arrested.
I have no problem with how the police behaved in this situation. The protesters were given a venu and ample warning, and they proceeded to ignore it. The park in question is being used by conservation groups, and the pressence of that number of people will have ruin their efforts. The needs of different interest groups need to be ballanced, and just because you are upset does not give you the right to impede on others.
To be fair I think he was referring to fear mongering from environmentalists who have a genuine gripe. The stuff is incredibly damaging ecologically if it gets loose of those containers. But again if I was to choose between burying in New Mexico or Yucca Mountain and hoping for the best or slaughtering tens of thousands if not more in a pursuit for oil my choice would be the former, environmentally conscious though I am.Fear mongering spread by the corporations who control our govenment. The plan is perfectly fiesable and would lead to a better society but would not benefit the people currently in power so its going to get squashed.. unless we can change how corporations interact with the government.
Just checking facts and would like to point out that between Bush's Gulf War, Clinton's sanctions and numerous bombing runs, Bush 2's Gulf War 2, and Obama's continuing occupation, that the Iraqi death toll is closer to 6.5 million. (Now that's a bipartisan effort!/joke)
Just checking facts
-here we go again.
and would like to point out that between Bush's Gulf War, Clinton's sanctions and numerous bombing runs, Bush 2's Gulf War 2, and Obama's continuing occupation, that the Iraqi death toll is closer to 6.5 million. (Now that's a bipartisan effort!/joke)
Citation? 2 million people died in iraq during the embargo's does not = 2 million dead from the embargo.
Walk a bit, friend.
I said the same thing to Mr. Reeves right before he died. Too bad he didn't take such helpful advice.
Considering that line losses are a major source of inefficiency in our current system, and they are trying to decentralize the power system more to reduce this, a central power system would be a pretty poor idea.
The reason that the line losses are causing massive power outages is that the system is duct tapped together worse than something macgyuver put together while on a whiskey blender. One line suddenly finds itself under powered, draws from another line, which finds itself under powered, which has to draw from a line out of state, but the system really isn't designed to do that so it goes kaput.
If you had a system built from the ground up that was MEANT to interact you can avoid that.
Just checking facts-here we go again.
and would like to point out that between Bush's Gulf War, Clinton's sanctions and numerous bombing runs, Bush 2's Gulf War 2, and Obama's continuing occupation, that the Iraqi death toll is closer to 6.5 million. (Now that's a bipartisan effort!/joke)Citation? 2 million people died in iraq during the embargo's does not = 2 million dead from the embargo.
Just checking facts-here we go again.
and would like to point out that between Bush's Gulf War, Clinton's sanctions and numerous bombing runs, Bush 2's Gulf War 2, and Obama's continuing occupation, that the Iraqi death toll is closer to 6.5 million. (Now that's a bipartisan effort!/joke)Citation? 2 million people died in iraq during the embargo's does not = 2 million dead from the embargo.
It's quite hard to get actual figures, because as some general said " they don't do body counts".
The most conservative estimates are actually of 100-110.000 [g]violent[/g] civilian deaths since 2003. They are obtained by counting only the official death reports made by the iraqi government. Most statistical studies made by NGO (going there and ask the people) are in the 650.000 to 1 million bracket. Go figure.
That isn't counting the surmortality triggered by bad water, depleted uranium or others factors.
Considering that line losses are a major source of inefficiency in our current system, and they are trying to decentralize the power system more to reduce this, a central power system would be a pretty poor idea.The reason that the line losses are causing massive power outages is that the system is duct tapped together worse than something macgyuver put together while on a whiskey blender. One line suddenly finds itself under powered, draws from another line, which finds itself under powered, which has to draw from a line out of state, but the system really isn't designed to do that so it goes kaput.
If you had a system built from the ground up that was MEANT to interact you can avoid that.
Power outages were not what I was refering to. Actual transmition loss due to resistance in the wire was. The farther you have to transport power from the source, the higher your ineffiency because the more signal boosts you have to put in. Average losses in the US are a little over 6.5%. If we go to a model where the power is being transmitted across the country, those would go up significantly.
citation
Just checking facts-here we go again.
and would like to point out that between Bush's Gulf War, Clinton's sanctions and numerous bombing runs, Bush 2's Gulf Wjar 2, and Obama's continuing occupation, that the Iraqi death toll is closer to 6.5 million. (Now that's a bipartisan effort!/joke)Citation? 2 million people died in iraq during the embargo's does not = 2 million dead from the embargo.
Hem... Did you read the document from start to end? Because the last paragraph spoils it somewhat... I mean, that a lot of avoidable iraqi deaths happened is one thing, that Bush Jr exploded the twin towers is another, too far fetched for my taste...
how about one that ISN"T a conspiracy site?
Power outages were not what I was refering to. Actual transmition loss due to resistance in the wire was. The farther you have to transport power from the source, the higher your ineffiency because the more signal boosts you have to put in. Average losses in the US are a little over 6.5%. If we go to a model where the power is being transmitted across the country, those would go up significantly.
Tesla thought he'd solved this problem (theoretically) with his Wardenclyffe Tower:
"In addition to commercial wireless telecommunications, Tesla intended the tower be used to demonstrate how electrical energy could be transmitted without the need for power lines. A story has arisen that the power consumption could not be metered and [J.P.] Morgan, who could not foresee any financial gain from providing free electricity to everyone, balked."
Power outages were not what I was refering to. Actual transmition loss due to resistance in the wire was. The farther you have to transport power from the source, the higher your ineffiency because the more signal boosts you have to put in. Average losses in the US are a little over 6.5%. If we go to a model where the power is being transmitted across the country, those would go up significantly.Tesla thought he'd solved this problem (theoretically) with his Wardenclyffe Tower:
"In addition to commercial wireless telecommunications, Tesla intended the tower be used to demonstrate how electrical energy could be transmitted without the need for power lines. A story has arisen that the power consumption could not be metered and [J.P.] Morgan, who could not foresee any financial gain from providing free electricity to everyone, balked."
Tesla was both a conman and nuts.
But this trail is completely off topic.
Why, were you trying to hide the fact that you said something so stupid?
And no, it wouldn't be less murderous, millions if not billions would die just on collapsing infrastructures alone. The wars/armed conflict would be another body count.
Every institution you rely on would be gone. The technology you use, the music you listen to (unless State approved) and any games you play (waste of resources) would all change or disappear. Many would die in the initial revolution - people would need be to re-educated or be exterminated if they do not fit into the new scheme and way of thinking. There would be massive shortages, starvation and then secondary "Revolutions" (to thin the the herd), where more - millions more would die. What you want is take away everyone's freedom while you turn the world into a graveyard.
I do not advocate armed revolution. There would be a terrible loss of life, at least in the short term (though "turn the world into a graveyard" is more than a little hyperbolic).
However, I feel compelled to point out that socialism != communism != fascism, so the bits about "State approval" are more than a little misplaced.
Personally I'd prefer to have a system of capitalism with the outliers (on both ends) smoothed out and social mobility maximized. Unfortunately, I suspect most people here in the U.S. have been so well programmed that they would mistake that for socialism.
how about one that ISN"T a conspiracy site?
I found that one, who gives the lowest count available: link.
And another, who explains somewhat why it's almost impossible to have definite numbers, because the current policy of the occcupyng forces is to NOT count civilian deaths : link
For the record, a study made by the Lancet (the british medical journal) in 2006 from medical sources counted 650.000 excess civilian deaths in Iraq. It was five years ago!
Without some kind of mechanism i can't see how the number could possibly be that high.
|
I was thinking about this while driving to & from Boston this past weekend (and was wondering why all those Stateys were flying Eastbound on 90 just after Midnight last night...huh.)
What good will this movement actually achieve?
I do believe that the overall structure of our country has become so rotten & corrupt as to disenfranchise the common person nearly completely. We work and study and consume solely to accumulate more debt.
HOWEVER...
Unless every single working person in the country were to suddenly not show up for work, disengage our "auto-pay" accounts, cease buying corporately-produced anything, and stop feeding our lives into this system of greed, we (as a group) possess no leverage against the folks who currently hold the reins. (And that hypothetical situation will never happen, honestly.)
"We protest your corporate greed!" sounds all fine and grand, but know it for what it is: impotent rage, like a two-year-old's temper tantrum. The media has downplayed the messages, the police have arrested, corralled, and (sometimes) attacked the speakers, and the offending organizations care not one whit for the rhetoric; and every one of those folks goes home afterwards feeling good about their performance. The resources OWS uses to transmit their message even pays the same groups they're protesting. Words and chants and songs do not equate to policy or behavioral change.
This is a closed system, whereby the protesters serve as a "pressure relief" valve from time to time (I'm reminded of the Matrix eith this metaphor, actually). Until and unless we actively choose to stop participating in the charade that our civilization is in the people's control, there will be no significant change.
TL;DR: The people have no real leverage against the folks they're protesting, but do they truly realize that?
TL;DR: The people have no real leverage against the folks they're protesting, but do they truly realize that?
Well they DO have leverage, but it might require using wallstreet in a more literal fashion. (ie, the application of chunks of it to the investors heads)
Usually the willingness to gather peacefully signals that people aren't that far from gathering unpeacefully. Those in power take the hint and back off.
This crop of patricians on the other hand seem to run on the idea that they're immortal: They do something illegal the government makes it legal. they fail the government bails them out.
This is either going to end badly (unchanged) or very badly (violence)
Yeah, the whole thing reminds me of when Steven Colbert had Radiohead on his show, and they were spouting all this anti-corporation stuff. And then comedy central played right after the show, the South Park episode about the Hippy Jam fest (fight the power by holding a music festival and getting stoned). Somebody at scheduling for Comedy Central has a wickedly ironic sense of humor.
|
Peaceful protests can work, but only if the size of the protest is greater than the power of the police to manage it. Basically, the police must be converted to the cause for the protest to function.
At least, that's what it looks like to me, if Tunisia, Egypt, and many of the nations of Eastern Europe are to be believed.
|
|
I do not advocate armed revolution. There would be a terrible loss of life, at least in the short term (though "turn the world into a graveyard" is more than a little hyperbolic).
However, I feel compelled to point out that socialism != communism != fascism, so the bits about "State approval" are more than a little misplaced.
Personally I'd prefer to have a system of capitalism with the outliers (on both ends) smoothed out and social mobility maximized. Unfortunately, I suspect most people here in the U.S. have been so well programmed that they would mistake that for socialism.
You failed to see that I was quoting/commenting on Anklebiters "Revolution", not anything you posted.
And yes...there would be a new State - comprised by the Revolutionaries, let's not be coy here. Those involved in a Revolution, the leaders - become the leaders of the new society, that is of course after they kill/purge a few of their own who may want the Revolution to stop or progress beyond the final consensus (as history has shown).
Millions would die, no doubts. Even minor social upheavals or small wars can costs hundreds of thousands of deaths. Attempting to change the entire world with the weapons of war currently available would turn the world into a graveyard.
And to your last comment, it isn't a question of programming, State control/social mobility/economic justice is Socialism. When the controls and methods of production of society are managed by the State, then it's Socialism, plain and simple. There are varying degrees but central planning, redistribution, production based on needs, etc, are all part of it.
Maximizing social mobility (as appropriated or managed by the State) means empowering some by taking power/freedom away from others (via management). That is also Socialism.
Aux:
I am aware you weren't responding to me...I was just giving my input on the whole "violence as a tool for social change" bit.
As to the rest: Any deviation at all from laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily constitute socialism. The people and/or their representatives setting up society's legal framework to minimize extremes of wealth or to maximize social mobility is not socialism. Such an arrangement would not require state ownership or control of the means of production, but could be accomplished through other means -- say, progressive taxation.
Of course, if you equate taxation with oppression then there is really little point in further discussion.
Edit: 'Cause I wrote "regressive" when I mean "progressive," and for clarity.
|
|
Of course, if you conflate taxation with theft as you conflate socialism with fascism, then there is really little point in further discussion
I don't equate taxation with theft. I think every person and company needs to pay their fair share. Companies should also be required to do impact reports that go beyond environmental (such as impact on traffic, local housing, infrastructural changes to the town, etc).
I do equate taxation for social control as social engineering and thus evil. There are so many variables to that last part but of few of them are: who decides, how much, why, and also how does this impact and change society (and to what end). How does all this change with different parties coming into power? How can this level of control be used to enslave people and force behavior and choices of those represented?
I am not against taxation and regulations, but I am against taxation being used to punish or promote any kind of social mobility - it isn't the job of the State/Gov't to make everything fair, or manipulate society. Their job is just there to help enforce the laws of the land/contracts and yes, offer some critical infrastructure (oh noes, socialism!) that is best managed by a non-profit entity (and not for "revenue enhancement").
LOL at your edit, you let one slip! At least you're being honest, I didn't notice the terminology.
I don't equate taxation with theft. I think every person and company needs to pay their fair share. Companies should also be required to do impact reports that go beyond environmental (such as impact on traffic, local housing, infrastructural changes to the town, etc).
I do equate taxation for social control as social engineering and thus evil. There are so many variables to that last part but of few of them are: who decides, how much, why, and also how does this impact and change society (and to what end). How does all this change with different parties coming into power? How can this level of control be used to enslave people and force behavior and choices of those represented?
I am not against taxation and regulations, but I am against taxation being used to punish or promote any kind of social mobility - it isn't the job of the State/Gov't to make everything fair, or manipulate society. Their job is just there to help enforce the laws of the land/contracts and yes, offer some critical infrastructure (oh noes, socialism!) that is best managed by a non-profit entity (and not for "revenue enhancement").
LOL at your edit, you let one slip! At least you're being honest, I didn't notice the terminology.
And I think it well within the rights of the people to decide, through their government, how they want to treat each other -- especially those unable to fend for themselves.
It the case of capitalism, wealth is sometimes accumulated due to skill and hard work, sure, but just as often due to plain old luck, or even worse, the shameless willingness to do anything and everything -- including take advantage of others -- to get ahead. If capitalism cannot be justified under some notion of fairness or meritocracy, then surely it must be on the basis of maximizing the public good (in this case, through maximizing wealth)? And if that is the case, mustn't wealth distribution also be a factor?
And speaking of distribution: How is a particular wealth distribution deemed "natural," and therefore somehow worthy of preservation? Barring total anarchy, all wealth distribution happened in the context of society -- a human construct.
Edit: I really need to learn to organize my thoughts before I post them.
You progressively tax corporations and the rich and use the money to help the poor not to punish the rich, or because of any political ideology, but simply because the poor are suffering and the rich are not. To remediate that is natural.
To answer an earlier question, I think if OWS accomplishes minimally the passing of the "Return to Prudent Banking" Act, it will have been worthwhile. Because the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act is IMO one of the biggest contributors to the mess we're in now.
|
|
And I think it well within the rights of the people to decide, through their government, how they want to treat each other -- especially those unable to fend for themselves.
And this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think the government should work as a proxy deciding who can or cannot based upon means, i.e. gov't should not be a tool of equalization. In the eyes of the law, with regards to rights/protection yes, but that's where it ends. Gov't shouldn't actually try and flatten things out so that life is the same quality for everyone.
I do think that society (and yes, through gov't) can help out those who cannot take care of themselves - although my definition would probably be much narrower than yours.
It the case of capitalism, wealth is sometimes accumulated due to skill and hard work, sure, but just as often due to plain old luck, or even worse, the shameless willingness to do anything and everything -- including take advantage of others -- to get ahead.
Strongly disagree. In the case of capitalism wealth is mostly accumulated through skill and hard work. I don't think that someones hard work should be transferred (in the name of fairness) to others who do not work as hard (for whatever reason). If wealth is accumulated via fraud or theft than the person committing the act should be suffer the consequences. The fact that people get away with crimes isn't because of the econ system per se, it's because of the laws and how they are enforced. You don't need laws to punish capitalism, you need laws to protect individual rights and contracts.
If capitalism cannot be justified under some notion of fairness or meritocracy, then surely it must be on the basis of maximizing the public good (in this case, through maximizing wealth)?
And if that is the case, mustn't wealth distribution also be a factor?And speaking of distribution: How is a particular wealth distribution deemed "natural," and therefore somehow worthy of preservation? Barring total anarchy, all wealth distribution happened in the context of society -- a human construct.
Capitalism isn't based on fairness to all parties involved, it's based on what works. As a general rule I would deem it the fairest system since there is no "forced choice" involved. Capitalism is the closest thing you will find in an econ system that is actually natural. But the more important factor is freedom (yeah, cliche). Freedom to produce or buy the goods I want or do the work I want without fear of it being taken away (well, not anymore).
There is no overarching committee that designates if what I am doing is worthwhile - the consumer will decide that.I don't believe in concept of "maximizing the public good". What the hell is that anyway? Again, who decides what is or isn't good? You?
How is this value measured differently to different people? A group of people are going to make every decision for me, for our collective good? That is nothing less than oppression IMO.
And I think it well within the rights of the people to decide, through their government, how they want to treat each other -- especially those unable to fend for themselves.
Sure, if people decide that they want to take the weakest among them and turn them into soylent green, well hey that's great.
And I think it well within the rights of the people to decide, through their government, how they want to treat each other -- especially those unable to fend for themselves.Sure, if people decide that they want to take the weakest among them and turn them into soylent green, well hey that's great.
I'm down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gov't shouldn't actually try and flatten things out so that life is the same quality for everyone.
No, but it should try to provide a reasonable minimum quality of life.
Don't forget--the primary role of government is the distribution of resources. This includes wealth. The economic wheel turns best when the poorest 80% have disposable income. What the rich fail to understand is that it's in their best economic interest to share the wealth.
In the case of capitalism wealth is mostly accumulated through skill and hard work.
In the case of whatever system we have now, wealth is mostly accumulated through cronyism and manipulating legislation so that whatever you're doing is legal.
Although it depends on how you define "wealth." I am talking about the top 1-5%. You may be talking about the upper middle class, who actually work.
|
|
Gov't shouldn't actually try and flatten things out so that life is the same quality for everyone.No, but it should try to provide a reasonable minimum quality of life.
Don't forget--the primary role of government is the distribution of resources. This includes wealth.
No, that isn't the role. They are not responsible for the distribution of wealth (via taxation or any other means). Taxes are bill of what needs to be paid, it shouldn't be a whip or collar for social control.
The primary role of Government in a Constitutional Republic is to enforce laws - with regard to personal rights, and upholding contracts, "a government of laws, and not of men". It's role is not to distribute resources because at it's most base it doesn't produce anything.
The economic wheel turns best when the poorest 80% have disposable income. What the rich fail to understand is that it's in their best economic interest to share the wealth.
It actually runs best when gov't has a minimal impact on the affairs of men. Rich people are not stealing from the poor, this isn't a "zero sum game" (a common Statist concept). Instead of looking at rich people as causing the problem maybe it would be better to look at our gov't and their involvement in our economy; creating the housing crisis (due to deregulation, over-regulation and artificially inflating the market via govt agencies), starting wars, printing money, wasting money, etc, etc.
In the case of capitalism wealth is mostly accumulated through skill and hard work.In the case of whatever system we have now, wealth is mostly accumulated through cronyism and manipulating legislation so that whatever you're doing is legal.
Your bitterness is showing.
I am actually quite familiar with family trust and tax loopholes, and the reason why we have loopholes is due to our current arcane tax system. A form of flat tax system (possibly tiered) with no loopholes where everyone pays something would solve that problem (vs. regressive systems where people pay 3rd parties to not pay), for both individuals and corporations. That is the fairest system and would shore up the debt and provide a sense of ownership.Of course liberals wouldn't touch that with a 10ft pole, they would lose all their slaves and indentured voters.
Capitalism isn't based on fairness to all parties involved, it's based on what works. As a general rule I would deem it the fairest system since there is no "forced choice" involved. Capitalism is the closest thing you will find in an econ system that is actually natural. But the more important factor is freedom (yeah, cliche). Freedom to produce or buy the goods I want or do the work I want without fear of it being taken away (well, not anymore).
There is no overarching committee that designates if what I am doing is worthwhile - the consumer will decide that.
The market functions within the rules we set for it, and the resulting rewards are distributed in the context of a wholly mad-made system.
There is no "natural" here -- it's all human construct.
I don't believe in concept of "maximizing the public good". What the hell is that anyway? Again, who decides what is or isn't good? You?
By that logic, government can never act, because ultimately it will be acting on someone's concept of good. By the same token, who are you to decide capitalism, or anything else, is "good?" I suppose I might as well go on a murderous rampage, right? What business does society have in telling me doing so is wrong?
Nope -- being a member of society means certain compromises. The concept of collective good cannot be so easily dismissed, nor any appeal to that good be casually and cynically discounted as a sinister bid for power.
Of course liberals wouldn't touch that with a 10ft pole, they would lose all their slaves and indentured voters.
...and there goes any pretense of objectivity (or productive discussion). That didn't take long.
Gov't shouldn't actually try and flatten things out so that life is the same quality for everyone.No, but it should try to provide a reasonable minimum quality of life.
Don't forget--the primary role of government is the distribution of resources. This includes wealth.
No, that isn't the role. They are not responsible for the distribution of wealth (via taxation or any other means). Taxes are bill of what needs to be paid, it shouldn't be a whip or collar for social control.
The primary role of Government in a Constitutional Republic is to enforce laws - with regard to personal rights, and upholding contracts, "a government of laws, and not of men". It's role is not to distribute resources because at it's most base it doesn't produce anything.
The economic wheel turns best when the poorest 80% have disposable income. What the rich fail to understand is that it's in their best economic interest to share the wealth.It actually runs best when gov't has a minimal impact on the affairs of men. Rich people are not stealing from the poor, this isn't a "zero sum game" (a common Statist concept). Instead of looking at rich people as causing the problem maybe it would be better to look at our gov't and their involvement in our economy; creating the housing crisis (due to deregulation, over-regulation and artificially inflating the market via govt agencies), starting wars, printing money, wasting money, etc, etc.
In the case of capitalism wealth is mostly accumulated through skill and hard work.In the case of whatever system we have now, wealth is mostly accumulated through cronyism and manipulating legislation so that whatever you're doing is legal.Your bitterness is showing.
I am actually quite familiar with family trust and tax loopholes, and the reason why we have loopholes is due to our current arcane tax system. A form of flat tax system (possibly tiered) with no loopholes where everyone pays something would solve that problem (vs. regressive systems where people pay 3rd parties to not pay), for both individuals and corporations. That is the fairest system and would shore up the debt and provide a sense of ownership.Of course liberals wouldn't touch that with a 10ft pole, they would lose all their slaves and indentured voters.
Nor would conservatives- they love their loopholes.
Nor would conservatives- they love their loopholes.
Argh. I give up.
I think Sebastian was on to something when he recently alluded to the "bong-side debate of college freshmen."
Later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be glad that we have as much capitalism as we do. Without a system where people can make "useless crap that doesn't advance the greater good" and other people can decide to buy it, we wouldn't have roleplaying games.