Well has it?
Has Communism Worked Anywhere In The World?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 360||Last Friday at 12:08 AM|
The communism/government-controlled-capitalism hybrid thing that China has now certainly seems to be working for them.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 1||12/27/2012|
How much do you want to bet this will turn into a pissing match over the definition of the word communist?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 2||12/27/2012|
Cuba seems to be working. If nothing else it got all the rich Cuban assholes to move to Florida.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 3||12/27/2012|
I don't know. My parents became exiles fleeing Castro's brutal dictatorship.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 5||12/27/2012|
When it falls, it falls butter side down.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 6||12/27/2012|
Don't be fooled by propaganda OP. There's a reason why those old enough to remember are nostalgic for communism in Russia, Hungary, and parts of the former Yugoslavia.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 7||12/27/2012|
It suited me
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 8||12/27/2012|
[quote]There's a reason why those old enough to remember are nostalgic for communism in Russia, Hungary, and parts of the former Yugoslavia.
It's the same reason why many are nostalgic for pre-Reagan America -- there was a cultural social security then.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 9||12/27/2012|
If a country is so awful that its citizens would risk death or imprisonment to flee that country, it's a good bet the political system sucks.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 10||12/27/2012|
Well, r2, you are at least partly right, I don't know about a pissing match, but OP needs to define or at least specify which "interpretation" of "Communism" is meant, eg Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. And as for it "working", it all depends on what you mean by what "works" as compared to what presumably also works (or doesn't) in societies which do not have governments headed by the Communist Party. I have read that medical care in most countries governed by Communist Parties is very good and costs a fraction of what we pay here in the US. Until OP can become a little more specific about his/her question, I think most attempts to answer it will come to nought.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 11||12/27/2012|
[quote]OP needs to define or at least specify which "interpretation" of "Communism" is meant, eg Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. And as for it "working", it all depends on what you mean by what "works"
Oh god, you're such a douche bag.
Define what 'is' 'is'.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 13||12/27/2012|
If what the Chinese have is communism, then it's working for 1/5 of the human race.
If what we have is capitalism, it's working for 0.1% of the USA.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 14||12/27/2012|
Communism, socialism, capitalism are all just different tools used to control stupid people.
Ever notice how the leaders of all these countries are always filthy rich? How they have more in common with each other than the countries they lead?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 15||12/27/2012|
Please enlighten us as to your prefered governmental and economic system, r15.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 16||12/27/2012|
No, it has not.
And neither has any other economic system. Certainly not capitalism.
Their is no solution. The problem is not in any one system theoretically. The problem is in human beings to come together to make a manageable success with any one of them.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 17||12/27/2012|
R13, you're being deliberately stupid, and it wins you nothing. Some questions are a little more complicated than yes/no, whether you like it or not. That doesn't excuse unnecessary complexity, of course, and for your sake, let's keep it as simple as possible.
There is the theoretical communism spoken of by Marx; Marx said relatively little about what it was supposed to look like, his thing being mainly an analysis of capitalism. Since this communism was to be the result of forces that still have not played out, there is no answer to OP's question. You can't say whether it worked out when it never existed.
On the other hand, the dictatorships claiming to be communist states can claim a few successes, like eliminating the parasitic aristocracy and promoting health and literacy among the masses...but only at enormous cost. Overall, they have not not worked, especially in comparison to the social democratic societies that have done much the same thing while increasing personal freedom.
Does that clear things up?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 18||12/27/2012|
Has Capitalism Worked Anywhere In The World?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 19||12/27/2012|
Trust me. Communism sucks. My family and I came to the U.S. from Cuba in the mid-1980s. In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be. The medicine is socialized, but there are no drugs available on the shelves in the drug stores. My grandmother died in 1983 because she could not get the care she needed. Food is rationed to almost a starving level. We escaped there in 1984 and never looked back. Don't let anyone fool you. Communism/socialism sounds good on paper, but the reality fucking sucks. Been there, done that.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 20||12/27/2012|
I think Scandinavian-style social democracy in a high-trust society with strictly controlled immigration is the only socialism that really works. Even Milton Friedman admitted that you cannot have both free immigration and a welfare state.
[quote]I am in favor of the unilateral reduction of tariffs, but the movement of goods is a substitute for the movement of people. As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have a unilateral open immigration. I would like to see a world in which you could have open immigration, but stop kidding yourselves. On the other hand, the welfare state does not prevent unilateral free trade. I believe that they are in different categories.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 21||12/27/2012|
[quote]In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be.
Sounds like what HR did to me during "an Investigation."
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 22||12/27/2012|
Cuba uses your neighbors. The US uses the NSA.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 23||12/27/2012|
In the 20th century Communism killed more people than the Nazis - many times over. We are talking more than 150 million people executed, murdered or starved.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 24||12/27/2012|
[quote]Trust me. Communism sucks. My family and I came to the U.S. from Cuba in the mid-1980s. In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be. The medicine is socialized, but there are no drugs available on the shelves in the drug stores. My grandmother died in 1983 because she could not get the care she needed. Food is rationed to almost a starving level. We escaped there in 1984 and never looked back. Don't let anyone fool you. Communism/socialism sounds good on paper, but the reality fucking sucks. Been there, done that.
Question: do you vote Republican then?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 25||12/27/2012|
r18 is insufferable.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 26||12/27/2012|
[quote]Their is no solution.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 27||12/27/2012|
It's seems that when it comes to Capitalism vs. Communism, Capitalism always seems to come out on top, even when a social safety net is necessary. The majority runs on Capitalism, with a little Socialism thrown in.
There's a difference between Communism and Fascism, and that is that Communism seeks to make things equal, why Fascism seeks to weed out the undesirables. One is working for good (but doesn't work), while the other is working for evil.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 28||12/27/2012|
[quote]In the 20th century Communism killed more people than the Nazis - many times over. We are talking more than 150 million people executed, murdered or starved.
While in the US, the relatives of the victims continued to collect money and cheer-lead for the USSR.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 29||12/27/2012|
R20, it's pretty much a given here that posts which are signed with a full, common name are the work of outsiders and trolls unfamiliar with Datalounge culture. Just FYI, "Ricardo".
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 30||12/27/2012|
R20 is right! Reject communism and socialism and just vote republican!!!
After all, that is what Cubans who came to this country do.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 31||12/27/2012|
I'm a bisexual female and I'm a communist. I normally vote for The Worker's Party (social-deomcratic), but I have decided to vote for The Communist Party in the next election. I hate the right wing parties, and the centre parties want to work with the right wing parties, and I don't want to support that. I actually agree with the communist party on a lot of issues. I want a strong state. I'm against the privatization of health care and education. I want everyone to have a minimum, and I don't want to sell off state companies the way that the right wants. I look to Cuba. I like Cuba a lot, and I think they have succeeded with communism there. They have the best free health care in the world, and the education is also very good.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 32||12/27/2012|
bisexual female communist, next time read the thread before you post.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 33||12/27/2012|
R32, you're an idiot if you think we should all aspire to be like Cuba.
Cuba is basically Venezuela's bitch.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 34||12/27/2012|
Cuba is not without faults, but communism in Cuba has actually worked pretty well. They have the best free health care in the world.. but I would't expect Americans so ingrained in capitalism to understand. You vote for Obama thinking he's leftwing, when he's not at all.. the democratic party is basically like the conservative party in my country. Obama supports capitalism and war mongering too.. he's no different than the repugs.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 35||12/27/2012|
R34 here. I'm not "ingraned" in capitalism. I also did not vote for Obama because, like you said, he's basically a black Bush. Yet, I still think your Cuba is so great speech is BS. I do agree that Cuba has a much better healthcare program than the USA, but if healthcare is the only thing you can list about them that is positive, well that pretty much says it all.
I don't understand people who flip from one side to another just like that. It's like they're incapable of understanding the answer is in between.
The Cubans that come here are so anti-Communism that they become republicans.
Some American's like R35 are so anti-Capitalism that they think a country like Cuba is the answer.
Meanwhile, Cuba is not truly communistic and the USA isn't truly capitalistic. They are just ways their governments manipulate the uneducated masses.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 36||12/27/2012|
The trouble with all political systems is that there are pesky humans involved.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 37||12/27/2012|
Are you around 15 years old, r36? It would be sad if an adult actually concludes a political "analysis" by asserting "they're all just trying to fool the dumb unwashed, man! (but I'm too smart and cynical to fall for it, unlike the rest of you)."
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 38||12/27/2012|
The fact that China succeeds at all is due to the cultural importance of education and care for the elderly, which doesn't have that much to do with communism. Now can someone who advocates for China tell me what happens to those too mentally or physically disabled to attend school and do the required exercises, or too old or sick to be cared for at home? You don't want to know the answer.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 39||12/27/2012|
Has Communism been allowed to work anywhere in The World without the CIA and the US Government fucking with it at every turn?
Where would Cuba be if the USA hadn't embargoed it for the last 50 years? Might that account for some of the drug and food shortages R20 talks about?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 40||12/27/2012|
[quote]The medicine is socialized, but there are no drugs available on the shelves in the drug stores. My grandmother died in 1983 because she could not get the care she needed. Food is rationed to almost a starving level. We escaped there in 1984 and never looked back.
This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the embargo by a hostile and powerful neighbour.
[quote]In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be.
It was the same under Batista.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 41||12/27/2012|
China combines the most oppressive aspects of communism with the most exploitative aspects of capitalism. It's such a great example to us decadent Westerners!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 42||12/27/2012|
[quote]Where would Cuba be if the USA hadn't embargoed it for the last 50 years?
Probably no longer a communist state like the rest of the former Soviet satellite states.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 43||12/27/2012|
R25: No, I vote Democrat. I voted for Obama in November. Republicans are far too extreme for me.
R32: You are obviously delusional and/or uninformed (or reading the wrong propaganda). You have never been to Cuba. I lived there for the first 19 years of my life. The healthcare is "Free" but it a nightmare. Cuba is a beautiful country to look at, but it is also a screaming nightmare to live in. You do not understand. I cry for you and I cry for my family members still trapped in that miserable hell. Be careful what you wish for...
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 44||12/27/2012|
Dialectic theory would claim that real Communism cannot exist until Capitalism has outstayed its welcome and collapsed if I remember my political economy classes properly. Therefore we cannot judge as true Communism has never actually existed.
Having been in pre war Yugoslavia and seeing that in the main people seemed to live fairly equally with each other then that may have been a country where a so called form of Communism worked relatively well. I was only there on my holidays of course so I am only able to judge from outward appearances.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 45||12/27/2012|
R45 is correct. A socialist (then communist) state can't exist until the preceding capitalist state has created an industrial proletariat; developed systems and technology to support mass production; and undermined itself by pissing off the working class to the point of revolt. And more, but you get the idea.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 46||12/27/2012|
We're ready, r45.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 47||12/27/2012|
People think the USSR was a failure but consider this. Czarist Russia was easily defeated by Germany, but a stronger Germany under Hitler was defeated by Russian communism, giving you some idea of how quickly Russia improved under Communism. It was brutal and inhuman, but it worked just as brutal and inhuman slavery worked for a long time in the New World.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 48||12/28/2012|
Communism has performed flawlessly for 1700+ years at the Vatican. The Vatican has perfected socialism among its clergy.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 49||12/28/2012|
[quote]This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the embargo by a hostile and powerful neighbour.
Un-unh. In 1983, Cuba was still backed by the USSR. If Cuba needed medicine, it had a very powerful friend to help it out.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 50||12/28/2012|
I've never been to Israel but have been told the Kibbutz system is an excellent example of socialism. Those that are mot mentally or physically well are cared for and given needed jobs within their limitations.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 51||12/28/2012|
What happened with Kibbutzes? We used to hear about them all the time, and then they seemed to disappear from the media.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 52||12/28/2012|
The U.S. military: A giant government jobs program.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 53||12/28/2012|
Whether or not they have drugs on the shelves is a bit of a red herring. Overall, Cuba has very good medical care which is borne out by stats such as life expectancy.
Our drugstores may be chock full of drugs, some of which may do as much harm as help, but that proves nothing. There are also people who cannot afford their prescriptions and other medical care.
This is not to say Cuba is a paradise but let's just be fair.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 54||12/28/2012|
Outside of turning everyone into pedophiles, it worked out well
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 55||12/28/2012|
r24, link please. Your claims are way too outrageous and incredible to be believed. It sounds like you merely picked a large number out of thin air to create a sensation without a shred of evidence rather than provide truth. Even the Nazis, who developed highly efficient death camps didn't go much beyond a few million, for, if using the Jewish deaths of about 6 million as an example, only about a little over a third of these occurred in the death camps. The rest were shootings, starvation and disease brought on by warfare. Even the most efficient killing machine could not accomplish 150 million in a short amount of time, for which, by the way you do not give a time frame. I think you need to have your head examined.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 56||12/28/2012|
During the last two hundred years, how many people have died of poverty in the USA? I don't know but I'm sure the figure is tens of millions.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 57||12/28/2012|
Well, Mao alone was responsible for 70 million deaths (according to a highly acclaimed biography) - so r24's number doesn't sound too crazy to me, r56.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 58||12/28/2012|
And which highly acclaimed biography was that r58? Did Mao go around personally and shoot all 70 million? Did someone get out there and count them all up? You are too quick to accuse someone of having a speck in their eye that you wish to remove while simply ignoring the large rock in yours. All this crap about who killed who is merely guesswork bandied about for effect. The Cold War ended more than 20 years ago, it's time to move on from that mindset. I'm not trying to defend them and I'm sure there were deaths, but making fantastic claims and accusations accomplishes nothing.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 59||12/28/2012|
[quote]And which highly acclaimed biography was that?
If only I had provided a link...
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 60||12/28/2012|
You sound like a holocaust denier, R59.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 61||12/28/2012|
R45, you are way out of line on Mao. From 1958 to 1961, the Great Leap Forward (Mao's effort to collectivize agriculture (among other objectives) led to the starvation deaths of at least 18 million people, maybe as many as 30 million plus. It was so severe that Mao was openly criticized and lost power within the party. This led to his launching the Cultural Revolution, another disaster that led to still more mass death.
Mao, like Stalin, was a plague on humanity; their putative socialism is no excuse for any sympathy from the left. Your attempt to gloss over his crimes to win an argument is abominable.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 62||12/28/2012|
R62 here. Apologies to R45! I was referring to R59 in my post just above, not R45.
R45 was correct. R59 is a being a dolt.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 63||12/28/2012|
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 64||12/28/2012|
Is it true that Communism killed more people than Fascism ever did. That doesn't make one better than the other. Karl Marx has a lot of blood on his hands.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 65||12/28/2012|
As I had made no reference to Mao and even if I had would have scant knowledge of the regime other than my reading of wild Swans I knew you weren't referring to my post R62. Not to worry. It is one of the more interesting threads on here at present and am enjoying everyone's input.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 66||12/28/2012|
Who did Marx kill or advocate killing, R65? Why is he responsible for Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who added their own layers of theory which Marx had nothing to do with?
Remember, Marx was mainly an analyst of capitalism, not a revolutionary theorist like Lenin and Mao, who added their own excressences, sometimes in plain contradiction to Marx.
It's like blaming Jesus for the Popes.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 67||12/28/2012|
Thanks for being gracious, R45/66.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 68||12/28/2012|
R66, Chinese friend explained how her grandmother was hidden via bribes in the remote outskirts of the Chinese farming community, where she was always very cold and hungry, but at least survived the "Cultural Revolution." The vast majority of her educated relatives and friends were "disappeared."
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 69||12/28/2012|
I was in China recently. Trust me, the Chinese don't think Communism is so wonderful. Though they'll only tell you in hushed tones when they're sure no one is listening. As for someone's assertion that they're successful because of their cultural tradition of caring for the elderly, take a look at today's news:
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 70||12/28/2012|
R70, I was the one that stated that Chinese are expected to care for their elderly and disabled relatives. Old-age homes are generally a Western concept. Social pressure and gossip is extreme if you violate societal norms, even before the legal remedies. I asked my Chinese friend what happens if you can't stand your parents or grandparents, because they do nothing but complain and criticize. She laughed and said that everyone MUST get along, no matter what. In fact her sister had to leave her husband to return to her parents' home to care for them when they got too old. So are Chinese successful because of their cultural tradition of focusing on cooperation and care of the family unit, or because they know that if each member doesn't follow societal expectations all may end up in jail?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 71||12/28/2012|
In Cuba today, they are starving but educated. Without a job prospect. Children are prostituted and diseased, but no medicine. Their friends include Canadians, but the money (tourist and otherwise) doesn't trickle down.
I once applauded Castro for taking children from poor families to break the cycle of poverty. But without free exchange, their virtues are for naught. Too bad they couldn't be friends with the US without US overwhelming them.
Havana Bay is gorgeous and unspoiled.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 72||12/28/2012|
Communism has never really worked anywhere it's been tried, but it's still lingering on in a few countries around the world.
This, of course, makes it wildly successful compared to libertarianism, which has never even been implemented anywhere in anything even remotely resembling a successful way.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 73||12/28/2012|
It improved lives for most people in Russia.
Was it horrible and tyrannical? Yes, but so was what came before and after. And since the USA also suppresses dissent and operates a surveillance state far surpassing anything the KGB ever dreamed of, it doesn't behoove Americans to get on their high horse about this.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 74||12/28/2012|
You're an idiot, r74.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 75||12/28/2012|
R74, I suggest you read the reports of cannibalism, when tree bark became too scarce as the only source of food, among the Soviet peasants under Stalin's reign of terror. Have you personally lived in USSR under Communism? LOL
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 76||12/28/2012|
R76 is apparently unaware that many people in the USA have starved to death over the years.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 77||12/28/2012|
And a quarter of the nation required food aid of some type at some point last year.
As I said, Americans are full of shit when it comes to evaluating social systems.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 78||12/28/2012|
If the US "operate[d] a surveillance state far surpassing anything the KGB ever dreamed of", you'd be on your way to the Gulag already.
I hope you're not older than 20.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 79||12/28/2012|
R77, Tell me where in the US people are thrilled to find grass or tree bark and catch bugs to survive. Are you going to tell me that masses of Americans are dying of thirst as well?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 80||12/28/2012|
I have seen some false equivalencies in my time, r78, but that's a howler. Americans are receive food aid therefore we're just as bad as a country in which people are reduced to eating tree bark. Right.
Babe, our social system provides aid when people are in need of food. Not only that, our social system provided aid to the U.S.S.R. when its people were in need of food.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 81||12/28/2012|
R77, can you provide a 20th Century example of starvation in the US comparable to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s (intentionally crated by Stalin during forced collectivization) or to the famine in China during the Great Leap Forward, 1958 to 1961? That one was due to Mao's monstrous incompetence and ideological rigidity.
Anything of that order of magnitude, or even close? The Ukraine famine killed on the scale of the Jewish holocaust, China's killed tens of millions.
It does socialism no good to minimize these crimes or create false equivalencies.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 82||12/28/2012|
He article probably exaggerated, but one Russian researcher estimated U.S.A's losses in the thirties at 8.5 million.
And yes, people ate bark.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 83||12/28/2012|
Pellagra deaths in ten months South Carolina in 1910: 1,306. 100,000 affected in the South in 1916. Non-depression years. Starvation has been common in the USA before the 1990's.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 84||12/28/2012|
R83, really? This researcher compared Harold Ickes and the CCC to Lavrenti Beria and the Soviet gulag system. How is anyone supposed to take that Pravda article seriously?
Try again, please.
However, you're *starting* to make sense in R84.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 85||12/28/2012|
Please get back to us when you find reputable claims that millions of U.S. citizens died of hunger. You can find reputable reports of famine-related cannibalism in the U.S.S.R. and China. I don't think you'll find similar reports for the United States.
The United States is not perfect and never has been. It is still not as bad as the U.S.S.R. Really, truly. I'll give you another avenue of research: How many U.S. citizens died trying to escape to the communist bloc? Then ask how many citizens of Communist countries died trying to defect to the west.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 86||12/28/2012|
yes R85 but most of what you know about Russian history reads the same to Russians as what you think about that link.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 87||12/28/2012|
That is why anarchism, especially that espoused by Murray Rothbard (called anarcho capitalism) is the only way to go.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 88||12/28/2012|
No, R88. That is utterly ridiculous. That would be an utter nightmare.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 89||12/28/2012|
If our employer spies on you, but has no ability to sic the police on you, or do anything other than expose theft/fraud...no problem. If the government can spy on you, and use your employer to do it...fascism.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 90||12/28/2012|
I am amazed at the people that point out the evils of communism haven't found out about Ron Paul. He is the ultimate anti-communist that you can love.
Free markets, but no big corporations. Sound money, and no big banks. Good health care, but no government intervention. No military adventures. No private prisons, and no drug war. No bailouts for big corps. All power devolved to the local government, which allows for competition between cities/ counties/ states for maximum human liberty.
What's not to love?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 91||12/28/2012|
No, R87, most of what I know about Russian history comes from a university degree in Russian/Soviet Studies and two decades of subsequent reading and travel. As to how the article reads to me or anyone else, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the idea in question has factual support from credible sources.
Off the top, a Pravda article that compares Harold Ickes and the CCC to Beria and the gulags is laughable.
Again, it does socialism no good to minimize the crimes of communist dictatorships or to create false equivalencies. One reason is that it makes it harder to understand and change the evils of capitalism. Another is that it damages the reputation of serious and knowledgeable anti-capitalist critics.
It's also plain wrong.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 92||12/28/2012|
Oh, I know R91! What's not to love is that what you describe would never happen: the locally devolved governments would mostly turn into authoritarian capitalist satraps run by the well connected rich loons.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 93||12/28/2012|
R91, the opposite of communism is not libertarianism. Libertarianism is just as bad if not worse... there's a reason no nation has ever put it into practice. It doesn't work.
And Ron Paul is an insane nut who just happens to be correct on a few issues. You have to ignore a whole lot of crazy to support the guy over-all.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 94||12/28/2012|
R93- without a powerful government to enforce corporate law, freedom would reign. Do you think that Comcast has a monopoly because of the "free market"? No, it's because the government gives it monopoly over an area.
If power devolves, down to the local level, then the wealthy have an incentive (and the means) to leave. That leaves far less for the parasites to steal. No county that taxed the wealthy at 20%, let alone 90%, would survive. Their rich people would leave, and the poor would hang the bastards that passed such stupid laws in the public square...as they deserve.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 95||12/28/2012|
[quote]without a powerful government to enforce corporate law, freedom would reign
What a delusional statement... you have absolutely no data or evidence to support such nonsense of course.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 96||12/28/2012|
What's fucking hilarious about R95's post is that he actually sees that as a good thing! As an incentive. Wow.... Just, wow....
And that's not even taking into consideration the total insanity of the proposal. Talk about your "unintended consequences!"
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 97||12/28/2012|
[quote]without a powerful government to enforce corporate law, freedom would reign
Ah yes - like in Somalia. Sounds great.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 98||12/28/2012|
R95 couldn't be more wrong about everything.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 99||12/28/2012|
Sorry, R95, I'm willing to discuss things with lots of different people, but loony Branch Paulians are not on that list.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 100||12/28/2012|
R86, monopoly can only exist when government gives agency and the power of law.
Your ignorance makes me sad.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 101||12/28/2012|
Good one R98!
Why don't you use that, like 3rd graders use "PSYCH!" in every post. Moron quisling Bush loving cocksucker.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 102||12/28/2012|
[quote]monopoly can only exist when government gives agency and the power of law.
You do realize that this statement is utter bullshit, right? And that you cannot back it up with anything resembling real data? Just checking.
[quote]Your ignorance makes me sad
Not us. Your ignorance is hilarious.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 103||12/28/2012|
It worked pretty well in the former Yugoslavia. It was helped along by the Tito personality cult and the attention that independent Yugoslavia received from both sides of the Iron Curtain.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 104||12/28/2012|
R100, I'm sorry your ignorance of economics makes you unwilling to debate.
So, you support the drug wars?
The support the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen...?
You support putting black men in jail?
You support the ability of the prez to kill any US citizen at any time?
You support the drone strikes that kill innocent people?
You support the bailouts of the big 5 banks?
You support the bailout of GM?
You support the control of the Internet by the government in the name of "stopping terrorism"?
Wow, you are a good little Nazi fucker.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 105||12/28/2012|
Don't you just love this guy? He can't debate what people actually write, so he has to make shit up and pretend that someone, somewhere has actually said that.
Oh, and R105, do let us know when that 50% hyperinflation that Ron Paul predicted finally gets here. We've been waiting for two years now.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 106||12/28/2012|
Name one case, just ONE, where a monopoly wasn't due to government laws supporting it.
If you can name ONE case, I'll shut up.
But, just like my question on whether people who have never lived in the US should be forced to pay taxes to the US, or whether the NDAA (which gives the prez the power to kill any US citizen, anywhere, anytime, for any reason) is justified, you can't answer it.
You are a piece of shit, and need to shut up. Hitler would be proud of someone like you!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 107||12/28/2012|
R105 engages in strawman arguments and hyperbole, ignoring that it's the Republican party (the party most Libertarians vote for) that support all of that the most.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 108||12/28/2012|
[quote]Name one case, just ONE, where a monopoly wasn't due to government laws supporting it.
ROFL.... Moron, you're the one making the silly assertions. The onus is on you. Not that we're really expecting anything, since you never do even try to prove the silly assertions you post here.
[quote]If you can name ONE case, I'll shut up.
No, you won't. We've proved you wrong dozens of times before and it has never stopped you. Nor will proving you wrong this time shut you up.
[quote]But, just like my question on whether people who have never lived in the US should be forced to pay taxes to the US, or whether the NDAA (which gives the prez the power to kill any US citizen, anywhere, anytime, for any reason) is justified, you can't answer it.
ROFL.... I do so love this guy.
[quote]You are a piece of shit, and need to shut up. Hitler would be proud of someone like you!
See what I mean? This guy is freaking hilarious!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 109||12/28/2012|
[quote]engages in strawman arguments and hyperbole, ignoring that it's the Republican party (the party most Libertarians vote for) that support all of that the most.
While it's true that he does routinely engage in those tactics, R108, in all fairness to him it must be noted that he's more of an anarchist than anything else. He loathes both Democrats and Republicans, other than his hero Ron Paul, whose well-documented hypocrisy he ignores.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 110||12/28/2012|
...and who is a Republican, R110.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 111||12/28/2012|
Yeah, well, like I said, our dear little libertarian/anarchist chum prefers not to think about such sordid things, R111.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 112||12/28/2012|
And yet, R106, you refuse to answer any of the questions.
Yes, I believe that decades of spending more than we make will cause problems.
If I spent $2M a year and only made $1.6M, eventually Amex would take my black card away.
Our government has done it for 59 years. Now we are adding $1Trillion a year. It is unsustainable. When the fuckers on Wall Street (who must pay you for you to defend them the way you do) decide to "cut and run" the taxpayer will be left with dollars worth less than toilet paper.
At that point, the top .01% (you know, the ones who pay your bills for shilling on gay sites for them) will watch as the rest of us struggle...and beg for world government and "leadership".
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 113||12/28/2012|
[quote]And yet, [R106], you refuse to answer any of the questions.
LOL.... I'm just following your example, dear, since you never answer questions. Oh, and for the record, I always answer any and all questions that are based firmly in the real world. Sadly, that doesn't apply to most of yours.
[quote]Yes, I believe that decades of spending more than we make will cause problems.
Nice non sequitur. Got anything relevant to say?
[quote]If I spent $2M a year and only made $1.6M, eventually Amex would take my black card away.
Dear, there's a reason that microeconomics and macroeconomics are separate subjects. And there's a reason you always get your ass handed to you in these encounters, because you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
[quote]Our government has done it for 59 years. Now we are adding $1Trillion a year. It is unsustainable.
The deficit will shrink as the economy recovers. And now is not the time for the austerity measures you've been begging for, as we've seen in countless examples all over the world. Your remedy has been tried; it has failed miserably everywhere.
Moreover, fixing the deficit is trivially easy. All it takes is the political will.
[quote]When the fuckers on Wall Street (who must pay you for you to defend them the way you do) decide to "cut and run" the taxpayer will be left with dollars worth less than toilet paper.
Uh-huh. Do let us know when that economic meltdown and hyperinflation you've been predicting for years is close, won't you?
[quote]At that point, the top .01% (you know, the ones who pay your bills for shilling on gay sites for them) will watch as the rest of us struggle...and beg for world government and "leadership".
ROFL.... Now out here in the real world, on the other hand....
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 114||12/28/2012|
R112, R111, R110-
Yes, I know that Dr Paul has an (R) by his name, but that's not why I like him. It's because he's an anarchist. His grandson is gay, and he is one of his favorites. When he told his mom and dad, they were upset, but Ron came to his defense. This isn't a well known story (I've known him, and Ron and Carol, for a looooong time) but he accepted him with no judgment. Thats one of the reasons Ron has been so vocal about the ONE vote he regrets- he now thinks DOMA was wrong.
Please, please, PLEASE re-read my post at R105. Can you see how the moron at R103/106/109/3tc refuses to ever offer anything but snark? No defense, just "liberty and freedom are bad" and never any defense of her position.
Please help me.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 115||12/28/2012|
Communism hasn't worked ANYWHERE! Only dumb americans who NEVER had to live under a communist regime can even ask that. It has brought nothing but tyranny, corruption, misery, death and suffering to most.
The reason is that it contradicts human nature and because people are driven by the need for power and by greed and then they do everything to maintain it.
The only system that works is democracy with a capitalistic economic system that is supervised closely by the state.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 116||12/28/2012|
[quote]It's because he's an anarchist.
Oddly he claims to be libertarian, and to worship Ayn Rand.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 117||12/28/2012|
God, R114- when you graduate grade school, come back.
Those are the lamest "defenses" I've seen.
You really are just a 15 year old moronic child.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 118||12/28/2012|
[quote]His grandson is gay, and he is one of his favorites.
And yet he's anti-gay, pro-DOMA (which is by any definition unconstitutional)... never mind his racist tendencies.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 119||12/28/2012|
R115, nobody here has ever EVER said "Liberty and freedom are bad".
You engage in so many logical fallacies I have to wonder if you're brain-damaged, or just trolling on purpose. Because your brain clearly isn't functioning very well. You clearly "hear" what you want to hear, not what anyone actually says. And your debating skills SUCK.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 120||12/28/2012|
Yes, R105, the fact that I recognize you as a loon means I support all those things.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 121||12/28/2012|
[quote]Please, please, PLEASE re-read my post at [R105].
LOL... Yes, please do. Note that nobody on this thread or anywhere else has said anything remotely like what he's claiming. And how totally disconnected those various items are.
[quote]Can you see how the moron at [R103]/106/109/3tc refuses to ever offer anything but snark?
ROFL.... Can you see how you refuse to ever offer anything but personal attacks and unsupported assertions? I have provided more than snark, of course, but since you never acknowledge your many factual errors, I usually don't bother.
I always defend what I write, dear. What I don't defend is the shit you make up. Why should I "defend" what I didn't say? When you can learn the difference between the two, we might be able to have a serious discussion, but I'm not holding my breath.
[quote]just "liberty and freedom are bad" and never any defense of her position.
LOL.... See what I mean? Q.E.D.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 122||12/28/2012|
[quote]when you graduate grade school, come back.
Anything you say, dear.
[quote]Those are the lamest "defenses" I've seen.
And yet, you are wholly unable to offer any rational counter-argument. Just more lame personal attacks. Why is that, dear?
[quote]You really are just a 15 year old moronic child.
LOL.... Judging from your attempts at insults, I'd have to say that you're in kindergarten.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 123||12/28/2012|
True r116 but communism is not the solution. The solution is fixing democracy. In this case, in America specifically, the whole political system is screwed and creates a situation where big money is in bed with big politics. THAT'S the problem!
So, you get president after president that's a hostage of the 1%.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 126||12/28/2012|
[quote]A real free market works.
No, it really doesn't.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 127||12/28/2012|
[quote]Someone trolldar [R103]/106/109/110 112/114/122/123 and then show where they made an argument that isn't "you're wrong, I'm right, hahaha" and summarize.
Someone trolldar R125 and then show where they made an argument that isn't "you're wrong, I'm right," and summarize.
Gee, this is easy. And I don't even have to think. No wonder this is the way you always debate! And isn't it funny how you always ask others to provide what you won't: answer to questions, data, etc.
[quote]I don't have time for trollz.
ROFL... No, but you sure do have the time to be one.
[quote]Thank god most people on this thread can see though your bullshit.
Oh, I think just about everyone on this thread knows who's tossing out bullshit.
[quote]Go suck GWBush dick and shut up
Case in point....
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 128||12/28/2012|
[quote]Anarcho capitalism is the only way to meet those needs. It destroys the big corps, big banks, big military contractors...and makes life better.
Meanwhile, out here in the real world....
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 130||12/28/2012|
R129, you've never seen a flying horse. How can you say it doesn't work?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 132||12/28/2012|
[quote]And yet, [R128], you still won't answer these questions-
ROFL.... Moron, I haven't been fooled by a "when did you stop beating your wife" question in years. What makes you think I'm going to play your silly games, particularly when those first two questions start from false premises, rendering the questions meaningless,
[quote]You never answer questions, just toss bullshit.
Right back at you, sweetheart. I'm just employing your own modus operandi and, boy, you really don't like it when someone uses your own tactics against you. Sucks to be you.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 133||12/28/2012|
Oh, oh, and you've never tried arsenic! How can you say it's a poison if you've never tried it?!
I like this, R132. Got any more?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 134||12/28/2012|
R129, it amazes me you actually believe everything you type.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 135||12/28/2012|
You've never had a 15" double dong dildo up your ass, how do you know...
You've never visited the surface of the Sun, how do you know...
You've never seen a sane Branch Paulian, how do you know...
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 136||12/28/2012|
[quote]Wow- ask a simple question-- do you support killing people, or giving tax money to rich people- and this is the response?
ROFL.... Gee, I went looking for where you asked those questions on this thread and I just couldn't find that post. Maybe you can point me to it? Or you could just admit that, as usual, you made shit up.
[quote]No wonder the government wants to make sure everyone goes to public schools- you can't get that stupid without government education!
ROFL.... And what's your excuse, dear?
[quote]Are you people that retarded, so stupid you can't answer simple questions?
We're just following your example, dear.
[quote]How can you sleep, knowing that you are condemning millions of children to poverty with your glib and idiotic answers?
ROFL.... Just like Hitler!!!! How could we?! Clearly we're the scum of the earth!
Personally, I sleep quite well, thanks. I'm ever so touched by your concern. And very grateful that nobody in a position of authority will ever adopt those idiotic "solutions" of yours.
[quote]I could not live with myself if I thought so little of my neighbors, and their health and future.
So I assume that you'll be committing suicide any day now?
[quote]You people are sick.
Oh, the irony....
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 141||12/28/2012|
Dear heart, pointing out that you're a moron, a conspiracy loon, a troll, that much of what you write is batshit crazy, and that you have never supported any of your assertions with anything resembling real data, is not the same thing as disagreeing with every single one of your causes.
Out in the real world, away from those delusional fantasies of yours, things aren't so black and white. I can, and do, for example, believe that the Patriot Act should be repealed and that you're an ignorant loon. These are not mutually exclusive positions to hold.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 144||12/28/2012|
[quote]Good little Nazi-
I do love how everyone who points out you're a loon is a "Nazi." Thanks for invoking Godwin's Law.
[quote]A few thousand years of societal history shows that when one small oligarchy controls the system it falls apart.
Actually, you've made it very clear that you are wholly ignorant of history, so forgive us if we refuse to take your unsupported word for such matters.
[quote]Too bad your government education left you too mentally retarded to understand that.
ROFL.... You really should stop trying. You just don't have the flair for personal insults. It just comes across as lame rather than clever.
[quote]I feel so sad for you and your disability.
Really? Because I'm loving yours. You're hilarious, dude! I haven't had this much fun in weeks.
[quote]Really, I hate you're a moron. If you don't post here, though, most people are too stupid to notice. I'm sure your friends are too polite to point out your idiocy.
Whatever you say, dear. I'm ever so touched by your concern. Really.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 146||12/28/2012|
[quote]You mock, you pull quotes, BUT YOU DON'T GIVE ANY ANSWER.
That's right, dear. I'm just following your sterling example. Endless assertions supported by nothing at all. Sucks to be on the other side of your own tactics, doesn't it?
[quote]Are you too stupid to answer the goddamn question?
Why no, dear, not at all. Thanks for checking.
[quote]Just answer ONE question. Just one. Show the rest of us what a good little government cocksucker you are!
LOL... Gee, with incentive like that, how could I possibly refuse?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 148||12/28/2012|
As usual, the Americans turn this into a left-wing authoritarianism versus right-wing authoritarianism, both corporatist, because that is all they understand.
Back to whether and where communism works: Kerala, India (and West Bengal for awhile), the Nordics, various Italian governments, but temporarily only, the Schalke football club in Germany, many worker-owner business models., e.g. WL Gore, 20th century communist states in terms of literacy and scientific advancement, but not human rights.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 149||12/28/2012|
Okay, I'm done for the night. Sorry, folks, but this guy really is irresistible. Such an amazing combination of ignorance and arrogance. And a thin skin, to boot.
The webmaster will likely lock this thread, anyway, given how far off the rails it's gone.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 150||12/28/2012|
Dear Branch Paulian LOON,
You are an obsessive, disruptive turd in a punchbowl. You have done nothing but show most of the participants here that your philosophy is junk. Please go away and let the non-loons get back to what was a relatively interesting discussion.
And you expect to be taken seriously!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 151||12/28/2012|
It's one one stupid Paulbot who doesn't even understand systems of government to begin with. He'll tire of himself eventually.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 155||12/28/2012|
R156, we've all learned a long time ago that it is a pointless waste of time to try and educate the willfully ignorant & dogmatically & ideologically deluded.
So instead we just laugh and point at your ridiculousness, made all the more humorous at your complete cluelessness at just how utterly stupid you sound to anyone educated and not brainwashed.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 158||12/28/2012|
Communism is as successful an operation as capitalism. They both breed contemptuous.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 159||12/28/2012|
Troll-dar reveals an unhinged lunatic.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 163||12/28/2012|
Congratulations, Loon, no one took you seriously, so you had to ruin the thread. Troll-daring you makes the thread look like it has jaundice.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 164||12/28/2012|
Why are we talking about that racist and whack, Ron Paul? Is he a successful communist?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 167||12/28/2012|
Obviously capitalism isn't working either, you've got a fourth strain in the disease.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 169||12/28/2012|
[quote]Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises- demonstrated why Communism, Socialism and Fascism (which are just 3 strains of the same disease) can never work.
Um no. They're not 3 strains of the same thing. Idiot.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 170||12/28/2012|
Feel better, asshole?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 171||12/29/2012|
The main reason we have "crony capitalism" is due to the fact that the big banks, big corps, etc. have control of our Government. Get rid of the power, and health care becomes more available and cheaper, banking becomes more helpful to the "little guy" and the government is less able to fuck with us.
Look at how the "military industrial complex" controls Congress today. Both parties are in the pockets.
That's why libertarians that want to destroy that power center are right.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 172||12/29/2012|
Many government interventions expand freedom. A good example would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was opposed by libertarians like Barry Goldwater as an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights. Yet it was obvious that African Americans were suffering tremendously at the hands of state and local governments. If the federal government didn't step in to redress these crimes, who else would?
Since passage of the civil rights act, African Americans have achieved a level of freedom equal to that of most whites. Yet I have never heard a single libertarian hold up the civil rights act as an example of a libertarian success.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 173||12/29/2012|
"Since passage of the civil rights act, African Americans have achieved a level of freedom equal to that of most whites."
Ahhhh, yes, they are sent to jail because libertarians oppose drug laws, and more than one in 10 black men are under some form of legal supervision- in jail, on parole, or probation. That is such a great leap forward for those poor blacks. The fact that it has left many children without fathers...and therefore on some form of government assistance, and in deep poverty, in horrifyingly inept schools... well, that's no problem.
You "good white people" will take care of them...not. No, you treat them like children, destroy their family unit, make them dependent...and then wonder why young black men are so violent?
Get rid of the drug laws and welfare, and black families will recover within 20 years. It makes me sick when white assholes think they know what is best for black people. Fuck you.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 174||12/29/2012|
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 175||12/29/2012|
R174, As much as I hate the present welfare system, if you wish to get rid of it what would you then advocate in its place? How would you prevent Americans from killing themselves due to drug use?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 176||12/29/2012|
R177, I have a very delicate system, despite always having been very health conscious, and have never smoked anything or ever taken any illegal drugs. So please be careful who you falsely accuse; you could end up in jail.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 178||12/29/2012|
[quote]You "good white people" will take care of them...not.
Uh, passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Libertarians opposed, is merely giving the same freedoms and rights to an oppressed minority.
You're an idiot.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 180||12/29/2012|
quit fucking talking about libertarian horseshit, this thread is about communism you fucking myopic american assholes
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 182||12/29/2012|
[quote]I have read that medical care in most countries governed by Communist Parties is very good and costs a fraction of what we pay here in the US.
If by "very good", you mean "shit", then yes.
Cheap, absolutely, compared to what health care costs in the US, but I'd use "appalling" to describe the level of care.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 183||12/29/2012|
I grew up in post communist Romania and it was shite. I also remember a bit about the actual communism having to que up with m nan for milk as there was only a limited amount and u had coupons and per family u was only aloud a certain amount. Food was very hard to obtain even if u had money and I mean basic food like Mille, meat, bread. There was no variety and I drunk my first coke in the 90s there was no variety in anything, clothing, cars, toys. There was no freedom and everything was regulated u wasn't allowed to b religious Wich is y so many after the communism turned way religious. It Sucked beyond belief and my former country still hasn't recovered. Fuck communism.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 184||12/29/2012|
[quote]So, when asked if you support the impeachment of the enforcer of the PATRIOT ACT you decide to be a pussy?
ROFL... Unlike you, apparently, I have a life. I had friends to meet.
[quote]That shows how shallow and wrong your beliefs are.
Well, sure, if you're a moron.
[quote]If you think the thread is going to be shut down, defend yourself!
From what, dear?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 186||12/29/2012|
[quote]Have any of your friends ever drank before age 21? Have they smoked pot and you didn't report them? Well, them you are an accessory to murder, and should be executed you Ironic and Stupid fuck. Or perhaps you should call the Gestapo on me for dissent? Stupid cunts like you deserve the scorn you get. How can someone be so self-righteously stupid and arrogant? Please eat a peanut- I'm sure it would save the rest of us from having to deal with your ass.
I have nothing to add to this; I just wanted to repeat it since it's so typical of this poster and so fucking hilarious!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 187||12/29/2012|
[quote]Troll-dar reveals an unhinged lunatic.
Yup, and not the only thread he's revealed on. He's been around for several years now and his threads are always entertaining.
I did love this bit, though:
[quote]R150 thought his version of socialist utopia would win, but then spent weeks defending it and then ran away when it got destroyed.
ROFL.... I mean, what can you say to such wholly unhinged drivel? Not only have I never advocated any "socialist utopia," I haven't spent "weeks defending it," since my first post on this thread was R97. And as for anything being "destroyed," I'm afraid his "victory," as usual, exists only in his own mind. Oh, well....
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 188||12/29/2012|
R187, Thank you for your support. I was bewildered trying to formulate a response that would make sense. You're right the poster is far out on a limb.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 189||12/29/2012|
Communism has never worked. It is the system most susceptible to corruption.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 190||12/29/2012|
It can't work. The only workable system is freedom. Property rights (which mean your money, your body, your children, your religion, your home) are the only way to stop this.
The people that cannot see the similarity between socialism, fascism and communism (since they are essentially the same thing) are just products of government schools.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 191||12/29/2012|
[quote]The people that cannot see the similarity between socialism, fascism and communism (since they are essentially the same thing) are just products of government schools.
ROFL.... The people that [sic] pretend that socialism, fascism, and communism are "essentially the same thing" are ignorant loons, products of their own fevered imaginations.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 192||12/30/2012|
[quote]The people that cannot see the similarity between socialism, fascism and communism (since they are essentially the same thing)
You're the product of inbreeding.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 193||12/31/2012|
[quote]#ronpaul ---- he loves the gays
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 194||12/31/2012|
[quote]The main reason we have "crony capitalism" is due to the fact that the big banks, big corps, etc. have control of our Government.
Free Market Capitalism results in big banks, big corporations, ETC, taking control of the government.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 195||12/31/2012|
36 countries have better health care than the U.S. The top ones are socialist.
R183 clearly hasn't been there, done that.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 196||12/31/2012|
[quote]Libertarianism is the opposite of communism, and therefore germane to the discussion.
No, it's not, they're both totalitarian ideologies that put economic orthodoxy above what the people want and need.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 197||12/31/2012|
Boy, somebody sure has an agenda with this thread. No, communism CAN NOT WORK.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 198||12/31/2012|
The answer is always in the middle. Pure communism isn't freedom and doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work either, it benefits only the 1% and turns the rest into serfs. The answer is a mix of capitalism with extensive gov. regulation and laws.
Which right wingers define as communism.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 199||12/31/2012|
R199, If those running governmental programs represented the elite in terms of intelligence and competence I'd still be a Liberal. Seeing too many idealists unable to innovate and be more efficient because of "regulations," has turned me into a Moderate. Don't you recall governmental involvement and corruption in Katrina?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 200||12/31/2012|
R200, so you advocate an absolute free market? Do you recall A Christmas Carol where one man was enslaved by Ebenezer Scrooge? Have you heard of sweat shops? Children as young as 8 working 12 hour days? That is an absolute free market, it is proven to not work. I think the answer is in the middle. What you have to realize is that humans aren't perfect and so the answer in the middle won't be perfect either, however it's better than either extreme.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 201||12/31/2012|
R201, I try to be a realist, not an extremist. I've seen to many failures of large organizations, private and public, where decision making is generally made at the top, you can't change even minor procedures to adapt to an unusual situation, and it's way too hard to fire incompetents who only want to do the bare minimum. I'd still be a Liberal, instead of a Moderate, if government worked the way it was designed. It's not that humans aren't perfect that's the issue. It's that public and private managers in a position of power would rather give pithy excuses for stupidity than innovate and make substantial changes to procedures to achieve greater competence. How many administrators truly encourage original thought by their underlings? Why don't they fire those that aren't there to give 110%?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 202||12/31/2012|
[quote]It's not that humans aren't perfect that's the issue. It's that public and private managers in a position of power would rather give pithy excuses for stupidity than innovate
um, doesn't that mean the public/private managers aren't perfect? You say tomato, I say, well, I say tomato too, I think we are in agreement here.
Government is inefficient, look at the DMV and the IRS. (I found out the post office is inefficient because of Republicans attempt to sabotage it, otherwise it'd be fine). Corporations, in my opinion, are no better. Have you tried to get a hold of a human being on the phone at a large corporation? Their automated systems have you running in circles. They sell imported crap and are constantly trying to find ways to sell you less for more. Little packets of soap for the dishwasher are a perfect example, you are paying for extra packaging.
It all sucks, which is why we need regulations and yes, in many cases we are over regulated. I'm not convinced we are over taxed, I'm convinced that the taxes are going to the wrong places.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 203||12/31/2012|
You've never seen "pure capitalism" because it has never existed. The closest would be early USA, but even that was filled with cronyism and arbitrary government power.
"Pure Capitalism" is simple- I'm not allowed to lie to you to get money or favors, I'm not allowed to force you, by fraud or the threat of force, to do anything for me, I'm not allowed to steal from you and I'm not allowed to unilaterally violate a contract. It's very simple, but when one corporation- the STATE, aka the government- is allowed to all those things with impunity and immunity to prosecution...well, that's why you've never seen a free market.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 204||01/02/2013|
Every regulation is a "price fix" and will always result in distoritions to the normal market. If you set a price floor, people will leave the market because they can't sell their wares/goods/labor at a price below the floor without bankruptcy. If you set a ceiling then shortages become common. If you outlaw it completely, black markets become common.
All of these are the result of government interference in the market.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 205||01/02/2013|
How was he "enslaved" by Scrooge?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 206||01/02/2013|
None of the largest banks, car makers, military manufacturers, food packagers, fast food chains, or "dry goods" retailers would exist in a free market. All of them rely on the power of the government to get tax breaks and subsidies unavailable to the "little guy" and then become obscenely wealthy in the process. When all you have to do is promise 51 Senators that their kids can get 8 figure paychecks if they support this or that bill, it becomes easy as hell to manipulate the government and the laws.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 207||01/02/2013|
Corporations are an artifice of government fiat power. They exist solely due to their power to control the government.
The post office is a perfect example- if you look at their objective (deliver mail, every 6 days, to every person) and then look at how inefficient they are, how subsidized they are, and how their monopoly on first class mail has been the only thing that has kept them from needing MORE money from the government- you will see that they are a perfect example of government incompetence.
The only reason FedEx and UPS (and formerly DHS, until they decided the regulatory bullshit in the US was too hard to navigate and sold off their US subsidiary) don't deliver the mail (despite the fact that they come through 95% of neighborhoods each day) is because the USPS holds A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL.
If UPS and FedEx were allowed to deliver mail the USPS would be out of business within a year. Unfortunately, the US taxpayer would be on the hook for the hundreds of billions in unfunded pension plans...just like with Hostess.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 208||01/02/2013|
If you could "opt out" and not pay taxes, but instead pay "user fees" for everything you used- schools, roads, GPS, national offense...I mean defense- would you do it? If you were allowed to save for retirement instead of paying 13.3% of your earnings (meaning a 13.3% raise in each week) wouldn't you be better off?
If you could designate that your tax dollars could not be used to fund the murder of children and innocent overseas, or pay for big military contracts, or be used to build "bridges to nowhere" would you opt out?
Our government is just a "gang of thieves writ large" and they are screwing all of us while they dine on caviar and drink champagne.
Google "Ludwig Von Mises" or "Murray Rothbard" and educate yourself on how evil our government really is, and how we can take it back from the neocons.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 209||01/02/2013|
[quote]"Pure Capitalism" is simple- I'm not allowed to lie to you to get money or favors
Which means, ta-da, that you're now talking about regulation, which means it's no longer "pure capitalism."
You're also conveniently overlooking such things as barriers to entry and economies of scale, not to mention the tools that can be employed to skew the market in one direction or another by the wealthy. "Pure capitalism" can get just as out-of-balance as what we have today. Actually, it's more likely, since there is no countervailing force.
[quote]Every regulation is a "price fix" and will always result in distortions to the normal market.
Most of the regulations are there for a damn good reason.
[quote]If you set a price floor, people will leave the market because they can't sell their wares/goods/labor at a price below the floor without bankruptcy. If you set a ceiling then shortages become common. If you outlaw it completely, black markets become common.
Strawman arguments, since that's not what regulations do.
[quote]None of the largest banks, car makers, military manufacturers, food packagers, fast food chains, or "dry goods" retailers would exist in a free market.
[quote]All of them rely on the power of the government to get tax breaks and subsidies unavailable to the "little guy" and then become obscenely wealthy in the process.
See above about barriers to entry and economies of scale.
[quote]Corporations are an artifice of government fiat power. They exist solely due to their power to control the government.
ROFL.... Yup, you really don't have any connection to the real world, do you?
[quote]The post office is a perfect example- if you look at their objective (deliver mail, every 6 days, to every person) and then look at how inefficient they are, how subsidized they are
Moron, they aren't subsidized, and haven't been subsidized for years. And they do a pretty damn good job. What's killing them now has to do with pension-funding requirements (that no private company needs to follow), and the mandate to serve each and every household for the same price. UPS and Fed-Ex would do no better in this space than does the USPS. They only look better by comparison because they get to cherry-pick.
[quote]The only reason FedEx and UPS ... is because the USPS holds A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL.
ROFL.... Yup, you really are a moron.
[quote]Our government is just a "gang of thieves writ large" and they are screwing all of us while they dine on caviar and drink champagne.
I do so love this guy. Wholly disconnected from reality but at least he's entertaining.
[quote]Google "Ludwig Von Mises" or "Murray Rothbard" and educate yourself on how evil our government really is, and how we can take it back from the neocons.
Definitely Google them, and laugh.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 210||01/02/2013|
Although I've dealt with the cunt at R210 before, one more time I will point out her ignorance.
[quote]You're also conveniently overlooking such things as barriers to entry and economies of scale,
Those barriers to entry are 99% created by government regulations that inhibit competition. Look at how the "bipartisan" Congress has extended copyright for decades, mostly at the behest of Disney and the music companies.
Plus, name ONE barrier to entry that isn't the result of some government regulation.
As for economy of scale, most of that comes from being able to lobby for loopholes in the law that benefit large companies.
[quote]not to mention the tools that can be employed to skew the market in one direction or another by the wealthy. "Pure capitalism" can get just as out-of-balance as what we have today. Actually, it's more likely, since there is no countervailing force.
The only "tools" they use are the ones in congress. In a true free market, the only tools would be serving their customers at a lower price with better service. Instead we have cheap slave labor from China. If all transactions were free, then most companies would be able to gain an advantage just by advertising that their products were "100% free of slave labor" but government regulations prevent that.
The only reason the Ultra Wealthy can do these things is by controlling the government.
"Most of the regulations are there for a damn good reason."
Name one. If OSHA, or the FDA, or the TSA -disappeared tomorrow, do you think that companies would start beating their employees, and force them into cages at night? No, free-market rating agencies would "spontaneously" form to let consumers, retailers and wholesalers know what product was good, safe and least likely to result in lawsuits. The regulators serve their masters, like how the SEC let Jon Corzine off the hook. Or how HSBC got a slap on the wrist for fucking the US out of billions.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 211||01/02/2013|
Even better is Madoff- numerous low level SEC investigators told their bosses that Madoff was running a scheme, but since he was friends with Clinton, Bush, Greenspan and Bernanke he was ignored...until the whole thing collapsed.
That's how regulation works. If you're a small guy...good luck. If your a big player (aka Jon Corzine...who should be in jail for life but is instead starting a NEW hedge fund!) then you can get away with anything.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 212||01/02/2013|
These kind of subsidies, that have lasted 60 years after they were passed, are the reason we have such a fucked up tax system.
Because Congress was unable to pass an extension of the farm bill before the end of the year, milk prices were expected to rise to $7 or $8 a gallon in the new year because the milk subsidy program would revert back to an antiquated formula that was implemented in 1949. But a provision written by "fiscal cliff" negotiator Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was added to the "fiscal cliff" bill and Congress passed a nine-month extension of the current subsidy program, which will keep milk prices stable.
While the fix takes care of the most immediate concern to most Americans - milk prices - it also extends $5 billion worth of government subsidies for commodities such as corn and soybeans, regardless of whether farmers grow crops. While farmers covet the expensive subsidy, critics decry it as wasteful, misdirected government spending.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 213||01/02/2013|
[quote]Corporations are an artifice of government fiat power. They exist solely due to their power to control the government.
An incorporated entity is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated through a legislative or registration process established through legislation. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from its shareholders, and may conduct business for either profit-seeking business or not for profit purposes. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration. In addition to legal personality, registered companies tend to have limited liability, be owned by shareholders who can transfer their shares to others, and controlled by a board of directors who the shareholders appoint.
Ergo, they are an artificial, governmental construct. Are you that ignorant?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 214||01/02/2013|
The fact that the USPS HAS A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL MEANS IT IS INHERENTLY SUBSIDIZED. If you remove that monopoly protection, and force it to compete with UPS and FedEx it will fail. It is a normal government project- it overspends, underperforms and bitches to congress when it needs more money.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 215||01/02/2013|
You've actually proven my point, R210-
Government is just a gang of thieves writ large- since they don't provide anything we need at any level of competence (things the market could provide at a far better cost) and inflict us with things like overseas "wars on terror" and domestic "wars on drugs" that have failed at the cost of trillions.
Yes, I hope the people that read this will google Mises or Rothbard or Rockwell and see how inept and evil out government really is.
Once the Federal Reserve finally crashes the economy they will wish they had.
You can't print trillions of dollars and not expect them to cause massive inflation at some point.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 216||01/02/2013|
[quote]Although I've dealt with the cunt at [R210] before, one more time I will point out her ignorance.
ROFL.... Since you always get your ass handed to you in these exchanges, I can hardly wait. Would it be too much to ask, this time, that you actually read what I write instead of listening to those voices in your head?
[quote]Those barriers to entry are 99% created by government regulations that inhibit competition.
LOL.... Speaking of ignorance.... Sorry, dear, but, as usual, you're wrong. Barriers to entry that have nothing to do with government intervention, or the lack thereof, exist in quite a few areas. You should educate yourself before you post again.
[quote]Plus, name ONE barrier to entry that isn't the result of some government regulation.
ROFL.... Technology. Money. Facilities. Are you really this ignorant or do you just play the fool on DL?
[quote]As for economy of scale, most of that comes from being able to lobby for loopholes in the law that benefit large companies.
Okay, yeah, you really are this ignorant. Nope, sorry. As usual, you're dead wrong.
[quote]The only "tools" they use are the ones in congress.
Here's a free clue: better to be thought a fool than to continue to post here and prove it.
[quote]No, free-market rating agencies would "spontaneously" form to let consumers, retailers and wholesalers know what product was good, safe and least likely to result in lawsuits.
ROFL.... Oh, my. This guy really has drunk the Kool-Aid, hasn't he? I just love the utopia he's envisioning that exists only in his own mind and that would never, ever exist in the real world, human nature being what it is. Oh, well.... just pity him and move on.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 217||01/02/2013|
A better question is: Has communism ever truly existed anywhere in the world? The answer to that is NO.
China is about as communist as Mississippi is. There is no free education there, no free health care there, and no free housing there. A communist country should guarantee all those things to all. China has billions of people with no access to any of those things.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 218||01/02/2013|
[quote]That's how regulation works
LOL.... No, dear, that's how regulation *doesn't* work. Madoff was allowed to be as free as though the market he was in was totally unregulated, with no oversight. Gee, how'd that work out?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 219||01/02/2013|
[quote]Ergo, they are an artificial, governmental construct. Are you that ignorant?
ROFL... Oh, the irony... Tell me, dear, did you, perchance, actually read what *you* wrote? Here, let me quote it for you:
[quote]They exist solely due to their power to control the government.
That entire post and you completely missed the point!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 220||01/02/2013|
[quote]The fact that the USPS HAS A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL MEANS IT IS INHERENTLY SUBSIDIZED.
ROFL.... NO, DEAR, IT DOESN'T. AND WRITING IT IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOUR POINT ANY MORE CONVINCING than using normal case.
[quote]If you remove that monopoly protection, and force it to compete with UPS and FedEx it will fail.
Only if you keep the restrictions on it that it must serve each and every household for the same low price. Fed Ex and UPS would equally fail under those conditions, which is why they don't even try. You can bet that if they thought they could compete, they'd be lobbying hard for the ability to do so. It's far easier and safer and more profitable for them to cherry-pick.
[quote]It is a normal government project- it overspends, underperforms and bitches to Congress when it needs more money.
Oh, garbage. Man, you *really* don't know anything about the Post Office, do you?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 221||01/02/2013|
Good Fod, R217-
Can't you admit defeat?
You never post any rebuttal, but always post snark.
Rebut any one point- pick one, and focus on it. Instead it's
[quote]Okay, yeah, you really are this ignorant. Nope, sorry. As usual, you're dead wrong.
[quote]LOL.... Speaking of ignorance.... Sorry, dear, but, as usual, you're wrong. Barriers to entry that have nothing to do with government intervention, or the lack thereof, exist in quite a few areas. You should educate yourself before you post again.
[quote]ROFL.... Yup, you really are a moron.
Ad hominem attacks are great for children, but intelligent people provide some argument before they accept bullshit like that.
When you can be proven wrong (like in the case of the USPS getting massive subsidies--- anyone can google and see that they get billions in subsidies each year) but you just expect that the Average Data Loungerette will accept your bullshit.
That's why neocon fascists like you are losing the battle.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 222||01/02/2013|
No, R218- China is all about fascism. Government control with private beneficiaries, all in service of the elite.
It's the same in Europe, and the US. look at how our banks control the Federal Reserve and craft legislation to the benefit of their cronies.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 223||01/02/2013|
[quote]You've actually proven my point, [R210]-
LOL.... Only if you're a moron. Oh, wait....
[quote]Once the Federal Reserve finally crashes the economy they will wish they had.
It's been 100 years, dear. Shouldn't that crash have occurred by now?
[quote]You can't print trillions of dollars and not expect them to cause massive inflation at some point.
ROFL.... You really don't know anything about macroeconomics, do you? Dear heart, if your economic beliefs were accurate, we'd *already* see "massive inflation." The fact that we don't is proof that your economic beliefs are wrong. Deal with it.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 224||01/02/2013|
I've worked in the government for 20 years and I've worked in a private corporation for 20 years.
The difference? Government workers work about 30 times harder than private company workers. You slip up the TINIEST BIT in a government job and you are fired, while private company workers play all day with no repurcussions. There's no comparison.
All this bad-mouthing of government workers is clearly by people who never worked for any government agency. Government workers are heroes in my book.
We need both government and private industry, though, to balance each other out. If you wish to work with serious, hard-working intellectuals who sincerely want to make the world a better place and who are willing to give 150% of their effort to that end, then you want to take a government job. Private industry jobs seldom have serious direction beyond looking out for yourself and behaving ruthlessly to get to the top, for no apparent reason other than making more money.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 225||01/02/2013|
[quote]Good Fod, [R217]- Can't you admit defeat?
ROFL.... Why should I, dear? You've never managed to "defeat" me, mostly because you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about!
[quote]You never post any rebuttal, but always post snark.
Dear heart, not only are you incorrect, in that I do occasionally post "rebuttal," as well as the data to back it up, but you're also conveniently ignoring that little inconvenient fact that you never bother to actually support any of the drivel you post here! I'm just using your own tactics back against you and, boy, you really don't like that.
Should you ever start trying to defend the crap you post, I'd be happy to actually engage in a real debate. I'm not holding my breath, though; I've been issuing that challenge to you for at least two years now and you've never once taken me up on it.
[quote]Rebut any one point- pick one, and focus on it.
Support any one point- pick one, and focus on it. Instead it's nothing but unsupported assertions and attacks. Recognize yourself, dear?
[quote]Ad hominem attacks are great for children, but intelligent people provide some argument before they accept bullshit like that.
ROFL.... What's your excuse, then, dear? Ad hominem attack is one of your favorite tactics, dear, or has that really escaped your notice that I'm doing *exactly* what you do?
[quote]When you can be proven wrong (like in the case of the USPS getting massive subsidies--- anyone can google and see that they get billions in subsidies each year)
ROFL.... Yup, like I said, you really don't know anything about the Post Office. Oh, and I will note, for the record, that you utterly failed to provide those Google links that show that the USPS gets "billions in subsidies." Why is that, dear?
[quote]but you just expect that the Average Data Loungerette will accept your bullshit.
Actually, I don't really care, dear. Do you?
[quote]That's why neocon fascists like you are losing the battle.
LOL.... And which "battle" is that, dear?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 226||01/02/2013|
Wiki 1 that shows USPS monopoly on mail.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 227||01/02/2013|
First Class mail volume (which is protected by legal monopoly) peaked in 2001 and has declined 29% from 1998 to 2008, due to the increasing use of email and the World Wide Web for correspondence and business transactions.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 228||01/02/2013|
[quote]Wiki 1 that shows USPS monopoly on mail.
Dear heart, you said "billions in subsidies each year." You're posting a link to a fact I've already acknowledged!
[quote]First Class mail volume (which is protected by legal monopoly) peaked in 2001 and has declined 29% from 1998 to 2008, due to the increasing use of email and the World Wide Web for correspondence and business transactions
And now a link to an article that is entirely irrelevant.
This is hilarious! This was the best you could come up with? A point I never disputed and a point that is irrelevant? And still not one shred of evidence to back up what you actually asserted!
Now do you see why you always get your ass handed to you?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 229||01/02/2013|
You never post a fact (like the fact that the Federal Reserve has printed over $4T in the last 4 years to give to the banks) and never link to anything of substance, and just defend the government at all costs.
I don't know why I reply to your utter shite.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 230||01/03/2013|
I hope that anyone reading this will troll dar R210/217/219/220/221/ 224/226/229 and see that she provides no support for her assertions.
It's simple- when the government prints too much money and gives it to the banks and big corporations, they make money while the rest of us suffer. They get richer, and we pay for it. She is just an apologist for the big banks, and never offers anything to support her claims.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 231||01/03/2013|
Please explain this, if you think "regulations" are working-
If you don't think Wall Street insiders have captured the SEC, read this from a Michael Smallberg report:
If you’re looking for evidence of the revolving door that spins between the federal government and Wall Street, look no further than Daniel Gallagher, President Barack Obama’s recently announced nominee for Securities and Exchange Commission commissioner...
Obama’s nomination of Gallagher to help lead the agency during a critical time in its history is also the latest example of the agency’s coziness to the industry it oversees.
Gallagher is currently a partner at WilmerHale. The pricey law firm’s high-profile clients have included Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and other Wall Street giants regulated by the SEC. If the Senate confirms him, this would be Gallagher’s second spin through the revolving door — he previously left WilmerHale to join the SEC in January 2006, only to return to the firm in 2010. And he would be the latest on an ever-expanding list of WilmerHale alumni at the SEC, including the current general counsel, deputy general counsel, associate general counsel, corporation finance division director, enforcement division chief counsel and deputy secretary.
Of course, the revolving door spins in both directions. Many former SEC employees leave the agency to join WilmerHale and other legal, accounting and consulting firms that represent clients in the securities industry. Several recent reports by the SEC Inspector General have raised troubling questions about whether the promise of future employment representing Wall Street causes some SEC officials to treat potential employers and their clients with a lighter touch.
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), where I work as an investigator, just released a new report and database showing that hundreds of former SEC employees have recently taken jobs representing clients before the SEC.
All told, POGO’s database shows that 219 former SEC employees filed 789 statements between 2006 and 2010 announcing their intent to appear before the SEC or communicate with its staff on behalf of private clients. One former employee had to file 20 statements during this time period in order to disclose all his clients and the issues on which he expected to appear before the SEC. Another former employee filed his first statement just two days after leaving the agency.
Bottom line: Power centers such as the SEC are regularly captured by the elite in the regulated industry. The industry employs former regulators so that they can skate by regulations, while lobbying for regulations which will limit, if not completely stop, those attempting to enter the industry and compete against the controlling giants.
The only solution to this problem is to eliminate the agencies that become the power centers. The SEC seldom catches any fraud at an early stage, the Bernie Madoff scheme is evidence of that. Meanwhile, the agency allows government operated Ponzi schemes to go on without interference and runs blocking schemes for the big boys, like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.
The SEC should be among the first agencies to go, if serious budget cutting ever comes about. It's nothing but a training school for future technocrats of the Wall Street oligopoly.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 232||01/03/2013|
Here is the thread, showing how many former banksters rotate in and out of government positions in order to help out their bankster buddies and screw the littl guy.
You think laws and regulations stop these sociopaths?
Eliminate regulation, bring back gold, allow a REAL free market (meaning I can pledge my 200 year old oak tree, or 100 sq ft of land, or whatever) as collateral for a "cash card" (totally unregulated by the government) and get rid of the dollar.
Too bad your simple mind cannot grasp how such a system would work- guess what, I can't either...but I know it would be superior to letting the government control the money supply. I know I'm too ignorant to know what shapes freedom will take, but smart enough to know that freedom is better than slavery.
Are you, or do you think people NEED people like you to control them, and tell them what to do?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 233||01/03/2013|
[quote]Government workers work about 30 times harder than private company workers. You slip up the TINIEST BIT in a government job and you are fired
LMFAO. Uh, no. Government workers have unions. It's next to impossible to get fired.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 234||01/03/2013|
I know. Shit like that makes laugh, and wonder what planet they're from.
As a kid 20 years ago I worked for the government in my home county, and 2-3 times a week the boss (a friend of mom's) would tell me to take a late lunch (while the girls went to Chik-fil-a) and then after they got back, she would tell them we were taking lunch and then going to the other branch office to do paperwork.
While they were gone we would review all the transactions ( I had a head for numbers, and patterns) and if everything was cool we left as soon as they got back and either hit the sleaziest bar (even the two girls who weren't Fundies wouldn't come in there) and play pool and talk shit, or meet the deputy mayor or some other official and talk politics over martinis.
She would tell me stories about how the vice mayor embezzled money, or how the sheriffs son smoked weed all the time in the basement, or how two cute deputies were lovers and stole cocaine from the lab.
Even though there were "scandals" (and one of the deputies did resign for using "excessive force" on a teenage boy, off duty...aka rape, but since he had a badge...) the guy still claimed disability and now is in his early 50s and hasn't worked a day since, but still gets (as of 15 years ago) $4000+ a month, and I've seen him repairing roofs, etc. He even came to my mom's house one day asking if she needed help on her roof, and when she asked if he was xxxxxx he said no and left.
I got paid for 40 hours, and rarely worked more than 25. Plus benefits.
That is your government at work.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 235||01/03/2013|
R225, Perhaps you should talk to some of the people who lived through Katrina, and find out what they think of most governmental employees. I have worked in several branches of government. I've seen massive fraud and incompetence, particularly in the Census Bureau in two states, from the very top on down. No one cared about the huge falsification of answers I repeatedly witnessed. President Obama is completely negligent in not bringing the census into modern day technology.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 236||01/03/2013|
You are the reason I stay on this board.
Read this, and guess who wrote it---
Texans and all Americans have responded wonderfully to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, opening their wallets and their homes to help displaced victims. Private donations already have topped $600 million. This outpouring shows there is hope for rebuilding and breathing life back into New Orleans and other destroyed communities, if the American entrepreneurial spirit is permitted to operate freely.
When it comes to government relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Congress must be very careful with the nearly $52 billion dollars approved last week — almost all of which goes to FEMA. The original $10 billion authorized by Congress for hurricane relief was spent in a matter of days, and there is every indication that FEMA is nothing but a bureaucratic black hole that spends money without the slightest accountability. Any federal aid should be distributed as directly as possible to local communities, rather than through wasteful middlemen like FEMA. We cannot let the Katrina tragedy blind us to fiscal realities, namely the staggering budget deficits and national debt that threaten to devastate our economy.
Why does Congress assume that the best approach is simply to write a huge check to FEMA, the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made — before and after the hurricane. Yet in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed. We should not be rewarding failure.
Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous troubling examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last ten days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 237||01/03/2013|
This seems shocking to those who have never been subjected to the secondary disaster that is the arrival of FEMA on the scene of a catastrophic event. But explaining FEMA’s ineptness is not the same thing as saying no one should help people affected by disasters. Quite the opposite.
Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true. FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it. The examples are numerous. When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands. It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help. When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires. Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help. All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.
It has only gotten worse since 9/11. Compare the stories of two flotillas – one after 9/11 and one after Katrina. Within an hour of the 9/11 attacks, the largest boatlift in history was organized spontaneously by locals who saw an immediate need and responded immediately. Over 500,000 terrified New Yorkers were taken off the island by ferries, tugboats, pleasure crafts, fishing boats and barges when all other access points had been shut down. A similar flotilla attempt was privately organized after Katrina. 500 boats caravanned to New Orleans to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and desperate. Unfortunately, FEMA had taken over by then and they were turned away, empty, while the patients languished, still stranded. Tragically, the Vermont Air National Guard helicopters were in Iraq when Irene hit, and they were desperately needed here.
The establishment of FEMA is symptomatic of a blind belief in big government's ability to do anything and everything for anyone and everyone. FEMA is a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracies, while staffed with well-meaning people, are notoriously slow and wasteful by their very nature. When people are starving, injured and dying they need speed and efficiency, yet FEMA comes along with forms and policies and rubber stamps. This sort of thing is bad enough at the DMV, but in matters of life and death where seconds count, this is just not acceptable.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 238||01/03/2013|
[quote]You never post a fact (like the fact that the Federal Reserve has printed over $4T in the last 4 years to give to the banks) and never link to anything of substance, and just defend the government at all costs.
ROFL.... You don't read very well, do you? What's hilarious is that you can't deal with what I wrote in R229, so you go into full attack mode, as usual.
[quote]I don't know why I reply to your utter shite.
I don't know why, either, since it always ends with you getting your ass handed to you, but I love it that you do, since I have a great time reading your incoherent posts, silly claims, and loony conspiracy theories. I feel like I should pay you for the entertainment!
Oh, and I'm still waiting for all of those Google links on those "billions in subsidies each year." Were you planning to provide those links anytime soon?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 239||01/03/2013|
[quote]I hope that anyone reading this will troll dar [R210]/217/219/220/221/ 224/226/229 and see that she provides no support for her assertions.
I hope that anyone reading this will trolldar R231 and see that he provides no support for his assertions.
What's hilarious is that I'm just doing what this troll always does and, boy, he really doesn't like it when his own tactics are used against him. Oh, and as for my gender, I'm afraid his claims there are as accurate as his other claims.
[quote]It's simple- when the government prints too much money and gives it to the banks and big corporations, they make money while the rest of us suffer.
Well, sure, if you're a moron who doesn't understand economics, finance, or the role of the federal reserve. For the rest of us, that statement of yours is laughably stupid and not even remotely an accurate description.
[quote]They get richer, and we pay for it. She is just an apologist for the big banks, and never offers anything to support her claims.
ROFL.... Neither do you, dear. Funny how that works.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 240||01/03/2013|
[quote]Please explain this, if you think "regulations" are working-
Dear heart, every example you provide shows what happens when the regulations *don't* work, i.e., the world you are trying desperately to make happen. You're undercutting your own arguments, time and time again, hilariously unaware that you're doing so!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 241||01/03/2013|
R237, Thank you. I've thought of doing a "comedy routine" of all the ridiculous things I've witnessed from governmental managers.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 242||01/03/2013|
R18, any book recommendations? Thanks!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 243||01/04/2013|
Someone mentioned Kibbutz on a previous page - my mother emigrated to Israel in the 1950s and lived on a Kibbutz for many years. She always said they were the one example of communism that worked, but she also had a lot of problems with them and had to leave for the sake of her mental health (after winding up in a psychiatric hospital). Though I think the 60s culture might be to blame for that, partly. They still exist - I spent a week in one a couple of years ago. It's nice enough. A bit dull and worthy but the people seem happy. Felt a bit like summer camps in the US.
The thing with Kibbutz is, first they were/are always entirely voluntary and people could leave whenever they chose, and second I think what I call the 'national psyche of Israel' played an important part. The whole idea of the Jewish homeland, especially after the Holocaust, was so potent. I know my mother talks a lot about how, even when the Kibbutz was not good for her, they felt so much pride and strength from the knowledge they were physically creating the Jewish homeland where they could be safe. Nearly all of them experienced the persecution in WWII first hand or had a near relative who had and that has to change how you view the world. Having said that my mother was part of an illegal bacon smuggling ring at one point, so I guess the lure of capitalism is pretty strong.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 244||01/04/2013|
Voluntary communism is a good thing. I have no problem with it.
Forced communism, where the leaders kill you (aka China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, Cambodia under Pot, etc.) is the problem. QE4eva is turning the USA Into a communist state. I don't blame Obama, since Bush and Clinton started it, but the system has metastasized over the last 20 years. Bernanke is the devil.
It is ripe for comedy. The mental gymnastics they have to perform makes my brain hurt.
Watch some Geroge Carlin routines. He was the ultimate anarchist/ libertarian. His routines always showed how incompetent the government was at everything.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 245||01/04/2013|
What's hilarious about the anti-government folks is the blind worship of the private sector. It makes me wonder just how many of them have actually spent time working in the private sector, since the horror stories of incompetent managers, lazy employees, long lunch breaks, bizarre behavior, etc., are just as prevalent there as in the public sector. Hell, just read half the threads here on DL!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 246||01/05/2013|
We need to take the best ideas from capitalism and communism. Pure capitalism and pure communism do not work.
We need government and private business both. Getting the right balance between the two is our challenge.
We need publicly-funded infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) or we are 3rd world countries where no wealth can be generated.
We need public libraries and public schools shared by all. Without them, we also become a 3rd world country.
We need private schools and private airplanes and private food suppliers.
We need private doctors. But that does not mean that we could not benefit from a system of publicly-funded health care. The two can and should coexist, just as public and private schools coexist.
It's just common sense and looking at what has worked in the world's most successful, humane countries.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 247||01/05/2013|
Wilhelm Röpke named his philosophy of a free society that avoided the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and collectivism as "The Third Way." John Zmirak's new biography, Wilhelm Röpke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist (Wilmington, Del.: ISI, 2001), defends this philosophy not only as the height of wisdom but as the only way of preserving freedom in a collectivist age. Is he right?
Röpke: Free-Market Liberal?
Was Röpke a classical liberal who stood in the tradition of Jean Baptiste Say, Lord Acton, and Ludwig von Mises? Zmirak says categorically that he was not, for Röpke rejected laissez-faire capitalism, radical individualism, and the night-watchman theory of the state ("deputized to defend property rights and national borders"). Instead, he endorsed a "social market" that not only permitted but required judicious state interventions to mitigate the destructive tendencies within capitalism and stave off even worse interventions from socialists.
Nevertheless, before one dismisses Röpke for having given the game away before it started, one must concede that by the standards of the present day, he is not that bad. His views are sufficiently antistatist and free market to earn the opprobius epithet "neoliberal" were he still living and writing in Europe. Writing during an age in which the expropriation of the means of production by the state and the imposition of full-scale socialism with central planning was a real possibility even in Western Europe, Röpke bravely defended private property, the free market, free international trade, and market-determined prices and wages.
He had learned from Mises the crucial importance of unregulated prices to the efficient functioning of the market. He had also learned the futility of attempting to generate wealth through the printing press. He was a strong proponent of the gold standard. While out of step with the prevailing economic orthodoxies of his time (Keynesianism, command-and-control economies, socialism), Röpke nevertheless helped save at least part of his fatherland from the poverty and stagnation that would have followed inexorably from the statist economic policies favored by German social democrats and Anglo-American occupiers.
In the years after the war, western Germany was suffering not only from the enormous destruction wrought by allied bombing and a catastrophic military defeat but from a depreciated currency and chronic shortages brought on by an oppressive system of price controls. The economy was literally paralyzed. Germans were having trouble just finding enough to eat, much less were they able to rebuild their country. The prevailing idea was that Germany needed more central government planning and control to turn things around and make Germany a productive, wealth-producing country again.
The neoliberal economists of the German Freiburg School, Walter Eucken and Wilhelm Röpke, denied that what Germany needed was more government control of the economy. What Germany needed, they argued forcefully, was less government and more market freedom. They recommended that government price controls be lifted and that a new currency be substituted for the inflated and discredited Reichmarks. Germany was fortunate that the finance minister of the Anglo-American occupation zone in western Germany, Ludwig Erhard, had been influenced by the neoliberal school and that he was listening to the recommendations of Röpke and Eucken and giving them more weight than the statist proposals coming from German social democrats, British Labor socialists, and American New Dealers.
In 1948, he pushed through crucial free-market reforms to save his country from full-scale socialism. The two most important were the introduction of a sound currency (the Deutschmark), the inflation of which would be carefully limited and controlled by an independent central bank (the Bundesbank), and the immediate end of price controls. The new Deutschmark was not a gold mark, but it was certainly preferable to what it replaced. Given the statist intellectual climate of the times, as well as the need to gain Anglo-American approval for any free-market reform, such limited reforms were the most German liberals could hope for. The alternative was not a gold standard, private banking, and complete free trade, but a socialist planned economy with the nationalization of industry, wage and price controls, and hyperinflation.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 248||01/07/2013|
American social democratic imperialists are continually boasting that "the German Miracle," the revival of the German economy and the rebuilding of that country, of the late 1940s and early 1950s was due to the Marshall Plan. Yet the truth is that the miraculous German recovery was due far more to the neoliberal market reforms instituted by Erhard than to generous infusions of American money beginning in 1948. After all, the United States government and allied banks have been showering various Third World regimes with U.S. foreign aid, cash grants, low-interest loans, and debt relief and forgiveness for decades without a single repeat of the German postwar miracle. Why is that?
Röpke and the Federalist Principle
If there is one area in which Röpke's ideas can be praised without qualification it is in his advocacy of political and economic decentralism and the closely related idea of subsidiarity. Röpke understood that historically the concentration of political and economic power has been followed by a corresponding diminishment of political and economic freedom. His experience as an exile in Switzerland during the world war persuaded him that it was possible to have a decentralized, truly democratic and voluntarist society that was also modern and technologically advanced. Thus Switzerland became his ideal society, the model on which he crafted his social and economic philosophy.
Röpke pointed out that Switzerland was more genuinely democratic than any other Western country because political power was divided between a federal parliament and numerous self-governing cantons. In addition, constitutional changes and federal tax increases had to be submitted to popular referenda. He contrasted this populist federalist system--where the voter had real power, participated in political life at the local level, and kept himself informed on political matters--with the elitist centralized systems prevalent elsewhere in the Western world, where largely passive, apathetic, gullible, and ignorant citizens were either manipulated or ignored by elites.
According to Zmirak, Röpke opposed the supranational economic and political organizations that began emerging in the wake of the Second World War. He regarded the European Community (EU), the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and various UN agencies as irresponsible bureaucracies and nondemocratic institutions that had little to do with free trade or economic liberty. They stood for managed trade and international corporatism. Although Röpke defended the autonomy of historic regions within larger political entities, he also defended the independence of the sovereign nation-state as a bulwark against the emergence of such supranational bureaucracies.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 249||01/07/2013|
Röpke and the Conservative Critique of Capitalism
According to Zmirak, Röpke accepted many of the socialist (Marxist) and traditionalist criticisms of historic capitalism. Röpke thus stands in a tradition that includes the English Catholic distributists (G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc), the Southern Agrarians, and Russell Kirk and other American paleoconservatives. According to this conservative critique of capitalism, the unfettered free market was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it had produced enormous wealth and raised the standard of living for millions of Western citizens. On the other hand, it had polluted and defaced the natural world, depleted precious resources, and undermined traditional society. It had subverted natural social hierarchies, destroyed communities, weakened the traditional family, subverted religious faith and patriotism, and rendered rewarding work and real property ownership the privilege of only a privileged few. In its stead, it had substituted excessive labor specialization, dehumanizing work, subsistence wages, crass materialism, social atomism, personal alienation, the excessive concentration of wealth, unhealthy factory production, and the proletarianization of society.
Some thinkers in this tradition went so far as to charge capitalism with destroying the social and cultural preconditions that made capitalism possible in the first place. It did this by causing displaced, confused, and exploited workers to turn to the government for economic security and protection. Unbridled capitalism created an environment so intolerable that the masses chose socialism and the welfare state as preferable alternatives. Even worse, untrammeled capitalism led inexorably to concentrations of irresponsible wealth and economic power--monopoly capitalism. The conclusion: laissez-faire capitalism led inexorably to socialism. Röpke made this argument in The Social Crisis of Our Time (1942), as Belloc had done in his Servile State, and as Joseph Schumpeter would do throughout his writings.
What is to be done? Röpke argued that the destructive tendencies implicit in capitalism could only be restrained by strong independent social structures--the family, the church, community, and widespread ownership of land and small businesses. However, as such restraining institutions were themselves vulnerable to the assaults of revolutionary capitalism, it was necessary that the state intervene to shore up these institutions and in general restrain the worst excesses of the free market. Thus, Röpke advocated antitrust laws (to break up monopolies and preserve competition), estate taxes on the rich (to help diffuse property ownership), a safety net of social services (to help the unemployed and other victims of capitalism's creative destruction), and various subsidies and tax breaks to support family farms, small businesses, and home ownership.
Röpke understood that he needed to formulate some kind of rule to distinguish the limited and "market-friendly" interventions that he favored from the unlimited market-hostile interventions favored by social democrats and other Fabian-style socialists. One rule was that market-"compatible" interventions were those that did "not interfere with the price mechanism," while "incompatible" interventions were those that "paralyzed" this essential mechanism. Zmirak explains that Röpke had other criteria as well. Interventions had to be "warranted by some grave social necessity," designed to "counteract the corrosive elements inherent within the market economy," to preserve "the social and political framework that made freedom possible over the generations." However, they should "interfere as little as possible with the free economic choices of individuals," and never go so far as to "subject men's lives to constant bureaucratic tinkering" or "radically distort the incentives that drove private enterprise."
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 250||01/07/2013|
You forgot to denote where you copy and pasted that from, R248/R249.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 251||01/07/2013|
Can Röpke or Mises Rescue Us from a Collectivist Age? Röpke made a fatal concession to the socialist cause in agreeing that unrestrained capitalism had proven socially destructive and unsustainable. He compounded this error with an even worse one in allowing for a role for the state in defending freedom from the steady advance of socialism and totalitarian politics. Röpke's proposed "solution" only served to further entrench an increasingly integrated corporatist welfare state by providing additional justifications for intervention and allowing the defenders of government to pose as defenders of a free society and market in opposition to communist central planners and big-business robber barons.
There are three inherent weaknesses with Röpke's distinction between compatible (market-friendly) and incompatible market interventions. First, no government intervention is market friendly. They all produce market distortions of one kind or another, infringe upon private property, restrict liberty, and affect prices. Second, in the real world it is impossible to draw a line to permit only a certain kind or level of interventionism. Once the principle of even moderate interventionism is admitted and then carried out, further more radical interventions are sure to follow. There is far too much subjectivity involved in making distinctions between interventions that are harmful or beneficial to a free and healthy society. What goes too far for one does not go far enough for another. Once the door is open and the principle that the state can intervene has been conceded, then nothing is left but to fight over the details of each and every proposed intervention endlessly.
The inside dust jacket deserves to be quoted at length to illustrate how easy Röpke 's ideas lend themselves to providing legitimacy to social democratic expropriation and coercion masquerading as socially responsible freedom:
A passionate critic of socialism and the welfare state, Röpke was nonetheless keenly attuned to capitalism's destructive elements and the intrinsic limits of the market. Röpke's influence can be seen in the ascendance of political ideas--including "compassionate conservatism," which draws explicitly on Röpke's work--that seek to give the market its due while also recognizing the claims of higher, communal goods. . . . Röpke's "Third Way" provided a way to make principled distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate government interventions in the market place and became the basis of Christian Democratic public policy. [italics mine] What is Bushite "compassionate conservatism" if not an endorsement of the permanent and ever increasing welfare state and the implicit condemnation of any free-market or libertarian opposition as mean-spirited, selfish, and extremist? What does the German Christian Democratic Party stand for if not the mixed economy, the welfare state, and national corporatism? While George Bush's speechwriters and Christian Democratic spokesmen are clearly not justified in invoking Röpke as a legitimate authority for their hyper-statism, they can get away with it precisely because Röpke failed to draw a firm theoretical line against all government intervention in principle. Röpke 's analytical imprecision, concessions to the socialist and traditionalist critiques of capitalism, and allowances for minimal government allowed him to be used by Anglo-German social democracy masquerading as "conservatism" and "free-market" capitalism.
While the conservative critique of capitalism identifies many of the worst features of modern life, it errs in attributing these ills to capitalism and the free market (freedom). For example, to ascribe the erosion of Christian faith, traditional values, and the nuclear family to capitalism seems to fall in the category of the bum rap. After all, the collapse of religious belief began well before the age of industrialism. Besides, such an explanation conflicts with the Christian idea of personal moral responsibility.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 252||01/07/2013|
Furthermore, Röpke and other traditionalists have failed to observe how a truly free market reinforces culturally conservative and socially healthy mores. Commercial society with minimal government rewards personal initiative, hard work, saving, and long-term planning. Governmental welfare policies, compulsory wealth transfers, punitive taxation, and currency inflation reward precisely opposite mores. Economic exchange and social cooperation both require and reinforce personal reputation and trustworthiness and individual responsibility. Government coercion does the opposite. Even such mundane capitalistic practices as the credit report institutionalize personal accountability. Compare the service, efficiency, and financial accountability of a private corporation with a government bureaucracy. Is there any comparison at all? It is the state, not private enterprise, which is the destroyer of traditional society, Christian mores, natural hierarchy, and social diversity (inequality).
Not only can most of the ills of modern life more fairly be ascribed to the rise of democracy and the growing power of centralized states, but so can the rise of socialistic welfare statism. Is it a coincidence that democracy was followed by the welfare state, or that socialist and communist parties have found their mass support among those with little or no property? Was it the disruptive tendencies of capitalism or the opportunity to expropriate their neighbor's property, get something for nothing, and shake down their betters that motivated such voters? A Christian or a writer well versed in classical political philosophy should have no hesitation in answering that question. Röpke was wrong. It was democracy that led to socialism and the welfare state, not free-market capitalism.
Consider "the problem" of the concentration of economic power, especially the emergence of giant corporations and agribusinesses. In a free market, market combinations that are not creative, productive, or profitable will collapse of their own weight through the pressure of competition. Concentrations of economic power seem to be a problem only when the state encourages or sustains them through tariffs, subsidies, and other forms of state capitalism. Once again, Röpke got it wrong. It was corporatism that led to harmful, inefficient, and predatory forms of economic concentration, not the free market.
Röpke also failed to learn from Mises the dynamic of escalating interventionism. Initial state interventions in the nineteenth century created a dynamic that led to additional interventions in the twentieth. Initial welfare state measures created a sense of entitlement and expectation among beneficiaries for additional measures. Protective tariffs, state subsidies, and central bank-induced credit inflations sustained uncompetitive and inefficient enterprises, misallocated resources and capital, and caused business cycles resulting in mass bankruptcies and unemployment. The people then blamed private enterprise and turned to the state to rescue them.
This pattern of statist remedies for problems created by previous statist remedies is with us still.
Röpke's argument that the state must intervene in the economy to preserve freedom and prevent future interventions that are even worse is self-defeating and contradictory. Freedom needs no help from the state--which is its natural enemy, not its ally. Freedom promotes natural order, inequality, and the decentralization of enterprise, wealth, and culture. It is government that imposes false kinds of order, false equality, uniformity, and centralization. We need Mises, not Röpke, to save us from the despotic hand of the modern Welfare Corporatist State.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 253||01/07/2013|
The freepers just won't quit until they've derailed every thread.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 254||01/07/2013|
As shown above, there can be no "third way". Only a pure free market (with no corporations- - product of the state) and pure property rights, and full legal consequences for individual and collective action.
Any "third way" will result in Nazi Germany, or present day USA.
H.A. Scott Trask is a Kurzweg Fellow of Ludwig von Mises Institute. Strask@mises.org. See also Wilhelm Röpke: Architect of Liberty by Zmirak, John. See also Wilhelm Roepke: Humane Economist.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 255||01/07/2013|
If you want to learn more, and more fully understand why an "anarchic" system works better than the paternal "soft fascism" that characterizes the USA and EU today, here is a link. There are thousands of articles that explain in detail why giving monopoly power to a small group is dangerous.
I hope you will take time to read this, and seek to understand how giving unlimited powers to flawed people, no matter how well-intentioned they are, will always result in a police state.
If you do not think that the present day USA is a police state...well, then you are either too willfully ignorant or too biologically stupid to understand.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 256||01/07/2013|
Thank you for the link.
I was leaving it to the end, but I appreciate you looking it up and posting it.
Can you believe that people still think a "third way" is possible?
The state, aka "The Bureaucracy" always seeks to grow, as described by the Ratchet Effect (see link) and is the bane of both large private enterprises (which exist only due to the government charter anyway) and inside the government.
Much worse is the present day "public/private partnership" (aka fascism) that characterizes all of the large banks, military contractors, new organizations, etc.
I'm so glad someone else on this site can see through the propaganda.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 257||01/07/2013|
Someone who wants to pardon all criminals charged with non violent drug crimes is a freeper?
Someone who wants to end the wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Libya, and Syria, and God knows where else, and prevent war with Iran, and China, and Russia- that's a freeper?
Someone who wants to stop the warrantless wiretapping, and spying on emails, and tracking average citizens is a freeper?
Someone who opposes giving trillions to the big banks while raising taxes on the poor is a freeper?
Someone who thinks we should be allowed to marry whomever we want is a freeper?
If so, I'm a freeper.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 258||01/07/2013|
These Mises and Rockwell kooks are so wordy!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 259||01/07/2013|
I jumped ahead in the queue away from the tiresome libertarian troll. No, government is not perfect, but libertarianism is not a magic wand to fix everything.
I have spent a lot of time in Romania. Communism was clearly very damaging there. It destroyed a lot of great architecture and cultural patrimony. It decimated their agriculture system which is only now recovering from decades of soil degradation. And it kept the country stunted, paranoid and poor. Romanians remember recent food shortages and widespread hunger -- something not comparable in the US, pellagra stories from 1916 notwithstanding. Romania is in the EU, but it ain't normal yet.
Brazil and Uruguay are experimenting with more social investment and it seems to be yielding results. Maybe this is a cap/com hybrid that can work.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 260||01/07/2013|
Your reply shows you "skipped over" the proof that hybrid cap/comm
Pull your head put of your ass!
Learn about the world!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 261||01/07/2013|
Do you think the US is a nascent police state?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 262||01/07/2013|
I know quite a bit about the world. I just don't agree with your version of it.
And I hate people who yell.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 263||01/07/2013|
The world exists, no matter what "version" of it we believe in. Our best hope is to find a framework that best explains it, and makes the world better.
A socialist view of it results in death and destruction and strife and disease, and provides no way for the individual to mitigate them. They are just a cog for the state.
A libertarian view contains these things, but provides a way of mitigating them, and gives us the power to make the whole society richer and happier by our individual selfish actions.
That's why the Third Way will never work.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 264||01/07/2013|
[quote]Your reply shows you "skipped over" the proof that hybrid cap/comm Always. Ends. In. A. Police. State.
That's. Because. No. Such. "Proof." Exists. And. Using. Idiotic. Flourishes. Like. This. Doesn't. Make. Any. Of. Your. Nonsense. Any. More. True.
[quote]Learn about the world!
Right back at you, sweetheart. Coming from someone who has already shown that they know nothing of history, this is rich.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 265||01/07/2013|
[quote]The world exists, no matter what "version" of it we believe in.
Yes, well, there's the real world and there's your fantasy world. Regrettably, the two just don't mesh. So while you're having fun in your fantasy world, we'll be just fine out here in the real world. You should join us here someday.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 266||01/07/2013|
@R264 Do you think the Tea Party can lead the US to economic and social prosperity?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 267||01/07/2013|
R264 isn't a Freeper or a Tea Partier. He's a Ron Paul/Libertarian/Anarchist/Conspiracy Loon/Gold Bug/Gun Nut/Anti-Fed moron.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 268||01/07/2013|
I think printing money to give to the big banks while the poor go hungry is wrong.
I think killing innocent people in the middle east is wrong.
I think putting people in jail for smoking pot is wrong.
I think spying on (and imprisoning) innocent US citizens in wrong.
I think letting the government define marriage is wrong.
If you believe that these things are right, then go to your tailor and get your Brown shirt.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 269||01/07/2013|
Just making sure that you are properly identified, dear.
You also believe that gold is going to climb ten-fold over its current price. That we are on the brink of a massive economic meltdown the likes of which we have never seen before. That massive hyperinflation is just around the corner. That Ron Paul knows what he's talking about and isn't a blatant, and ignorant, hypocrite. That Social Security is "bankrupt" and that nobody will get any money out of it. That anarchism is the most desirable form of government. That government can't do anything well. That private medical insurance/care outperforms government-run medical health insurance/care.
If you believe these things, then go to your tailor and get your straitjacket.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 270||01/07/2013|
[quote]or too biologically stupid to understand
And it looks like our favorite freeper is a eugenicist who thinks that people are too stupid to think for themselves and need someone else to think for them. [italic]Shocking.[/italic]
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 271||01/08/2013|
I missed that post, R271, amidst all the drivel that the PaulDroid posted yesterday. I really do love the statement, though:
[quote]If you do not think that the present day USA is a police state...well, then you are either too willfully ignorant or too biologically stupid to understand.
Free clue, dear: until you've lived in a *real* police state, pretending that the US is one demonstrates that you are "willfully ignorant or too biologically stupid" to know the difference.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 272||01/08/2013|
This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.
But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.
It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 273||01/12/2013|
Dear heart, posting something 20 times doesn't make it any more compelling than posting it once does. It just makes you look really foolish for thinking it applies to anything happening in the real world.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 274||01/14/2013|
Communism is evil.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 275||01/20/2013|
ROFL.... You bumped your thread to add that ridiculous bid for attention, R275? That's just pathetic.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 276||01/20/2013|
Socialism, aka communism, will never work.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 277||05/29/2014|
Many nomadic tribalistic societies were very much communistic/socialistic. Many native American tribal societies were communal, no one owned property and most of what the tribe had was shared.
Ant colonies are communistic all is shared for the good of the community.
It has worked, you can debated how well it has worked, it is not impossible for it to work. It has flaws, so does Capitalism.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 278||05/29/2014|
It works great for the 0.1% of communist party members.
It is hell on earth for the rest. Socialism, fascism, communism are all collectivist ideologies that believe The State is greater than individual freedom.
Only sick motherfucking idiots believe it.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 279||10/14/2015|
Socialism has worked everywhere it has been tried. It has impoverished the bottom 99% while enriching the well-connected government officials that administer the socialist policies.
So, it has worked out well for them.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 280||05/04/2016|
And another dead thread resurrected by our resident Idiot Libertarian Troll. I think I've counted up to 20 right now. Are you drunk?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 281||05/05/2016|
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 282||05/05/2016|
I agree. It was the only appropriate answer to give, given the behavior.
There's that misogyny again.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 283||05/05/2016|
The failures of government are too numerous to elucidate.
Only idiots believe government can run an economy.
Cuba, Venezuela, Russia- proof government is incompetent in economic matters.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 284||05/09/2016|
Ah, so it's going to be another one of those nights, eh, Idiot Libertarian Troll? Where your resurrect a dozen or more of your (deservedly) dead posts to favor us with non sequiturs and drivel? Oh, we just cannot wait for the pearls of wisdom to drop from your keyboard. Be still, my beating heart.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 285||05/09/2016|
just run on
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 286||05/09/2016|
communism doesn't work, will NEVER work, and can only function as an utopian ideal-- impossible unless we reach a singularity where every human has a genius iq and therefore genuinely altruistic. The thing that the academic left will never truly understand or rather appreciate is that some people truly are better than others. This is why communist can never work and capitalism in all its flaws is the only viable alternative. You need the rewards in place that benefit those who contribute/innovate and ultimately make the entire culture/society flourish. Communism can never achieve this because theres no reward system so its always rationing out all of society's resources where demand always overwhelms productivity. Of course american capitalism should be a lot more like western Europe. I don't believe tax cuts for the rich should be what they are and things within our capitalism system could be a lot more fair.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 287||05/09/2016|
In small communities like Brook Farm it can work.
But the people need to be free to come and go.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 288||05/10/2016|
[quote]This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the embargo by a hostile and powerful neighbour.
Meanwhile other countries don't have embargoes on them and there's still poverty and pestilence, but at least it's equal and that's all that matters to you, isn't it?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 289||05/10/2016|
Unless people are forced to live under communism, it fails.
Libertarians don't want to force you to live under a libertarian system- you are welcome to create your communes and socialist Utopias. Libertarianism only means you can't do it by forcing people to be communists, whereas socialism demands subjugation of independent thought and actions.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 290||05/10/2016|
[quote]Libertarians don't want to force you to live under a libertarian system
Yeah, actually they do. That's why you've been so desperate to dismantle any and all government and why you've been trying for over a decade here to win even one convert to your cause. Sucks to be you, of course.
[quote]whereas socialism demands subjugation of independent thought and actions.
You realize that this is an insane "definition," right? That is bears no resemblance to anything in the real world? Just checking.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 291||05/11/2016|
So, libertarians would FORCE you NOT to engage in socialism? They would disrupt your socialist communities?
Man, you're insane. In a society with free markets and free association, you could do anything inside your own community.
You just couldn't FORCE other people to also be commutards. Your love of government power is sociopathic.
You would LOVE to force those evil Christian Conservatives to do your bidding. Any dissent would be dealt with...HARSHLY! If they objected to building a separate bathroom in their church to serve handicapped transgender Muslims you would CRUSH them!!!
I'll bet that paragraph gave you ladywood in your panties. You would LOVE to tell people who don't agree with you want the can, can't and MUST do. Megalomaniac sociopathic assholes like you dominate government, so you will fit right in!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 292||05/11/2016|
[quote]So, libertarians would FORCE you NOT to engage in socialism? They would disrupt your socialist communities?
Yup. I repeat: Yeah, actually they do. That's why you've been so desperate to dismantle any and all government and why you've been trying for over a decade here to win even one convert to your cause. Sucks to be you, of course.
The rest of your post was just your usual drivel and childish insults. Since you can't handle what I actually do say, you have to lie and pretend I've said things I've never said. I will note that never, not once, have you ever managed to actually cite a single quote of mine in these rants of yours. Everything you rant about exists solely in your fevered imagination.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 293||05/12/2016|
You can set up your own government inside your own nation- as long as you owned the land, libertarians would leave your socialist cult alone to starve.
Since that won't work, you must enslave EVERYONE and force them to work for your socialist utopia.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 294||05/13/2016|
[quote]Since that won't work, you must enslave EVERYONE and force them to work for your socialist utopia.
ROFL.... Oh, you poor dear. How terrible it must be to be "enslaved" along with EVERYONE. How dare we not let you "alone to starve" in your very own libertarian cult utopia. How DARE we not let you dismantle any and all government so that you can set up that libertarian utopia! I shall gently cry myself to sleep tonight distressing over your plight.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 295||05/13/2016|
I read through the first 50 or so comments and clearly most of you don't understand the meaning of the concept of Communism. As far as I know we have not experienced a true form of communistic government anywhere in the world without the addition of Totalitarianism to the model.
It is the Totalitarianism that has brought about the abuses, not the communism. Communism does have the problem of lack of incentive while Capitalism has the problem of leaving too many people to fall by the wayside.
Most likely the best form of government is some combination of Socialism and Capitalism, which is what is being practiced in most the western world today. Even the US is not a completely Capitalistic nation. The question is getting the best mix between Capitalism and Socialism.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 296||05/13/2016|
Capitalism has worked so well for Russia a majority of people there want to return to Soviet days.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 297||05/13/2016|
No, R297, they don't.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 298||05/14/2016|
Yes, R298, they do.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 299||05/15/2016|
The horrors and mass murders of socialism during the 20th century aren't enough to dissuade you?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 300||05/17/2016|
[quote]The horrors and mass murders of socialism during the 20th century aren't enough to dissuade you?
Yes, we see those "horrors and mass murders of socialism" every day here in the United States. How could I have ever been so blind?! Thank you, O Idiot Libertarian Troll [tm] for removing the scales from my eyes and showing me the True Way [tm].
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 301||05/18/2016|
You're welcome, R301.
Once you understand freedom and property rights and their societal interactions, you will begin to see how domestic spying and international murder sprees by our government are dangerous.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 302||05/18/2016|
Moving the goalposts again, I see. Free clue: "domestic spying and international murder sprees" are not essential components of "socialism." Once you understand this, you will begin to see how misguided your crusades are.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 303||05/18/2016|
Socialism requires a totalitarian government, and totalitarian governments ALWAYS commit mass murder and spy on their subjects.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 304||05/20/2016|
[quote]Socialism requires a totalitarian government
Um, no. Thank you for confirming why we don't take you seriously, Idiot Libertarian Troll [tm].
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 305||05/20/2016|
How do implement socialism without constant surveillance and stiff penalties for noncompliance?
If someone decides that they would prefer to keep the money they make, instead of giving it to the government, what is the penalty?
Authoritarian government is the only way to implement socialism.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 306||05/20/2016|
The Bible said that there is always going to be poor people on the face of Earth. Accept that, ease into it.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 307||05/20/2016|
The poorest American has access to food and medicine and travel and opportunities (via charity, scholarships, hard work) than Kings had 150 years ago. Poor is relative.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 308||05/20/2016|
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 309||05/20/2016|
The Manson Family.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 310||05/20/2016|
[quote]It is the Totalitarianism that has brought about the abuses, not the communism.[/quote]
This is true only as far as communism, as it is in theory, hasn't been in existence anywhere. In theory, it's a classless order where the state is extinct, with full egalitarianism and common ownership of the means of production. Didn't happen in USSR, China, or anywhere else. What happened were totalitarian and authoritarian regimes with communist ideology. Said abuses were part and parcel of the deal of imposing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" state.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 311||05/20/2016|
Vladimir Luxuria's panties.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 312||05/20/2016|
[quote]In theory, it's a classless order where the state is extinct, with full egalitarianism and common ownership of the means of production.
In other words it is a system that requires mankind to fundamentally alter millions of years of biology.
When people are allowed to peacefully trade with strangers, retain ownership of their property, and protect their own culture while leaving their neighbors to mind their own business, prosperity is abundant.
When those who want to "reform" people have control of the government (Cuba and Venezuela on the left, Weimar Germany and Kosovo on the right) and are forced to deal with recalcitrant groups and individuals who aren't willing to go along with their planned reforms, the end is ALWAYS mass murder and poverty.
We now have a police state that Trumpussolini will be able to use indiscriminately against his "enemies". These executive powers have been expanding in force and scope for 150 years, and now they are going to be in the hands of a narcissistic megalomaniac.
Libertarians have been warning about the expansion of the powers of the Federal Government, and especially Executive Authority, for decades. Now DONALD TRUMP will be able to use all those powers to cripple Democrats, even if it means destroying the last remnants of the constitution.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 313||05/20/2016|
[quote]How do implement socialism without constant surveillance and stiff penalties for noncompliance?
It's called a social contract. You should look into it. You might even learn something.
Oh, and you should also learn the difference between a "totalitarian government" and a nation of laws. Even libertarianism has laws, moron, and an enforcement mechanism. Only total anarchy does not.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 314||05/20/2016|
[quote]When people are allowed to peacefully trade with strangers, retain ownership of their property, and protect their own culture while leaving their neighbors to mind their own business, prosperity is abundant.
Oh, you mean like the United States?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 315||05/20/2016|
Can I get a copy of that "contract"?
I never signed it, and my business and law classes always emphasized that a contract is only valid if BOTH parties sign.
Laws should apply to everyone, equally, but if you have money and access to powerful people then the laws no longer apply. That's a prerequisite for a police state.
If a low level government employee did what Hillary Clinton did they would be in jail.
Once again your rhetoric is just that- empty words, no reality.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 316||05/20/2016|
[quote]Can I get a copy of that "contract"? I never signed it, and my business and law classes always emphasized that a contract is only valid if BOTH parties sign.
You can always leave. Remaining where you are is implicit authorization. Deal with it.
[quote]If a low level government employee did what Hillary Clinton did they would be in jail.
Wow... where did that come from? You do realize that a) that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and b) as usual, you're wrong.
[quote]Once again your rhetoric is just that- empty words, no reality.
LOL.... Right back at you, cupcake. Sucks, doesn't it?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 317||05/20/2016|
If you need a business license to sell lemonade then you do NOT have the freedom to trade peacefully.
If property taxes aren't paid then the government takes your home. In New Jersey the average homeowner pays for their home twice in 30 years- once to the bank, and an equal amount to the government.
Trannies in the bathrooms is "protecting culture"?
Man, you don't understand reality.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 318||05/20/2016|
[quote]If you need a business license to sell lemonade then you do NOT have the freedom to trade peacefully.
Meanwhile, out here in the real world, kids sell lemonade all the time without a license. As for small businesses, somehow a hell of a lot of them manage to survive in this regulatory hell-hole of ours. Maybe, just maybe, they're smarter than you.
[quote]If property taxes aren't paid then the government takes your home. In New Jersey the average homeowner pays for their home twice in 30 years- once to the bank, and an equal amount to the government.
Moron, even a Libertarian Utopia would need money for defense. And whatever money you get for that? Hey, guess what, you'll be coercing people for it. Funny how that works.
[quote]Trannies in the bathrooms is "protecting culture"?
Wow, you're just all over the place today. Are you drunk again?
[quote]Man, you don't understand reality.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony....
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 319||05/20/2016|
[quote] Remaining where you are is implicit authorization.
Your authoritarianism is showing. Commutards love to say "show me your papers!"
So, that "social contract" thing is just more communist bullshit.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 320||05/20/2016|
[quote]Your authoritarianism is showing. Commutards love to say "show me your papers!" So, that "social contract" thing is just more communist bullshit.
ROFL.... I do so love a post that is so stupid that there's nothing for me to do except to point to it and laugh. You can always leave, cupcake, anytime you want to. But if you want the benefits of the society, which you do, you have to pay for them even if you don't want to. Sucks to be you.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 321||05/20/2016|
Thomas Drake was an NSA agent. He did exactly what Clinton is accused of.
The government destroyed his life.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 322||05/20/2016|
WASHINGTON — Five years after becoming the first American to be charged for espionage in nearly four decades, Thomas Drake is still trying to rebuild his life.
In 2010, Drake, a senior executive with the National Security Agency from 2001 to 2008, was indicted under the Espionage Act by Barack Obama’s administration for leaking classified information, after speaking out on secret mass surveillance programs, multibillion-dollar fraud and intelligence failures from 9/11. He was the first U.S. whistleblower to be charged under the Espionage Act since Daniel Ellsberg in 1971 and faced 35 years in prison before the government’s charges against him were ultimately dropped in 2011.
“I had become a dissident, as far as the NSA was concerned,” Drake said during “Secret Sources: Whistleblowers, National Security and Free Expression,” a panel examining the impact of the Obama administration’s response to national security leaks, at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. “If you become a dissident, the white blood cells kick in, culturally, to get rid of you.”
And Drake, much like fellow NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, remains a case study of sorts for the present and future of whistleblower protections in the U.S.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 323||05/20/2016|
You do realize that what Thomas Drake did is *not* what Clinton is accused of, right? Just checking.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 324||05/20/2016|
I mean, seriously, that was the best you could do? Come up with a case that doesn't even remotely bear a resemblance to anything that Clinton did or didn't do? You really *are* drunk, aren't you?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 325||05/20/2016|
What to do if your child's lemonade stand is shut down by cops.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 326||05/20/2016|
Uh-huh, so I must have imagined those dozens of lemonade stands I saw last year here in Seattle. Funny how that works....
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 327||05/20/2016|
The USA is protected by two oceans. Invasion of the mainland is impossible.
Look at how difficult it has been for highly trained US troops with billions of dollars of equipment to occupy Afghanistan, which is smaller than Texas. Imagine China, or Russia, attempting to control the USA. It's ludicrous.
No need for property taxes, just a wealthy and free society capable of defending itself internally.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 328||05/20/2016|
Please, show me a social contract. You are just too ignorant to understand the meaning of "contract".
A contract requires acceptance of both parties, and spells out their requirements.
A social contract is a myth created by collectivists who hate individual freedom and property rights.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 329||05/20/2016|
[quote]The USA is protected by two oceans. Invasion of the mainland is impossible.
Wow.... That's what you're hanging your hat on? And you claim that *I* am ignorant of reality? You have heard of ships, right? Missiles? Submarines? Airplanes? Now you're just being delusional.
[quote]No need for property taxes, just a wealthy and free society capable of defending itself internally.
Why yes, that has worked out so well throughout history when countries decided to not have any defense at all.... Sorry, moron, but you're still wrong (as usual). Even your Libertarian Utopia will need money to survive. It's rather silly of you to pretend otherwise.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 330||05/20/2016|
[quote]Please, show me a social contract. You are just too ignorant to understand the meaning of "contract".
LOL.... Look it up, moron. This isn't a new concept. It's been around for a few centuries.
[quote]A contract requires acceptance of both parties, and spells out their requirements.
You really don't know what a social contract is, do you?
[quote]A social contract is a myth created by collectivists who hate individual freedom and property rights.
Q.E.D. I repeat: You can always leave, cupcake, anytime you want to. But if you want the benefits of the society, which you do, you have to pay for them even if you don't want to. Sucks to be you.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 331||05/20/2016|
I'd like to know how, if China is "Communist", is there a rich elite there who can afford to send their kids abroad for school, and buy up luxury real estate in the US? Of course it's because China is corrupt as fuck.
It tickles me to see "Commies" typed all over this thread. It's so antique, and what my sister called her menses.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 332||05/20/2016|
Storing classified information on an unauthorized server is exactly what Clinton did.
Transmission of classified information over unsecured channels is exactly what Clinton did.
What part of that is hard to understand?
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 333||05/20/2016|
It isn't, of course, R332, but remember, we're talking about the Idiot Libertarian Troll [tm]. Reality has never been his strong point.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 334||05/20/2016|
Meanwhile, why don't you look up the definition of the word contract. Your mythical social contract does not meet the standards of a contract.
Are you on your period? You are being especially unreasonable and stupid tonight. Take a Midol.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 335||05/20/2016|
[quote]Storing classified information on an unauthorized server is exactly what Clinton did. Transmission of classified information over unsecured channels is exactly what Clinton did. What part of that is hard to understand?
Well, mostly that that isn't what Drake was charged with. Did you even bother to *read* the article you cited? Here, let's quote the meat of the indictment:
According to the indictment, Drake, 52, was a high-ranking NSA employee from 2001 through 2008, where he had access to highly classified documents and information. The indictment alleges that between approximately February 2006 and November 2007, a newspaper reporter published a series of articles about the NSA. The indictment alleges that Drake served as a source for many of those articles, including articles that contained classified information. The indictment also alleges that Drake took a series of steps to facilitate the provision of this information to the reporter, including:
- exchanging hundreds of e-mails with and meeting with the reporter;
- researching stories for the reporter to write in the future by e-mailing unwitting NSA employees and accessing classified and unclassified documents on classified NSA networks;
- copying and pasting classified and unclassified information from NSA documents into untitled word processing documents which, when printed, had the classification markings removed;
- printing both classified and unclassified documents, bringing them to his home, and retaining them there without authority;
- scanning and emailing electronic copies of classified and unclassified documents to the reporter from his home computer; and
- reviewing, commenting on, and editing drafts of the reporter’s articles.
"As alleged, this defendant used a secret, non-government e-mail account to transmit classified and unclassified information that he was not authorized to possess or disclose. As if those allegations are not serious enough, he also allegedly later shredded documents and lied about his conduct to federal agents in order to obstruct their investigation," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer. "Our national security demands that the sort of conduct alleged here – violating the government’s trust by illegally retaining and disclosing classified information – be prosecuted and prosecuted vigorously."
Now tell me again how this is just like Clinton. I can use a good laugh.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 336||05/20/2016|
[quote]Meanwhile, why don't you look up the definition of the word contract. Your mythical social contract does not meet the standards of a contract.
ROFL... You *still* don't know what a social contract is, do you?
[quote]Are you on your period? You are being especially unreasonable and stupid tonight. Take a Midol.
Thank you for once again confirming that you're a misogynist.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 337||05/20/2016|
Corruption by the US government is defended by the Permanent PMS Troll, but China and Russia are EVIL.
She hates anyone having freedom, but loves crony capitalism. The US government is awesome and would be perfect if they killed all those libertarians and conservatives.
Don't provoke her any more tonight- she's close to an aneurysm defending communism tonight.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 338||05/20/2016|
[quote]Corruption by the US government is defended by the Permanent PMS Troll, but China and Russia are EVIL.
And yet, somehow, you are unable to find any post of mine that "defends corruption by the U.S. government." Tell me, why do you feel compelled to lie so blatantly and clumsily?
[quote]She hates anyone having freedom, but loves crony capitalism. The US government is awesome and would be perfect if they killed all those libertarians and conservatives.
[quote]Don't provoke her any more tonight- she's close to an aneurysm defending communism tonight.
ROFL... Right back at you, cupcake. What's hilarious is that you know you're getting your ass handed to you so this is the only tactic you have left. And thanks for once again confirming that you're a misogynist.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 339||05/20/2016|
Funny, your "social contract" fails every test.
1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance.
A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written).
In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless.
Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement. (See: consideration, contract of adhesion, unilateral contract, bilateral contract, oral contract)
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 340||05/20/2016|
[quote]Funny, your "social contract" fails every test.
LOL... Thank you for confirming that you *still* don't know what a social contract is. Your continued ignorance is hilarious!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 341||05/20/2016|
Oh, and do tell me again just how I'm "defending Communism." I've looked through my every post on this thread and I can't find a single one that does that. Funny how that works.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 342||05/20/2016|
You're fun to play with.
It's rare to run across a troll so stupid that they think they're winning!
I know what you claim is a "social contract"- it is a fictional creation of Hobbes and Rousseau that has been utterly dismantled by Locke, Menger, Nozick- it is a utopian fiction created by proto-Marxist onanistic navel-gazers who don't understand economics, and it fails every court test for a valid contract.
SJWs like you need to get some real world experience and move out of mom's tenement.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 343||05/20/2016|
So, let's recap, shall we?
- You have no idea what a social contract actually is; you just know that you don't like it.
- You want the benefits of living in an industrialized nation; you just don't want to have to pay for it.
- You have no idea what's going on with Hillary Clinton's email server, since your "example" was hilariously inapt.
- You insist that the invasion of the U.S. is "impossible" and that your Libertarian Utopia will not need any money at all for any reason, both of which are hilariously and stupidly false.
- Oh, and you've decided that I'm female, that I'm on my period, etc.
Even for you, this was a really, really stupid outpouring of drivel.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 344||05/20/2016|
[quote]You're fun to play with.
Right back at you, cupcake. You're freaking hilarious!
[quote]It's rare to run across a troll so stupid that they think they're winning!
ROFL... Oh, the irony.... I am winning, dear, which is why all you've got left is the childish insults.
[quote]I know what you claim is a "social contract"
And yet you manifestly still don't understand it, as your every post here reveals.
[quote]SJWs like you need to get some real world experience and move out of mom's tenement.
ROFL... Really? This was the best insult you could come up with? Even for you, this was pathetic!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 345||05/20/2016|
What's even funnier is that a series of posts like yours are usually what gets your threads shut down. But hey, if that's the way you want to play, go for it. Feel free to come back the next time you want your ass handed to you again.
Tell us again about how we're going to get "Weimar-level hyperinflation," won't you? Or how gold is going to climb to $20,000/ounce. Or how gold is always a great hedge against inflation. Or how mortgage rates are going to climb to double digits, bringing down the housing market, and crashing the economy. Or how bond rates are going to climb to double digits, bringing down the economy. Or how China's dumping of U.S. assets is going to bring down the economy. Or how Saudi Arabia's dumping of U.S. assets is going to bring down the economy. Or how gold is always a better investment than the stock market. Or how China's stock market problems are going to bring down the economy. Or how the Fed's actions are going to bring down the economy.
Come on, cupcake ... find just *one* prediction of yours that has come true. You can do it!
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 346||05/20/2016|
[quote]Um, no. Thank you for confirming why we don't take you seriously, Idiot Libertarian Troll [tm][quote]
Not Idiot Libertarian Troll, but -- um, yes, socialism requires totalitarian or at least authoritarian government.
People regularly confuse socialism with social democracy / the welfare state. These terms aren't interchangeable. The Nordic states usually given as examples, aren't socialist, they are social corporatist democracies.
In theory, socialism is the first stage towards communism. It is the result of the revolution and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" when the workers seize the means of production and impose "social ownership" and "planned economy". Socialism ends private enterprise and free market economy, period.
In practice, the communist or socialist party seizes power and expropriates private property in industry and agriculture. Obviously, not all people are on board, so there's forced collectivization of farmers, nationalization of industry and forceful seizure of other private property. This is what happened in the Eastern bloc. Some private property like real estate was allowed in some places with limitations controlled by the party state.
The Nordic states aren't socialist in the strict sense, either politically --they are (monarchist) democracies, or economically - they have free market economies (with certain regulation), legal private ownership rights and private enterprise. People confuse them with socialism proper because of the welfare state and labor rights.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 347||05/21/2016|
[quote]People regularly confuse socialism with social democracy / the welfare state. These terms aren't interchangeable.
I'm using the Idiot Libertarian Troll's definitions. In his view, even a hint of socialism, like the existence of a safety net, is sufficient to call a country socialist/communist/fascist/totalitarian. And yes, he has said repeatedly that those terms are interchangeable.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 348||05/21/2016|
Since socialist policies (even soft "social democracy") require totalitarian government monitoring of every individual and company (to make sure they aren't cheating by keeping more than their "fair share" of profits) it requires massive brainwashing to believe that socialism doesn't require totalitarian government.
The Permanent PMS Troll hates freedom and individuality. "Government Uber Alles" should be her motto.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 349||05/21/2016|
[quote]Since socialist policies (even soft "social democracy") require totalitarian government monitoring of every individual and company (to make sure they aren't cheating by keeping more than their "fair share" of profits) it requires massive brainwashing to believe that socialism doesn't require totalitarian government.
[quote]The Permanent PMS Troll hates freedom and individuality. "Government Uber Alles" should be her motto.
LOL.... Making shit up again, I see. And thanks for confirming once again that you're a misogynist (and a stupid one, at that!).
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 350||05/21/2016|
[quote]it requires massive brainwashing to believe that socialism doesn't require totalitarian government.
Of course, what "requires massive brainwashing" is to believe that every major industrialized nation in the world today has a "totalitarian government." There's just nothing you can do with ignorance that invincible, except to point and laugh and move on.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 351||05/21/2016|
R349, a regulatory government isn't the same as a totalitarian government. Social democracy isn't the same as socialism, and doesn't require totalitarian government either in theory or have it in practice.
Capitalist systems also have rules against cheating and means to enforce them through what we call the rule of law.
Basically what you say is meaningless.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 352||05/21/2016|
The metamorphosis of the USA from regulatory to police state has been too subtle for someone so ignorant of basic economics.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 353||05/21/2016|
[quote]The metamorphosis of the USA from regulatory to police state has been too subtle for someone so ignorant of basic economics.
For you, of all people, to talk about "ignorance of basic economics...." The mind boggles at the self-delusion required.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 354||05/21/2016|
It worked in Russia to the extent that in 1917, Russia was defeated by Germany. In 1945, the USSR defeated Germany. When you say, "Did it work" you have to add, "compared to what"
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 355||05/21/2016|
Your lack of understanding of "supply and demand" proves you know nothing about economics.
The invasion of Russia by Hitler was later echoed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as well as the current US occupation - occupation of a large and hostile territory is impossible. The people grow to hate you more, and eventually you are driven out.
Socialism is synonymous with failure.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 356||05/24/2016|
One of the points I like to stress in my introductory economics course, as well in my course on Economic Expansion and Development is that socialism, when implemented, results in poverty, starvation, death, and cultural ossification. The more hard-core socialist the system is, the worse its problems. Mary Anastasia O’Grady documents this in a short essay in the Wall Street Journal. It is an excellent primer in the problems of socialism in which she uses Leonard Read's "I, Pencil" to illustrate what any economic system must do if society is to survive. As O'Grady notes:
In his craving for power, the late Hugo Chávez pledged to redistribute Venezuela’s wealth to the poor masses. The god-father of “21st-century socialism” seems to have been unaware that the resources he promised to shower on his people had to first be produced. . .
. . . Among the many stupidities that socialism promotes is the idea that by imposing price controls and forbidding profits, government can make food both cheap and widely available.
The opposite is true, and Venezuela proves the rule. An August-September 2015 survey by the multi-university, Caracas-based social and economic research project Encovi found that 87% of those polled reported that they did not have sufficient income for food. Their privation is a result of artificially holding down prices, which creates shortages. Consumers are forced to scurry about black markets looking for what they need and then pay dearly for it—if they can. They face killer inflation which, according to the central bank, was 180.9% on an annual basis in the fourth quarter of 2015, up from 82.4% in the first quarter of last year.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 357||Last Thursday at 11:26 PM|
Damn. Wrong thread.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 358||Last Thursday at 11:26 PM|
Isn't communism something that works best in small communities? Human nature, where someone will try to be top dog and gather all the power and money keeps it from working for the large populations. I don't think there's ever been a true communist country. The USSR and China were basically military dictatorships calling themselves communists.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 359||Last Thursday at 11:31 PM|
Communism works in families. Beyond that, where public shaming or threat of eviction for lack of work fails to correct behavior, it always leads to misery.
Mutual cooperation, where both parties enter into contract voluntarily because both parties benefit, is the only path to a peaceful and prosperous society. That cooperation requires ownership of body and property, and respect for body and property by the society. If you own your body, your mind, your home and the fruits of your labor, and can enter into binding contracts (Rothbard and Hoppe explain how that evolved without government) then individuals working for their own benefit will spontaneously create benefits for the rest of society as a byproduct of their labor.
|by Sgt. Pinko||reply 360||Last Friday at 12:08 AM|