libertarian gets beaten up again my Thom

[RGacky3]

zMSonfwWYxo

I love this interview, he gets SO angry when he asks for ONE example where the government cut his way to prosperity, then he goes to 1921 after WW1.

This guy is a Moron, I love watching libertarians loose their shit and get called out.

Don'nt mess with Thom when it comes to history.

[Tommy4ever]

Oh dear. :laugh:

[BE_]

Hahaha I cracked up when he started yelling.

[Viet Minh]

Someone give him David Cameron's number please!! :)

[RGacky3]

PLXoWvuogpE

He's back, I love this guy so much.

BTW, Thom interview a lot of really really smart libertarians and capitalists, and almost always holds his own, but I'm glad he also brings guys like this along.

[Rafiq]

Gacky why are you so obsessed with the Liberal Bourgeoisie? They don't like you. Thom would be even meaner to you actually...

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

This is brilliance.

[Red And Black Sabot]

Oh my god, I'm cracking up!
Both videos! The reaction from this guy is hilarious.

[gendoikari]

Wow this guy is professional.

[Ostrinski]

He might be a liberal but he's a smart guy.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I respect Thom Hartmann.

[RGacky3]

Gacky why are you so obsessed with the Liberal Bourgeoisie? They don't like you. Thom would be even meaner to you actually...


A: he's not bourgeoisie, hardly.
B: progressives in the US are the closest in the US to socialists in the media
C: He's not really ever mean, to anyone.
D: He regularly has Richard Wolff, the marxist economist on, and almost always agrees with him, he also has socialist party and union people on and generally agrees with them.

Liberal is just a dirtyword anyway.

[Madslatter]

Gacky why are you so obsessed with the Liberal Bourgeoisie? They don't like you. Thom would be even meaner to you actually...
Even if Thom is the liberal bourgeoisie media, is there any problem with really liking somebody with extremely intelligent analysis of politics and economics? More accurately, is there anything wrong with really liking somebody who often tears down pathetic capitalist arguments, even if it's from a Keynesian point of view which we ultimately disagree with?

I like a lot of non-socialist media people, Thom included. Just because they aren't marxists and anarchists doesn't mean that some of them don't have something valuable to say, and it doesn't mean they aren't doing a good job of presenting the news. We can listen to news delivered with a liberal point of view and still get something valuable from it, and even have great respect for the liberal delivering it, even if we have fundamental disagreements with their approach.

[Demogorgon]

I don't understand why he goes on the programme. First of all if you can't make a decent argument and resort to screaming when you are called out, you are not going to come across well, but moreover it is the absolute height of stupidity to use a made up argument against someone who has knowledge of the topic and can catch you out instantly just makes you look like an utter idiot.

Really though I was embarrassed for the guy, particularly in the first video when he was asked to name a single instance in human history of his ideas being proven correct and he was left stumped. I wanted to lead him away and let him retain a modicum of dignity.
Gacky why are you so obsessed with the Liberal Bourgeoisie? They don't like you. Thom would be even meaner to you actually...
This attitude really annoys me, because what it boils down to is "if anyone's heard of you, you are an enemy". You cannot claim someone is simply a "bourgeoisie liberal" because they appear in the mainstream media. Plainly Hartmann is not a radical socialist, but he makes arguments that can lead people to think about that. I'd call him a social democrat anyway from what I have seen anyway, which is not the same as liberal.

[Judicator]

I love this interview, he gets SO angry when he asks for ONE example where the government cut his way to prosperity, then he goes to 1921 after WW1.

This guy is a Moron, I love watching libertarians loose their shit and get called out.

Don'nt mess with Thom when it comes to history.

I love to seek out the worst example of opposing policy positions too!

For an easy example, our unnecessarily complex tax code wastes millions of person-hours each year doing taxes. Government prohibitions on drugs mean we have to waste countless resources on an unwinnable war.

[RGacky3]

I love to seek out the worst example of opposing policy positions too!


Watch his show, he has tons and tons of extremely intelligent pro-market people on all the time, infact thats why I love watching it, he has real debates with intelligent people on both sides.


Government prohibitions on drugs mean we have to waste countless resources on an unwinnable war.

I agree.


For an easy example, our unnecessarily complex tax code wastes millions of person-hours each year doing taxes.

Yup, there are tons and tons of waste when it comes to capitalism.

[Judicator]

Watch his show, he has tons and tons of extremely intelligent pro-market people on all the time, infact thats why I love watching it, he has real debates with intelligent people on both sides.

I'll take a look.


I agree.

At least we agree on something.


Yup, there are tons and tons of waste when it comes to capitalism.

The tax code was an example of government screwing up prosperity.

[Madslatter]

I love to seek out the worst example of opposing policy positions too!
Who, regardless of political leanings, doesn't enjoy hearing the other side get intellectually smashed now and again? I don't seek it out, but it's still certainly enjoyable. In this case it's even funnier because this guy is in a position at a reasonably powerful republican think tank, where clearly not enough thinking is going on. Nice talking points though for when your host does more than bat eyelashes and smile.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Gacky if you are a socialist who is so obsessed with a far right fringe group that you routinely seek out and clearly celebrate clear liberals who "own" them you have issues.

to all the people who will now criticize me for ignoring an "ally", consider what you would feel if someone rountinely posted videos of "really smart oh yeah!!!" republicians "owning" white supremacists, cause there isn't much difference for someone on the far left.

[Judicator]

Who, regardless of political leanings, doesn't enjoy hearing the other side get intellectually smashed now and again? I don't seek it out, but it's still certainly enjoyable. In this case it's even funnier because this guy is in a position at a reasonably powerful republican think tank, where clearly not enough thinking is going on. Nice talking points though for when your host does more than bat eyelashes and smile.

This is a fair point. I'm kind of amazed how much this guy rages when he's on a talk show and he's supposed to be representing a think tank.

[Madslatter]

This is a fair point. I'm kind of amazed how much this guy rages when he's on a talk show and he's supposed to be representing a think tank.
You'd be amazed how much thinking DOESN'T go on at think tanks. I think a lot of why he exploded is that most of the time these guys make a media appearance and the pretty boy on the other side of the desk just nods his head and smiles. Add that to the fact that the rest of talk radio is very friendly to free market fundamentalism of groups like Heartland Inst, and you have a guy that was not at all prepared to actually get interviewed by somebody with a disagreeing opinion. He's also clearly an idiot.

[RGacky3]

The tax code was an example of government screwing up prosperity.

Is it, Which is why the countries that are most free market are doing the best right (like the US, Chile, Spain, Italy)? Whereas the ones with more government intervention are doing terribly (like Norway, Germany, Canada), oh wait.

The best example of waste is the fact that crops are burned to cut food prices, or that there are homeless people outside cities with tons of forclosed homes, or there are empty factories producing nothing while prices for consumer products continues to rise.

[Viet Minh]

Gacky why are you so obsessed with the Liberal Bourgeoisie? They don't like you. Thom would be even meaner to you actually...

Perhaps, but leftists can't just give up on politics until the revolution, maybe pushing for reform or social change is a waste of time but humiliating conservatives is always entertaining! :thumbup1:


I love to seek out the worst example of opposing policy positions too!

Its not about the opposing policies, the guy was interviewed because he had written a highly critical book, when you do that you really should know a little about the history of your subject.


Gacky if you are a socialist who is so obsessed with a far right fringe group that you routinely seek out and clearly celebrate clear liberals who "own" them you have issues.

to all the people who will now criticize me for ignoring an "ally", consider what you would feel if someone rountinely posted videos of "really smart oh yeah!!!" republicians "owning" white supremacists, cause there isn't much difference for someone on the far left.

First of all in the US media 'liberal' is about as far left as you get, and the fact is we might not have a socialist revolution for another year or more so in the meantime whats wrong with supporting liberal policies? For example against the death penalty, abortion rights, gay marriage, gay adoption etc?

[Madslatter]

Progressives are about as left as it gets here, and they have a hard time staying on the air. Look at Cenk. He wasn't towing the line they never even set for him. Granted that some of the progressives are really social democrats, but that doesn't change that we are pretty starved for leftist media over here.

[Judicator]

You'd be amazed how much thinking DOESN'T go on at think tanks. I think a lot of why he exploded is that most of the time these guys make a media appearance and the pretty boy on the other side of the desk just nods his head and smiles. Add that to the fact that the rest of talk radio is very friendly to free market fundamentalism of groups like Heartland Inst, and you have a guy that was not at all prepared to actually get interviewed by somebody with a disagreeing opinion. He's also clearly an idiot.

Not everyone interviews well. Like you said, if you're expecting a friendly interview (I don't know why this guy was) and you don't get one things like this can happen.



Is it, Which is why the countries that are most free market are doing the best right (like the US, Chile, Spain, Italy)? Whereas the ones with more government intervention are doing terribly (like Norway, Germany, Canada), oh wait.

The best example of waste is the fact that crops are burned to cut food prices, or that there are homeless people outside cities with tons of forclosed homes, or there are empty factories producing nothing while prices for consumer products continues to rise.

The point about the tax code wasn't about tax rates, but about the complexity of the tax code. Excessively complex tax codes waste time and resources at any level of taxation.

How would less supply (burning crops) cause prices to go down? Corporations can certainly waste resources, but those that consistently waste resources are competed out of existence... governments can just raise taxes.

[RGacky3]

The point about the tax code wasn't about tax rates, but about the complexity of the tax code. Excessively complex tax codes waste time and resources at any level of taxation.


Sure ...


How would less supply (burning crops) cause prices to go down? Corporations can certainly waste resources, but those that consistently waste resources are competed out of existence... governments can just raise taxes.

I meant to say keep prices high, misspoke, high prices means more profit.

Corporatsion certainly DO waste profits, and if they would be competed out of existance, it would have happened, but it does'nt, because guess what, sometimes waste = more profits, also many companies have enough power to waste and avoid competition.

Either way, Reality wins out my friend :).

[RGacky3]

w7VxqlJInsY

Anothre libertarian loosing his shit, oh I love it, nothing better than a calm and intelligent progressive calmly beating up a libertarian whole he hoots and yells after every point he makes that Thom shoots down.

[danyboy27]

thom hartmann is a liberal for sure, but can be quite entertaining when it come to pawning free market fundies.

i would do fucking anything to have someone similar to him doing that kind of show in canada.

for some fucking random reason, nobody seem to care that our governement dirrectly borrow money from big bank with compound interest instead of dealing with the canadian federal reserve, nobody care that we dropped over 550 bomb over libya, nobody care about the ongoing privatisation of our public service, nobody, no one.

[Judicator]

I meant to say keep prices high, misspoke, high prices means more profit.

Corporatsion certainly DO waste profits, and if they would be competed out of existance, it would have happened, but it does'nt, because guess what, sometimes waste = more profits, also many companies have enough power to waste and avoid competition.

Either way, Reality wins out my friend :).

Southwest is one of the few consistently profitable airlines. They charge low prices. Apple is profitable by charging high prices. It varies from company to company.

Wasting profits can't lead to more profits, that would be a contradiction in terms.

[RGacky3]

Not wasting profits, but wasting resources, and it happens all the time.

Apple is profitable dispite charging high prices due to other factors.

[RGacky3]

TrvY_5FeOQ4

Our favorate libertarian goes back on Thom, this guy is a top free market guy, writes for forbes and its amazing how stupid this guy is.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I love how his voice cracks when he starts yelling lol :laugh:

[RGacky3]

I also love how he yells "lies" about facts that you can confirm with a quick search on the internet.

[kapitalyst]

Too bad he had to pick a loony with a bad temper. Thom was getting pwnt at the beginning, in a major way, until the guy flipped his lid because he didn't know his early 20th century history... I guess that guy was just spouting back stuff smarter people told him, and just couldn't hold his ground when the script changed.

How do you get on this show? Is there a phone number I can call to be pre-screened? ;)

"What country in history has ever cut its way to prosperity?" -- Thom

Correct Answer:

Thom, you sly little dog... This is a tick question (pun intended)... :rolleyes:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, taxes have been at unprecedented historical highs. In 1913, the US tax rate on the lowest ($10,000 and below) income bracket was only 1%, and the highest ($1M+) was only 7%... both very reasonable tax rates. By 1918, it had reached 16% and 77%, respectively (he said it was at 90%, which shows he doesn't quite know his history). The highest US tax rates ever were in 1944, which were 41% and 91% respectively. Even after all the cuts from those wartime highs, taxes for everyone, rich and poor,are still way too damned high.

Taxes, today, are at 10% for those making under $10k, and 33% for those making over $250k. Mr. Thom, $10,000 ain't what it used to be. Even though our technology has increased the supply and reduce marginal value of goods (meaning everything should be cheaper), the cost of commodities has increased between 5000 - 9000% since 1900, thanks to inflation. So we're taxing income that doesn't go anywhere near as far at a rate 10x's higher, for the lowest income bracket! Indeed, rich or poor, we're all over-taxed...

The most prosperous time of growth in the history of the world was the Industrial Revolutions Era, when taxes were only a sliver of what they are today. Since the introduction of central banking and Keynesian philosophy in the 20th century, such things no longer happen. No one has tried drastic tax cuts. All we've tried is Keynesianism... currency devaluation, super-high taxation, deficit spending, ad nauseum...

How can one possibly believe that taxes help the economy by taking money away from it? Taxes are a necessary evil to pay for other necessary evils and a couple good things we just have to pay for; like national defense, police, fire & rescue departments, etc. Without all the waste in government, we could even afford free health care and think of it as a basic service (like law enforcement). Even though your guest was a basket case with a bad temper, he was right about a few things... Taking $10 from your left pocket and putting it in the right pocket is not a gain of $10... it's, well... nothing... The public sector can only obtain money in three ways: 1) taxes 2) borrowing 3) "printing" cash (inflation)... So no matter how much money government spends or how many public sector jobs it creates, it does not help the economy. It's just a waste of resources. Your faulty logic is known as the Broken Window Fallacy. It goes something like this:
A little boy is playing outside, and he picks up a rock and hurls it down the street. It smashes the baker's shop window. The mayor of the town sees this, and approaches the boy. But instead of scolding him, he instead praises him:

"My boy," he says, "you have just helped this town's economy by creating a new job!" Bewildered, the little boy asks the mayor what he's talking about. The mayor explains that now the glazier has a job to perform: fixing the broken window. And the baker will pay him for his service, and make money move through the economy. The boy is granted an award by the mayor, who asks him to go through the town and smash all the windows up -- and destroy anything else he can -- to "boost" the economy.

Problem is, the mayor's logic is totally wrong. The town did not get richer by the broken window, it got poorer. Wealth was destroyed and had to be replaced. The baker would have spent that money on new shoes, at the grocery store or on entertainment. But now all of these and other opportunities are lost, for need of replacing the window. In such circumstances, one must consider that which is not seen... foregone opportunities and loss. Money merely moving in circles does not boost or grow the economy, it simply provides liquidity. Growth only occurs by producing things.

So it is with wars and natural disasters. No wealth is created. Productivity does not rise. In the case of war, military production may rise but military "wealth" is not actually wealth. And wars destroy not only wealth and capital but human life. Government spending, too, does not help economies. It too is like a broken window, simply moving money in circles. When the money is borrowed for public-sector spending, it actually results in net loss (interest costs). Taxation, while necessary to some extent, simply removes money from people who work and moves it somewhere else. And printing more money or expanding credit simply puts capital in the hands of government by stripping the purchasing power out of everyone's pockets -- thereby making the entire nation feel poorer.

[Nox]

Since the beginning of the 20th century, taxes have been at unprecedented historical highs. In 1913, the US tax rate on the lowest ($10,000 and below) income bracket was only 1%, and the highest ($1M+) was only 7%... both very reasonable tax rates.

How the hell is that reasonable?

[RGacky3]

Kapitalyst, you did'nt answer the question at all .... What country ever cut its way to prosperity?


The public sector can only obtain money in three ways: 1) taxes 2) borrowing 3) "printing" cash (inflation)... So no matter how much money government spends or how many public sector jobs it creates, it does not help the economy.

Or Socialized industry.


The most prosperous time of growth in the history of the world was the Industrial Revolutions Era, when taxes were only a sliver of what they are today. Since the introduction of central banking and Keynesian philosophy in the 20th century, such things no longer happen. No one has tried drastic tax cuts. All we've tried is Keynesianism... currency devaluation, super-high taxation, deficit spending, ad nauseum...


We don't live in the 1700s, Capitalism was just born at that point, of coarse you'll have fast growth, (also shitting conditions for most people)

[kapitalyst]

Kapitalyst, you did'nt answer the question at all .... What country ever cut its way to prosperity?


Yes, I did. We haven't tried. We had prosperous, sustainable growth when taxes were low. We've started having problems ever since we created a run-away, bloated public-sector with ultra-high tax rates. We haven't ever tried cutting taxes back to low rates. To this day, they remain high as a giraffe's p****.



Or Socialized industry.


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/562900/facepalm_medium.jpg



We don't live in the 1700s, Capitalism was just born at that point, of coarse you'll have fast growth, (also shitting conditions for most people)
[/QUOTE]

You don't say? Really, we don't live in the 1700s? Yikes... I better throw away these dusty old white wigs and go get some light bulbs! There is such a thing now, right? :lol: You've got your time line mixed up, bro...

@ Dzhugashvili:

"How the hell is that reasonable?"

Because we simply don't need all the government we have. Our taxes still only pay a small part of the budget. The amount of waste and bloat is abhorrent. Bureaucracies always tend to get out of hand, and they need to be slimmed down.

If we quit wasting so much God damned money on stupid shit (wars on Middle East, wars on drugs, regulating the way people piss) we could have free health care for everyone. I wouldn't object. I don't see health care as being fundamentally different (or less important) than a police force. And we wouldn't have to tax the living hell out of every single person in this country, rich or poor. If it was up to me, I wouldn't even make people earning only $10k year pay taxes at all... much less 10%. That's pathetic for people claiming they're looking out for the poor.

[RGacky3]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/562900/facepalm_medium.jpg

Ok .... Bolivia did it, Venezuela did it, Norway did it, and its worked out for them, and yeah IT IS A WAY TO raise revenue, thats a fact.


Yes, I did. We haven't tried. We had prosperous, sustainable growth when taxes were low. We've started having problems ever since we created a run-away, bloated public-sector with ultra-high tax rates. We haven't ever tried cutting taxes back to low rates. To this day, they remain high as a giraffe's p****.


Really? Like the 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s?

Then we Cut back in the 80s and 90s, and we are here today, after loosing our manufacturing base and financializing our economy.


You don't say? Really, we don't live in the 1700s? Yikes... I better throw away these dusty old white wigs and go get some light bulbs! There is such a thing now, right? :lol: You've got your time line mixed up, bro...


Obviously you don't have any resonse.


Because we simply don't need all the government we have. Our taxes still only pay a small part of the budget. The amount of waste and bloat is abhorrent. Bureaucracies always tend to get out of hand, and they need to be slimmed down.


Sure we don't, so lets cut military, and end corporate welfare (starting with corporate personhood).


we could have free health care for everyone. I wouldn't object. I don't see health care as being fundamentally different (or less important) than a police force.

wow. One point to you sir.


And we wouldn't have to tax the living hell out of every single person in this country, rich or poor. If it was up to me, I wouldn't even make people earning only $10k year pay taxes at all... much less 10%. That's pathetic for people claiming they're looking out for the poor.

If you had a nationalized banking system, and some nationalized major industry, you could even drop taxes more.

Thats why Norway has much lower taxes then Sweden, but a similar welfare system (and a better off working class).

[kapitalyst]

Ok .... Bolivia did it, Venezuela did it, Norway did it, and its worked out for them, and yeah IT IS A WAY TO raise revenue, thats a fact.


I was kind of picking on you, Gacky. ;)

I cannot speak of the success or failure of such programs in those countries because I haven't done my homework on them. But I can tell you this: You and I can do a better job of things than the government can. There are only a few things government does well, and even still they try to do too much of it. There are always better solutions than expanding government in scope and power.

I have a story, which is true, and shows exactly how government does things. You see, we had a problem with ATV riders driving down my street really fast, and people complained to the local government about it. And the government thought, in their bureaucratic way, about how to fix it. "People are driving too fast," they thought, "and people drive on the road... Speed bumps make people slow down. So we will install speed bumps!" So they went and installed speed bumps. Problem is, there is a little off-road trail right next to the road. The ATV riders simply maintain high speed, dart around the speed bumps, and continue on their way down the road -- those on motorcycles can just drive right between them. So now the speed bumps are just a burden and inconvenience on our whole community. Yet some people still praise them, despite the fact that the problem still exists and we have a new annoyance. :laugh:



Really? Like the 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s?

Then we Cut back in the 80s and 90s, and we are here today, after loosing our manufacturing base and financializing our economy.


Gacky, that's not true. And I've already shown you the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) which shows the US income tax rates since 1913.

In the 40s we had the highest tax rate ever, because of WWII. In the 50s, the government was taking 1/4 of the income of the lowest income bracket, and 90%+ of the highest. The 80s? Last night you said Reagan raised taxes -- a common myth which I disproved. Yes, taxes were lowered in the 80s but were still too high (14% - 28%). In the 90s, we actually raised taxes... 15%, a small increase, for the lowest earners, and back to 36% - 39% for the highest.

And I'd still love for the government, who pretends to be "looking out for the little guy", to try to tell me why the fuck they're taking 10% of the income of our lowest earning bracket ($10k and less)! They shouldn't have to pay taxes at all. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is over-taxed...



Obviously you don't have any resonse.


Actually, I do... it was still alive and well and growth accelerated in the 19th century. It wasn't halted until we abandoned the timeless economic principles which made us great. Our country has been in a slow decline ever since.

And the truth is, capitalism did exist prior to the birth of America, but never on such a large scale. The Hanse, for instance, is considered by many (including me) the grandfather of modern age free enterprise.



Sure we don't, so lets cut military, and end corporate welfare (starting with corporate personhood).


Sure, that's a start!



wow. One point to you sir.


Thank you. :cool:

It was actually a commie who convinced me that there's nothing wrong, even from a libertarian standpoint, with the idea of free health care. He asked me if I thought health care was a basic need in the modern world, to which I said yes. Then he asked me, in a very sly fashion, why it's ok to have a police and fire department funded by tax dollars but not hospitals and clinics... Touche', comrade! Touche'!

But... I still oppose "Obamacare". That's not the right way to do it, nor is it an efficient way. And it's also an oppressive way. The way to do it is to simply stop wasting all of the people's fucking money. Then our tax dollars can be put into a national account to pay for care, and purchase health insurance for everyone. It's a win-win for everyone, especially the poor -- who shouldn't be taxed. And since not everyone will be sick or needing surgery at the same time, every day, the system would be financially sustainable too.



If you had a nationalized banking system, and some nationalized major industry, you could even drop taxes more.


I don't think so. Taxing private industry is the best way of doing things. It amounts to zero expense on the balance sheet and positive revenue.



Thats why Norway has much lower taxes then Sweden, but a similar welfare system (and a better off working class).

Again, you're talking about something I don't really know much about. I've been to Germany, and know the language, culture, history, etc... so how do they compare?

[Bud Struggle]

thom hartmann is a liberal for sure, but can be quite entertaining when it come to pawning free market fundies.


It's all entetainment. The Free market Libertarians are just as "real World" marginalized as are Communists.

Shadows fighting against ghosts.

[RGacky3]

I cannot speak of the success or failure of such programs in those countries because I haven't done my homework on them. But I can tell you this: You and I can do a better job of things than the government can. There are only a few things government does well, and even still they try to do too much of it. There are always better solutions than expanding government in scope and power.


When you have a choice, between a democratic government controling a national resources or a private multinational, I pick the democratic government, When it comes to the barber shop, I obvoiusly don't want the federal govenrment in that, when it comes to local stores, obviously not. But when it comes to nationally important natural resources or industry, Id rather the wealth go to a democratic government that is responsible to the people than a private multinational.

The successs of Norways nationalizations is the success of Norway, as far as Venezuela, poverty down around 50% and the economy doing much better, Bolivia, poverty dropping as well.


Yet some people still praise them, despite the fact that the problem still exists and we have a new annoyance. :laugh:


Well then next time they won't use that idea ... I have another exmaple, toyota put hout hundreds of cars with brakes that suddenly turned off, there is nothing inherent in a democratic system that makes it worse than an autocratic one.


Gacky, that's not true. And I've already shown you the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) which shows the US income tax rates since 1913.


I've read that page.


The 80s? Last night you said Reagan raised taxes -- a common myth which I disproved.

He dropped them, and then re-raiesd them (not to the same levels of coarse), and also increased other taxes and cut out loopholes.


And I'd still love for the government, who pretends to be "looking out for the little guy", to try to tell me why the fuck they're taking 10% of the income of our lowest earning bracket ($10k and less)! They shouldn't have to pay taxes at all. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is over-taxed...


Fine, but in the 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s where he had the highest taxes all around, we had the best economy.

Wage workers are paid AFTER tax, so if you raise their taxes employers have to raise their rates (there is data on this if you want me to get it for you), not so with the ultra rich.

But I'm not infavor of taxing the working class, I'm infavor of cutting out ALL sales tax for example.


It wasn't halted until we abandoned the timeless economic principles which made us great. Our country has been in a slow decline ever since.


It was halted before Keynsianism, it was called the great depression, and in the 1800s, you had plenty of government in the economy, but you also had a young capitalism and a much different capitalism, a capitalism that was essencailly being run on Colonialism, new technology and (partially) slave labor and extremely cheap un-unionized labor, you also had an ever expanding market.

These are things we don't have now, the world has changed.


Sure, that's a start!


I'd LOVE to see libertarians calling for ending corporate personhood and government corporate protections.


But... I still oppose "Obamacare". That's not the right way to do it, nor is it an efficient way. And it's also an oppressive way. The way to do it is to simply stop wasting all of the people's fucking money. Then our tax dollars can be put into a national account to pay for care, and purchase health insurance for everyone. It's a win-win for everyone, especially the poor -- who shouldn't be taxed. And since not everyone will be sick or needing surgery at the same time, every day, the system would be financially sustainable too.


I agree, Obamacare was nothing more than a corporate handout and an invitation to raise rates, it was a bullshit move to try and please everyone, it is waste. Obamacare was basically the nail in the coffin of the idea that Obama was a progressive, most here did'nt buy it when he ran, and hte fact that he had every ability to pass single payer if he wnated too, (through reconciliation), but instead passed this corporate handout (through reconciliation too), just shows he has no progressive in him, he's 100% corporatist.


I don't think so. Taxing private industry is the best way of doing things. It amounts to zero expense on the balance sheet and positive revenue.


But we have examples of that and vise versa, take Norway vrs Sweeden, people love to say the Nordic Model but the 2 are much different, Norway nationalized quite a bit, Sweeden did not, instead relying on heavy unions (totally in favor of) and taxes, corporations will always find a way out of taxes, and you can't control the externalities, it does'nt matter if there is cost, because your getting ALL of the revenue.


I've been to Germany, and know the language, culture, history, etc... so how do they compare? '

Germany has co-determination, which is a law that requires corporations with over 500 (or 1000) employees to have half of their board of directors be directly elected by the workers, something which has partially (in connection with other laws such has having the local community have control over industry) been the reason German industry is so strong while the German working class is also very well off.

I would take Co-Determination (or full determination) over nationalization and taxation any day of the week.

[RGacky3]

It's all entetainment. The Free market Libertarians are just as "real World" marginalized as are Communists.

Shadows fighting against ghosts.

Thom is a progressive, the other guy is just pro-buisiness, nothing more mainstream.

[kapitalyst]

When you have a choice, between a democratic government controling a national resources or a private multinational, I pick the democratic government, When it comes to the barber shop, I obvoiusly don't want the federal govenrment in that, when it comes to local stores, obviously not. But when it comes to nationally important natural resources or industry, Id rather the wealth go to a democratic government that is responsible to the people than a private multinational.


There are no real "democratic" governments... If government was democratic, I'd be voting on things every day -- and arguably, there would be no politicians and no centralized state.

The problem is, when you give government control of things, you simply create an autonomous oligarchy ordained by law. One that no one can overcome, unless government cedes power -- and the chances of that are laughable. That is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.

I choose the system where I can obtain resources and capital, produce goods and sell them on the market freely -- so long as I don't harm anyone (e.g., food poisoning, theft, fraud). I choose the system where I can perform a service for others in exchange for payment, and my reward is determined by the satisfaction I deliver to others. I choose the system where anyone is allowed to do that, and consumers buy from those who offer the best deals and quality on goods and services. I choose the system where government cannot stomp on the individual and enterprise, and instead is limited to maintaining law and order.



The successs of Norways nationalizations is the success of Norway, as far as Venezuela, poverty down around 50% and the economy doing much better, Bolivia, poverty dropping as well.


When I have time, I'll look into it.



Well then next time they won't use that idea ... I have another exmaple, toyota put hout hundreds of cars with brakes that suddenly turned off, there is nothing inherent in a democratic system that makes it worse than an autocratic one.


Of course they won't use the idea again, they've already put the speed bumps there. ;)

You think that they'll now see that they've failed and remove the speed bumps for the benefit of our community? Of course not. The only way those speed bumps will ever be removed is if we, the people, go out there and smash them up with hammers. That's sooooooo government...

And I don't get your example or what point you're trying to make... If Toyota used defective brakes, consumers can sue them for endangering their lives. And Toyota didn't do that intentionally, and didn't want that to happen -- it's not good for business. Accidents happen, and people can take it to court for a redress of grievances.

A lot of lefties love to give examples like this. But what about all of the examples of it working the other way? Defective infrastructure and buildings, produced by the government, which killed people? Drugs approved by the government and regulators which ended up being horrible and killing people? Government negligence which has cost people their lives? Innocent people executed by the government for crimes they never committed? People who's lives have been ruined by corrupt government?

Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But you're kidding yourself if you think government is some incorruptible, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent body of people of extreme intelligence and superior moral and character. It simply isn't true. Every time government has become very powerful and trusted with the welfare of the people, it comes to the detriment of individuals and society alike.



He dropped them, and then re-raiesd them (not to the same levels of coarse), and also increased other taxes and cut out loopholes.


Exactly. The Reagan presidency reduced the tax burden on all Americans. But it is true: he didn't reduce taxes on the poor as much as he did for the wealthy. I'm highly critical of that. He simply didn't reduce taxes enough (for everyone), left too big of a burden on the lowest income brackets and did too much spending.



Fine, but in the 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s where he had the highest taxes all around, we had the best economy.


That isn't true at all, and totally ignores the complexity of analyzing economic outcomes.



Wage workers are paid AFTER tax, so if you raise their taxes employers have to raise their rates (there is data on this if you want me to get it for you), not so with the ultra rich.


I don't see what you're talking about or trying to state... Please give me a better explanation.



But I'm not infavor of taxing the working class, I'm infavor of cutting out ALL sales tax for example.


I agree. It's quite obvious that the working class spends a large portion of their wealth, so sales tax affects them disproportionally. And let's face it... Sales tax is hell'a expensive, especially if you spend a couple hundred bucks. The money you spend on it could be used to buy other things you need or want and be of great benefit to industry.

I'm in favor of getting government under control, which includes ending US militarist imperialism and the police state, and lowering taxes for everyone. And people only earning $10k a year shouldn't pay taxes. Shit, 10%?! Seriously!? You let those people invest that $1,000 a year and they can make something of it. Glad we find some common ground here! :cool:



It was halted before Keynsianism, it was called the great depression, and in the 1800s, you had plenty of government in the economy, but you also had a young capitalism and a much different capitalism, a capitalism that was essencailly being run on Colonialism, new technology and (partially) slave labor and extremely cheap un-unionized labor, you also had an ever expanding market.


Whoa, whoa... I hope we don't think this is, at all, an adequate explanation! :ohmy:

It was not halted before Keynesianism. Because the theories and ideology we call Keynesianism were around, and growing popular, before Keynes put it all together and it was named after him. Keynes was also a respected, popular and notable economist long before the Great Depression. Voices had already been crying for central banks, fiat currency, "debt flexibility", central planning, etc. And they started working for it and viciously pursuing it.

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, curiously one year before the outbreak of WWI -- one of the most senseless wars of world history, which gave a young German corporal inspiration and lead to the second. A topic that is more deserving of a dedicated thread, but the war was a major waste... The gold standard was abandoned during the war, and public debts soared. After the war, the Fed increased its holdings of government securities, inflated the money supply and pushed interest rates lower. People perceived this time as a way to profit off of war reconstruction and financing. It wasn't long before a credit-driven boom was in swing, which inflated a major asset bubble in everything: farmland, stocks, commodities, etc. Friedrich Hayek had been warning all along that the Fed was setting up for a disaster. But they didn't listen until it was far too late. In the late 20s, the government began pursuing protectionist economic policy and enacting tariffs (e.g., Smoot-Hawley Tariff). This caused a significant decline in global trade. Farmland prices began to break down. The Fed then decided to implement monetary tightening as people began loosing faith in fiat currency and withdrawing money from the banks. We ended up with large scale "runs on the banks". The Fed was reluctant to lend at all then, for fear of reserves being wiped out. Meanwhile, the storm of depression was brewing and asset (esp. commodity) prices were imploding. The stock market crashed, and wide-scale panic ensued. The Great Depression was on...

To make matters worse, Keynes claimed to have all the solutions and people believed him. The crisis actually did involve real monetary deflation, as I said earlier, because the Fed started allowing the inflated money supply to shrink rapidly. This would make monetary inflation and deflation forever confused with growth and recession in the minds of Keynesians. The response to the depression, from government and the Fed, was pumping cash into economy and trying to inflate the money supply and raise prices -- one of the dumbest things you can possibly do at rock bottom. And the mainstream view was pro-interventionism. We ended up with that crap and FDR's "New Deal" policies, which did not stop the Great Depression but simply prolonged it. Other countries were out of the depression much sooner by not doing these things. For us, it would not be until after WWII that the economy caught its breath.



These are things we don't have now, the world has changed.


Your talk of colonialism, slavery, etc sounds like chronological snobbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery) to me... The whole purpose of America was the doing away with of the "Ye Olde Schoole" politics and economics. Unfortunately, we weren't quite ready for that at the time of the Revolution, and people still considered things like slavery socially-acceptable (they had been for thousands of years). The more revolutionary America became, abolishing such unjust institutions, the better we did.

In reality, the US economy had its best growth ever in the late 1800s, after the abolition of slavery. The more people embraced equality and individual liberty, the better the economy did. At that time, colonialism was a "European thing", for the most part. Americans preached self-sufficiency and free trade, sometimes to the point of "isolationism". Many voices in Britain advocated stopping colonial expansionism and the winding down of the empire. Militarism and warfare was frowned upon in the Victorian Era... but unfortunately, militarism and colonialism would make a comeback in the early 20th century.



I'd LOVE to see libertarians calling for ending corporate personhood and government corporate protections.


Well, you've got me there... No, I don't call for that...

I'm planning to become incorporated in 2012. The whole reason for that legal status is to protect me from things that I don't do wrong. In a sole proprietorship or partnership, someone in my company can do something wrong, totally beyond my control, and I will be the one to be sued, punished and lose everything. Someone can sign a paper and make me party to a legal contract I did not want. If I do something wrong, however, I'm held personally accountable for it -- and my investors, who had nothing to do with it, generally won't be.

That is the reason for it, and how it works. The success of American business would have never been possible without this. Growing your company would be too much of a risk to your own livelihood. Yet I still hear people gripe about it all the time...



I agree, Obamacare was nothing more than a corporate handout and an invitation to raise rates, it was a bullshit move to try and please everyone, it is waste. Obamacare was basically the nail in the coffin of the idea that Obama was a progressive, most here did'nt buy it when he ran, and hte fact that he had every ability to pass single payer if he wnated too, (through reconciliation), but instead passed this corporate handout (through reconciliation too), just shows he has no progressive in him, he's 100% corporatist.


Amen...


But we have examples of that and vise versa, take Norway vrs Sweeden, people love to say the Nordic Model but the 2 are much different, Norway nationalized quite a bit, Sweeden did not, instead relying on heavy unions (totally in favor of) and taxes, corporations will always find a way out of taxes, and you can't control the externalities, it does'nt matter if there is cost, because your getting ALL of the revenue.




Germany has co-determination, which is a law that requires corporations with over 500 (or 1000) employees to have half of their board of directors be directly elected by the workers, something which has partially (in connection with other laws such has having the local community have control over industry) been the reason German industry is so strong while the German working class is also very well off.


Thank you for your explanation.

The German economy was definitely doing well for a long time, and was considered the healthiest in the world. They're not, however, doing so well now... and despite being the most fiscally responsible, it's they who will be burdened with the recklessness of other member nations. The entire EU is in serious trouble now... something I've seen coming for a while.

I only wonder, now, how long the EU can last before it implodes. I doubt it has another decade of life, or even five years. Pursuing bailouts for these out-of-control member nations is just setting a ticking time bomb...



I would take Co-Determination (or full determination) over nationalization and taxation any day of the week.

Fair enough.

[Revolution starts with U]

There are no real "democratic" governments... If government was democratic, I'd be voting on things every day -- and arguably, there would be no politicians and no centralized state.

You're gettin it...



Exactly. The Reagan presidency reduced the tax burden on all Americans. But it is true: he didn't reduce taxes on the poor as much as he did for the wealthy. I'm highly critical of that. He simply didn't reduce taxes enough (for everyone), left too big of a burden on the lowest income brackets and did too much spending.

You're gettin it..




I agree. It's quite obvious that the working class spends a large portion of their wealth, so sales tax affects them disproportionally. And let's face it... Sales tax is hell'a expensive, especially if you spend a couple hundred bucks. The money you spend on it could be used to buy other things you need or want and be of great benefit to industry.

I'm in favor of getting government under control, which includes ending US militarist imperialism and the police state, and lowering taxes for everyone. And people only earning $10k a year shouldn't pay taxes. Shit, 10%?! Seriously!? You let those people invest that $1,000 a year and they can make something of it. Glad we find some common ground here! :cool:

You're gettin it...




Your talk of colonialism, slavery, etc sounds like chronological snobbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery) to me... The whole purpose of America was the doing away with of the "Ye Olde Schoole" politics and economics. Unfortunately, we weren't quite ready for that at the time of the Revolution, and people still considered things like slavery socially-acceptable (they had been for thousands of years). The more revolutionary America became, abolishing such unjust institutions, the better we did.

You're gettin it!!!! :ohmy:


In reality, the US economy had its best growth ever in the late 1800s, after the abolition of slavery. The more people embraced equality and individual liberty, the better the economy did. At that time, colonialism was a "European thing", for the most part. Americans preached self-sufficiency and free trade, sometimes to the point of "isolationism". Many voices in Britain advocated stopping colonial expansionism and the winding down of the empire. Militarism and warfare was frowned upon in the Victorian Era... but unfortunately, militarism and colonialism would make a comeback in the early 20th century.

Omg.. you are getting it...


Honestly man, you're not too far off from where we are. You're still holding some, imo, archaic positions. But you just have to realize the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system, and you'll be there.... at least at market socialism or mutualism :lol:
Take the Reagan tax cuts issue. Did you think Reagan ever even thought of lowering taxes significantly on the working class? Or the democrats? Government is sought by people who want to express power. It is easier to express power with money. As long as there are large gaps in wealth, there will be large gaps in power, and government will serve the interests of th ruling class. As long as there is oligarchical control of production (private property), there will be large gaps in wealth.
You're so close... ;)

[RGacky3]

There are no real "democratic" governments... If government was democratic, I'd be voting on things every day -- and arguably, there would be no politicians and no centralized state.

The problem is, when you give government control of things, you simply create an autonomous oligarchy ordained by law. One that no one can overcome, unless government cedes power -- and the chances of that are laughable. That is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.


There are much more democratic governments than others, some are more democratic some are not.

The USSR and China were not ever democratic, not even close, the fascist states actually privatized.

Property rights are ORDAINED BY LAW, privitization is ordained by law, Capitalism is ordained by law.


I choose the system where I can obtain resources and capital, produce goods and sell them on the market freely -- so long as I don't harm anyone (e.g., food poisoning, theft, fraud). I choose the system where I can perform a service for others in exchange for payment, and my reward is determined by the satisfaction I deliver to others. I choose the system where anyone is allowed to do that, and consumers buy from those who offer the best deals and quality on goods and services. I choose the system where government cannot stomp on the individual and enterprise, and instead is limited to maintaining law and order.


I choose a system where everyone has a say in how things tha effect them run.


And I don't get your example or what point you're trying to make... If Toyota used defective brakes, consumers can sue them for endangering their lives. And Toyota didn't do that intentionally, and didn't want that to happen -- it's not good for business. Accidents happen, and people can take it to court for a redress of grievances.


Poin being there is nothing innate that makes government less efficient than buisiness.

Try sue Toyota, its much harder than voting.


A lot of lefties love to give examples like this. But what about all of the examples of it working the other way? Defective infrastructure and buildings, produced by the government, which killed people? Drugs approved by the government and regulators which ended up being horrible and killing people?

So drugs approved by the government, so you'd rather have Moodies regulate drugs??? :laugh:

Infastructure and buildings that are made with private hands are just as bad.



Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But you're kidding yourself if you think government is some incorruptible, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent body of people of extreme intelligence and superior moral and character. It simply isn't true. Every time government has become very powerful and trusted with the welfare of the people, it comes to the detriment of individuals and society alike.



No I never said that, A: Not all governments are made equal, so there is no such thing as "government" it depends on the nature of the government.

Government is responsible to the people, ALL the people, thats what makes it better than buisiness in many things.

As for that Everytime, your full of shit, there are plenty of examples, and all of them, when its done right, or when its done with a good amount of democracy, works, what does'nt work is market privitizations and market reforms, never works never has worked.


Your talk of colonialism, slavery, etc sounds like chronological snobbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery) to me... The whole purpose of America was the doing away with of the "Ye Olde Schoole" politics and economics. Unfortunately, we weren't quite ready for that at the time of the Revolution, and people still considered things like slavery socially-acceptable (they had been for thousands of years). The more revolutionary America became, abolishing such unjust institutions, the better we did.


politics and economics? What economics? What were they doing fundementally differently from the UK? Other than giving tax brakes to the east india company (what the first tea party was about).

Anyway, yes, lets get rid of unjust institutinos, like slavery, and now, private corporate control.


That isn't true at all, and totally ignores the complexity of analyzing economic outcomes.


No ... It is true .... We had the strongest most stable economy during those times ... and a progressive system.


I don't see what you're talking about or trying to state... Please give me a better explanation.


If you work for $60,000, its $60,000 AFTER taxes, you work for a certain lifestype that goes with your job, if income taxes are raised, your still gonna demand (to the best of your ability) the same lifestyle, and the same after tax income.

Whereas one thing income tax does also do, is discourage rediculously high executive compensation.


It was not halted before Keynesianism. Because the theories and ideology we call Keynesianism were around, and growing popular, before Keynes put it all together and it was named after him. Keynes was also a respected, popular and notable economist long before the Great Depression. Voices had already been crying for central banks, fiat currency, "debt flexibility", central planning, etc. And they started working for it and viciously pursuing it.


Yeah, but fiscal keynesianism was'nt in place really before FDR.


The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, curiously one year before the outbreak of WWI -- one of the most senseless wars of world history, which gave a young German corporal inspiration and lead to the second. A topic that is more deserving of a dedicated thread, but the war was a major waste... The gold standard was abandoned during the war, and public debts soared. After the war, the Fed increased its holdings of government securities, inflated the money supply and pushed interest rates lower. People perceived this time as a way to profit off of war reconstruction and financing. It wasn't long before a credit-driven boom was in swing, which inflated a major asset bubble in everything: farmland, stocks, commodities, etc. Friedrich Hayek had been warning all along that the Fed was setting up for a disaster. But they didn't listen until it was far too late. In the late 20s, the government began pursuing protectionist economic policy and enacting tariffs (e.g., Smoot-Hawley Tariff). This caused a significant decline in global trade. Farmland prices began to break down. The Fed then decided to implement monetary tightening as people began loosing faith in fiat currency and withdrawing money from the banks. We ended up with large scale "runs on the banks". The Fed was reluctant to lend at all then, for fear of reserves being wiped out. Meanwhile, the storm of depression was brewing and asset (esp. commodity) prices were imploding. The stock market crashed, and wide-scale panic ensued. The Great Depression was on...


Thats not at ALL what it was, the Great depression was'nt caused by the Fed, I don't have time right now but I'll write out a response later, but this is just total bullshit.

Trade was'nt a huge part of the US economy at that point, It was'nt a run on the banks due to loosing faith in fiat currency, they were hoarding cash, they actually had MORE faith in fiat currency and less faith in investment, or the banks, because the banks were heavily margined, because there was no real oversight, and being heavily margined is a good policy unless everyone does it and you have systemic problems, and guess what, systemic problems are EXTERNALITIES, and the market does'nt take them into account.

The Crisis was inevitable, Capitalism has tons and tons of internal contradictions, such as the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, the centralization of wealth driving down demand, the compedative nature of capitalism forcing more and more things into externalities that when accumulated create a systemic problem.

It was also the monitary contraction, but there is no proof that if they did it slower, it would have made a difference.


To make matters worse, Keynes claimed to have all the solutions and people believed him. The crisis actually did involve real monetary deflation, as I said earlier, because the Fed started allowing the inflated money supply to shrink rapidly. This would make monetary inflation and deflation forever confused with growth and recession in the minds of Keynesians. The response to the depression, from government and the Fed, was pumping cash into economy and trying to inflate the money supply and raise prices -- one of the dumbest things you can possibly do at rock bottom. And the mainstream view was pro-interventionism. We ended up with that crap and FDR's "New Deal" policies, which did not stop the Great Depression but simply prolonged it. Other countries were out of the depression much sooner by not doing these things. For us, it would not be until after WWII that the economy caught its breath.


Again, Bullshit, other countries were out of the depression BECAUSE THEY HAD SOCIALIST PARTIES IN POWER!!!


I'm planning to become incorporated in 2012. The whole reason for that legal status is to protect me from things that I don't do wrong. In a sole proprietorship or partnership, someone in my company can do something wrong, totally beyond my control, and I will be the one to be sued, punished and lose everything. Someone can sign a paper and make me party to a legal contract I did not want. If I do something wrong, however, I'm held personally accountable for it -- and my investors, who had nothing to do with it, generally won't be.


You need big daddy government to protect you.

Encorporation allows people to not be responsible for what the corporation does while profiting for it, it allows them to exploit people and profit from them at a much much larger scale than they could do without a corporation.

Its nothing more than big government welfare state for the Capitalists.


That is the reason for it, and how it works. The success of American business would have never been possible without this. Growing your company would be too much of a risk to your own livelihood. Yet I still hear people gripe about it all the time...


Your right, it does work, just look at the plutocracy of corporations that rule the world now, it definately has worked. Big daddy government does work.

BTW do you support corporate personhood? If you do, if a corporation commits a crime can we put him/her in prison? Can I marry a corporation? How about the death penalty? Does'nt corporate personhood = Slavery? Is'nt corporate personhood nothing more than big welfare government proping up the capitalists?

I say, if you want to be a corporation, if you want big daddy government to protect you, then you gotta follow rules, and rule #1 should be that corporations have a workers democracy.


Thank you for your explanation.

The German economy was definitely doing well for a long time, and was considered the healthiest in the world. They're not, however, doing so well now... and despite being the most fiscally responsible, it's they who will be burdened with the recklessness of other member nations. The entire EU is in serious trouble now... something I've seen coming for a while.

I only wonder, now, how long the EU can last before it implodes. I doubt it has another decade of life, or even five years. Pursuing bailouts for these out-of-control member nations is just setting a ticking time bomb...



Germans problems now have nothing to do with internal policy, other that joining the EU, (I am REALLY glad Norway stayed out of the EU).

My point with Germany was that socialism works, actually workers democracy is'nt even socialism technically its beyond that its communism (I'm not saying germany is communist, not at all, I'm saying the policy of workers democracy is a communist idea), Germans strength comes from the workers democracy and the community control of buisiness, i.e. government, not federal government, local government. (I'm actually more infavor of local decentralized governance than federal)

Imo The EU is moot, I kind of agree with you, the euro is gonna drop out, you can't have a system where each country has its own economic policy but they are all under one economic umbrella.

If I were Greece I would just default, and I would have done it from the begining, default, restructure and start again, pull an Argentina, or an Iceland.

[Bud Struggle]

If I were Greece I would just default, and I would have done it from the begining, default, restructure and start again, pull an Argentina, or an Iceland.

I agree with you there. Greece is not a major country, and in the end the default won't mean all that much. The agony of them pretending that they have some sort of solution to all of this is harming the markets than an actual default would.

[RGacky3]

THe thing is they're gonna default no matter what, right now they are just stalling it, everyone knows they can't pay off every cent on the dollar, they just desperately want to keep a credit line, the thing is defaulting is'nt SUCH a bad thing, if it was Donald Trump would be in the poor house, and he's not even a country.

[Bud Struggle]

THe thing is they're gonna default no matter what, right now they are just stalling it, everyone knows they can't pay off every cent on the dollar, they just desperately want to keep a credit line, the thing is defaulting is'nt SUCH a bad thing, if it was Donald Trump would be in the poor house, and he's not even a country.

You nailed it there. All credit is--is a promise. People break promises all of the time. Polititians break them all of the time. Large businesses do to. But for some reason people thin that their promises to pay private credit lines, or that of countries are somehow sacred. They AREN'T.

Fuck the banks. They make bad loans--bad business decisions (and I admit there was fraud in the Greek case) but hell, that's business.

[kapitalyst]

@ RSWU:

In some ways, yes we do have a common thread. The difference is that my definition of freedom is absence of restriction -- all freedom is implicit until taken away. No man lives with greater liberty than the man who shipwrecks on a deserted island... and discovers a colony of lost Hawaiian Tropic models! :lol:

1) I have the right to freely engage in commerce with other people 2) my things are my things, and yours are yours. That is economic freedom. ;)

[Revolutionair]

@ RSWU:

In some ways, yes we do have a common thread.

RSWU his post certainly hit the nail on the head, there's just one misconception about us that you have:


1) I have the right to freely engage in commerce with other people 2) my things are my things, and yours are yours. That is economic freedom. ;)

Your things ARE YOURS in a communist society! We discriminate between what we call 'possessions' and 'property'. Possessions are things like your toothbrush, we will not attempt to socialize your toothbrush in a revolution. :D Property on the other hand, is what Marxists see as the way the elite rules society. IE the ruling class is the group of people that owns the means of production. Because Marxists want to end class society, we want to socialize the means of production.

Marxists are in favor of property (using your definition of property here) as long as it does not 'cause' class society.


edit:
And about Reagan, it is impossible to not enact laws that favor the bourgeoisie if you are the president. If you hate the bourgeoisie, you will never become president (or a very brief one, see Allende).

Chomsky's propaganda model sums it up really nice. But my English is not the best. Gacky could you explain the Chomsky propaganda model? In the mean time I will try:
An interviewer of a big newspaper asked Chomsky: "how are you so sure that I am censoring myself?" Chomsky replied: "I know you aren't censoring yourself, but if you had different ideas (ideas that 'need' to be censored) you wouldn't be in the place you are now as the company would not have hired you."


The state is a tool one class uses to oppress another. The current state is the enforcer of the rule of the bourgeoisie. Of course Reagan didn't help the poor, it's because he gets paid by the bourgeoisie and it wasn't in their interest to have such policy.

[Bud Struggle]

RSW
Marxists are in favor of property (using your definition of property here) as long as it does not 'cause' class society.


All property is about "class." From a toothbrush on down.

[RGacky3]

No its not, my owning a toothbrush does'nt in anyway put me in a power position over you.

[Robert]

"I know you aren't censoring yourself, but if you had different ideas (ideas that 'need' to be censored) you wouldn't be in the place you are now as the company would not have hired you."I suspect that this Chomsky has never been out of the ivory tower in his adult life and knows no more about corporate hiring decisions than Warren Buffett knows about linguistics.

The difference between the two is that Warren is smart enough to keep his mouth shut about linguistics.

Yeah "Warren," I call him. "Robbie Baby" he calls me. When we talk, I mean.

[W1N5T0N]

reganomic: deregulation which is FUCKING everybody rightz now.

TEH AWESOME LULZ!!111 :laugh:

[RGacky3]

He was talking about the Media, and he's studied it a lot and written a lot about it, Chomsky does'nt write about running a hedge fund or investment banks.

Warren Buffet is not a Media guy, Chomsky studies it a lot and since when has what he said been not true? THe arguments against Chomsky are never actually on what he says, but almost always about his person.

[W1N5T0N]

ch0msky rules.

[Revolution starts with U]

In some ways, yes we do have a common thread. The difference is that my definition of freedom is absence of restriction -- all freedom is implicit until taken away.
Property by definition is a restriction; private property anyway. It's YOURS not MINE.

No man lives with greater liberty than the man who shipwrecks on a deserted island... and discovers a colony of lost Hawaiian Tropic models!
I disagree here. There is no liberty for a wo/man isolated from society. It's irrelevant. Liberty only has any substance as a social construct. :lol:


1) I have the right to freely engage in commerce with other people 2) my things are my things, and yours are yours. That is economic freedom. ;)
Yes in (some) socialism you are free to do so. What you cannot do is say "my things are mine, so do what I say."

Either way, these objections above are irrelevant. You're not going to accept them until you fully realize the inherent and unfixable contradiction of the capitalist system.

[kapitalyst]

Property by definition is a restriction; private property anyway. It's YOURS not MINE.

Restriction from doing what? To kill the goats I've raised and eat them for yourself? To take Og's spear and let him go hungry because there's no such thing as "property"? To chop off my arm because I belong to humanity? If we let our definition of freedom degrade that low, then I'm at liberty to kill you for the mere thought of such an act! :lol:

All human societies seem to agree on a few basic things: murder, theft, etc is wrong. We created government to deal with those things and uphold contracts between parties. We have the right/liberty to not be murdered. But instead of the trouble of enforcing such things ourselves, we form a government for the sake of establishing order. The concept of property is a built-in psychological feature of intelligent life. Try to snatch a bone from a wolf's mouth, and see if he believes in property rights. ;)



I disagree here. There is no liberty for a wo/man isolated from society. It's irrelevant. Liberty only has any substance as a social construct. :lol:


Oh, c'mon! That's like saying smoking a joint won't get you high without other people around! :lol:



Yes in (some) socialism you are free to do so. What you cannot do is say "my things are mine, so do what I say."


When I have ever told you that you must wash my Benz because it's mine? Or?... Entering into a social, financial or legal contract is something totally different. If I pay you $20 to wash my car, then you have to wash my car. If you agree to let me stay in your home, under the condition I contribute on bills and expenses and perform chores, then I'm obligated to do so. Nobody makes people do anything merely because of ownership of something. Those days are long gone...



Either way, these objections above are irrelevant. You're not going to accept them until you fully realize the inherent and unfixable contradiction of the capitalist system.

Some alleged contradictions were mentioned, but none have that important quality of being true. :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Restriction from doing what? To kill the goats I've raised and eat them for yourself? To take Og's spear and let him go hungry because there's no such thing as "property"? To chop off my arm because I belong to humanity? If we let our definition of freedom degrade that low, then I'm at liberty to kill you for the mere thought of such an act! :lol:

Well, even accepting your absurd examples, yes. I am making no judgements one way or the other on property. I am saying it is inherently a restriction. If you are suggesting liberty is the absence of restriction; than liberty is the absence of property, by definition.
I define liberty as ability to express will, and thereby avoid such contradictory definitions. (The only allowable inhibitor of liberty, imo, is nature).


All human societies seem to agree on a few basic things: murder, theft, etc is wrong. We created government to deal with those things and uphold contracts between parties. We have the right/liberty to not be murdered. But instead of the trouble of enforcing such things ourselves, we form a government for the sake of establishing order. The concept of property is a built-in psychological feature of intelligent life. Try to snatch a bone from a wolf's mouth, and see if he believes in property rights. ;)

I would prefer to say he snaps at you because you restrict his ability to express himself (his liberty) considering that wolves share everything amongst the group.




Oh, c'mon! That's like saying smoking a joint won't get you high without other people around! :lol:

Liberty outside a social construct is meaningless. Getting high is a chemical change. Ya, sure, living on an island is pure liberty. But what's the point? It's meaningless.




When I have ever told you that you must wash my Benz because it's mine? Or?... Entering into a social, financial or legal contract is something totally different. If I pay you $20 to wash my car, then you have to wash my car. If you agree to let me stay in your home, under the condition I contribute on bills and expenses and perform chores, then I'm obligated to do so. Nobody makes people do anything merely because of ownership of something. Those days are long gone...

1) Modern capitalism forces huge swathes of people to do what the ruling class says, daily. It's not so much whether or not certain people are exploiters (and some are, just not as blatant in the states), rather than that the system itself forces people into the system itself.
2) You asking me to wash your car and you will pay for it is largely a demcoratic decision. There may be certain socio-economic factors that force me to accept this deal even if it is largely in your favor (see above). But it's a 1 on 1 personal deal.
3) Washing your car is not really a productive enterprise




Some alleged contradictions were mentioned, but none have that important quality of being true. :lol:
The private business is a fiefdom. It is antithetical to democracy.
Private property is incompatible with liberty. The more it consolidates, which is its natural course, the more liberty too consolidates in those same hands. Public property (if tempered by individual rights) avoids all such contradiction.
It creates a class war of the haves vs the have nots but do all the work.

[Revolution starts with U]

All human societies seem to agree on a few basic things: murder, theft, etc is wrong. We created government to deal with those things and uphold contracts between parties.

See but this conflicts with historical reality. This would suggest that pre-state societies, devoid of formal government, had no problem with murder, theft, etc. But we know they did, at least within the group.
In reality, government was created to maintain and strengthen the privelaged position of the expropriators of the surplus (the ruling class), after the development of agriculture.

[JFB.anon]

I'm goddam laughing as I'm writing this; all rightists react like this when their irrationality is slapped by the 5 foot dick of reason. :laugh:

[kapitalyst]

@ RSWU:

There is no inherent restriction in property unless, as I said, you feel it's unfair to be restricted from immoral acts of aggression against others. What about self-ownership, the most basic form of property? Should we lament the restriction of raping a woman? Or should we instead praise it because it protects her liberty from such atrocious acts? The liberty here is the woman's freedom to not be raped. It is not "anti-liberty" for the rapist.

Liberty outside a social construct is still liberty, even if you don't see the value in it. Maybe someone wants to live on a deserted island. Maybe they value it, despite the fact that you don't. It is still liberty, nonetheless.

In fact, I'm glad I used marijuana as an analogy. The man on the deserted island can smoke all the marijuana he wants (if he has some). In most societies, one cannot. Society tends to attack liberty to force conformity. The social construct poses a threat to liberty, more often than not. :lol:

Private property isa construct of liberty -- it is not antithetical. Again, unless you consider the world your personal stomping ground where you can rape, pillage, steal and murder at will and call that "liberty". Property protects what an individual has rightfully obtained, and even ones own body. I'd hate to live in a world with no respect for property...

[Revolution starts with U]

There is no inherent restriction in property unless, as I said, you feel it's unfair to be restricted from immoral acts of aggression against others.
Im not talking fair or unfair. All that can be, and was, dealt with without private property or self-ownership. Im talking about property, which is inherently restrictive. Just because I think it's unfair that someone gets stolen from does not make private property any less restrictive.

What about self-ownership, the most basic form of property?
Self-ownership is a laughable belief. I can't sell myself. Even if I could sell myself into slavery, I couldn't actually sell myself (or trade). This laughable concept not only allows for slavery (ownership means you can sell it, right) it also IS slavery. Either myself is 1 thing, and as such cannot own itself (how does something own itself) or it is two things, and my body is slave to my mind.
Self-ownership is crap.


Should we lament the restriction of raping a woman? Or should we instead praise it because it protects her liberty from such atrocious acts? The liberty here is the woman's freedom to not be raped. It is not "anti-liberty" for the rapist.

It is from the rapist's perspective. But for the rest of us it's not.
And these things can be dealth with, and were, perfectly fine without private property.


Liberty outside a social construct is still liberty, even if you don't see the value in it. Maybe someone wants to live on a deserted island. Maybe they value it, despite the fact that you don't. It is still liberty, nonetheless.

I agree with that. And I said, at that point, liberty becomes meaningless.


Private property isa construct of liberty -- it is not antithetical. Again, unless you consider the world your personal stomping ground where you can rape, pillage, steal and murder at will and call that "liberty". Property protects what an individual has rightfully obtained, and even ones own body. I'd hate to live in a world with no respect for property...
I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. Private property is inherently restrictive. I don't care that you and I don't like thieves. Private property means this is mine, and the only say you have in the matter is the say I give you. That's called a restriction; mine not yours.
You're begging the question.
In nearly all pre-historical societies rules of the group only applied to individuals if they chose to follow them. That is liberty, no? These people practiced a social property system, which had nearly no resemblance at all to private property.

[RGacky3]

What about self-ownership, the most basic form of property? Should we lament the restriction of raping a woman? Or should we instead praise it because it protects her liberty from such atrocious acts? The liberty here is the woman's freedom to not be raped. It is not "anti-liberty" for the rapist.


THere is no self ownership, YOU ARE YOU, you don't own yourself, you ARE yourself, there is no ownership there.


Liberty outside a social construct is still liberty, even if you don't see the value in it. Maybe someone wants to live on a deserted island. Maybe they value it, despite the fact that you don't. It is still liberty, nonetheless.


Yeah, and maybe someone ELSE wants to live there to, if your on the island and try not to let him you restricting his liberty, thats the problem with capitalist property and liberty.

[kapitalyst]

Im not talking fair or unfair. All that can be, and was, dealt with without private property or self-ownership. Im talking about property, which is inherently restrictive. Just because I think it's unfair that someone gets stolen from does not make private property any less restrictive.

You're not understanding this, which is probably due to my failure to adequately explain...

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's correct. If I go out into the forest and collect some tree branches, and make myself a bow and arrow, I'm at liberty to keep it and control it. It becomes mine. This is a simple human concept. It becomes my means of production for creating food resources. You may consider yourself at liberty to take my bow and arrows, and consider it restrictive if social rules or laws try to prevent you, but it's not. Liberty applies to the rightful owner, not the would-be thief.

Argue about this with the greatest philosophical grandeur you can muster, but it's not going to work. Explain to me how it makes sense for this basic human (and animal) concept to work any differently. And why all human languages would have the words "my", "mine", "yours", "theirs" if property is some recent capitalist invention.



Self-ownership is a laughable belief. I can't sell myself. Even if I could sell myself into slavery, I couldn't actually sell myself (or trade). This laughable concept not only allows for slavery (ownership means you can sell it, right) it also IS slavery. Either myself is 1 thing, and as such cannot own itself (how does something own itself) or it is two things, and my body is slave to my mind.
Self-ownership is crap.


Actually it's not. You could technically sell yourself. The fact that it's not advantageous to sell yourself into slavery means nothing. Prostitutes sell themselves all the time. And ownership doesn't necessarily mean you can sell something.

A book cannot own itself, but an intelligent, sentient being can. And if this is laughable, who owns me? The government? You? If self-ownership is not respected, you can justify some horrible things...



It is from the rapist's perspective. But for the rest of us it's not.
And these things can be dealth with, and were, perfectly fine without private property.


Sure, in ways that make no sense and can easily evade all sense of morality.



I agree with that. And I said, at that point, liberty becomes meaningless.


Meaningless is in the eye of the beholder...



I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. Private property is inherently restrictive. I don't care that you and I don't like thieves. Private property means this is mine, and the only say you have in the matter is the say I give you. That's called a restriction; mine not yours.
You're begging the question.


You've still been unable to offer a compelling argument as to why, and why I'm not at liberty to keep and control something I've acquired. Denying me the ability to do so is restrictive. :)



In nearly all pre-historical societies rules of the group only applied to individuals if they chose to follow them. That is liberty, no? These people practiced a social property system, which had nearly no resemblance at all to private property.

American families do the same thing. ;)

Those very same tribes who shared with their kin would kill other tribes who came and tried to take their hunting grounds, resources, tools and weapons... or their women and children (they were treated as property back then).

[molotovcocktail]

I have read a lot of libertarian arguments on this forum and several other places, I just have to say that I love libertarian logic:
the financial crisis happened because of regulations. If it wasnt regulations, the banks wouldnt given away loans to people that couldnt pay them. The billionares would donate almost all their money, and everybody would have been hugging each other and world peace would have been established.:laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's correct. If I go out into the forest and collect some tree branches, and make myself a bow and arrow, I'm at liberty to keep it and control it. It becomes mine.
Well, first, if you make a bow and arrow out of tree branches you are either just dumb, or 12 :lol:
Second, it only becomes yours to keep and control if you are better with a bow and arrow than I am. If not, I will just take it, if that's what I want.
Third... exactly! It becomes YOURS not MINE. It has certain restrictions placed on it, by virtue of being your property... namely that it is not my property.

This is a simple human concept. It becomes my means of production for creating food resources. You may consider yourself at liberty to take my bow and arrows, and consider it restrictive if social rules or laws try to prevent you, but it's not. Liberty applies to the rightful owner, not the would-be thief.
You're making all these moralistic arguments, but they do not matter. It doesn't make property any less restrcitive by saying stealing is wrong. Nature doesn't care if you're a thief. Only humans develop social constructs like "stealing is wrong." Liberty applies to everyone, else we wouldn't care about things like due process, and a right to a jury.



Argue about this with the greatest philosophical grandeur you can muster, but it's not going to work. Explain to me how it makes sense for this basic human (and animal) concept to work any differently. And why all human languages would have the words "my", "mine", "yours", "theirs" if property is some recent capitalist invention.

Private property is a recent capitalist development. Pre historic cultures tend to view property as "yours but subject to community interpretation." To be yours, it doesn't have to be exclusively yours. Why do they have a concept of "ours" if public property is some recent socialist invention?



Actually it's not. You could technically sell yourself. The fact that it's not advantageous to sell yourself into slavery means nothing. Prostitutes sell themselves all the time. And ownership doesn't necessarily mean you can sell something.

A book cannot own itself, but an intelligent, sentient being can. And if this is laughable, who owns me? The government? You? If self-ownership is not respected, you can justify some horrible things...

Again, you can't literally sell your "self." Even if you can sell your services as a prostitute or a slave you can't sell your "self." That doesn't even make sense. Neither does the concept of "things can't own their self but a being can." Why? What does "ownership" even mean at that point? And yes, "ownership" implies "ability to transfer." I control my house. But I can't sell it, because I don't own it.
Self-ownership is a laughable concept absolutely unnecessary for the things it claims to protect. Whoever thought it up, really, should be embarassed. :lol:


Sure, in ways that make no sense and can easily evade all sense of morality.
You miss the point. You bring up these moralistic arguments and claim property is the only way to stop them. But they were dealt with long before private property.



Meaningless is in the eye of the beholder...

Ya exactly



You've still been unable to offer a compelling argument as to why, and why I'm not at liberty to keep and control something I've acquired. Denying me the ability to do so is restrictive. :)

Ya, denying you the ability to do so is restrctive. Which is why, as I originally argued, that liberty meaning "lack of restrictions" is a contradictory and piss poor definition of liberty. True liberty is "ability to express will." And we have found it extremely hard to find true liberty under the thumb of private property.




American families do the same thing. ;)

Those very same tribes who shared with their kin would kill other tribes who came and tried to take their hunting grounds, resources, tools and weapons... or their women and children (they were treated as property back then).
More often than not they would actually marry into that other tribe and trade. Actual warfare rarely practiced in tribal society. Ritualistic warfare is common, but the spilling of actual blood is not... not to say it is non-existent. It's just not common.

If you want the majority's lives and belongings protected you do democracy. If you want the ruling classes lives and belongings protected above all else you do oligarchy. Capitalism is oligarchy; its mine, I make the rules, the only say you have is what I give you.

[RGacky3]

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's correct. If I go out into the forest and collect some tree branches, and make myself a bow and arrow, I'm at liberty to keep it and control it. It becomes mine.

What if that forest is "owned" by some dude? Guess what, that bow and arrow is HIS.

THIS is hte problem with Capitalist property.

We say the bow and arrow is the guy who made it as long as its not restricting anyone else, which its not.

The guy owning the forest IS restricting ... obviously. That guy owning hte forest is the basis of capitalism, not the guy making the bow and arrow.

[kapitalyst]

I have read a lot of libertarian arguments on this forum and several other places, I just have to say that I love libertarian logic:
the financial crisis happened because of regulations. If it wasnt regulations, the banks wouldnt given away loans to people that couldnt pay them. The billionares would donate almost all their money, and everybody would have been hugging each other and world peace would have been established.:laugh:

Yeah, that's exactly what we think... :rolleyes:

Banks gave out those loans through pressure from your beloved nanny state model and the ease of starting (and winning) frivolous lawsuits for "discrimination" when part of a minority group or "disadvantaged". You might wanna look up Billy-boy Clinton's role in that. Furthermore, Fannie and Freddie essentially monopolized mortgages... both cronies of the state. Plus, the government gave false assurances it would guarantee MBS's, and created a phenomenon of trading MBS's and their derivatives like Pokemon cards. The proof is in the pudding: they bailed all the dip shit corporates/banks out of the mess they created together. Cronyism at its finest...

Quite a few billionaires donate the majority of their acquired wealth to charity, and do more good for people than you ever will. And no one ever said they all would do that.

"[...]and everybody would have been hugging each other and world peace would have been established."

Erm... That's exactly what you think you're going to accomplish, not us... :rolleyes:

[kapitalyst]

Well, first, if you make a bow and arrow out of tree branches you are either just dumb, or 12 :lol:
Second, it only becomes yours to keep and control if you are better with a bow and arrow than I am. If not, I will just take it, if that's what I want.
Third... exactly! It becomes YOURS not MINE. It has certain restrictions placed on it, by virtue of being your property... namely that it is not my property.


Actually, very effective bows and arrows can be made from the proper tree branches. And of course, yew is the best! ;)

No... you will not take my bow and arrow, and you don't decide what I "need". I do. I will knock an arrow on that bow, draw and slay you like the evil commie dragon-thief you are! lol :lol:

And your idea that I cannot have property is restrictive. We have a dilemma here. I say "thief be damned"...



You're making all these moralistic arguments, but they do not matter. It doesn't make property any less restrcitive by saying stealing is wrong. Nature doesn't care if you're a thief. Only humans develop social constructs like "stealing is wrong." Liberty applies to everyone, else we wouldn't care about things like due process, and a right to a jury.


They're not moralistic arguments. My point is that it can be viewed as restrictive to have property, yes, but it's also restrictive to deny property. One or the other must be decided upon. And as I've already said, fuck thieves! :lol:



Private property is a recent capitalist development. Pre historic cultures tend to view property as "yours but subject to community interpretation." To be yours, it doesn't have to be exclusively yours. Why do they have a concept of "ours" if public property is some recent socialist invention?


"Ours" does not mean public property, and public property never has and never will exist. It's a silly myth. You would need a new word like "alls" to convey that concept, lol.



Again, you can't literally sell your "self." Even if you can sell your services as a prostitute or a slave you can't sell your "self." That doesn't even make sense. Neither does the concept of "things can't own their self but a being can." Why? What does "ownership" even mean at that point? And yes, "ownership" implies "ability to transfer." I control my house. But I can't sell it, because I don't own it.


It makes perfect sense. An inanimate object can't own itself because it cannot own anything. A free agent can and does own itself. I can create an virtual agent (computer programming) which owns itself -- literally and theoretically.



Self-ownership is a laughable concept absolutely unnecessary for the things it claims to protect. Whoever thought it up, really, should be embarassed.


I think it's laughable to deny. Plus, you're totally misrepresenting or misunderstanding what it actually is. I suggest you read this in its entirety:

"Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) of a person to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. According to G. Cohen, the concept of self-ownership is that "each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

It even touches on your argument:

"Another third view holds that labor is alienable, because it can be contracted out, thus alienating it from the self. In this view, the freedom of a person to voluntarily sell himself into slavery is also preserved by the principle of self-ownership."

You miss the point. You bring up these moralistic arguments and claim property is the only way to stop them. But they were dealt with long before private property.


That's not at all where I'm coming from. Private property has always existed. Public property never has, never will.



Ya, denying you the ability to do so is restrctive. Which is why, as I originally argued, that liberty meaning "lack of restrictions" is a contradictory and piss poor definition of liberty. True liberty is "ability to express will." And we have found it extremely hard to find true liberty under the thumb of private property.


That definition means exactly the same thing. Ability to express will = lack of restriction against expressing will.



More often than not they would actually marry into that other tribe and trade. Actual warfare rarely practiced in tribal society. Ritualistic warfare is common, but the spilling of actual blood is not... not to say it is non-existent. It's just not common.


That's total BS...



If you want the majority's lives and belongings protected you do democracy. If you want the ruling classes lives and belongings protected above all else you do oligarchy. Capitalism is oligarchy; its mine, I make the rules, the only say you have is what I give you.

And so is this! ;)

[Robert]

And of course, yew is the best! ;)

Says yew.

Of course, you're right, but I couldn't resist ....

[Revolutionair]

"Ours" does not mean public property, and public property never has and never will exist. It's a silly myth. You would need a new word like "alls" to convey that concept, lol.

How about common? How do you call primitive communism?

[Bud Struggle]

How about common? How do you call primitive communism?

Like Primitive Capitalism it is similar to what is practiced today except with a bone in one's nose.

[kapitalyst]

Says yew.

Of course, you're right, but I couldn't resist ....

I love yew! :laugh:

[RGacky3]

Like Primitive Capitalism it is similar to what is practiced today except with a bone in one's nose.

except primitive capitalism never existed.

[RedGrunt]

You can totally make a great bow out of tree branches if you know what you're doing, sadly I never got far with it though. :/


Anyhow, private property is not a recent capitalist development.

Simplistic but look under "Slave Society" in Marx's theory of history on wikipedia:

"The Second Stage: may be called Slave Society, considered to be the beginning of "class society" where private property appears."

The rise of agriculture and subsequent events caused private property develop.

[molotovcocktail]

Banks gave out those loans through pressure from your beloved nanny state model
Are you saying that if the banks could easilier give away bad loans they wouldnt?

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually, very effective bows and arrows can be made from the proper tree branches. And of course, yew is the best! ;)

Treated tree branches maybe. I have one of those. But you're not going to just plop a branch off a tree and make a bow :D


No... you will not take my bow and arrow, and you don't decide what I "need". I do. I will knock an arrow on that bow, draw and slay you like the evil commie dragon-thief you are! lol :lol:

I need only worry about drawing my arrow faster than you, Utzi ;)


And your idea that I cannot have property is restrictive. We have a dilemma here. I say "thief be damned"...

You can have property; personal property. And you can engage productively in communal property. But you cannot have the restrictive and oligarchical privelage of private property.



They're not moralistic arguments. My point is that it can be viewed as restrictive to have property, yes, but it's also restrictive to deny property. One or the other must be decided upon. And as I've already said, fuck thieves! :lol:

"Thievery is bad" is a moralistic argument.
And again, you can have property.



"Ours" does not mean public property, and public property never has and never will exist. It's a silly myth. You would need a new word like "alls" to convey that concept, lol.

Ya, it kind of renders the whole concept of property obsolete, doesn't it ;)



That's not at all where I'm coming from. Private property has always existed. Public property never has, never will.

... that's just absolutely backwards... where do you get your information? Private property is a very, very new concept. Public property is as old as dirt.



That definition means exactly the same thing. Ability to express will = lack of restriction against expressing will.

No, they don't say the same thing, or they would say the same thing :lol:
If I live on an island (to continue the analogy) liberty, in the definition of lack of restriction, is meaningless to me. Sure, I have liberty. I have no human-made restrictions, but all I can really do is catch fish and pick coconuts all day.
If I live on an island, liberty, in the definition of ability to express will, still maintains its meaning. I have no liberty, because I can only have liberty within a social context (under my definition). Again, this avoids all the contradictions of a more negative view of liberty, such as carried by yourself.




That's total BS...



And so is this! ;)

Ya, reality is always bs to a right winger :lol:
Preclass societies rarely engage in violent warfare. I didn't say it doesn't happen. But it is rare, and even rarer that the violence involves death.
Now, primitive agricultural/late tribal society can be a whole different matter. But that's when classes start being differentiated, and property becoming more restrictive.
What do you call it when a group involves 20 people and only 1-5 of them have the final say in any matters? Oligarchy.
What do you call it when society says that anything you buy is exclusively yours to make all final decisions on? Private Property.

[Bud Struggle]

except primitive capitalism never existed.

Neither did primitive Communism.

[#FF0000]

Neither did primitive Communism.

what

yeah it did

[Bud Struggle]

what

yeah it did

Then so did primitive Capitalism. You can really say anything you want and call primitive society anything you want. A club could be a means of production.

It's all wahtever you want to call it.

Hell, you could call primitive society primitive fudalism.

[RGacky3]

Then so did primitive Capitalism. You can really say anything you want and call primitive society anything you want. A club could be a means of production.

It's all wahtever you want to call it.

Hell, you could call primitive society primitive fudalism.

Jesus Christ, this is based on anthropological studies, not just us saying it.

Markets did'nt exist until deep into Egyptian and Babylonian civilization, and they wern't a major part of the economy, before that there was no private property, most nomadic (if not all) primitive societies were communistic, they did not have any institutional private property and they distributed any surplus collectively.

THis is history your fighting with as always. Capitalism is new, communism ( in the primative form) has been around for a long time.

[Bud Struggle]

Jesus Christ, this is based on anthropological studies, not just us saying it.

Markets did'nt exist until deep into Egyptian and Babylonian civilization, and they wern't a major part of the economy, before that there was no private property, most nomadic (if not all) primitive societies were communistic, they did not have any institutional private property and they distributed any surplus collectively.

THis is history your fighting with as always. Capitalism is new, communism ( in the primative form) has been around for a long time.

People traded stuff all of the time. one community to the next. For that matter a club or a spear was a "means of production,"

In the end it's all idiotic--What you are doing is trying to put modern terms on ancient societies. and retro fitting them with our beliefs.

Beswt we let the past be the past instead of pretending that society 500,000 years ago had anything to do with modern society.

[#FF0000]

call it what you want but there wasn't much in the way of division of labor and things were, for the most part, completely egalitarian.

[CommunityBeliever]

People traded stuff all of the time. one community to the next. For that matter a club or a spear was a "means of production,"

In the end it's all idiotic--What you are doing is trying to put modern terms on ancient societies. and retro fitting them with our beliefs.

Beswt we let the past be the past instead of pretending that society 500,000 years ago had anything to do with modern society.

Before 12,000 years ago human society used the foraging mode of production, which means they got their products from foraging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraging) or searching for things that were already there rather then having any means of production to produce things themselves.

If this a nuclear apocalypse or a comet impact or something, all of our means of production could be destroyed sending us right back to foraging mode, like the movie the road (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/) I just saw. Hopefully if that does happen we aren't going to get to the point that the things we are foraging for are human bodies to cannibalise, like in that movie (its still a good movie though even if its really dark).


Then so did primitive Capitalism.

Once you understand that the primitive people depended upon foraging rather then a stable means of production, it should be clear there is no such thing as "primitive capitalism."

[Bud Struggle]

Once you understand that the primitive people depended upon foraging rather then a stable means of production, it should be clear there is no such thing as "primitive capitalism."

Oh, I totally agree. And having spent a bit of time in the Soviet Union before it's fall I noticed that those Communists there did a good bit of foraging to stay alive.

So I guess there are definite similarities beween modern and primative Communists.

[RGacky3]

People traded stuff all of the time. one community to the next. For that matter a club or a spear was a "means of production,"

In the end it's all idiotic--What you are doing is trying to put modern terms on ancient societies. and retro fitting them with our beliefs.


Your obvoiusly speaking out of ignorance here, and you obviously hav'nt read anything about ancient societies and how they organized economically.

Trade was'nt a part of the economy even mostly under agriculture, most primitive communism was'nt traded at all the few means of productions that existed were shared, not traded, and available for use for the whole community, there was no ownership thus not traded.

Under Agriculture societies even then you did'nt have a market other than foriegn trade, internally most economies were command economies. Market systems came much later.

If you don't know what your talking about don't talk about it.

[Revolution starts with U]

There was limited trade in pre-history. I say limited because it was more like 2 hunting parties running into each other, telling stories, and "trading" beads and things like that. But at the same time, these were wide-scale trades. You might have a hunting party following a herd for hundreds of miles.
But even the trading was done as a group. Private actions in general are all but non-existent in prehistory. The culture follows a model of "the failures and successes of one are the failures and successes of all."