Halliburton Hell

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Pacific News Service
Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps

BERKELEY, Calif.--A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.

To date, some newspapers have worried that open-ended provisions in the contract could lead to cost overruns, such as have occurred with KBR in Iraq. A Homeland Security spokesperson has responded that this is a "contingency contract" and that conceivably no centers might be built. But almost no paper so far has discussed the possibility that detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law.

For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_arti...06fe03f4c9b3a77 (http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe 03f4c9b3a77)


Once again, I remind "my fellow Americnas" that if you can manage it, it would be a very good idea to get out of this shithole while it is still possible to do so.

We've already seen, have we not, what kind of camps that Americans run. A first-hand experience is not something to look forward to.

Do not imagine that you have "democratic rights" here; you don't!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

I'm considering leaving.

There's only so much of this bullshit I can stand.

[RedAnarchist]

Well, don't come to Britain, Publius. We are just Diet Bullshit Land, the smaller version of America.

[theraven]

tin foil hat:5 dollars
"rent" to mom and dad for the basement : 100 dollars (but you can owe us deary)
computer to keep you from losing all contact from humanity : 500 dollars
believing every nutso theory you see and assuming the worst:priceless

[Cult of Reason]

And I thought it was getting bad in the UK...

[enigma2517]

tin foil hat:5 dollars
"rent" to mom and dad for the basement : 100 dollars (but you can owe us deary)
computer to keep you from losing all contact from humanity : 500 dollars
believing every nutso theory you see and assuming the worst:priceless


Yep, that's right. You be a good German now

[VermontLeft]

hey raven, what kind of a "Libertarian Neo-con" is for big government and federal powers?

i know a whole bunch of "libertarians", and at least their smart enough to know that Bush and his buddies are bad for the country. I mean unless youre really rich and can afford to fly outa here, it really doesnt make sense that youd be for more state powers.

you dont think that the government woul lock up its own people? ITS ALREADY DOING IT!

you dont think that it would violate their civil rights? ITS DOING THAT TOO!.

so which part is the "nutball theory"???? :o

[theraven]

hey raven, what kind of a "Libertarian Neo-con" is for big government and federal powers?

I am very much against federal power and big government, but just because the government does something i don't jump to the concluison their making prison camps



i know a whole bunch of "libertarians", and at least their smart enough to know that Bush and his buddies are bad for the country. I mean unless youre really rich and can afford to fly outa here, it really doesnt make sense that youd be for more state powers.

bush is not an ideal president, but there coudl be far worse. i am for more state powers, as are all liberatiains. its federal power thats the porbelm now


you dont think that the government woul lock up its own people? ITS ALREADY DOING IT!

yes its called prison. thats part of the gov'ts job


you dont think that it would violate their civil rights? ITS DOING THAT TOO!.
expand?

so which part is the "nutball theory"???? ohmy.gif

the bit about building a prison camp to hold political prisoners.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:00 PM


tin foil hat:5 dollars
"rent" to mom and dad for the basement : 100 dollars (but you can owe us deary)
computer to keep you from losing all contact from humanity : 500 dollars
believing every nutso theory you see and assuming the worst:priceless


Yep, that's right. You be a good German now
I'm american, but thanks

[Ultra-Violence]

I am very much against federal power and big government, but just because the government does something i don't jump to the concluison their making prison camps


Then what do you belive there making it for then? obviously to silience political dissent&#33; what do you think the patriot act was about? not about homeland secruity but agian as i stated to silience politilcal dissent. FOR GOOD <_<


yes its called prison. thats part of the gov&#39;ts job

ya and who are they locking up by the hundred? minority&#39;s&#33; why cuase since all the factory jobs have gone over seas and the mass un-emplyoment. what do you do with all these poeple LOCK EM UP&#33;

[theraven]

Then what do you belive there making it for then? obviously to silience political dissent&#33; what do you think the patriot act was about? not about homeland secruity but agian as i stated to silience politilcal dissent. FOR GOOD dry.gif

really? so political dissent is being silienced? so communists aren&#39;t allowed open internet forums? the democrats aren&#39;t allowed into congress? as stated its for "natural disasters (think katriana where the dispalcmetn ahs cause dpbelms) or if they decided to hold illeagel immigrants and send em abck en masse.



ya and who are they locking up by the hundred? minority&#39;s&#33; why cuase since all the factory jobs have gone over seas and the mass un-emplyoment. what do you do with all these poeple LOCK EM UP&#33;

the people in jail are those who comit crimes. duh.

[VermontLeft]

I am very much against federal power and big government, but just because the government does something i don&#39;t jump to the concluison their making prison camps

ok, but what about when they build prison camps???

...like this time. :P


bush is not an ideal president, but there coudl be far worse


really? like who?

Even as a "libertarian", who was a worse president than this one?

i mean biggest debts, bigger goverment, more spending, less income, foreign wars, lockin people up for nothing, setting up secret prisons...


i mean fuck i dont get how anyone can support this asshole&#33;

you really think that hes "ideal"?? what the fuck kind of fucked up "ideal" are you talkin about??? :o

the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. i know that thats normal for capitalism, but it really hasnt been this long for a long time, and id think that evensomeone on the right would be able to fucking notice that&#33;&#33;

i guess not... :(


expand?

what have you been under a rock for the last 5 years? :blink:

Does wire-tapping ring a bell? what about PATRIOT ACT and Guantanamo bay?

i dont think that theres a civil right left that they havent broken :o


really? so political dissent is being silienced?

Sure is.

have you heard about the "free speech zones" and the PATRIOT ACT?


as stated its for "natural disasters

oh well if its "stated" i guess it must be true... :rolleyes:

[theraven]

ok, but what about when they build prison camps???

...like this time. tongue.gif

its not nessacily a prison, as menioned it could be used as a temprorary hold cell of disaster victims.


really? like who?

Even as a "libertarian", who was a worse president than this one?

kerry probably, nader, LBJ was far worse..


i mean biggest debts, bigger goverment, more spending, less income, foreign wars, lockin people up for nothing, setting up secret prisons...


locking poele up for nothing? evidicne? as for secret prisons...nto that secret are they ;)


i mean fuck i dont get how anyone can support this asshole&#33;

we manage it ;)


you really think that hes "ideal"?? what the fuck kind of fucked up "ideal" are you talkin about??? ohmy.gif

no, i beleive i said hes far from my ideal. esp. regarding his fiscal policy.


the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. i know that thats normal for capitalism, but it really hasnt been this long for a long time, and id think that evensomeone on the right would be able to fucking notice that&#33;&#33;

i guess not... sad.gif

um ok?



what have you been under a rock for the last 5 years? blink.gif

Does wire-tapping ring a bell? what about PATRIOT ACT and Guantanamo bay?

i dont think that theres a civil right left that they havent broken ohmy.gif

well wire taping, patirto cat and gitmo are all aimed at terorits. i can&#39;t think of subatian evidcne they&#39;ve been used agaisnt political enemies.



Sure is.

have you heard about the "free speech zones" and the PATRIOT ACT?

the pariot act is not a method of dissent, and the only free speech zones i&#39;ve heard of where at the dem convetion and on college campuses and i of course oppose them.



oh well if its "stated" i guess it must be true... rolleyes.gif

no but it doesnt mean its false either.

[LSD]

theraven ...have you been drinking? :huh:

[VermontLeft]

its not nessacily a prison, as menioned it could be used as a temprorary hold cell of disaster victims.

and it could also be used as a prison.

based on the Bush administrations reputation (they dont give a fuck about "disaster victims" and they love locking up "terrorists"), which do you think its going to be used for? :o


kerry probably, nader

niether of those were presidents, so thats irrelevent.


LBJ was far worse..

why? cause he started a fake war and got lots of american killed? maybe cause he spent too much money and couldnt pay it back? maybe cause he wasnt actually elected as president and still managed to get the us involved in a horrible foreign quagmire?

OH WAIT&#33; :lol: :lol:

everythign really "bad" that LBJ did, Bush has done worse.

unless of course its the civil rights that you dont like... <_<


locking poele up for nothing? evidicne

most of the people being held at guantanamo havent been charged with any crime. that means their being locked up for nothing.


as for secret prisons...nto that secret are they

Not anymore. But until the press figured it out, they were real secret.

and whats your point anyway? as long as the US illegal prisons are known their OK? no one knows whats going on inside of them, so id say that its a problem&#33;


well wire taping, patirto cat and gitmo are all aimed at terorits

yeah, fascists always say that their against "terrorists" or "enemies of the state", but really that means anyone who opposes them.

i mean how do you define "terrorist" anyway? obviously its got to include all those afghani civilians locked up who didnt actually commit any crimes :P and i guess it also includes protesters and boycotters (so says the patriot act).

so basically everyone&#33; :o

[theraven]

and it could also be used as a prison.

so could many things


based on the Bush administrations reputation (they dont give a fuck about "disaster victims" and they love locking up "terrorists"), which do you think its going to be used for? ohmy.gif

perhaps they are preparing so next hurricane season they aren&#39;t tonally taken aback.



niether of those were presidents, so thats irrelevent.

Examples


why? cause he started a fake war and got lots of american killed?

because he ran the war wrong actually


maybe cause he spent too much money and couldnt pay it back?

i don&#39;t think LBJ had much of a deficit, my problem was more his huge welfare policies


maybe cause he wasnt actually elected as president and still managed to get the us involved in a horrible foreign quagmire?

he was elected in 64 i believe.


OH WAIT&#33; laugh.gif laugh.gif

everything really "bad" that LBJ did, Bush has done worse.

unless of course its the civil rights that you dont like... dry.gif

no I am quite a fan of civil rights. its his welfare programs I dislike



most of the people being held at guantanamo havent been charged with any crime. that means their being locked up for nothing.

that’s because they don&#39;t want to put them on trial, but rather they want information. they have done things (generally in afghanistan or Iraq) that are crimes, but rather then put them in front of our courts they just get info out of them.



Not anymore. But until the press figured it out, they were real secret.

and whats your point anyway? as long as the US illegal prisons are known their OK? no one knows whats going on inside of them, so id say that its a problem&#33;

from what i understand they are less prisons and more interrogation faculties. and i haven&#39;t heard of dissidents being locked up there, so there’s a good chance the government is actually doing its job here.


yeah, fascists always say that their against "terrorists" or "enemies of the state", but really that means anyone who opposes them.

just because fascists say their against an enemy, doesn&#39;t mean someone who is against an enemy is fascist.


i mean how do you define "terrorist" anyway? obviously its got to include all those afghani civilians locked up who didnt actually commit any crimes tongue.gif and i guess it also includes protesters and boycotters (so says the patriot act).

how do you base they didn&#39;t commit any actual crimes? because they aren&#39;t accused? LMAO as for the patriot act-how many protestors/boycotters have been arrested with it? and what does it say exactly?



theraven ...have you been drinking? huh.gif

Nope, why?

[Nicky Scarfo]

theraven...did you go by TAL at pofo?

[VermontLeft]

so could many things

not really.

most buildings arent really secure enough to hold people prisoner. a big "detention facility" though is built specifically to do that.

its pretty obvious man. really wise up&#33;


because he ran the war wrong actually

so you agree with the Vietnam war&#33;? :o :blink:


i don&#39;t think LBJ had much of a deficit, my problem was more his huge welfare policies

oh, so you dont like that he actually helped people.

the killing people your cool with but the spending money to give desperate people food, that you disagree with.

seriously, youve got be insane man. if you really think that LBJ&#39;s welfare programs were "huge" and if you think that theyre "worse" than Bush&#39;s enormous tax breaks and spending.

bush wants to stop gay people from getting married or adopting kids, he wants to make burning the flag illegal, but Johnson is bad cause he had welfare... :unsure:

seriously due, thats fucked up.


that’s because they don&#39;t want to put them on trial, but rather they want information

yeah, i know they dont want to put them on trial. but since they dont how the fuck are we supposed to know if their really terrorists or not?

how do we even know if they did anything?

for a libertarian, you sure do trust your government a lot if you think their honest enough not to abuse this power. the reason taht there re courts is so that the goverment cants just lock people up and "get information", they have to prove that they did something.

what, is bush so "pure" that he would never ever break the law?? :rolleyes: :lol:


from what i understand they are less prisons and more interrogation faculties.

Oh, thats sooo much better... :rolleyes:


just because fascists say their against an enemy, doesn&#39;t mean someone who is against an enemy is fascist.

its still got to be pretty scarry that your "ideal" president is using excuyses out of the fascist playbook.


Nope, why?

um ...cause your saying crazy things? :lol: (also probly cause your spelling suddenly got bad. hmmm... maybe your drinking and you dont even know it :o that could be a sign of alchoholism. id seek help :P)

[theraven]

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 20 2006, 02:53 AM
theraven...did you go by TAL at pofo?
who is tal and what is pofo?

not really.


most buildings arent really secure enough to hold people prisoner. a big "detention facility" though is built specifically to do that.

its pretty obvious man. really wise up&#33;

most buidlings could be made secure enough. perhaps the govnerment is planning on rounding up illeagels?


so you agree with the Vietnam war&#33;? ohmy.gif blink.gif

sure, if it had been fought correctly (ie with vietnmese troops, with a legaitem south vietnames governmetn and with us troops acting exclusivly as trainers and leading the ocaisanl force across the broder. also with ya now an active offesnive policy).


oh, so you dont like that he actually helped people.

the killing people your cool with but the spending money to give desperate people food, that you disagree with.

seriously, youve got be insane man. if you really think that LBJ&#39;s welfare programs were "huge" and if you think that theyre "worse" than Bush&#39;s enormous tax breaks and spending.

he didnt help people. he started a program that has been disatous, (which si why we reformed it so much). medicare and medciad are extremely expensive and pretty inefficent. and welfare had the probelm that it killed any incneitve to work.

sidenote:bushes spending is my big pet peeve


bush wants to stop gay people from getting married or adopting kids, he wants to make burning the flag illegal, but Johnson is bad cause he had welfare... unsure.gif

seriously due, thats fucked up.

why?


yeah, i know they dont want to put them on trial. but since they dont how the fuck are we supposed to know if their really terrorists or not?

how do we even know if they did anything?


we don&#39;t know, not that it really matters. the gitmo is for people who have information. if they don&#39;t have informan chances are they get releised


for a libertarian, you sure do trust your government a lot if you think their honest enough not to abuse this power. the reason taht there re courts is so that the goverment cants just lock people up and "get information", they have to prove that they did something.


in warfare you generaly alot the govnerment more power thne they would normally have.



its still got to be pretty scarry that your "ideal" president is using excuyses out of the fascist playbook.

hes never been ideal..



um ...cause your saying crazy things? laugh.gif (also probly cause your spelling suddenly got bad. hmmm... maybe your drinking and you dont even know it ohmy.gif that could be a sign of alchoholism. id seek help tongue.gif)

1) by crazy things you mean normal people senisible things? because thats whats crazy by this forums standards
2)my spelling got bad because i was writing a lot without paying attention. i generaly post "durnk post" when i post durnk.

[VonClausewitz]

And once a large enough proportion of the population is locked up in these camps, Europe can liberate you all :) and charge backdated taxes from 1776 :) /sarcasm.

Really, as if even the american government would be so utterly ridiculous. Think how many hand-wringingly-wet liberals around the world would explode with indignation, hell, half of the west coast of the US would spontaneously combust.

[Zero]

About those who are in jail because they have done something wrong:

Let me tell you a story about a certain computer hacker named Kevin Mitnick. He was caught more or less red handed about twice before dumpster diving and walking out of the premisis of Bell Telephone with manuals which had been thrown away. He had a brief stint where he was forced to pay quite a large sum of money to Bell, and serve some time, when he had been found with the Unix source code sitting on his computer.

Anyway, not five days after the Patriot act had been passed in Congress, Kevin was arrested, and held without bail for 2 years. He is the single longest prision inmate that has had his innocence PROOVEN, and yet was kept in a cell for no reason other then the prosecuting lawyer had said that &#39;Kevin could launch a nuculear weapon by simply whistling into a phone.&#39; He was also given three months in solitary confinement after he had "unauthorised posession of Chili cans." Or something along the lines of that.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The most odd thing here, is that Halliburton, in general, isn&#39;t that type of Engineering firm....the Construction section (KBR) mainly constructs things that will benefit the Energy section (pipelines, refineries and so on).

So it&#39;s unlikely that they&#39;ll have that much experience in this particular field; which means that if the project goes ahead, it&#39;ll probably be massively over budget&#33; :o

Certainly Bechtel, another big contributor to the present administration that has made a lot of money in Iraq, would be a better choice....indeed I&#39;m sure there are far better Civil Engineering firms in America, better than a Halliburton owned company anyway&#33; :lol:

I suppose, in the epoch of capital, standards don&#39;t really matter. :(

Oh, and a little extra on KBR....


Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)KBR is the largest non-union construction company in the United States.[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%2C_Brown_and_Root

They also, it seems, contribute a lot to the upkeep of the American war-machine. :angry:


Publius
I&#39;m considering leaving.

I&#39;ll rent you a room....£10/m² (per week). <_<

[Guerrilla22]

Fascism.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:31 AM
About those who are in jail because they have done something wrong:

Let me tell you a story about a certain computer hacker named Kevin Mitnick. He was caught more or less red handed about twice before dumpster diving and walking out of the premisis of Bell Telephone with manuals which had been thrown away. He had a brief stint where he was forced to pay quite a large sum of money to Bell, and serve some time, when he had been found with the Unix source code sitting on his computer.

Anyway, not five days after the Patriot act had been passed in Congress, Kevin was arrested, and held without bail for 2 years. He is the single longest prision inmate that has had his innocence PROOVEN, and yet was kept in a cell for no reason other then the prosecuting lawyer had said that &#39;Kevin could launch a nuculear weapon by simply whistling into a phone.&#39; He was also given three months in solitary confinement after he had "unauthorised posession of Chili cans." Or something along the lines of that.
source?

[Guerrilla22]

We&#39;re seeing government surveillance and so called "security operations" in this country that may surpass that of the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s at the height of the cointel pro era.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 02:05 PM
We&#39;re seeing government surveillance and so called "security operations" in this country that may surpass that of the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s at the height of the cointel pro era.
um huh?

[Tungsten]

Publius

I&#39;m considering leaving.

There&#39;s only so much of this bullshit I can stand.
Where else is there to go, other than Switzerland? Forget Hong Kong now that China&#39;s taken over...

[red team]

Go to Afghanistan or Thailand. It&#39;s a Libertarian narco dealer&#39;s paradise. Watch out for the competition though. They compete with you with AK-47s and RPGs. :lol:

[JudeObscure84]

To understand the politics of the matter, the Bush administration is already under heavier critique from the inside. The right wing elements vs. the more moderates in the GOP.

If there is going to be any major enforcement by the people its going to be right wing.

The mouthpiece of the right is going to demand that Bush either resign or be tossed aside for a more right wing president. Contrary to popular belief Bush is a moderate in his party. Its the neo-cons and "RINOs" that are keeping the hard right elements in check. If you dont believe me read some of the rantings of people on Free Republic, Council of Conservative Citenzens, the Michael Savage Nation, the American Conservative. They&#39;re ready to kick him out for a stronger, heavier, more right wing tyrant.

[Americancommi]

I don&#39;t see these camps as being used for the holding of political prisoners. If they wanted to do that they would just build more normal prisons. This seems more likely for holding immigrants after a massive roundup or something. It could also be used for disaster victims like it was said before if Bush dosn&#39;t want to get caught with his thumb up his ass next huricane seoson and have his aproval ratings plumet.

[Ultra-Violence]

really? so political dissent is being silienced? so communists aren&#39;t allowed open internet forums? the democrats aren&#39;t allowed into congress? as stated its for "natural disasters (think katriana where the dispalcmetn ahs cause dpbelms) or if they decided to hold illeagel immigrants and send em abck en masse.

Um buddy they are holding immigrants up en mass. and the illegal immigrants who were responsible for the mass demonstrations are bieng deported and locked up. Oh and about katrina i dont know if you remember this but the first "AID" that came to "HELP" was the dam millitary&#33; WHY&#33; CAUSE ITS CALLED STATE CONTROL&#33;
the sole purpose of that was to prevent a total uprising from the people. and sure commies are not bieng locked up YET&#33; but we are under survialence and ussually the first to be targeted in demonstrations by the cops are the anarchist and commies&#33; also were practicaly bieng hunted down. my freind went to a anarchist work shop and told me that the cops came and started busting people&#33; for what? Having radical ideas buddy. So political dissent is bieng silinced and thats what the patriot act is about.


the people in jail are those who comit crimes. duh.

Ya but i bet you those poeple who commited those crimes would&#39;nt have resorted to that if they had a job wich most of them don&#39;t&#33; trsut me if you had to feed your family youd do what ever it takes to feed em and clothe em.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I&#39;m glad I got out of there before I had the chance to be brainwashed into all sorts of redneck (born in Georgia) attitudes...

[Tungsten]

red team

Go to Afghanistan or Thailand. It&#39;s a Libertarian narco dealer&#39;s paradise. Watch out for the competition though.

You won&#39;t find many libertarians in either of those places and I&#39;m not into narco-dealing.

When are you moving to Cuba? I think think Ludwig von Mises has the answer to that:

All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparge and fight capitalism, implicitly play homage to it by passionately clamouring for the products it churns out.

Why don&#39;t you prove him wrong?

They compete with you with AK-47s and RPGs. :lol:
They have no respect for property? Good. When are you moving there?

[theraven]

Um buddy they are holding immigrants up en mass.

this is not stifilign poliical dissent. immirgatns are inhernetly non-citizesn and have no rigth to enter our country. if our govenrmnet wants to decrease the number who come here that is itheir right


and the illegal immigrants who were responsible for the mass demonstrations are bieng deported and locked up.
so?


Oh and about katrina i dont know if you remember this but the first "AID" that came to "HELP" was the dam millitary&#33; WHY&#33; CAUSE ITS CALLED STATE CONTROL&#33;
the sole purpose of that was to prevent a total uprising from the people.

the reason was twofold

1) generally the national guard/coast gaurd (the people who respoended first) aare always first to respond because they are the ones trained to hlep peopl the best

2) no the miltiary is needed to respond because they prevent the mass looting et al tht was happen. their was no uprising in the works unless you refer to the looting and such.


and sure commies are not bieng locked up YET&#33; but we are under survialence and ussually the first to be targeted in demonstrations by the cops are the anarchist and commies&#33;

thats because their the poeple throwing rocks and such at the cops :roll:


also were practicaly bieng hunted down. my freind went to a anarchist work shop and told me that the cops came and started busting people&#33; for what? Having radical ideas buddy

proof?


. So political dissent is bieng silinced and thats what the patriot act is about.

proof?


Ya but i bet you those poeple who commited those crimes would&#39;nt have resorted to that if they had a job wich most of them don&#39;t&#33; trsut me if you had to feed your family youd do what ever it takes to feed em and clothe em.

do you have stats on the number of unemployed people in jail? I don&#39;t deny economics plays a part in a crime, but that doesnt change the fact that the poele in jail are their for a reason.

[Ultra-Violence]

QUOTE
Um buddy they are holding immigrants up en mass.


this is not stifilign poliical dissent. immirgatns are inhernetly non-citizesn and have no rigth to enter our country. if our govenrmnet wants to decrease the number who come here that is itheir right

It is silincing political dissent for the simple fact that most immigrants that come from any part of the world are ussauly radicals&#33; look at the early italians and what happend to sacko and vinzetti


QUOTE
and the illegal immigrants who were responsible for the mass demonstrations are bieng deported and locked up.

so?

SO&#33; People have the right to express their ideas&#33; So if i say something people they shouldnt be locked up and thrown out the country.


QUOTE

Oh and about katrina i dont know if you remember this but the first "AID" that came to "HELP" was the dam millitary&#33; WHY&#33; CAUSE ITS CALLED STATE CONTROL&#33;
the sole purpose of that was to prevent a total uprising from the people.


the reason was twofold

1) generally the national guard/coast gaurd (the people who respoended first) aare always first to respond because they are the ones trained to hlep peopl the best

2) no the miltiary is needed to respond because they prevent the mass looting et al tht was happen. their was no uprising in the works unless you refer to the looting and such.


People were looting cause they were looking for food and provisions to feed their families the only reason the national gaurd was there is to protect private property&#33; not to help out the survivors..... Unless they were wealthy and stranded in some fancy hotel


QUOTE

also were practicaly bieng hunted down. my freind went to a anarchist work shop and told me that the cops came and started busting people&#33; for what? Having radical ideas buddy


proo

my friends story proves my point he was at an anarchist gathering then the police came locked him up for a week asking him Interegating him heavily about who he knows and who was there and are they a TERROSIsT ORG. come one get real :angry:


QUOTE
and sure commies are not bieng locked up YET&#33; but we are under survialence and ussually the first to be targeted in demonstrations by the cops are the anarchist and commies&#33;


thats because their the poeple throwing rocks and such at the cops :roll:

Thats what the medai shows you buddy. most american protest are very passive excpet for the one seatle and in that one the cops instigated the violence like they alwasy do.


QUOTE

Ya but i bet you those poeple who commited those crimes would&#39;nt have resorted to that if they had a job wich most of them don&#39;t&#33; trsut me if you had to feed your family youd do what ever it takes to feed em and clothe em.


do you have stats on the number of unemployed people in jail? I don&#39;t deny economics plays a part in a crime, but that doesnt change the fact that the poele in jail are their for a reason.

Ya but like i aid if these poeple had jobs they wouldnt have commited the crime in the first place why do you think that most people in jail return later is cuase they cant find ligitimate ways to make ends meet so they look for alternatives.

[theraven]

It is silincing political dissent for the simple fact that most immigrants that come from any part of the world are ussauly radicals&#33; look at the early italians and what happend to sacko and vinzetti

If a nation doesn&#39;t want people coming into its country it has every right to do so. there can be any number of reasosn, from a desire to keep native workers compeititve to cultural differnces to political ideas. it doesnt cahnge the fact that stopping immirgatns is not a form of stifiling dissent.



SO&#33; People have the right to express their ideas&#33; So if i say something people they shouldnt be locked up and thrown out the country.

if they were here legally they wouldn&#39;t be deported. the problem isn&#39;t tiher expression of their views, its the fact that the broke the law in coming here.



People were looting cause they were looking for food and provisions to feed their families

really? sp they needed those plasma tvs for surivvla eh :roll:


the only reason the national gaurd was there is to protect private property&#33; not to help out the survivors..... Unless they were wealthy and stranded in some fancy hotel

im sure they were protecting privat property, as well as protecting private citizesn and giving out rations.



my friends story proves my point he was at an anarchist gathering then the police came locked him up for a week asking him Interegating him heavily about who he knows and who was there and are they a TERROSIsT ORG. come one get real mad.gif

I meant proof that this happened



Thats what the medai shows you buddy. most american protest are very passive excpet for the one seatle and in that one the cops instigated the violence like they alwasy do.

lmao, proof?



Ya but like i aid if these poeple had jobs they wouldnt have commited the crime in the first place why do you think that most people in jail return later is cuase they cant find ligitimate ways to make ends meet so they look for alternatives.

or because their used to being a criminal and everyone around them is a crook

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ludwig von Mises
All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and fight capitalism, implicitly play homage to it by passionately clamouring for the products it churns out.

You mean like "New Coke"? Or the Edsel? :lol:

Von Mises wrote that when? In the 1930s or perhaps the 1940s?

In Vienna under the Dollfuß clerical fascist regime or after he left in 1934?

In any event, he&#39;s obviously guilty of a rather subtle word-game...which most conservatives probably miss completely.

It is not "capitalism" as a "system" that "churns out products"...it is workers who make those products that people "clamor for".

Von Mises implies that capitalists are "needed" or otherwise those products "wouldn&#39;t exist".

Ridiculous&#33;

It would make just as much "sense" to argue that refusal to purchase "New Coke" or an Edsel made someone an "anti-capitalist".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ultra-Violence]

If a nation doesn&#39;t want people coming into its country it has every right to do so. there can be any number of reasosn, from a desire to keep native workers compeititve to cultural differnces to political ideas. it doesnt cahnge the fact that stopping immirgatns is not a form of stifiling dissent.


i dont want to turn this into an immigration debate and focus on the "camps" but if you wish to debate it start another thread.


really? sp they needed those plasma tvs for surivvla eh :roll:

you think they have the means to use those t.v&#39;s yeah right if anything they probably sold them for food or provisions etc............


im sure they were protecting privat property, as well as protecting private citizesn and giving out rations.

PROOF&#33; :lol:


I meant proof that this happened


ill see what i can get from my friend paper wise get back to you on that


or because their used to being a criminal and everyone around them is a crook

people are not USED to bieng criminals neither are they born criminals its socail forces that are out of the individual&#39;s control that turns them into crime

and about the protest.... ask most people on this board who are from america that go to them theyll tell you their passive. EXCEPT for the one in seatle a whille back gogle it buddy.

[theraven]

i dont want to turn this into an immigration debate and focus on the "camps" but if you wish to debate it start another thread.

ok then, my point remains tis not stifling dissent



you think they have the means to use those t.v&#39;s yeah right if anything they probably sold them for food or provisions etc............

or for money..or for hwatever reason...point is it was wrong.



PROOF&#33; laugh.gif

...i relieze your saying this because i keep asking you fro proof for your absurd claims, but this is not absurd claim, its their stated reason.


ill see what i can get from my friend paper wise get back to you on that

i mean like a link



people are not USED to bieng criminals neither are they born criminals its socail forces that are out of the individual&#39;s control that turns them into crime

no, people do get used to being crimianls. if you still a candy as a kid, then pick pocket somoen on as treet, hen rob a liqour store...you get used ot it.

and about the protest.... ask most people on this board who are from america that go to them theyll tell you their passive. EXCEPT for the one in seatle a whille back gogle it buddy.

i was referign your cliam the cops started it in seattle

[Ultra-Violence]

i mean like a link

probably wont be one caus this wast reported on the media like lots of other things


no, people do get used to being crimianls. if you still a candy as a kid, then pick pocket somoen on as treet, hen rob a liqour store...you get used ot it.

they dont cause like i said its SOCIAL FORCES OUT OF THE INDVIDUALS CONTROL THAT TURNS THEM TO CRIME&#33;


i was referign your cliam the cops started it in seattle

I said google it. and just so you know the students were having a peacefull sit-in untill the cops started macing poeple and beating them up

and if you wishj to have and immigration debate plz start a thread :blink:

[theraven]

probably wont be one caus this wast reported on the media like lots of other things

well then forgive me but your full of horse manure
&#092;

they dont cause like i said its SOCIAL FORCES OUT OF THE INDVIDUALS CONTROL THAT TURNS THEM TO CRIME&#33;



so these social forces force the person to hold a gun to a guys head? righhttt



I said google it. and just so you know the students were having a peacefull sit-in untill the cops started macing poeple and beating them up

the burdne of proof lies with the accusor

[Tungsten]

redstar2000
I&#39;m afraid the fact that you&#39;re still here and not in Cuba trumps any hyperbole you care to post.

[Ultra-Violence]

well then forgive me but your full of horse manure

well you dont have to belive me but this happend.


so these social forces force the person to hold a gun to a guys head? righhttt

to extreme of in example but ya in most cases depeding on the sittiuation it is possible

[theraven]

well you dont have to belive me but this happend.

but see if you want to argue the patriot act stifles political dissent you need more evidicen then "my firend said he and his anarchists freinds were arrested because they were anarchists"


to extreme of in example but ya in most cases depeding on the sittiuation it is possible

no its not. generally criminals are not stealing just to bring home food to a starving family. often criminals are not even supporting their families. simply put your full of crap

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:02 AM
redstar2000
I&#39;m afraid the fact that you&#39;re still here and not in Cuba trumps any hyperbole you care to post.
A crushing rejoinder&#33; :lol:

Very well. The fact that you&#39;re "still here" suggests that you lack the capitalist competence to run a self-service shoeshine stand.

Have you considered starting a religion?

Any dumbass should be able to manage that&#33; :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 28 2006, 11:52 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 28 2006, 11:52 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 11:02 AM
redstar2000
I&#39;m afraid the fact that you&#39;re still here and not in Cuba trumps any hyperbole you care to post.
A crushing rejoinder&#33; :lol:

Very well. The fact that you&#39;re "still here" suggests that you lack the capitalist competence to run a self-service shoeshine stand.

Have you considered starting a religion?

Any dumbass should be able to manage that&#33; :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
He does his own thing for capitislim Im sure, his point is that if America is a capitlist hell hole then why don&#39;t you go to the workers paradise of cuba?

[RedSkvnk]

I fail to see how running away and ducking your head into the sand solves anything. Moving to Cuba is like moving onto a hippy commune in the sixties. Yes, you&#39;ll be able to intellectually masturbate with like-minded peers, but the outside world is still going on. Vietnam – or Bush & Co., depending on if you followed my scenario or not.

The only thing that would cause me to move is if Canada ever legalized weed, in which case I&#39;m opening a coffee shop on the border. Otherwise, the way to make the most impact is to stay and work inside the system. America and its transgressions will effect you, whether you&#39;re in America or some backwards island.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by theraven
His point is that if America is a capitalist hell hole, then why don&#39;t you go to the workers&#39; paradise of Cuba?

That&#39;s not a "point"...much less a relevant point to this thread.

Communists "have no country"...so there is no "workers&#39; paradise" to go to anywhere.

The Roman poet exaggerated when he claimed that there was "no escape from the power of the Emperor"...but in today&#39;s world, there really is "no escape" from the imperial folly of the American ruling class.

Recall the innocent civilians going about their business in the evening in downtown Tripoli (Libya) when the late war-criminal and all-around TURD Ronald Reagan launched a "surprise" bombing raid?

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they didn&#39;t bomb Honolulu at the same time&#33; They could have but they didn&#39;t.

U.S. imperialism is under no such inhibitions.

NO ONE IS SAFE...ANYWHERE&#33;

As it happens, I have advised young American lefties with the resources to get out of this hellhole while it&#39;s still possible. I&#39;ve even suggested New Zealand as probably the safest place to live in the 21st century.

Those who actually want to participate in a real proletarian revolution are advised to pick France, Italy or Germany.

Otherwise, it really doesn&#39;t much matter.

As for myself, I am too old, too feeble, and too poor to go anywhere. :o

Those are the breaks.

So I&#39;ll just sit here typing away until I collapse over the keyboard. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cyu]

generally criminals are not stealing just to bring home food to a starving family. often criminals are not even supporting their families.

So would you support a criminal if they were in fact doing it to support a family? If the employees of a company decide to assume democratic control of it, they&#39;re basically supporting their families, are they not?

[Tungsten]

redstar2000

A crushing rejoinder&#33;
I know. I&#39;m too good.

Very well. The fact that you&#39;re "still here" suggests that you lack the capitalist competence to run a self-service shoeshine stand.
How does it? Explain.

Have you considered starting a religion?

Any dumbass should be able to manage that&#33; :lol:
What are you waiting for, then? An invitation?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:51 PM

generally criminals are not stealing just to bring home food to a starving family. often criminals are not even supporting their families.

So would you support a criminal if they were in fact doing it to support a family? If the employees of a company decide to assume democratic control of it, they&#39;re basically supporting their families, are they not?
yes if a man is so poor that the only way hes going to feed his wife and kids is if he steals a loaf of bread then I while he shoudl be punished, it would be the same as your average theif

no, because those wroks can feed their family, they&#39;d be stealing from their employerl

[amanondeathrow]

theraven

no, because those wroks can feed their family, they&#39;d be stealing from their employerl

Workers assuming democratic control of factories are simply taking what is rightfully theirs.

Their employers are the ones who are stealing from the workers by not allowing them to reap the benefits of their own labor.

[Tungsten]

Dee&#39;s Nuts

Workers assuming democratic control of factories are simply taking what is rightfully theirs.
Why is it "rightfully theirs"?

[KC]

Why is it "rightfully theirs"?

They created it.

[Tungsten]

Khayembii Communique



Why is it "rightfully theirs"?

They created it.
I don&#39;t remember creating any means of production and I shouldn&#39;t imagine 99.9% of people out there do either, if they&#39;re honest.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Dee&#39;s [email protected] 29 2006, 06:27 AM
theraven

no, because those wroks can feed their family, they&#39;d be stealing from their employerl

Workers assuming democratic control of factories are simply taking what is rightfully theirs.

Their employers are the ones who are stealing from the workers by not allowing them to reap the benefits of their own labor.
they wouldnt&#39; have the factory period if the owner hadn&#39;t invested his money and his ideas in it. their reward for their labour is their wages

[KC]

I don&#39;t remember creating any means of production and I shouldn&#39;t imagine 99.9% of people out there do either, if they&#39;re honest.

Uh, who created everything? The workers. To deny this is to profess your idiocy.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The Capitalists don’t actually build the places of work. That is what construction workers do. Being the same class and the workers inside of the place that was built, the working class should own it.

The products that are produced are built by workers, they also should own that.

The raw materials gathered to build the products and the buildings was extracted by workers so they own them. The working class owns all of these because they did the actual labor.

Investing wealth simply to create more wealth is not legitimate claim to ownership.

Workers do everything, capitalists being the parasites they are, just extracts the wealth from workers labor at each process.

Pretty simple for most people to get.

[theraven]

Uh, who created everything? The workers. To deny this is to profess your idiocy.

the workers create nothing, they mine or refine or serbve some material that is purchased or traded by the capilsts. this is what capisltis do. Capisltis find or create the ideas for what they want to pay the workers to rpoduce, they buy the mateirals then they trade money for the workers labour.

[Tungsten]

bloody_capitalist_sham

The Capitalists don’t actually build the places of work. That is what construction workers do. Being the same class and the workers inside of the place that was built, the working class should own it.
What crap is this? If the construction workers built it with their own funds, then they own it. Stuff the rest of the class.

[violencia.Proletariat]

some material that is purchased or traded by the capilsts. this is what capisltis do. Capisltis find or create the ideas for what they want to pay the workers to rpoduce, they buy the mateirals then they trade money for the workers labour.

What they do is THROW MONEY AROUND&#33;


the workers create nothing

The capitalist CREATES NOTHING, the workers make the building.

[GoaRedStar]

he workers create nothing, they mine or refine or serbve some material that is purchased or traded by the capilsts. this is what capisltis do. Capisltis find or create the ideas for what they want to pay the workers to rpoduce, they buy the mateirals then they trade money for the workers labour.


So what your saying here is that the workers don&#39;t produces a single thing. :rolleyes:


Not even pro-capitalist jackasses with some real knowledge (obviously very limited) of the real world would agree with your statement here.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:02 AM

he workers create nothing, they mine or refine or serbve some material that is purchased or traded by the capilsts. this is what capisltis do. Capisltis find or create the ideas for what they want to pay the workers to rpoduce, they buy the mateirals then they trade money for the workers labour.


So what your saying here is that the workers don&#39;t produces a single thing. :rolleyes:


Not even pro-capitalist jackasses with some real knowledge (obviously very limited) of the real world would agree with your statement here.
they don&#39;t create, they alter into a new thing. they take iron and produce a knife, wood into paper and so on. they do the labor, while the capitilst provides the resources and wages.

[GoaRedStar]

they don&#39;t create, they alter into a new thing. they take iron and produce a knife, wood into paper and so on. they do the labor, while the capitilst provides the resources and wages.


To create something mean to produce it .
Smartypants



cre·ate Audio pronunciation of "create" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

Let me ask you a quick question.

Are you suggesting here that capitalist magically create things out of mid air by pulling a magical wand out of their ass and producing things ?

And if thats how thing are created then why do they even need workers ?

And again to produce is to create.

:)

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:29 AM

they don&#39;t create, they alter into a new thing. they take iron and produce a knife, wood into paper and so on. they do the labor, while the capitilst provides the resources and wages.


To create something mean to produce it .
Smartypants



cre·ate Audio pronunciation of "create" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates

1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

Let me ask you a quick question.

Are you suggesting here that capitalist magically create things out of mid air by pulling a magical wand out of their ass and producing things ?

And if thats how thing are created then why do they even need workers ?

And again to produce is to create.

:)
no..heres a general summary of how they make the body of a car
Capitlist A pays scientest to find him coal mine , then pays workers to mine it for him he then sells his coal to another capilist
Capistl B pays sceintes tof ind an iron mine and pays workers to get it out of the ground. he sells it
Capislit C buys their coal and iron, builds a factory, hires workers which results in refined steal, which he sells
Capilist D pays for a factory to be built, buys the steal and pays the workers to build a frame for the car.

do you see what the capislt do here? they organzie and allocate the matirals, that is their job, like someone out there in the govenrment who organizes the files, they organzie the way capital and mateiral are split up. the simpel fact is this is a full time job, that most people can&#39;t do because it takes a lot of work. do you have any idea how hard it is to go to a bank to get venture capital?

[cyu]

do you see what the capislt do here? they organzie and allocate the matirals, that is their job, like someone out there in the govenrment who organizes the files, they organzie the way capital and mateiral are split up. the simpel fact is this is a full time job, that most people can&#39;t do because it takes a lot of work. do you have any idea how hard it is to go to a bank to get venture capital?

Money is concentrated in a few hands. That means the number of people who can be successful capitalists are few. Why should they continue to be awarded so much of the economic production of the economy? Their jobs could simply be replaced by a democratic process. People discuss and vote on where they think investments would most benefit them. This would eliminate the role of the capitalist and give more control over the economy to the people that are supposed to benefit most from it. In addition, since it would eliminate the wealthiest class of people, there would be more resources available to produce for everyone, since they will no longer be tied up producing for wealthy capitalists.

[Connolly]

Capitlist A pays scientest to find him coal mine

The proletariat do the work.


then pays workers to mine it for him he then sells his coal to another capilist

The proletariat do the work.


Capistl B pays sceintes tof ind an iron mine

The proletariat do the work.


and pays workers to get it out of the ground. he sells it

The proletariat do the work.


Capislit C buys their coal and iron, builds a factory, hires workers which results in refined steal, which he sells

The proletariat do the work.


Capilist D pays for a factory to be built, buys the steal and pays the workers to build a frame for the car.

The proletariat do the work.


do you see what the capislt do here?

So far, no. I dont see the necessity of them yet.


they organzie and allocate the matirals, that is their job, like someone out there in the govenrment who organizes the files, they organzie the way capital and mateiral are split up.

Actually, no they dont. management do these types of jobs.


the simpel fact is this is a full time job, that most people can&#39;t do because it takes a lot of work.

If they do what you say they do - fuck, they must be superman. That ,or "blessed" by "God". :lol:

[theraven]

QUOTE
Capitlist A pays scientest to find him coal mine


The proletariat do the work.

QUOTE
then pays workers to mine it for him he then sells his coal to another capilist


The proletariat do the work.

QUOTE
Capistl B pays sceintes tof ind an iron mine


The proletariat do the work.

QUOTE
and pays workers to get it out of the ground. he sells it


The proletariat do the work.

QUOTE
Capislit C buys their coal and iron, builds a factory, hires workers which results in refined steal, which he sells


The proletariat do the work.

QUOTE
Capilist D pays for a factory to be built, buys the steal and pays the workers to build a frame for the car.


The proletariat do the work.

the poor people do indeed o the labour because they are poor but they are payed.




Money is concentrated in a few hands. That means the number of people who can be successful capitalists are few. Why should they continue to be awarded so much of the economic production of the economy? Their jobs could simply be replaced by a democratic process. People discuss and vote on where they think investments would most benefit them. This would eliminate the role of the capitalist and give more control over the economy to the people that are supposed to benefit most from it. In addition, since it would eliminate the wealthiest class of people, there would be more resources available to produce for everyone, since they will no longer be tied up producing for wealthy capitalists.

but see most of the wealth of capitlsi IS tied up in producing for everyone. just about eveyrthing you own was made in a capistlis factory. (most) capislist invest the vast maortiy of tiher money. they do tthis far more effiecently woudl be done if all the workes had to decide on everything. . we&#39;ve had this discussion cyu and you desrte dit after getting owned

[cyu]

but see most of the wealth of capitlsi IS tied up in producing for everyone. just about eveyrthing you own was made in a capistlis factory. (most) capislist invest the vast maortiy of tiher money.

The very fact that they spend concentrated wealth results in an economic system that is skewed toward producing things for the wealthy. Skyscrapers, for example, are not used personally by the wealthy. However, they are funded by the wealthy as "investment" - but right next to the skyscrapers are people without decent clothes and health care. Why is the economic system structured in such a way that it&#39;s putting priorities on building skyscrapers and not on providing basic care to its people? It&#39;s the simple fact that the poor don&#39;t have the spending power of wealthy corporations. The spending power of the wealthy results in resources like labor, raw materials, and machinery to be redirected away from producing things for the average person and toward producing things for those who have the concentrations of wealth.


they do tthis far more effiecently woudl be done if all the workes had to decide on everything.

What is your reasoning for this? If I said an unelected government bureaucracy making economic decisions would be far more efficient at making the right economic decisions than if the workers made the decisions, would you agree? What would make an unelected non-government bureaucracy more efficient than an unelected government bureaucracy? The fact is, if economic decisions were in the hands of the workers, you&#39;re much more likely to get decisions that benefit them. If power rests in the hands of the few, there&#39;s little reason for them to make decisions for the general welfare, besides fear of revolution.

[theraven]

The very fact that they spend concentrated wealth results in an economic system that is skewed toward producing things for the wealthy. Skyscrapers, for example, are not used personally by the wealthy. However, they are funded by the wealthy as "investment" - but right next to the skyscrapers are people without decent clothes and health care. Why is the economic system structured in such a way that it&#39;s putting priorities on building skyscrapers and not on providing basic care to its people? It&#39;s the simple fact that the poor don&#39;t have the spending power of wealthy corporations. The spending power of the wealthy results in resources like labor, raw materials, and machinery to be redirected away from producing things for the average person and toward producing things for those who have the concentrations of wealth.

sky skrapers are important because they allow for more effeicnet use of land, most of the homeslss are there because they cant&#39; fit into soceity. also the people who invest in sky skrapers are also generaly the peopel who give millions to charites and pay most of the taxes. skyscrapers are a hgood investment because they produce a profit that can be invested.



What is your reasoning for this? If I said an unelected government bureaucracy making economic decisions would be far more efficient at making the right economic decisions than if the workers made the decisions, would you agree? What would make an unelected non-government bureaucracy more efficient than an elected government bureaucracy? The fact is, if economic decisions were in the hands of the workers, you&#39;re much more likely to get decisions that benefit them. If power rests in the hands of the few, there&#39;s little reason for them to make decisions for the general welfare, besides fear of revolution.&#092;

the wealthies decisniosn are generally the ones that benfit all of us in the logn run. The wealthys interast is to supply the mases with prodcts they want for prices they can afford. this is why today more peoples have more food hen ever before, why education and informatino is more widespread then ever before. curiously the vast incraeses in the avaibaltiy of goods an services concidies with the birth and spread of capitlism and concidnetally (or not) the countries that had capislitms first had the begginign of the inudstral reovlution...

very intereasting.

[Connolly]

All you have said is that the capitalist gives money here, the capitalist gives money there. The capitalist wants this done, the capitalist wants that done.

You havnt actually addressed the necessity of them.

Remove the capitalist, remove the money - and the work still gets done when speaking about your account of "what capitalism is".

[Please note. this is the last response to this thread im going to make.....Why?......the opposing arguments are bollox

Ill be going around in circles if I post anything else]

[KC]

the workers create nothing

No. The workers create everything. Capitalists aren&#39;t the ones working in the factories assembling computers much like the one you&#39;re using to view this. Workers create everything.


they mine or refine or serbve some material that is purchased or traded by the capilsts.

The material that the capitalists purchased was made available to them by the workers. The workers take these materials from nature (mining, refining oil, etc...). The workers do all of these things. The capitalists buy and sell. That is it. They aren&#39;t creating anything.


Capisltis find or create the ideas for what they want to pay the workers to rpoduce, they buy the mateirals then they trade money for the workers labour.

So you admit that the capitalists don&#39;t create anything. You don&#39;t "create" an idea. Anyone can come up with ideas. Capitalists aren&#39;t "naturally better" at coming up with these "ideas".



they don&#39;t create, they alter into a new thing. they take iron and produce a knife, wood into paper and so on.

Yes, they are taking iron and creating a knife; they are taking wood and creating paper and so on.


they do the labor, while the capitilst provides the resources and wages.

So in other words, they create everything.



do you see what the capislt do here? they organzie and allocate the matirals, that is their job, like someone out there in the govenrment who organizes the files, they organzie the way capital and mateiral are split up.

Actually, they hire someone to do that. ;)


just about eveyrthing you own was made in a capistlis factory.

By workers.


capislist invest the vast maortiy of tiher money.

Why is money needed, then? Why are capitalists needed, if the workers create everything? Why can&#39;t the workers allocate everything themselves?


they do tthis far more effiecently woudl be done if all the workes had to decide on everything.

Why is that? Because workers are "dumb"? Because people with managerial skill naturally become managers in the capitalist system? :lol:



the wealthies decisniosn are generally the ones that benfit all of us in the logn run.

Yes, this is obviously true, as witnessed by the conditions of workers during the industrial revolution. :rolleyes:


The wealthys interast is to supply the mases with prodcts they want for prices they can afford.

And how do they make products for cheap? By cutting workers rights: longer work hours, more monotonous work, harder work, lower pay, etc...



The fat cats over at WalMart Headquarters are thinking about how they should give their workers raises so they can afford their products, right? :lol:

[theraven]

No. The workers create everything. Capitalists aren&#39;t the ones working in the factories assembling computers much like the one you&#39;re using to view this. Workers create everything.

no, the workers refine or mine something into something esle. The capilistis point is that they organize and run the system.



The material that the capitalists purchased was made available to them by the workers. The workers take these materials from nature (mining, refining oil, etc...). The workers do all of these things. The capitalists buy and sell. That is it. They aren&#39;t creating anything.

"thats it" lmao.while theres no physical labour involved in the capilsits work it most ceritanly is work. I think if you ever treid their job you&#39;d be unpleasently suprised.



So you admit that the capitalists don&#39;t create anything. You don&#39;t "create" an idea. Anyone can come up with ideas. Capitalists aren&#39;t "naturally better" at coming up with these "ideas".

actually you do creat an idea. and no capilsits aren&#39;t any automatically better then anyone else in creating ideas, however they are good at recognizign good or bad ideas. they do so because its thero job.



Yes, they are taking iron and creating a knife; they are taking wood and creating paper and so on.

no they are taking iron and shaping it into a knew, taking wood and refining it into paper.




So in other words, they create everything.

can they do that without resouces or wagse?



Actually, they hire someone to do that. wink.gif

no thats generally the capilists job.



By workers.

yes workers do the menail work..so what:?



Why is money needed, then? Why are capitalists needed, if the workers create everything? Why can&#39;t the workers allocate everything themselves?

how would you allocate things without money>



And how do they make products for cheap? By cutting workers rights: longer work hours, more monotonous work, harder work, lower pay, etc...

cheap workers are one way, another is more efficent machinary transportion and so on.

[KC]

no, the workers refine or mine something into something esle. The capilistis point is that they organize and run the system.

That&#39;s what creating is. By your argument nobody creates anything as matter is never created nor destroyed. It is obvious here that taking raw materials and turning them into something else is creating that thing using those raw materials. I can&#39;t even believe I&#39;m even debating this.


I think if you ever treid their job you&#39;d be unpleasently suprised.

What, sitting around and hiring people to do shit for me? Yeah; very unpleasant. :rolleyes:



no they are taking iron and shaping it into a knew, taking wood and refining it into paper.


Yes, they are creating the knife and creating the paper. That is what creating is&#33; Are you some kind of fucking moron?



can they do that without resouces or wagse?


They could easily do it without wages. They couldn&#39;t do it without resources, but guess who extracts those resources from nature? Workers.




how would you allocate things without money>


By allocating the products of their labour.




cheap workers are one way, another is more efficent machinary transportion and so on.

More efficient machinery isn&#39;t a way to increase profit as once the knowledge of the more efficient machinery is available to the whole of the people involved in that particular business, it no longer becomes profitable.

[theraven]

That&#39;s what creating is. By your argument nobody creates anything as matter is never created nor destroyed. It is obvious here that taking raw materials and turning them into something else is creating that thing using those raw materials. I can&#39;t even believe I&#39;m even debating this.

perhaps becasue im using the sceintific defintion and your using your own info




What, sitting around and hiring people to do shit for me? Yeah; very unpleasant. rolleyes.gif


yes hiring people, ,making sure they do what their doing, making sure everyth runs right and making sure you get a reward o fyour own not t o menin the fact that you have to make sure you have the money to run things..look after your investors..so on. its not an easy job.



They could easily do it without wages. They couldn&#39;t do it without resources, but guess who extracts those resources from nature? Workers.

yes because we know everyone likes working for free :lol: the fact is how would you disturbte rsoces, detemrint waht rosuerces are needed and so on.



By allocating the products of their labour.

huh?


More efficient machinery isn&#39;t a way to increase profit as once the knowledge of the more efficient machinery is available to the whole of the people involved in that particular business, it no longer becomes profitable.

well first o fall you assume that everyone gets it, second of all it does increase profitbblty

if your price is x and your cost of production ix y, (making te profit formuly x-y)if y is lower profit is incrased

[KC]

perhaps becasue im using the sceintific defintion and your using your own info

Well, according to your definition, nothing is created or destroyed; everything is just matter reorganized in different patterns. Some good your definition does to us&#33; :lol:


making sure they do what their doing

Management Staff


making sure everyth runs right

Maintanence Staff & Management Staff


making sure you get a reward o fyour own

Accounting Staff


not t o menin the fact that you have to make sure you have the money to run things

Accounting Staff


well first o fall you assume that everyone gets it, second of all it does increase profitbblty

if your price is x and your cost of production ix y, (making te profit formuly x-y)if y is lower profit is incrased

This quote should explain it quite well...



As everyone knows, capital production tends to rely ever more on increasingly powerful means of production. Every day, high technology gets higher – more powerful machines enter production, and productivity soars. From simple hand tools – spindles, looms, hammers, anvils – production advances to nuclear power plants, automated factories, advanced computer systems, and much, much more. Historically, the most important reason for the rapid growth of capitalist-owned means of production is competition. When Moneybags decides to buy labour-power and means of production to produce watches, he embarks on a risky venture. There are other firms making watches, and a less-than-infinite market. Who can sell watches? How many can be sold? For what price?

If Moneybags is fortunate, he, rather than his competitors, will get a large share of the market. To do this, though, Moneybags needs to sell his products as cheaply as possible. Unless he is willing to sell products for less than they are worth (which sometimes happens, but as an exception, not the rule), this means that he must cut the average labour-time socially required for the production of workers. If it originally requires 20 hours of average labour-time to make a watch, moneybags must find some way to produce a watch in less than 20 hours.

When he does, he can then charge less for his product with no loss in surplus value, and win a higher percentage of the market. If his competitor, Cashbox, finds a way to cut prices by cutting labour-time, Moneybags must follow suit – or go out of business when Cashbox ‘ corners the market’. To make a long, unlovely story shorter and sweeter, the point is that competition forces capital to use ever less labour-time per commodity. First, Moneybags cuts the time required to produce a watch from 20 hours to 18. Then Cashbox retaliates by cutting it still further. And so it goes, like a tug of war. Cutting prices, as we will see, is a way to cut throats – to eliminate competitors.

The golden rule of competitive profit-making is to produce more for less – to cut costs by cutting the average labour-time required for production. How? By increasing the power of the means of production. It’s a simple rule – but one with earthshaking consequences. Productivity, revolutionized, rises steeply. The world fills with commodities, and the danger of economic crisis approaches. What’s the connection? Jus this: that s derives from v. Variable capital, not constant capital, produces surplus value. If competition forces capital to employ an ever higher ratio of constant to variable capital – as it clearly does – then the rate of profit (s/v + c) tends to fall.

When more is spent on means of production relative to labour-power, the rate of profit tends to decline. Say, for example, that initially c = 16, v = 8, and s = 8 ( so that a 100% rate of surplus value, s/v, obtains). If c rises with no corresponding rise in v and s, the rate of profit grows smaller (even though the rate of surplus value does not). Say c changes to c = 24. Then s/v + c changes from (8/8 + 16 = 1/3) to 8/8 + 24 = ¼). From the standpoint of the capitalist, this is a big and appalling drop.

S= surplus value
V= variable capital
C= constant capital

-Source (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45625)

If you are unsure of terms found in the definition then you can look them up in the marxists.org&#39;s encyclopedia found here (http://marxists.org/glossary/index.htm).

[Dyst]

Well, nothing is ever created or destroyed. Things simply changes form in some way. In their deepest "level" they always remain the same. This is the only thing "theraven" is correct with.

This has nothing to do with the topic.

Obviously workers work, capitalists (bosses) pays the workers to work for them.

I suggest you go read some info if you did not already know this "theraven".

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:49 PM
Well, nothing is ever created or destroyed. Things simply changes form in some way. In their deepest "level" they always remain the same. This is the only thing "theraven" is correct with.

This has nothing to do with the topic.

Obviously workers work, capitalists (bosses) pays the workers to work for them.

I suggest you go read some info if you did not already know this "theraven".
very good, yes the bosses pay the workers among other things..duh..



Well, according to your definition, nothing is created or destroyed; everything is just matter reorganized in different patterns. Some good your definition does to us&#33; laugh.gif

Im&#39; sorry but i not going to stipulate that wrokers create things when they dont, (some) workers mine and alter matierals, some don&#39;t (accoutnatns?)


QUOTE
making sure they do what their doing


Management Staff

QUOTE
making sure everyth runs right


Maintanence Staff & Management Staff

QUOTE
making sure you get a reward o fyour own


Accounting Staff

QUOTE
not t o menin the fact that you have to make sure you have the money to run things


Accounting Staff


all those are the middle branch, the CEO and board of directros are the ones ulitamtely responsble for these things and ulitamtley the ones hwo watch everyone else

no, that post was pure nonsense and had nothing to do with the deabte.

[cyu]

sky skrapers are important because they allow for more effeicnet use of land, most of the homeslss are there because they cant&#39; fit into soceity.

It&#39;s a lot more than the homeless that are poor. There are miners, farmers, and construction workers that are also poor - all of their labor goes into building skyscrapers and mansions. The question is, why is so much effort going into something so expensive, when there are other more important economic issues to tackle? A capitalist point of view would be that those issues are obviously not important enough, because people aren&#39;t willing to pay enough money for them. An anti-capitalist would say it&#39;s because people don&#39;t have enough money to pay for them that they aren&#39;t considered more economically important.


also the people who invest in sky skrapers are also generaly the peopel who give millions to charites and pay most of the taxes.

The system itself is broken, so you have to rely on charities to keep it functioning at a minimum level. If the money weren&#39;t so concentrated in a few hands, people wouldn&#39;t need charities. They would have the money themselves and would be able to spend it as they see fit.


curiously the vast incraeses in the avaibaltiy of goods an services concidies with the birth and spread of capitlism and concidnetally (or not) the countries that had capislitms first had the begginign of the inudstral reovlution...

Which countries had industrial revolutions first and what policies did they have that meant they had capitalism first, while others did not?


the CEO and board of directros are the ones ulitamtely responsble for these things and ulitamtley the ones hwo watch everyone else

Their interest is in getting the employees to work as much as possible for as little as possible, so they can get ever increasing profits. Hardly sounds like a situation in which the interests of the average person are looked after.

[theraven]

It&#39;s a lot more than the homeless that are poor. There are miners, farmers, and construction workers that are also poor - all of their labor goes into building skyscrapers and mansions. The question is, why is so much effort going into something so expensive, when there are other more important economic issues to tackle? A capitalist point of view would be that those issues are obviously not important enough, because people aren&#39;t willing to pay enough money for them. An anti-capitalist would say it&#39;s because people don&#39;t have enough money to pay for them that they aren&#39;t considered more economically important.


huh? so skyskrapers give jobs and therefore wages to those who would otheriwse be poor. that soudsn so evil. sky skrappers would be nesscary in a comunsit society too since it is the most efficent use of land.



The system itself is broken, so you have to rely on charities to keep it functioning at a minimum level. If the money weren&#39;t so concentrated in a few hands, people wouldn&#39;t need charities. They would have the money themselves and would be able to spend it as they see fit.

no charites are just there to hlep peope and rich people giveot charitesi because they will never sepnd al thei r money



Which countries had industrial revolutions first and what policies did they have that meant they had capitalism first, while others did not?

the industrial reovlution started in Great Britian, curiosuly where adams smith the wealth o fnatiosn was pubslihes and had the msot ofllowing.



Their interest is in getting the employees to work as much as possible for as little as possible, so they can get ever increasing profits. Hardly sounds like a situation in which the interests of the average person are looked after.

yes but that doesnt garuente the the employees will wrok for anything. esp. in a constractied labor market.

[cyu]

so skyskrapers give jobs and therefore wages to those who would otheriwse be poor. that soudsn so evil. sky skrappers would be nesscary in a comunsit society too since it is the most efficent use of land.

I&#39;m not saying skyscrapers are not efficient uses of land, but why are people putting the building of skyscrapers and mansions before the distribution of food or providing of health care? The reason is because corporations and wealthy individuals can spend a lot of money. Sure, building things for corporations and the wealthy can earn you some money, but when labor is hired away for these projects, it means less labor is available for distributing food and makings goods and homes for the average person. Thus large disparities in spending power makes the average person suffer.


no charites are just there to hlep peope and rich people giveot charitesi because they will never sepnd al thei r money

Make a lot of money off the labor of your employees by keeping their wages low, then after you lay them off, you can give some of that money back and look like a great guy. Sure, we need you in our society.


the industrial reovlution started in Great Britian, curiosuly where adams smith the wealth o fnatiosn was pubslihes and had the msot ofllowing.

So which of Adam Smith&#39;s policies did they follow that gave them capitalism? Which new pro-capitalist laws did they pass and which old non-capitalist ones did they abolish?


yes but that doesnt garuente the the employees will wrok for anything. esp. in a constractied labor market.

The more wealth is concentrated in a few hands, the more employees will have to work for anything, because they have no access to the means of production otherwise. (Unless they revolt, of course.)

[theraven]

I&#39;m not saying skyscrapers are not efficient uses of land, but why are people putting the building of skyscrapers and mansions before the distribution of food or providing of health care? The reason is because corporations and wealthy individuals can spend a lot of money. Sure, building things for corporations and the wealthy can earn you some money, but when labor is hired away for these projects, it means less labor is available for distributing food and makings goods and homes for the average person. Thus large disparities in spending power makes the average person suffer.

not at all, look at it this way. the corporation decideds it wants to build a sky scrappers. to do this it offers to buy concrete, steal, wood, glass and so on. this spurs hiring of otherwise poor and unemployed people. this (obviusly) makes them less in need of food and such since they can affor dthei own. the company also spurs employment among where it buidls the builidng visa vis builders, janitors and so on. all and all skyscrappers are a plus to workers and making good use of materials and making peoel less poor.


Make a lot of money off the labor of your employees by keeping their wages low, then after you lay them off, you can give some of that money back and look like a great guy. Sure, we need you in our society.

what if your pay your workers good wages? it depends on your buisness but there are plenty fo factorise htat pay workesr quite well, and it used to be affordable. it no longer is however because there are people in chian and india who are used to working even harder on farms with much less oppurntity who work cheaper then most americans will.


So which of Adam Smith&#39;s policies did they follow that gave them capitalism? Which new pro-capitalist laws did they pass and which old non-capitalist ones did they abolish?

that of encouraging buisnesss, encouragign the formaiton of joint stock comapnies and making buisnessmen respectabel memebrs of society. unlike in france where nobles viewed buisness as a disrupetbale means of eanring money it was not uncommon for men to buy a peerage, indeed several of the men who made off very well in India did just that (and thats the example i have off the top of my head).

[cyu]

the corporation decideds it wants to build a sky scrappers. to do this it offers to buy concrete, steal, wood, glass and so on. this spurs hiring of otherwise poor and unemployed people. this (obviusly) makes them less in need of food and such since they can affor dthei own. the company also spurs employment among where it buidls the builidng visa vis builders, janitors and so on. all and all skyscrappers are a plus to workers and making good use of materials and making peoel less poor.

Sure they have jobs, but what are they doing with their jobs? Take this example for instance: there&#39;s 1 rich man and 99 poor men. The rich man hires 50 poor men to build him a giant pyramid. This leaves 49 poor men left to supply everyone with food, clothing, shelter etc. Now let&#39;s say there is no rich man. All 100 people are supplying each other with food, clothing, shelter, etc. What&#39;s the difference? Well, when 100 people are doing something, that means more of it will be available. Goods would be much cheaper and people wouldn&#39;t have to work as hard to get the same standard of living.


that of encouraging buisnesss, encouragign the formaiton of joint stock comapnies and making buisnessmen respectabel memebrs of society. unlike in france where nobles viewed buisness as a disrupetbale means of eanring money

How did they encourage business? How did they encourage the formation of joint stock companies? How did nobles earn their money that makes them different from the businessmen?

[theraven]

Sure they have jobs, but what are they doing with their jobs? Take this example for instance: there&#39;s 1 rich man and 99 poor men. The rich man hires 50 poor men to build him a giant pyramid. This leaves 49 poor men left to supply everyone with food, clothing, shelter etc. Now let&#39;s say there is no rich man. All 100 people are supplying each other with food, clothing, shelter, etc. What&#39;s the difference? Well, when 100 people are doing something, that means more of it will be available. Goods would be much cheaper and people wouldn&#39;t have to work as hard to get the same standard of living.

but thats not how it works the 50 people aren&#39;t being unproductive, they are not building a pyramid but a grainary that makes things mroe effeicetn, so instead of the 100 people barely getting by they can suppotr 150 people.



How did they encourage business? How did they encourage the formation of joint stock companies? How did nobles earn their money that makes them different from the businessmen?

the nobles kept the feudal system living off thier land the businessman formed buisnesses things like the east and wset india company (just an example).if you want a detailed history on engalnds economic history go to barnes and noble.

[cyu]

Sure they have jobs, but what are they doing with their jobs? Take this example for instance: there&#39;s 1 rich man and 99 poor men. The rich man hires 50 poor men to build him a giant pyramid. This leaves 49 poor men left to supply everyone with food, clothing, shelter etc. Now let&#39;s say there is no rich man. All 100 people are supplying each other with food, clothing, shelter, etc. What&#39;s the difference? Well, when 100 people are doing something, that means more of it will be available. Goods would be much cheaper and people wouldn&#39;t have to work as hard to get the same standard of living.
but thats not how it works the 50 people aren&#39;t being unproductive, they are not building a pyramid but a grainary that makes things mroe effeicetn, so instead of the 100 people barely getting by they can suppotr 150 people.

OK, let&#39;s say they&#39;re not buiding a pyramid, but they&#39;re building a mansion and indoor swimming pool for the wealthy person... or a skyscraper for a wealthy corporation. It&#39;s not technically "unproductive" - but it&#39;s not something that&#39;s useful to the general population - it&#39;s only useful to those who have a lot of money to spend. It&#39;s effort that could better be redirected elsewhere.


the nobles kept the feudal system living off thier land the businessman formed buisnesses things like the east and wset india company (just an example).

So the nobles basically had other people use the means of production that they controlled, and at the same time collected money from the people who did the work. How is that different from a shareholder of a company that collected money from the employees that did the work?

[Lord Testicles]

During the second world war the American government moved some of the American-Japanise population into detention camps for "National Security"

Its hardly anything new.

I suspect its the American-Arab populations turn. Dont get me wrong it doesnt excuse what they are doing, but its time some Americans on this board woke up.

[theraven]

OK, let&#39;s say they&#39;re not buiding a pyramid, but they&#39;re building a mansion and indoor swimming pool for the wealthy person... or a skyscraper for a wealthy corporation. It&#39;s not technically "unproductive" - but it&#39;s not something that&#39;s useful to the general population - it&#39;s only useful to those who have a lot of money to spend. It&#39;s effort that could better be redirected elsewhere.


except a sky skrapper IS useful. most sky scrappers are a mix of offices, aparments and storages facilities. some are hotels, and conceiviely they could be facotires or warehouses. there is nothing unprodcutiv by buidling one when it is ineeded, and since because in caplistm resrouces are treated as fineate and vualabe people generally don&#39;t waste them on builidng big sky scrappers no one will use (thats not to say they won&#39;t, buth ey generally dont"


So the nobles basically had other people use the means of production that they controlled, and at the same time collected money from the people who did the work. How is that different from a shareholder of a company that collected money from the employees that did the work?

the nobles were essaitnally the govenremnt and the landowners. they had the serfs work the land while they defended it, conquered new land. the differnece btween them and the modern share holder is in the way they do it and the effect it has. share holders take profits, not a tax and as the nobles did.

[cyu]

I&#39;m not saying skyscrapers aren&#39;t useful. Mansions are useful too, as are private indoor, heated swimming pools. The point is why are labor and resources being devoted to producing these things when there is grinding poverty right next to it? When the poverty is gone, I&#39;ll have nothing against building skyscrapers or mansions for everyone to use. But while the poverty is still there, if these things are being produced, then it means capitalism is unable to set the right economic priorities to take care of the general public.


share holders take profits, not a tax and as the nobles did.

Isn&#39;t it just calling the same thing by two different names? In both cases, somebody else is doing the work, and the shareholder / noble is taking a percentage of the results of that work.

[overlord]

When the poverty is gone, I&#39;ll have nothing against building skyscrapers or mansions for everyone to use. But while the poverty is still there, if these things are being produced, then it means capitalism is unable to set the right economic priorities to take care of the general public.


I think you&#39;ll agree that capitalism=freedom. Therefore if someone is a spenthrift, (as they have every right to do), there will always be poverty so long as there is freedom of action.

Listen, its very simple. If I spend money on anything other than ownership credits in an investment, I lose money. Can&#39;t you understand this freedom? It has nothing to do with capitalism&#39;s &#39;inability to set the right economic priorities to take care of the general public&#39;. If some looser decides to spend all his money, that&#39;s it, no-one else should should be compelled to subsidise this looser&#39;s extravagent lifestyle.

Actually, lets investigate your petty little social plan. If i&#39;m poor because I&#39;m a drug addict, the state should give me lots of money and food because, as you quite rightly suggest, i&#39;m poor. But then what is the point of working? We can all live in mansions and get stuff for free&#33; Why work if we&#39;re all going to be equal?? Is there any point? Let&#39;s all do nothing&#33; The collective will look after everything&#33;&#33; Yay&#33;
Hang on&#33;&#33;&#33; :o How come i&#39;m hungry? Why are there dead bodies lying around me? Oh no, everyone has stopped working since we are not allowed to make money anymore&#33; The factories have all broken with obsolescence and there is no one with any capital left to rebuild them&#33; This place... looks like North Korea&#33;&#33;&#33; What a fool I was&#33; :( How I wish I could have capitalism back&#33;

[theraven]

I&#39;m not saying skyscrapers aren&#39;t useful. Mansions are useful too, as are private indoor, heated swimming pools. The point is why are labor and resources being devoted to producing these things when there is grinding poverty right next to it? When the poverty is gone, I&#39;ll have nothing against building skyscrapers or mansions for everyone to use. But while the poverty is still there, if these things are being produced, then it means capitalism is unable to set the right economic priorities to take care of the general public.

no mansiosn are not useful, they are frivlsou. sky scrapers are usefl becuase it means that it allows more peopel to use less land in an area where land is scare of course it won&#39;t be open to all the people in tersm of anyone an use it fro anthing, but anyone wil be able ot rent and such..



Isn&#39;t it just calling the same thing by two different names? In both cases, somebody else is doing the work, and the shareholder / noble is taking a percentage of the results of that work.

and in both cases without the shareholder/noble they wouldne be able to do the work. the noble and his men were the army they defended the people who worked. contrary to the common view nobles did not (for the most part( live in the lapse of luxury.

[cyu]

If some looser decides to spend all his money, that&#39;s it, no-one else should should be compelled to subsidise this looser&#39;s extravagent lifestyle...
the state should give me lots of money and food because, as you quite rightly suggest, i&#39;m poor. But then what is the point of working?

You obviously haven&#39;t been reading what I&#39;m writing. The kind of freedom I&#39;m advocating is the freedom to assume democratic control over your place of work. It has nothing to do with giving more money to someone who has already spent all of theirs.


no mansiosn are not useful, they are frivlsou.

So are you against the building of mansions then? What about other luxury goods like private boats and jets?


the noble and his men were the army they defended the people who worked.

So you sound like you&#39;re in favor of nobles then? You don&#39;t believe people should have democratic control over the miliary forces that are supposed to protect them?

In any case, you said they didn&#39;t have capitalism before and had capitalism afterwards. What exactly changed?

[theraven]

So are you against the building of mansions then? What about other luxury goods like private boats and jets?


I am not nesscairly against it, i do however view it as frivolous.


So you sound like you&#39;re in favor of nobles then? You don&#39;t believe people should have democratic control over the miliary forces that are supposed to protect them?

they did to a certian extent, if the itlairy failed to proetect them the military lost its base of support and usualy were killed, thus garutheeing the peol wil be protected.


In any case, you said they didn&#39;t have capitalism before and had capitalism afterwards. What exactly changed?

ya know since i dont feel like expalin capistlim to a 15 year old so here ya go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[Invader Zim]

we don&#39;t know, not that it really matters. the gitmo is for people who have information. if they don&#39;t have informan chances are they get releised

Or more accuratly; random people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, who the US government is too embarrised to release.

[Zero]

Shit I didn&#39;t even bother checking this topic. So many new things to check =S.

I have my sources from many documentaries about Kevin Mitnick&#39;s story, mostly from 2600 zine, and various documentaries that Emanuel Goldstein has put out. But Kevin&#39;s wiki article can suffice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

I&#39;m sorry, I got a bit mixed up. He was not charged with Patriot act violations, he was just held for 4 years without bail on no charge. Later his arrest was justified with the Patriot Act, but beforehand... nothing.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:37 AM
Shit I didn&#39;t even bother checking this topic. So many new things to check =S.

I have my sources from many documentaries about Kevin Mitnick&#39;s story, mostly from 2600 zine, and various documentaries that Emanuel Goldstein has put out. But Kevin&#39;s wiki article can suffice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

I&#39;m sorry, I got a bit mixed up. He was not charged with Patriot act violations, he was just held for 4 years without bail on no charge. Later his arrest was justified with the Patriot Act, but beforehand... nothing.
he was held 4 years while his trail was being conductd

from the wiki article


Kevin David Mitnick (born August 6, 1963) is one of the most famous hackers to be jailed. He was arrested by the FBI on February 15, 1995. Mitnick was convicted of wire fraud and of breaking into the computer systems of Fujitsu, Motorola, Nokia, and Sun Microsystems. He served five years in prison (four years of it pre-trial), 8 months of that in solitary confinement, and was released on January 21, 2000. During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was restricted from using any communications technology other than a landline telephone, although occasional exceptions were granted.