Neo-Confederates winning the party of Lincoln...

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.federationofstates.org/

Libertarianism died with the Confederacy. Since then though, opponents of Federalism have been trying to infiltrate the Party of Lincoln and reverse the mantle with thier southern revisionism, states rights, libertarianism and neo-confederate propaganda.

Lincoln and the original Republican ideals were formed from a Hamiltonian vision in opposition to free trade, a national bank and protective tariffs. This was called the American System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economics%29

A leading propenent was Henry Carey author of Harmony of Interests, in which he goes against Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations conclusion. He also went against the slave system in The slave trade, domestic and foreign
Why It Exists, and How It May Be Extinguished.
Both men, propelled Lincoln to act. Even Karl Marx and many Communists supported Lincolns fight against the Confederacy and congratulated him on his election in 1860. The first Republican ideal was in similar view as Victor Hugo's stance on Republicanism, the Weimar Republic and the Spanish Republic before the Franco Coup.

But today, a near reversal has happened with Federalism under attack by people infiltrating the party of Lincoln and restructuring it into a neo-confederate libertarian outlet. Now Republicans chide Lincoln, advocate states rights and promote unregulated capitalism. Something Lincoln and the original Republicans were against.


Thomas DiLorenzo - neo confederate proponent and southern revisionist, senior faculty member of the Mises Institute and a scholar for League of the South.

Tom Parker - Republican canidate, christian fundie, attended an honorary birthday ceremony for the late Nathan Bedford Forrest (first grand wizard of the KKK), .

Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, Jesse Helms, and John Aschroft all have neo-confederate ties and were interviewed by Southern Partisan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Co...vative_Citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Conservative_Citizens)
The Council of Conservative Citizens wants to purge the Republican Party of Lincoln history, liberals, and neo-conservatives. It considers Bush too liberal. :blink:

[theraven]

i dislike these nutsos intensely. sadly they have some positive points, and one major facotr is they are an intensely strong culturela movement

[Cult of Reason]

Please consider the proper meaning and origin of the word "libertarian" before using it.

[overlord]

But today, a near reversal has happened with Federalism under attack by people infiltrating the party of Lincoln and restructuring it into a neo-confederate libertarian outlet

And you're a restricted member? What the hell is going on here?!?! Federalism is a socialist hell which is responsible for the current spate of concentration camp contruction discussed in another thread.

[JudeObscure84]

And you're a restricted member? What the hell is going on here?!?! Federalism is a socialist hell which is responsible for the current spate of concentration camp contruction discussed in another thread.

What are you jabbering on about? I hope that you do not believe the hype that we are actually a Jeffersonian style Democracy. We live in Hamilton's America. Unless you think this is a concentration camp then there is nothing I can do for you.
The opposing system died out in the Civil War. That was a concentration camp and an autocratic system. Yet, it wants to make a comeback with all of the neo-confederate, libertarianism infecting the party that expelled them.


Please consider the proper meaning and origin of the word "libertarian" before using it.

I am just taking into consideration that the biggest revisionists in Civil War histroy besides neo-confederates are libertarians in the CATO and Mises institute.

[JudeObscure84]

i dislike these nutsos intensely. sadly they have some positive points, and one major facotr is they are an intensely strong culturela movement

They are an intensely negative movement. the revisionism they spew is amazing.

[CCCPneubauten]

INVASION OF THE U.S.A. AND CONQUEST OF OUR CITIES AND JOBS BY MEXICO MUST BE STOPPED!

THEN.....

Mexican Troops crossing into the U.S.

THEN....

(Picute)Mexican troops crossing the Rio Grande river into the United States including Humvees with 50 caliber machine guns mounted on top.

AND

ROMAN CATHOLIC HISPANIC INVASION

Who is this Church whose radical Priests are inspiring the Mass Illegal Alien Invasion and marches of Disruption and Chaos?

Is this the same Church that has been loaded with Pedophile Priests sexually assaulting American children?Is this the same Church that is encouraging terrorist type activities in the U. S. similar to Radical factions of Islamic Mosques?


I assume this site is a total joke.

theraven also said they have 'good points' I am amazed that you'd say this.

I was looking for a 'humor' tab on this page, but I guess the front page IS the humor page.

This is quite the Hee Haw Hell.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:48 AM
Please consider the proper meaning and origin of the word "libertarian" before using it.
Actually, as I recall, both the leftist and rightist usages have about the same period of origin, so either way is technically correct. And libertarian does refer to a specific trend in modern US politics, whatever the origins.

[JudeObscure84]

Actually, as I recall, both the leftist and rightist usages have about the same period of origin, so either way is technically correct. And libertarian does refer to a specific trend in modern US politics, whatever the origins.

Libertarianism was advocted by the CSA against Federalism during the Civil War. So unless the left version of libertarianism includes bondage, then they are the same.

[JudeObscure84]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library...ocumentprint=76 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76)

-Vice President of the Confederacy, 1861

I guess Nazi Germany was not the first racially ideological nation.

[Cheung Mo]

Here's what's really odd:

1. Lincoln was a secularist.
2. Lincoln valued labour over capital.
3. Lincoln corresponded amicably with Marx.
4. Lincoln may have been bisexual.
5. Lincoln's government freed African-American slaves.
6. Lincoln was socially liberal.

These are all direct contradictions to what the Greedy Oil Pricks stand for today.

[overlord]

QUOTE
And you're a restricted member? What the hell is going on here?!?! Federalism is a socialist hell which is responsible for the current spate of concentration camp contruction discussed in another thread.



What are you jabbering on about? I hope that you do not believe the hype that we are actually a Jeffersonian style Democracy. We live in Hamilton's America. Unless you think this is a concentration camp then there is nothing I can do for you.
The opposing system died out in the Civil War. That was a concentration camp and an autocratic system. Yet, it wants to make a comeback with all of the neo-confederate, libertarianism infecting the party that expelled them.


QUOTE
Please consider the proper meaning and origin of the word "libertarian" before using it.



I am just taking into consideration that the biggest revisionists in Civil War histroy besides neo-confederates are libertarians in the CATO and Mises institute.


Peace bro :) , i don't want to argue with a fellow restricted member after all.

I suppose you know I was refering to the internment camps currently being contructed by Halliburton in the USA, (united Soviets of America) under the auspices of the current glorious socialist 'Hamilton republic', which acts in the interests of every American citizen, of course.

I say the Bush regime is Socialist. 33% tax is enough to prove that. Fact is he hasn't said or don't anything to even suggest he is 'libertarian' or 'social-darwinist'. At least the CSA had the sense to just use printed money to finance the war so landowners would just get richer as an inflation hedge.

[JudeObscure84]

Here's what's really odd:

1. Lincoln was a secularist.
2. Lincoln valued labour over capital.
3. Lincoln corresponded amicably with Marx.
4. Lincoln may have been bisexual.
5. Lincoln's government freed African-American slaves.
6. Lincoln was socially liberal.

These are all direct contradictions to what the Greedy Oil Pricks stand for today.

The original ideas of Republicanism are in direct polar opposition to the current GOP. Since the Nixon era, the GOP has been pandering to the States Rights crowd, the Lincoln haters, and Southern nationalist pride. They are the new Southern Democrats. Atleast thats what it is at the local level.
Lincoln, the Whig Party and the Early Republicans were the best thing that happened to the US considering their fight with the most racist elements in the US.

Henry Clay fought on behalf of Native American rights against Andrew Jackson (Another Southern hero). The Republicans interpreted the Constitution to mean all men are created equal, while the South fought for an unjust interpretation that said negroes were unequal. The Republicans fought for a centralized United States where the government would take a role in building society.

Personally, I would love to kick all of these states rights, neo-confederate, christian right, libertarian racists out of the GOP and bring back the Party of Lincoln, under the real meaning of Republicanism. Similar to that of the Weimer Republic and the Spanish Republic before it was demolished by the right wing Franco coup in '36.

[JudeObscure84]

Peace bro , i don't want to argue with a fellow restricted member after all.

I suppose you know I was refering to the internment camps currently being contructed by Halliburton in the USA, (united Soviets of America) under the auspices of the current glorious socialist 'Hamilton republic', which acts in the interests of every American citizen, of course.

I say the Bush regime is Socialist. 33% tax is enough to prove that. Fact is he hasn't said or don't anything to even suggest he is 'libertarian' or 'social-darwinist'. At least the CSA had the sense to just use printed money to finance the war so landowners would just get richer as an inflation hedge.

The internment camps by Halliburton are more of a product of the right wing ideology of the Republicans in Congress. You know in the US we dont have any socialist system. The closest we ever had to Socialism was FDR's New Deal. The USA practices the notion of subsidization, which is governement funds going to private companies to build public infrastructure. The principles of Federalism.

What I am surprised by the current ramblings about Halliburton and the Iraq War is, why werent those same criticisms going to Clinton when he was using Halliburton during the Bosnian and Kosovo intervention?
It seems like all critics of the Iraq War are just exposing whats been going on since the Marshall Plan, that the US government funds government projects through private companies and through lobbyists convincing them on which company to use.

But what Libertarians complain about is that that isnt the free market? Well who cares! There is no way that someone could ever start thier own business in recontructing cities without government assistence, just like oil companies could not begin without it either. We wouldnt have the internet, phone companies and dozens of other things without government subsidies. We would be like the dirt ridden south back in 1860, without it.
The Socialists complain that its corporate welfare and that corporations would take over the world inflicting thier rules on third world countries. Well they only go to those countries because those governments offer them cheap labor and relaxed regulations. The corporations exploit the lawmakers. Regulate the laws to fit social standards and stop corporate corruption. Thats the only option, not to monopolize all corporations into the state and nationalize them so that the state can corrupt it all. The economy has to be mixed.

[overlord]

You know in the US we dont have any socialist system. The closest we ever had to Socialism was FDR's New Deal. The USA practices the notion of subsidization, which is governement funds going to private companies to build public infrastructure. The principles of Federalism.


But surely you err sir? I presume most libertarians definitely consider subsidisation to be a ridiculous socialist scheme that sacrifices long term efficiency for short term convenience. Personally I don't mind FDR's New Deal as saved America from Socialism, (sorry comrades ;) ) and by injecting some cash into the pockets of millions of workers, American industry survived as a viable force just in time to crush Hitler.


But what Libertarians complain about is that that isnt the free market? Well who cares! There is no way that someone could ever start thier own business in recontructing cities without government assistence, just like oil companies could not begin without it either. We wouldnt have the internet, phone companies and dozens of other things without government subsidies. We would be like the dirt ridden south back in 1860, without it.

You neglect the glory of nineteenth century England and America sir! People can always scrape up some cash. There must be some degree of natural selection. If someone can't come up with cash in a crisis how are they supposed to come up wish cash in the day to day running of a business when it suffers crisis situations?

Libertarianism tends to oligarchy and the poverty of the populace. Is this what you are saying? I welcome this. Personally I don't give a damn about the poor. Anyone ever receive charity from a poor person? Who are the real parasites?

[cyu]

Personally I don't give a damn about the poor. Anyone ever receive charity from a poor person? Who are the real parasites?

I suppose once you get rid of all those parasite employees, the shareholders will be living in the lap of luxury, without any pesky employees to pay out of the profits.

[JudeObscure84]

But surely you err sir? I presume most libertarians definitely consider subsidisation to be a ridiculous socialist scheme that sacrifices long term efficiency for short term convenience. Personally I don't mind FDR's New Deal as saved America from Socialism, (sorry comrades ) and by injecting some cash into the pockets of millions of workers, American industry survived as a viable force just in time to crush Hitler.

The short term convienence is what created dozens of cities at break neck speed, the internet, mass produced telephone lines, oil companies. the list goes on. The point is that certain Federalist American System elements are not against the Free markey entirely, but offer subsidization to build infrastructure for cities. It can create education facilities for the lower class and build a whole new workforce. Subsidization is simply how nations get anything done these days. Otherwise they would all be third world.


You neglect the glory of nineteenth century England and America sir! People can always scrape up some cash. There must be some degree of natural selection. If someone can't come up with cash in a crisis how are they supposed to come up wish cash in the day to day running of a business when it suffers crisis situations?

what glories? And anyways the British system was held mostly in the Southern United States while the American System was established in the North. There was a night and day difference in the rapid expanstion of industry while the South remained a backwards land.


Libertarianism tends to oligarchy and the poverty of the populace. Is this what you are saying? I welcome this. Personally I don't give a damn about the poor. Anyone ever receive charity from a poor person? Who are the real parasites?

I am glad one of you admits that. Simply put, Libertarians are fools to think that economic theories can solve political and social problems. If it wasnt for public schooling and federal assistence we would have an autocratic society.

Its funny how I was having lunch with my girlfriends southern conservative dad and he was upset that the lady serving the food couldnt speak english. well how upsetting was it to find out that in between lunch he admitted he thought federal aid for school is rubbish. So apparently, he is against the waitress learning any english at all through federal assistence (which is the only realisitc opition) but complains that she doesnt speak a word of Amerikkkan.

His opinion is for to get a second job. Well fabulous! Then she can piss off some other redneck honkey who'll also vote for conservative measures reducing financial assistence. The logic of conservative/liberatarians astounds me.

[overlord]

I suppose once you get rid of all those parasite employees, the shareholders will be living in the lap of luxury, without any pesky employees to pay out of the profits.

Ironically enough one of the companies, (auto-parts maker), in which I have stock is on a "hiring freeze" in certain factories to lift profits!



The short term convienence is what created dozens of cities at break neck speed, the internet, mass produced telephone lines, oil companies. the list goes on. The point is that certain Federalist American System elements are not against the Free markey entirely, but offer subsidization to build infrastructure for cities. It can create education facilities for the lower class and build a whole new workforce. Subsidization is simply how nations get anything done these days. Otherwise they would all be third world.

I don't see any governents gonig around inventing the telephone, helping Rockefeller get oil out of the ground, or starting the internet. These were all done by private individuals. As for cities, private developers start new cities which are usually founded around the industry or minerals strike of a private/listed company.


the list goes on

Go on, give me this list. I can't wait to refute every point. US was a decent country before it got taken over by Marx-loving Lincoln and his commie stoogeboys.


I am glad one of you admits that. Simply put, Libertarians are fools to think that economic theories can solve political and social problems. If it wasnt for public schooling and federal assistence we would have an autocratic society.

I admire autocracy. But aristocracy is far preferable, and an aristocracy of enterprising capitalists the best of all. As for education, who needs it? Why teach an entire high school class calculus if only 1% will use it for engineering/physics? This is a gross and disgraceful waste of the states' resources which could be employed in the tendering of bounties for new inventions/discoveries.



Its funny how I was having lunch with my girlfriends southern conservative dad and he was upset that the lady serving the food couldnt speak english. well how upsetting was it to find out that in between lunch he admitted he thought federal aid for school is rubbish. So apparently, he is against the waitress learning any english at all through federal assistence (which is the only realisitc opition) but complains that she doesnt speak a word of Amerikkkan.

His opinion is for to get a second job. Well fabulous! Then she can piss off some other redneck honkey who'll also vote for conservative measures reducing financial assistence. The logic of conservative/liberatarians astounds me.

Must have been funny talking to that redneck! I'll just bet you were scowling through the entire conversation :P

[cyu]

I suppose once you get rid of all those parasite employees, the shareholders will be living in the lap of luxury, without any pesky employees to pay out of the profits.
Ironically enough one of the companies, (auto-parts maker), in which I have stock is on a "hiring freeze" in certain factories to lift profits!

Why not get rid of all the employees? Will profits then soar to record highs according to your logic? The employees have less money than the big shareholders - that makes them parasites, right?

[JudeObscure84]

I don't see any governents gonig around inventing the telephone, helping Rockefeller get oil out of the ground, or starting the internet. These were all done by private individuals. As for cities, private developers start new cities which are usually founded around the industry or minerals strike of a private/listed company.

The government was responsible for the expanision of these inventions. AT&T was nationalized, then subsidized in order for it to be expanded across the country. Before it was just in a measly little area.
The internet was a military experiment called DARPA.
The transcontinental railroad is another example of government funded projects going to private companies to help build infrastructure and create more commerce.
The Eerie Canal was sponsored by the Governor of NY, without it the city of NY wouldnt be as great considering the expanision of business coming in from the midwest. This is how government helped build cities in to towering commercial boomtowns.
Most oil companies today need government subsidies to compete in the market. Try to start your own oil business and see where you end up. The government broke up most of the old oil monopolies and regulated them to break up into several subsidaries. This was to expand the scope of business and limit the concentration of wealth into one hand.
I hope you know that the Rockafeller Republican is the one the most liberal political affiliates out there.



Go on, give me this list. I can't wait to refute every point. US was a decent country before it got taken over by Marx-loving Lincoln and his commie stoogeboys.


The NAVY sponsored Radio Corporation of America.
The Interstate Highway.
Denver's International Airport.
Public Transportation ( Thatchers government tried to privitize thiers and ended up losing in the end). NYC is private but publicy run.
Ever heard of urban planning?

the "free" market itself only exists through its creation and maintenance by a political state.



I admire autocracy. But aristocracy is far preferable, and an aristocracy of enterprising capitalists the best of all. As for education, who needs it? Why teach an entire high school class calculus if only 1% will use it for engineering/physics? This is a gross and disgraceful waste of the states' resources which could be employed in the tendering of bounties for new inventions/discoveries

Do you go to private school or public? If you go to Public school, then drop out of our inane system. And you believe in the government funds going for research? Isnt that subsidization? I mean it has to go to private research firms.

[overlord]

I suppose once you get rid of all those parasite employees, the shareholders will be living in the lap of luxury, without any pesky employees to pay out of the profits.


Ironically enough one of the companies, (auto-parts maker), in which I have stock is on a "hiring freeze" in certain factories to lift profits!



Why not get rid of all the employees? Will profits then soar to record highs according to your logic? The employees have less money than the big shareholders - that makes them parasites, right?

:o That's an EXCELLENT idea!! I'm going to fire off an email to management right now to discuss the merits of your proposal :lol: More seriously however the auto-parts industry is heavily overcompetitive. This company only makes 8% per year but I bought the stock because it was selling for half book value due to lack of popularity, making the dividend ~9.5%. Also the management managed to compound book value per share 2.5x in ten years. If I was running that company I would definitely sell that factory and redeploy the capital into other areas which would build value per share. I mean you don't know how ridiculous it is running a factory in an advanced country under circumstances of economic de-industrialisation.


QUOTE
I don't see any governents gonig around inventing the telephone, helping Rockefeller get oil out of the ground, or starting the internet. These were all done by private individuals. As for cities, private developers start new cities which are usually founded around the industry or minerals strike of a private/listed company.



The government was responsible for the expanision of these inventions. AT&T was nationalized, then subsidized in order for it to be expanded across the country. Before it was just in a measly little area.
The internet was a military experiment called DARPA.
The transcontinental railroad is another example of government funded projects going to private companies to help build infrastructure and create more commerce.
The Eerie Canal was sponsored by the Governor of NY, without it the city of NY wouldnt be as great considering the expanision of business coming in from the midwest. This is how government helped build cities in to towering commercial boomtowns.
Most oil companies today need government subsidies to compete in the market.

Are you kidding me? AT&T and indeed all phone companies generally lose money when run under governments and 'magically' turn into cash machines once they fall into private hands. Telephone companies are all worthless in 10 years anyway once all calls/broadband goes through powerlines like in Germany. As for DARPA, there is a big difference between that and the internet you see in front of you. The difference is equal to the work injected by private enterprise. As for the Tanscontinental railroad, that was a magnificent exercise in private tendering. Capitalists in the governement recognised their own limiatations in running the project and tendered it out to those that new how. The fact that railroad was built in record time vs. overbudget/overtime which is generally the case with government projects speaks for itself.

As for the EErie canal, i'll bet that was tendered too. I have no problem with governements tendering things out as it ususally means that government will have less money to cause misery with.



Try to start your own oil business and see where you end up. The government broke up most of the old oil monopolies and regulated them to break up into several subsidaries. This was to expand the scope of business and limit the concentration of wealth into one hand.

Governement subsidies for oil companies? :o Must be a US thing. I assume this is for exploration costs. Sounds like a recipe for environmental degradation! Anyway you're preaching to the choir. Let the big companies handle it with their own budgets and limited disciplined drilling. The big guys make up to 30% per year. Invest your money there, you don't want to start your own oil company when you can just sink that money in the big oil stocks in a market crash.



I hope you know that the Rockafeller Republican is the one the most liberal political affiliates out there.

But he didn't make his fortune the same way as grandad?



The NAVY sponsored Radio Corporation of America.
The Interstate Highway.
Denver's International Airport.
Public Transportation ( Thatchers government tried to privitize thiers and ended up losing in the end). NYC is private but publicy run.
Ever heard of urban planning?

the "free" market itself only exists through its creation and maintenance by a political state.

Public transport is a disgusting an inefficiant blight on the scenery -a grafitists paradise, (not that I don't like some grafiti art). Not worth the trouble really when one realises the extraordinary developments which could have been made in private transportation had that money been deployed elsewhere, plus - necessity is the mother of invention.

Free markets can be run easily by an aristocracy of capitalists. All they have to do is prove law and order.


Do you go to private school or public? If you go to Public school, then drop out of our inane system. And you believe in the government funds going for research? Isnt that subsidization? I mean it has to go to private research firms.

I've already been to school. And yes the system is inane. I'm glad we finally agree on something.

[JudeObscure84]

Are you kidding me? AT&T and indeed all phone companies generally lose money when run under governments and 'magically' turn into cash machines once they fall into private hands. Telephone companies are all worthless in 10 years anyway once all calls/broadband goes through powerlines like in Germany. As for DARPA, there is a big difference between that and the internet you see in front of you. The difference is equal to the work injected by private enterprise. As for the Tanscontinental railroad, that was a magnificent exercise in private tendering. Capitalists in the governement recognised their own limiatations in running the project and tendered it out to those that new how. The fact that railroad was built in record time vs. overbudget/overtime which is generally the case with government projects speaks for itself.

As for the EErie canal, i'll bet that was tendered too. I have no problem with governements tendering things out as it ususally means that government will have less money to cause misery with.


I am not against private investment and companies. What my point is is that I am in favor of government subsidies to push investment to the forefront. If it wasnt for the government being involved in several of those projects, they would'nt have gotten off the ground. I am not for nationalization. I am in favor of government sudsidization until it is ready to fall into private hands or in favor of the government spending money on companies that need an investment.


Public transport is a disgusting an inefficiant blight on the scenery -a grafitists paradise, (not that I don't like some grafiti art). Not worth the trouble really when one realises the extraordinary developments which could have been made in private transportation had that money been deployed elsewhere, plus - necessity is the mother of invention.

The first attempt at private subway system was in London during the 80's and it went downhill in short of a year.

[cyu]

If I was running that company I would definitely sell that factory and redeploy the capital into other areas which would build value per share. I mean you don't know how ridiculous it is running a factory in an advanced country under circumstances of economic de-industrialisation.

You mean like shipping jobs to places that make it easier to exploit employees and the environment, so profits would be higher? There's a term for that: "race to the bottom" - when the bottom is reached, there is only revolution.

So do you make most of your money from stocks or do you have a real job that gives you most of your income?


Free markets can be run easily by an aristocracy of capitalists. All they have to do is prove law and order.

If the economy you're after is one in which only the few benefit, with little care about the general population, you're going to have a hard time getting them all to obediently follow along... unless you have a police state.

[overlord]

Hi guys! Let's get down to business.


I am not against private investment and companies. What my point is is that I am in favor of government subsidies to push investment to the forefront. If it wasnt for the government being involved in several of those projects, they would'nt have gotten off the ground. I am not for nationalization. I am in favor of government sudsidization until it is ready to fall into private hands or in favor of the government spending money on companies that need an investment.

Glad to hear it! The more money fleeing government into private hands the better it will be for everyone! :) But how to stop them from taxing? :(

I suppose you've been saying that government should be like a cash channel from the people to business. Nothing wrong with that I suppose - except the taxpayer will have to pay a premium for any incompetance rather than the risk being carried by specialised private/listed enterprise.


The first attempt at private subway system was in London during the 80's and it went downhill in short of a year.

They say the only inner city public transit to make money in private hands is Hong Kong. To me this smacks of inefficient government design - (or changing demographics over time of course). I would actually rather private companies going broke trying to run public transport than the taxpayer paying though. Less people suffer and the service may be run in a more specialised manner.





QUOTE
If I was running that company I would definitely sell that factory and redeploy the capital into other areas which would build value per share. I mean you don't know how ridiculous it is running a factory in an advanced country under circumstances of economic de-industrialisation.



You mean like shipping jobs to places that make it easier to exploit employees and the environment, so profits would be higher? There's a term for that: "race to the bottom" - when the bottom is reached, there is only revolution.

So do you make most of your money from stocks or do you have a real job that gives you most of your income?


QUOTE
Free markets can be run easily by an aristocracy of capitalists. All they have to do is prove law and order.



If the economy you're after is one in which only the few benefit, with little care about the general population, you're going to have a hard time getting them all to obediently follow along... unless you have a police state.


I don't want to exploit anyone. In capitalism people are hopefully free to choose how much they want to be exploited. They go the employer, the employer doen't go to them.

I suppose the reason I like Aristocracy is they would have a vested intrest in running a low taxing libertarian state, (hopefully), - as they have in the past. (Plus they don't get voted out - only bought out!!). Anyone rich enough can join their ranks. Anyone not rich enough has to work a little harder. The harder a society works the richer a society becomes. We have the industrial revolution to thank for that. I know you don't agree with some people being richer than others, but it defies entropy to contruct a state in any other way.

And you can't get decent income from jobs anymore. CEO/Director salaries have gone up to kingly levels, (that's why I'm going to start my own fund and rake in the fees!) and workers still get what they got 20 years ago. So you just have to invest! Under Bush we are entering a new aristocracy!

Actually, sorry to prattle on so much, but history tells us that the post 1918/1920 world in which people were exterminated by war and flu and which allowed servant/factory wages to skyrocket, bankrupting the bourgeoise/nobility was something of a freak of nature only comperable to the revolutionary situation in Europe in the fourteenth century after the Plague. So 20th century socialism in which bosses earned comparable wages to their workers is over for perhaps several hundred years more.

Invest or perish! It's aristocracy of the rich from here on in!

[cyu]

In capitalism people are hopefully free to choose how much they want to be exploited. They go the employer, the employer doen't go to them.

Ah, but why have exploitation at all? Without capitalism, people are free to choose not to be exploited by assuming democratic control over the means of production. They don't have to worry about pleasing the employer, because they'll be employing themselves.


I suppose the reason I like Aristocracy is they would have a vested intrest in running a low taxing libertarian state, (hopefully), - as they have in the past.

Uh, if the wealthy controlled the government, why wouldn't they simply pass higher taxes on the poor and funnel the money to themselves, so they can be even more wealthy? Is it because they're afraid of revolution? Monarchies in the past taxed the poor when they needed money. You don't consider that a type of aristocracy?


The harder a society works the richer a society becomes.

How hard do company owners work compared to their employees? Shareholders do no real work at all and get much more of the rewards. It sounds like your system defeats the incentive to work hard.

In any case, if a rich man's butlers work extra hard, it doesn't make the society any richer, except for the rich man. You have to look at what jobs people are doing and who they're servicing. The larger the gap between rich and poor, the more jobs are concentrated doing useless things for the rich, making the rest of society poorer.


And you can't get decent income from jobs anymore. CEO/Director salaries have gone up to kingly levels, (that's why I'm going to start my own fund and rake in the fees!) and workers still get what they got 20 years ago. So you just have to invest!

I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that this situation will encourage hard work. If everyone becomes a shareholder and not an employee, everyone will starve. If you want to encourage hard work, you'll have to toss out the system of shareholders, and have employees get all of the revenues their companies earn.

[overlord]

Ah, but why have exploitation at all? Without capitalism, people are free to choose not to be exploited by assuming democratic control over the means of production. They don't have to worry about pleasing the employer, because they'll be employing themselves.

I admit that employers exploit. But without it, how poor would we be? All work is exploitation of some sort anyway. We can't just all sit around and wait for the state to feed us, becuase we are the state. And I suppose people are already free to self-employ themselves anyway - can't do this under communism!


Uh, if the wealthy controlled the government, why wouldn't they simply pass higher taxes on the poor and funnel the money to themselves, so they can be even more wealthy? Is it because they're afraid of revolution? Monarchies in the past taxed the poor when they needed money. You don't consider that a type of aristocracy?


Aristocracy, (rule by 'aristos'=princes), is just a type of republic, in which free trade and low taxes are usually encouraged. Since most Senators are millionaires America is already an aristocracy. I suppose if a massive aristocracy taxed the poor and not the rich like 1789 France and let their people starve rather than spending a little to buy grain from elsewhere - they certainly deserve to go.

Whenever I think 'monarchy', I think communism because the rulership is authoritarian, exists above the rule all others, above the laws of fair play, and can therefore interfere in capitalism to an unlimited extent by introducing measures of arbitrary taxation. I think the problem with democracy is people can be swayed by unrealistic promises, thus potentially allowing socialists/communists into power and those who don't have a vested interest in the economic success of their country - resulting in the poverty we have seen in socialist countries.


How hard do company owners work compared to their employees? Shareholders do no real work at all and get much more of the rewards. It sounds like your system defeats the incentive to work hard.

In any case, if a rich man's butlers work extra hard, it doesn't make the society any richer, except for the rich man. You have to look at what jobs people are doing and who they're servicing. The larger the gap between rich and poor, the more jobs are concentrated doing useless things for the rich, making the rest of society poorer.


Do you know about the risk/reward ratio? Risk is proportional to +-Reward. It is far riskier starting up an industry and employing workers than being employed by that industry. The reason is an industry might not make a profit in certain years. The workers will. In other years that industry will make a huge profit but the workers will continued to be paid at the same rate because they voluntarily accepted lower risk for greater certainty. This is why some people don't like investing - because it's 'risky'. These same people complain about the profits clever investors can rake in.

And how to business owners not work hard? Entrepreneurs work 15 hours per day. If you think investors and business owners don't work as hard as workers, don't believe me, feel free to open up your own business and see for yourself how hard it is. And if capitalism defeats the incentive to work hard, why is it that workers are exploited so terribly? Why don't they just quit? And most rich people don't have butlers anymore anyway. I wouln't want some crusty butler serving me marmalade on toast. And I'll drive my own Ferrari!


I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that this situation will encourage hard work. If everyone becomes a shareholder and not an employee, everyone will starve. If you want to encourage hard work, you'll have to toss out the system of shareholders, and have employees get all of the revenues their companies earn.

You can be a shareholder and an employee. Just save some money and start buying stock. And how is there no incentive? You work, you get money. It's those socialists who want to get rid of money who are removing incentive.

And Workers can easily set up their own factory collective in capaitalism anyway to reap those windfall profits. What's stopping them? I'm not. You're not. Why do we need a revolution anyway?

[cyu]

I admit that employers exploit. But without it, how poor would we be? All work is exploitation of some sort anyway. We can't just all sit around and wait for the state to feed us, becuase we are the state. And I suppose people are already free to self-employ themselves anyway - can't do this under communism!

It depends on what type of communism you're talking about. People are only able to self-employ if they have control over the resources they're using. Anarcho-syndicalists believe people should have the right to simply assume democratic control over the means of production they're already using. Thus they will be working to feed themselves.


I think the problem with democracy is people can be swayed by unrealistic promises, thus potentially allowing socialists/communists into power and those who don't have a vested interest in the economic success of their country - resulting in the poverty we have seen in socialist countries.

Which socialist countries are you talking about? If you're referring to the authoritarian "communist" countries, they're poor for the very reason they're not democratic. Any government that is not ruled by their people is less likely to make decisions beneficial to their people, and more likely to make decisions beneficial to those in power.


And if capitalism defeats the incentive to work hard, why is it that workers are exploited so terribly? Why don't they just quit?

Because they have no access to capital themselves. Without the legal right to use the means of production under their own terms, they have no choice but to accept the terms of work from those who do own the means of production.


You can be a shareholder and an employee. Just save some money and start buying stock. And how is there no incentive? You work, you get money. It's those socialists who want to get rid of money who are removing incentive.

And Workers can easily set up their own factory collective in capaitalism anyway to reap those windfall profits. What's stopping them? I'm not. You're not. Why do we need a revolution anyway?

Employees don't have as much access to capital as the wealthy do, so no, they can't just start up any company, because they can't afford the equipment and the raw materials. Even if they do have a few shares of stock in the company, it's still much less than the wealthy shareholders who do control the company. If you want to give employees full control over their own lives, then they'll need the right to assume control over the means of production. Capitalists who claim control over equipment and resources they don't personally use themselves will have to be ignored.


And most rich people don't have butlers anymore anyway. I wouln't want some crusty butler serving me marmalade on toast. And I'll drive my own Ferrari!

Whether the wealthy are hiring butlers or driving Ferraris points to the same issue. It takes a lot of engineering, raw materials, and labor to create Ferraris for the wealthy. At the same time, in this capitalist economy, there isn't enough food or health care being delivered to the poor. This is because the market economy, under conditions of large disparities of spending power, fails to set economic priorities in such a way to produce for the benefit of the general population.

[overlord]

It depends on what type of communism you're talking about. People are only able to self-employ if they have control over the resources they're using. Anarcho-syndicalists believe people should have the right to simply assume democratic control over the means of production they're already using. Thus they will be working to feed themselves.

Anarcho-syndicalism eh? :huh: Sounds interesting, but isn't it a contradiction in terms? How can anarchists form a syndicate? I'm an anarcho-capitalist myself and I know the individual entrepreneur or partnership is superior in any anarchy.


Which socialist countries are you talking about? If you're referring to the authoritarian "communist" countries, they're poor for the very reason they're not democratic. Any government that is not ruled by their people is less likely to make decisions beneficial to their people, and more likely to make decisions beneficial to those in power.


I know modern socialists reject the 20th century prototypes in favour of some social democracy. The forefathers of the U.S.A desperately tried to avoid democracy by separating the president from the people, (didn't work), as they thought it would bring anarchy. Listen man, there never was any real democracy. People are just too greedy for power. I don't think your system can work as good as capitalism currently does, but it's a nice idea.


Employees don't have as much access to capital as the wealthy do, so no, they can't just start up any company, because they can't afford the equipment and the raw materials. Even if they do have a few shares of stock in the company, it's still much less than the wealthy shareholders who do control the company. If you want to give employees full control over their own lives, then they'll need the right to assume control over the means of production.

They can rob their kid's piggy accounts and pool their petty peasant cash. There is no excuse for failure. How did bourgeoise small business get to where it is? Did they get handouts from God?


Capitalists who claim control over equipment and resources they don't personally use themselves will have to be ignored.

:o :o :o Are you CRAZY? Capitalists created that equipment. How come you think peasants will be capable of running and maintaining such high level equipment and resources if they are not able to create it themselves under the natural laws of social darwinism? Frankly, you can ignore capitalists all you like, but at the end of the day they feed you, so please, ignore them from the vantage-point of barbarism.


It takes a lot of engineering, raw materials, and labor to create Ferraris for the wealthy

It does, in a communist system it would probably be a national project costing a few billion. But in a capitalism, with its built in efficiencies, its an absolute cinch.


This is because the market economy, under conditions of large disparities of spending power, fails to set economic priorities in such a way to produce for the benefit of the general population.

:lol: This is a joke right! Capitalism is automatically gives full priority to the greatest demand! Honestly man, you are going to have to do better than that if you wish to disparage the greatest political system ever invented by nature.

[cyu]

They can rob their kid's piggy accounts and pool their petty peasant cash. There is no excuse for failure. How did bourgeoise small business get to where it is? Did they get handouts from God?

If there's a race between 3 people, 2 of which have a 5 second head start, it's true that sometimes the third person will still win, but even if the third person doesn't win, it doesn't mean he's necessarily slower than the other two. So your suggestion of having workers start their own companies, without having the right to assume control of existing resources, means wealthy capitalists will have that head start. In any case, whether non-slaves can out-compete slaves is not the point. The point is that there shouldn't be slaves at all. You might be able to get great prostitutes that will do anything you want, if they'll die of starvation otherwise, but the point is to not have to be prostitutes in the first place in order to survive.


Are you CRAZY? Capitalists created that equipment. How come you think peasants will be capable of running and maintaining such high level equipment and resources if they are not able to create it themselves under the natural laws of social darwinism? Frankly, you can ignore capitalists all you like, but at the end of the day they feed you, so please, ignore them from the vantage-point of barbarism.

You're the one that's crazy. Farmers grow the food, engineers design the equipment, and factory workers build the equipment. None of these are capitalists. Capitalists just provide the funding. Money is just a method of accounting. How that accounting is done and who it's done by can be easily replaced.



This is because the market economy, under conditions of large disparities of spending power, fails to set economic priorities in such a way to produce for the benefit of the general population.
This is a joke right! Capitalism is automatically gives full priority to the greatest demand!

Actually, you're wrong. The market increases supply only when there's demand that can pay for it. If I have a billion dollars and you have one dollar, the things I demand get much higher priority than the things you demand. You only get one vote for what you want produced. I get a billion. Thus when there's a large disparity in spending power, resources are taken away from the general population and devoted to producing things for the wealthy few.

[overlord]

So your suggestion of having workers start their own companies, without having the right to assume control of existing resources, means wealthy capitalists will have that head start.

So what, someone has to start the ball rolling if the workers are too slow.


In any case, whether non-slaves can out-compete slaves is not the point. The point is that there shouldn't be slaves at all

And yet, there are plenty of wage slaves. Isn't this the natural condition? Isn't this perfection of nature? Economy of resource? How is someone not a slave under your system? Sounds like they will not only have to do the factory work but also the marketing, management and sales? Is this a recipe for success?


You're the one that's crazy. Farmers grow the food, engineers design the equipment, and factory workers build the equipment. None of these are capitalists. Capitalists just provide the funding. Money is just a method of accounting. How that accounting is done and who it's done by can be easily replaced.

Farmers are capitalists. The rest are just scabs relying on some big capitalist to give them a risk-free job. And money isn't just about acounting. The definition of money is unspent production. The fact money is transferable for capital proves it. Ignore money and accountants at your peril!!



QUOTE
QUOTE
This is because the market economy, under conditions of large disparities of spending power, fails to set economic priorities in such a way to produce for the benefit of the general population.


This is a joke right! Capitalism is automatically gives full priority to the greatest demand!



Actually, you're wrong. The market increases supply only when there's demand that can pay for it. If I have a billion dollars and you have one dollar, the things I demand get much higher priority than the things you demand. You only get one vote for what you want produced. I get a billion. Thus when there's a large disparity in spending power, resources are taken away from the general population and devoted to producing things for the wealthy few.

Things which the trickle down effect eventually allows everyone to enjoy. You can buy an old ferrari for like $50,000 if you don't believe me. And how cheap are whitegoods/new-cars now thanks to enormous competition and de-industrialisation? You needed billionaires to start all these things off didn't you?

[cyu]

And yet, there are plenty of wage slaves. Isn't this the natural condition? Isn't this the natural condition? Isn't this perfection of nature? Economy of resource?

Just because something exists today doesn't mean it's naturally the best. There was a time when most of the world's nations were monarchies. If someone used reasoning as stupid as yours back then, they'd think that monarchies were the perfection of nature.


How is someone not a slave under your system? Sounds like they will not only have to do the factory work but also the marketing, management and sales? Is this a recipe for success?

They are not slaves because they work under conditions of their own devising. If they don't feel like doing everything themselves, then they'll elect people to do the jobs the rest don't have time for. The key is that democratic control remains with the employees, so they are not slaves. Companies have been run this way in Argentina for years (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1482898), even without the access to large amounts of capital that the wealthy have. They'd be even more successful with more access to capital.


Farmers are capitalists.

What is your definition of capitalist? My definition is someone who owns the means of production, but doesn't actually use it himself - instead he collects money from those who do use it to produce things. If a farmer owns his land and equipment and grows the food himself, then he is no more a capitalist than an employee in a democratically run company.


You needed billionaires to start all these things off didn't you?

You mean you need billionaires so the rest of the people can pick up the scraps they leave behind? They would be much better off if the billionaire didn't exist and they could have it all, instead of just the scraps.

[overlord]

Just because something exists today doesn't mean it's naturally the best. There was a time when most of the world's nations were monarchies. If someone used reasoning as stupid as yours back then, they'd think that monarchies were the perfection of nature.

I suppose I'm using the Latin definition of the work 'perfect'. I mean, 'complete', 'final', as opposed to pristine which is your meaning. Monarchies are perfection of nature. There is a leader of the pack, a head of the kingdom, a president. Ever watch a disney movie? - all animals who live in packs or tribes have a leader. There is always a strongest.


They are not slaves because they work under conditions of their own devising. If they don't feel like doing everything themselves, then they'll elect people to do the jobs the rest don't have time for. The key is that democratic control remains with the employees, so they are not slaves. Companies have been run this way in Argentina for years (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1482898), even without the access to large amounts of capital that the wealthy have. They'd be even more successful with more access to capital.


Oh yeah and its really helped argentina get back on its feet; and how efficient and sustainable will this be in anything other than primary industry? People like you want to take us to the stone age. Why don't you get together with some mates and open a collective farm or go prospecting? Land in the sticks is pretty cheap. You'll have your democracy as well.


What is your definition of capitalist? My definition is someone who owns the means of production, but doesn't actually use it himself - instead he collects money from those who do use it to produce things. If a farmer owns his land and equipment and grows the food himself, then he is no more a capitalist than an employee in a democratically run company.


My definition of capitalist is any-one who both makes and knows how to accumulate and compound a lot of cash. And when i talk about farmer i don't mean someone with a veggie patch. i'm talking fields of wheat.


You mean you need billionaires so the rest of the people can pick up the scraps they leave behind? They would be much better off if the billionaire didn't exist and they could have it all, instead of just the scraps.

Whose' talking about picking the scraps? I'm talking about serious trickle-down economics here! You think you'll 'have it all' without billioanries? You'll have zilch! WHO? will build the factories you're talking about mister commie? More puff pastry from the great commie perpetual motion machine??

[cyu]

Monarchies are perfection of nature.

So on the one hand you argue that monarchies are perfection of nature, while on the other hand you argue that existing conditions are a perfection of nature. Well, the existing conditions in much of the world today is that there is no monarchy. Would you say that is a perfection of nature too? You're reasoning is so illogical it's hardly worth debating.


Oh yeah and its really helped argentina get back on its feet

Argentina is still a capitalist country, so no, it's not back on its feet because in many cases, the employees don't have legal status to run their companies and are still threatened by the government. If they overthrew capitalism and assumed democratic control over the means of production, then they would be back on their feet, because these companies would then have full access to the resources needed to run their businesses.


You think you'll 'have it all' without billioanries? You'll have zilch! WHO? will build the factories you're talking about mister commie?

The same people who have always built factories: construction workers. If capital is needed to pay for the construction, then the people pool their money and decide democratically how best to spend it.

[overlord]

If they overthrew capitalism and assumed democratic control over the means of production, then they would be back on their feet, because these companies would then have full access to the resources needed to run their businesses.


Yeah, whatever. 'Overthrow' capitalism. Like its gonna happen. Capitalism is human nature man. Take a hint bro. :rolleyes:


QUOTE
You think you'll 'have it all' without billioanries? You'll have zilch! WHO? will build the factories you're talking about mister commie?



The same people who have always built factories: construction workers. If capital is needed to pay for the construction, then the people pool their money and decide democratically how best to spend it.

I don't see many 'construction co-ops'. Do you? How long do you think the Paris Commune would have lasted if left to its own devices? The elites would sieze the wealth and rule within a couple years. Whilst your idea is certainly admirable, it won't work for long without a dictator! Take the bus back to bethleham hospital man. ;)

[cyu]

I don't see many 'construction co-ops'. Do you?

There aren't more democratically run construction companies for the simple fact that capitalism still exists. While capitalism exists, the people who join together to form such new companies won't have as much access to the raw materials and other resources as the wealthy do. Without capitalism, access to raw materials and other resources that nobody is currently using would be decided democratically - so there would be plenty of democratically run construction companies.

[overlord]

There aren't more democratically run construction companies for the simple fact that capitalism still exists. While capitalism exists, the people who join together to form such new companies won't have as much access to the raw materials and other resources as the wealthy do. Without capitalism, access to raw materials and other resources that nobody is currently using would be decided democratically - so there would be plenty of democratically run construction companies.

Listen man, these poor people need money to start their construction companies! How can they do this when they have kids to feed! Under your system nothing gets built!

[overlord]

What, no reply? I owned you man. Your silly system is but a penumbra in the sunlight of capitalism.

Here's another one for capitalism.

OWNED