A Step in the Right Direction

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]wirewound wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
wirewound wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:

Government should not be playing favorites using the tax code in a true capitalist society. It is none of their fucking business how I or anyone else makes money.

It is very much the government’s business how you make money. If you do it by harming others, or duping the voters, or polluting the environment, it is very much Government’s concern.

Donâ¿¿t over analyze. Clearly Iâ¿¿m talking legal means.

Anything can become legal. Ethical means are something else entirely.

I don’t think anyone approves of the oppressive regimes of China, the former Soviet Union, or Cuba. But socialism can work in the context of free elected government.[/quote]

I�??m not a fan of unfettered capitalism anymore than I am a fan of Maxism. Both are fantasyland views of the world.

Marxism pretends greed and scarcity doesn�??t exist and doesn�??t acknowledge private property or individual liberties. Capitalism doesn�??t acknowledge realities like power inequality or lack of access to capital for the majority. A true Libertarian would dismantle the FDA for example. There is no way for the average person to evaluate the drug claims of pharmaceutical companies.

A much less regulated capitalist system with some basic social safety nets surely would be superior to what exists now in America. Until they live overseas (not Europe), I don�??t think most Americans realize how much of their daily life is being micro regulated by the government. Most regulation now is to protect the wealthy and large corporations and control the populace despite what the propaganda says. With a functioning court system, not the lottery we have now, companies would be less inclined to pollute or harm others as they would suffer real consequences. Corporations in America are allowed to function for the most part as unaccountable sociopaths.

And democracy is overrated as most people are stupid and easily distracted to vote against their own economic interests. Not totally their fault as the job of the educational system seems to be to turn people into compliant drones.

142

[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
wirewound wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
wirewound wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:

Government should not be playing favorites using the tax code in a true capitalist society. It is none of their fucking business how I or anyone else makes money.

It is very much the government’s business how you make money. If you do it by harming others, or duping the voters, or polluting the environment, it is very much Government’s concern.

Donâ¿¿t over analyze. Clearly Iâ¿¿m talking legal means.

Anything can become legal. Ethical means are something else entirely.

I don’t think anyone approves of the oppressive regimes of China, the former Soviet Union, or Cuba. But socialism can work in the context of free elected government.

Iâ¿¿m not a fan of unfettered capitalism anymore than I am a fan of Maxism. Both are fantasyland views of the world.

Marxism pretends greed and scarcity doesnâ¿¿t exist and doesnâ¿¿t acknowledge private property or individual liberties. Capitalism doesnâ¿¿t acknowledge realities like power inequality or lack of access to capital for the majority. A true Libertarian would dismantle the FDA for example. There is no way for the average person to evaluate the drug claims of pharmaceutical companies.

A much less regulated capitalist system with some basic social safety nets surely would be superior to what exists now in America. Until they live overseas (not Europe), I donâ¿¿t think most Americans realize how much of their daily life is being micro regulated by the government. Most regulation now is to protect the wealthy and large corporations and control the populace despite what the propaganda says. With a functioning court system, not the lottery we have now, companies would be less inclined to pollute or harm others as they would suffer real consequences. Corporations in America are allowed to function for the most part as unaccountable sociopaths.

And democracy is overrated as most people are stupid and easily distracted to vote against their own economic interests. Not totally their fault as the job of the educational system seems to be to turn people into compliant drones.

[/quote]

Wow. I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.

143

Wow. I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.
[/quote]

Of course you did … evil corporations, stupid proletariat, unequal access to capital, government propaganda and conspiracy. Vote Obama for change we can believe in!

Liberal playbook 101.

144

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

Wow. I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.

Of course you did … evil corporations, stupid proletariat, unequal access to capital, government propaganda and conspiracy. Vote Obama for change we can believe in!

Liberal playbook 101.[/quote]

Surely you must realize that the people you oppose are not caricatures. I don’t think corporations are evil - I think they are amoral. Moral decisions about the greater effects of their actions simply don’t enter corporate consciousness.

I don’t think one can argue that there is unequal access to capital. I think government propaganda is a bad influence to the extent it is effective, which is most definitely NOT to any great extent.

Corporate propaganda - that is, commercials and the consumerist agenda engendered by a media environment chock-a-block with commercial appeals - are much more dangerous. It promotes a constantly desiring mental state. To want all the time, whether your desire is a real need or a manufactured want, is painful.

People in pain do some very stupid things - most notably voting Republican.

145

[quote]wirewound wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:

Wow. I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.

Of course you did … evil corporations, stupid proletariat, unequal access to capital, government propaganda and conspiracy. Vote Obama for change we can believe in!

Liberal playbook 101.

Surely you must realize that the people you oppose are not caricatures. I don’t think corporations are evil - I think they are amoral. Moral decisions about the greater effects of their actions simply don’t enter corporate consciousness.

I don’t think one can argue that there is unequal access to capital. I think government propaganda is a bad influence to the extent it is effective, which is most definitely NOT to any great extent.

Corporate propaganda - that is, commercials and the consumerist agenda engendered by a media environment chock-a-block with commercial appeals - are much more dangerous. It promotes a constantly desiring mental state. To want all the time, whether your desire is a real need or a manufactured want, is painful.

People in pain do some very stupid things - most notably voting Republican.[/quote]

I’m not sure what the effective distinction is between corporations are evil and corporations are amoral … other than liberals are uncomfortable with the concept of evil so they substitute amoral.

I think with your caricature comment you are trying to suggest that your viewpoints don’t fit any pattern. (i.e. “I’m open-minded”)

I don’t think you’ve succeeded. This whole line of argument that people voting republican are just being duped and don’t know what’s REALLY good for them is not only obnoxiously pompous it’s wrong.

The book you’ve undoubtedly read called What’s the Matter with Kansas has been very popular with liberal elites and expresses your opinion exactly.

The only place your argument ISN’T a caricature is your comment about access to capital. But that’s easy for you to give up because you still don’t like our economic system (consumerist, amoral, propaganda prone, etc) anyway so why bother to argue about access to capital.

That book btw is straight line old fashioned marxism. People’s motivations in life are economic (Marx) so why doesn’t Kansas vote the “right” way … with their economic interests? Liberals don’t understand just like Marx never understood that economics is NOT the prime motivator in people’s lives.

Cheers on the use of “chock-a-block” btw … I thought only people who grew up around farms like me used that term. For some reason I’m assuming you’re not a farmer due to Utah and the rice-rocket avatar which actually means nothing I suppose …

(on closer inspection I see it’s a beemer … apologies)

146

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

Listen … the core of your argument is that increasing supply isn’t going to lower price.

You’ve lost the battle before you’ve begun.

If you want some stats, how about these.

-The bureau of land management estimates that we have over 250 billion barrels of proven domestic oil reserves off limits because the liberals have blocked drilling for it. That’s enough to supply us for 22 years without another drop of foreign oil.

-If we had built all the nuclear reactors planned before the liberals went hysterical after three-mile island we’d be well below the Kyoto protocols today without even trying.

  • Democrats asked the president to release the 700 million barrels of oil in the strategic petroleum reserve last week because it will lower prices but argued that getting the 10 billion barrels in ANWR won’t.

(please challenge me on this … I’ll go track the links for you)[/quote]

Whoops! The core of my argument was adding a tiny amount of supply will lead to a tiny amount of reduction in 2030.

The actual issues are how much will come up total in a day, when will that happen, and what difference will it make on the price of oil. Get it now?

The rest of your post is irrelevant. So no need to link hunt.

147

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Your ignoring the point I’ve already made, in that the price of gasoline is HIGHLY speculative, and that even the greatest of market prognosticators could never accurately predict what effect the increased domestic drilling will have. If you’re having trouble latching onto that idea, just keep re reading that part until it sinks in.

Now, instead of fishing for silly apologies, why don’t you tell everyone why you are opposed to increasing domestic oil production, while we as a nation pursue alternative energies. And again, nobody wants to hear you whine about how long it would take to extract those resources. I already addressed that issue when I wrote this:

Bigflamer wrote:

"And don’t give me that whiny bullshit about “It’ll take soooo long to get going and get the oil”. You sound like my eight year old when he comes to me crying about how loooong it’s gonna take to pick up the dog shit in the backyard.

Boo fucking hoo. The sooner we get started, the sooner we get there. If we would have started ten years ago, we’d be ten years ahead of where we are now, now wouldn’t we."

[/quote]

So your position is “I don’t know how much, and when, and at what savings, or at what costs, but lets do it.”???

But the title says: “A step in the Right Direction”, but how on earth would you know?

148

[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

Your ignoring the point I’ve already made, in that the price of gasoline is HIGHLY speculative, and that even the greatest of market prognosticators could never accurately predict what effect the increased domestic drilling will have. If you’re having trouble latching onto that idea, just keep re reading that part until it sinks in.

Now, instead of fishing for silly apologies, why don’t you tell everyone why you are opposed to increasing domestic oil production, while we as a nation pursue alternative energies. And again, nobody wants to hear you whine about how long it would take to extract those resources. I already addressed that issue when I wrote this:

Bigflamer wrote:

"And don’t give me that whiny bullshit about “It’ll take soooo long to get going and get the oil”. You sound like my eight year old when he comes to me crying about how loooong it’s gonna take to pick up the dog shit in the backyard.

Boo fucking hoo. The sooner we get started, the sooner we get there. If we would have started ten years ago, we’d be ten years ahead of where we are now, now wouldn’t we."

So your position is “I don’t know how much, and when, and at what savings, or at what costs, but lets do it.”???

But the title says: “A step in the Right Direction”, but how on earth would you know?

[/quote]

His position is quite clear. You are making an ass of yourself.

149

Reminds me of this old line …

Never argue with an idiot … he’ll drag you down to his level and then beat you on experience.

150

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
wirewound wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:

Wow. I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.

Of course you did … evil corporations, stupid proletariat, unequal access to capital, government propaganda and conspiracy. Vote Obama for change we can believe in!

Liberal playbook 101.

Surely you must realize that the people you oppose are not caricatures. I don’t think corporations are evil - I think they are amoral. Moral decisions about the greater effects of their actions simply don’t enter corporate consciousness.

I don’t think one can argue that there is unequal access to capital. I think government propaganda is a bad influence to the extent it is effective, which is most definitely NOT to any great extent.

Corporate propaganda - that is, commercials and the consumerist agenda engendered by a media environment chock-a-block with commercial appeals - are much more dangerous. It promotes a constantly desiring mental state. To want all the time, whether your desire is a real need or a manufactured want, is painful.

People in pain do some very stupid things - most notably voting Republican.

I’m not sure what the effective distinction is between corporations are evil and corporations are amoral … other than liberals are uncomfortable with the concept of evil so they substitute amoral.

I think with your caricature comment you are trying to suggest that your viewpoints don’t fit any pattern. (i.e. “I’m open-minded”)

I don’t think you’ve succeeded. This whole line of argument that people voting republican are just being duped and don’t know what’s REALLY good for them is not only obnoxiously pompous it’s wrong.

The book you’ve undoubtedly read called What’s the Matter with Kansas has been very popular with liberal elites and expresses your opinion exactly.

The only place your argument ISN’T a caricature is your comment about access to capital. But that’s easy for you to give up because you still don’t like our economic system (consumerist, amoral, propaganda prone, etc) anyway so why bother to argue about access to capital.

That book btw is straight line old fashioned marxism. People’s motivations in life are economic (Marx) so why doesn’t Kansas vote the “right” way … with their economic interests? Liberals don’t understand just like Marx never understood that economics is NOT the prime motivator in people’s lives.

Cheers on the use of “chock-a-block” btw … I thought only people who grew up around farms like me used that term. For some reason I’m assuming you’re not a farmer due to Utah and the rice-rocket avatar which actually means nothing I suppose …

(on closer inspection I see it’s a beemer … apologies)

[/quote]

On closer inspection you’d see that a lot of your assumptions are wrong.

The Republican line was obviously, I thought, a joke.

I’ve never read ‘What’s The Matter With Kansas’.

I’m not entirely liberal. I strongly disagree with McCain AND Obama on immigration and I grew up in an area where guns were plentiful and gun-related deaths were few, so I have a more pro-gun viewpoint.

There’s a big difference between evil and amoral - one cannot be evil who is unconcerned with morals to begin with.

There is nothing propaganda-prone about recognizing that our system is consumerist. It’s a fact that most economists would agree with.

I don’t hate our economic system, but I think it could be improved upon. I also think that the notion that greater freedom of consumer choice somehow imparts greater actual freedom upon a society is a notion that is flat out wrong.

151

On closer inspection you’d see that a lot of your assumptions are wrong.

The Republican line was obviously, I thought, a joke.

I’ve never read ‘What’s The Matter With Kansas’.

I’m not entirely liberal. I strongly disagree with McCain AND Obama on immigration and I grew up in an area where guns were plentiful and gun-related deaths were few, so I have a more pro-gun viewpoint.

There’s a big difference between evil and amoral - one cannot be evil who is unconcerned with morals to begin with.

There is nothing propaganda-prone about recognizing that our system is consumerist. It’s a fact that most economists would agree with.

I don’t hate our economic system, but I think it could be improved upon. I also think that the notion that greater freedom of consumer choice somehow imparts greater actual freedom upon a society is a notion that is flat out wrong.[/quote]

For some reason we’re arguing about how liberal or not liberal you are. I really don’t care. You can be whatever you want to be …

  • I didn’t say YOU were propaganda prone … YOU said business was all about propaganda and I was referencing that.

  • I didn’t say you hated our economic system I said you didn’t like it … hence you want to "improve’ it. You said american business was amoral, dishonest and operated through propaganda … not hate … but clearly you’d like to make some significant changes.

  • You don’t have to read that book … half of what obama and howard dean seem to talk about comes straight from that book. That whole “cling to their God and guns” comment was right out of that book.

  • I’m not sure what you’re getting at with some of your statements … you’re more pro-gun? What does that mean? Some liberals would take everyone’s gun. That leaves you a lot of room to be “more pro gun” and still be quite liberal.

  • Clearly immigrants from closed societies come to this country and view our range of consumer choices as an amazing benefit of living in a free society. You don’t think so? Ok … others do.

  • Most every theological scholar I could reference would say that human beings can be evil whether or not they have a concept of morality. In fact, the absence of morality is quite possibly the best definition of evil.

So you’re only 85% liberal … I never said you were 100% liberal.

So what?

152

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

Your ignoring the point I’ve already made, in that the price of gasoline is HIGHLY speculative, and that even the greatest of market prognosticators could never accurately predict what effect the increased domestic drilling will have. If you’re having trouble latching onto that idea, just keep re reading that part until it sinks in.

Now, instead of fishing for silly apologies, why don’t you tell everyone why you are opposed to increasing domestic oil production, while we as a nation pursue alternative energies. And again, nobody wants to hear you whine about how long it would take to extract those resources. I already addressed that issue when I wrote this:

Bigflamer wrote:

"And don’t give me that whiny bullshit about “It’ll take soooo long to get going and get the oil”. You sound like my eight year old when he comes to me crying about how loooong it’s gonna take to pick up the dog shit in the backyard.

Boo fucking hoo. The sooner we get started, the sooner we get there. If we would have started ten years ago, we’d be ten years ahead of where we are now, now wouldn’t we."

So your position is “I don’t know how much, and when, and at what savings, or at what costs, but lets do it.”???

But the title says: “A step in the Right Direction”, but how on earth would you know?

His position is quite clear. You are making an ass of yourself. [/quote]

But clearly one would want to have an idea as to how much oil, when you could get it out, and how much savings it would provide.

Since he has a “position” why not post how much he thinks we’ll save in 2030, because clearly he thinks it will be considerable.

153

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

  • Clearly immigrants from closed societies come to this country and view our range of consumer choices as an amazing benefit of living in a free society. You don’t think so? Ok … others do.[/quote]

I’m not saying it’s not a benefit - I’m saying it shouldn’t be confused with freedom.

[quote]- Most every theological scholar I could reference would say that human beings can be evil whether or not they have a concept of morality. In fact, the absence of morality is quite possibly the best definition of evil.
[/quote]

Look up the terms, please. Though you may consider it evil, and it looks like contempt for morality - amorality is not contempt for morality, it is the complete absence of morality in the decision-making process.

154

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:

Wow. I agree with pretty much everything you just posted.

Of course you did … evil corporations, stupid proletariat, unequal access to capital, government propaganda and conspiracy. Vote Obama for change we can believe in!

Liberal playbook 101.[/quote]

How you interpreted what I said to be an endorsement of Obama just proves what I said about people (you) being stupid. If you had passed Reading Comprehension 101 then you would have noticed I am not an Obama supporter at all.

I bet you think the government needs to step in and give the auto companies a bail out. The auto companies should not be expected to have invested any of their huge profits of the last few years in research to ensure their own survival, right? It is the government�??s job to take care of them.

Corporate welfare is not capitalism.

Amazing features to modern quasi-capitalism. Executives (senior employees) mismanage a corporation into bankruptcy and get million dollar bonuses. Corporation receives billions in subsidies and tax breaks from the government (welfare). Corporation files bankruptcy and fucks over thousands of small businesses it owes money and has contractual obligations with (not paying your bills is honorable for a corporation but evil when done by an individual). Corporation loots its pension fund in violation of contract with employees to pay more bonuses to executives. Employee pension obligations now dumped on government pension fund (more welfare). Rank and file employees get nothing because a few hundred dollars a week until they get back on their feet would be a liberal pinko commie thing to do. The true capitalists (shareholders) see their investments destroyed.

155

[quote]wirewound wrote:

I don’t hate our economic system, but I think it could be improved upon. I also think that the notion that greater freedom of consumer choice somehow imparts greater actual freedom upon a society is a notion that is flat out wrong.[/quote]

Then please explain to use how you exercise your freedom when you do not have the economic means to do so.

Since freedom is more a potential than something that is exercised in full every day, does freedom not get smaller when a government takes your money and gives it to someone else?

And yes, freedom must include the possibility to choose things you do not approve of, otherwise those people are only as free as you allow them to be, i.e. not at all.

156

[quote]wirewound wrote:

Look up the terms, please. Though you may consider it evil, and it looks like contempt for morality - amorality is not contempt for morality, it is the complete absence of morality in the decision-making process.

[/quote]

Then corporations are not amoral entities, because they need to take into consideration the mores of their customers.

That those customers are not the enlightened beings they claim to be in sunday sermons is hardly the fault of corporations.

157

[quote]100meters wrote:
…
But clearly one would want to have an idea as to how much oil, when you could get it out, and how much savings it would provide.
[/quote]

We know how much oil we will get out. It is substantial and will provide an increase in supply.

You keep clinging to these phony predictions based on multiple assumptions projected 20 years in the future. I am embarrassed for you.

[quote]
Since he has a “position” why not post how much he thinks we’ll save in 2030, because clearly he thinks it will be considerable.[/quote]

What is magic about the year 2030? Why do you think we should keep sending all our petrodollars overseas instead of keeping them home, creating jobs and increasing supply oil oil? We all know supply vs demand works. We also know that numbers projected over 20 years into the future are worthless.

Did the Department of Energy in 1988 predict oil would trade over $ 130/bbl in 2008? Why would we listen to their worthless projections now?

158

[quote]orion wrote:
wirewound wrote:

Look up the terms, please. Though you may consider it evil, and it looks like contempt for morality - amorality is not contempt for morality, it is the complete absence of morality in the decision-making process.

Then corporations are not amoral entities, because they need to take into consideration the mores of their customers.

That those customers are not the enlightened beings they claim to be in sunday sermons is hardly the fault of corporations.
[/quote]

Sigh. Corporations often ignore the morals of their customers. Do customers REALLY morally agree with child slave labor, for instance? No, but corporations downplay their connections to such practices, for instance.

159

[quote]wirewound wrote:
orion wrote:
wirewound wrote:

Look up the terms, please. Though you may consider it evil, and it looks like contempt for morality - amorality is not contempt for morality, it is the complete absence of morality in the decision-making process.

Then corporations are not amoral entities, because they need to take into consideration the mores of their customers.

That those customers are not the enlightened beings they claim to be in sunday sermons is hardly the fault of corporations.

Sigh. Corporations often ignore the morals of their customers. Do customers REALLY morally agree with child slave labor, for instance? No, but corporations downplay their connections to such practices, for instance.

[/quote]

sigh if they downplay it, they most certainly do not ignore their customers wishes.

Whether child labor is actually morally wrong is yet another issue.

What if companies shy away from using child labor because their customers demands it and then those children starve or prostitute themselves?

That would be one of the many instances where taking the ever changing “mores” of the unwashed masses into account could actually be a bad thing.

So, sometimes ignoring your customers mores might be the right thing to do.

Which would still not be amoral.

Anyway, my first post was the more important one.

How is the freedom to buy stupid shit not freedom?

If I have never bought useless shit how do I learn what is good or bad for me?

How is it not elitist and authoritarian to take away people money and spend it for them?

How does that not take away their freedom?

What special powers have been bestowed unto you to know better than me what I might need or not?

160

sigh