Ron Paul - A Tale of Two Speeches

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In fact, any time there is organized aggression there are two classes automatically being created:

Those that benefit from the organized aggression and those that inevitably must suffer from it.[/quote]

Beautiful, now what’s left is to perceive that organized violence is inherent to the human race.
[/quote]

And slavery also used to be an accepted practice

A long way humanity has come since then.

Call me an optimistic idealist but I think the possibilities for humanity are much greater.

182

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
On your island…[/quote]

The island?

Where are you from?

The island is life!

You think violent people do not exits in the merry ol’ USS of A?

Thugs are all over the place and nary a copper can prevent their doings.

183

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In fact, any time there is organized aggression there are two classes automatically being created:
Those that benefit from the organized aggression and those that inevitably must suffer from it.[/quote]
Beautiful, now what’s left is to perceive that organized violence is inherent to the human race.
[/quote]
And slavery also used to be an accepted practice
A long way humanity has come since then.
Call me an optimistic idealist but I think the possibilities for humanity are much greater.[/quote]
Slavery is a social concept, Violence, however is in our genes. Like lust, greed, jealousy.
Do you think that at one point we’ll lack the drive to eat, or fornicate?

184

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In fact, any time there is organized aggression there are two classes automatically being created:
Those that benefit from the organized aggression and those that inevitably must suffer from it.[/quote]
Beautiful, now what’s left is to perceive that organized violence is inherent to the human race.
[/quote]
And slavery also used to be an accepted practice
A long way humanity has come since then.
Call me an optimistic idealist but I think the possibilities for humanity are much greater.[/quote]
Slavery is a social concept, Violence, however is in our genes. Like lust, greed, jealousy.
Do you think that at one point we’ll lack the drive to eat, or fornicate?
[/quote]

Violence in not what worries me.

It is thugs that think they have authority over me that scares me.

185

Here’s the thing.
On la Isla Kalashnikova, people will have to organize that violence. Moreso then in the times before the drop.

People of EVERY SOCIETY always had to ritualize, organize, categorize violence.
Sooner or later, you won’t only find a few thugs, but a highly organized entity. Depending on culture and age, these could be religious militia, druglords, the “people’s army” whatever.

History shows, these people have no doubts about their authority and their -often divine- mandate (superior violence).
They will kick your ass if you don’t comply.

Like you said, that IS scary.
And that is the reason why you will you to comply, move away, join them or start or join a different warrior cult.

186

or just ignore them.

187

ok. my first language are norwegian.

no, marx did not live in feudalisme, so the upperclass was not the nobility, he talks about capitalists when he talks about upper class.

second, you say that the capitalists are more importent than the workers, come on, what would happen if all the workers strike. let me give you a hint, the economy would stop.

the capitalists on the other hand is just the same as a bag of money, if they do a job, it can be done by a guy who is payd to do it ( a worker ). please understand that the nature of a capitalist is that he owns productiv property and has workers. some of them do work, but in teori they do not need to.

188

You miss the point.

Even workers are capitalists in that they own their own labor – unless they be slaves.

Also, many of them own parts of other companies in the form of stocks, etc. – funded by their 401Ks.

As far as the structure of production goes there are only 3 elements: land, labor, and capital. Without all of those things no work gets done. PERIOD.

Capitalism is ownership of the means of production in a way that maximizes productivity where the needs are most urgently felt. Everyone owns at least one aspect of production if not more through indirect means as described above.

Capitalism has enabled the common man to become a capitalist by no harder work than purchasing stock, for example.

189

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You miss the point.

Even workers are capitalists in that they own their own labor – unless they be slaves.

Also, many of them own parts of other companies in the form of stocks, etc. – funded by their 401Ks.

As far as the structure of production goes there are only 3 elements: land, labor, and capital. Without all of those things no work gets done. PERIOD.

Capitalism is ownership of the means of production in a way that maximizes productivity where the needs are most urgently felt. Everyone owns at least one aspect of production if not more through indirect means as described above.

Capitalism has enabled the common man to become a capitalist by no harder work than purchasing stock, for example.

[/quote]

no its you who miss the point. even adam smith did know this. that labour is the fundament of value making.

190

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You miss the point.

Even workers are capitalists in that they own their own labor – unless they be slaves.

Also, many of them own parts of other companies in the form of stocks, etc. – funded by their 401Ks.

As far as the structure of production goes there are only 3 elements: land, labor, and capital. Without all of those things no work gets done. PERIOD.

Capitalism is ownership of the means of production in a way that maximizes productivity where the needs are most urgently felt. Everyone owns at least one aspect of production if not more through indirect means as described above.

Capitalism has enabled the common man to become a capitalist by no harder work than purchasing stock, for example.

[/quote]

no its you who miss the point. even adam smith did know this. that labour is the fundament of value making. [/quote]

This post makes orion sad.

:frowning:

191

[quote]florelius wrote:
…labour is the fundament of value making. [/quote]

Value is subjective.

192

[quote]florelius wrote:
no its you who miss the point. even adam smith did know this. that labour is the fundament of value making. [/quote]

So those that cannot labor have no value, eh?

193

[quote]florelius wrote:
ok. my first language are norwegian.

no, marx did not live in feudalisme, so the upperclass was not the nobility, he talks about capitalists when he talks about upper class.

second, you say that the capitalists are more importent than the workers, come on, what would happen if all the workers strike. let me give you a hint, the economy would stop.

the capitalists on the other hand is just the same as a bag of money, if they do a job, it can be done by a guy who is payd to do it ( a worker ). please understand that the nature of a capitalist is that he owns productiv property and has workers. some of them do work, but in teori they do not need to.

[/quote]

I Think you should be concerned more so what would happen if the capitalists went on strike.

See: Atlas Shrugged

194

[quote]666Rich wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
ok. my first language are norwegian.

no, marx did not live in feudalisme, so the upperclass was not the nobility, he talks about capitalists when he talks about upper class.

second, you say that the capitalists are more importent than the workers, come on, what would happen if all the workers strike. let me give you a hint, the economy would stop.

the capitalists on the other hand is just the same as a bag of money, if they do a job, it can be done by a guy who is payd to do it ( a worker ). please understand that the nature of a capitalist is that he owns productiv property and has workers. some of them do work, but in teori they do not need to.

[/quote]

I Think you should be concerned more so what would happen if the capitalists went on strike.

See: Atlas Shrugged
[/quote]

I have not read ayn rand, she is not big in my country, most dont know who she is. I heard about rand when I read a article by mike mentzer on HIT training years ago.

the capitalist dont have strikes, they force lock-out on the workers. its the right to privat property who makes lock-out possible, it shows the true color of the state, that the state is a class state.

195

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
ok. my first language are norwegian.

no, marx did not live in feudalisme, so the upperclass was not the nobility, he talks about capitalists when he talks about upper class.

second, you say that the capitalists are more importent than the workers, come on, what would happen if all the workers strike. let me give you a hint, the economy would stop.

the capitalists on the other hand is just the same as a bag of money, if they do a job, it can be done by a guy who is payd to do it ( a worker ). please understand that the nature of a capitalist is that he owns productiv property and has workers. some of them do work, but in teori they do not need to.

[/quote]

I Think you should be concerned more so what would happen if the capitalists went on strike.

See: Atlas Shrugged
[/quote]

I have not read ayn rand, she is not big in my country, most dont know who she is. I heard about rand when I read a article by mike mentzer on HIT training years ago.

the capitalist dont have strikes, they force lock-out on the workers. its the right to privat property who makes lock-out possible, it shows the true color of the state, that the state is a class state.

[/quote]

This is nonsense.

The true colors of the state has been the protection of private property which allows for classes, that does not make it a “class state”.

Incidentally the protection of private property allows for civilization itself and therefore is much more important than any perceived economic inequities.

196

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
ok. my first language are norwegian.

no, marx did not live in feudalisme, so the upperclass was not the nobility, he talks about capitalists when he talks about upper class.

second, you say that the capitalists are more importent than the workers, come on, what would happen if all the workers strike. let me give you a hint, the economy would stop.

the capitalists on the other hand is just the same as a bag of money, if they do a job, it can be done by a guy who is payd to do it ( a worker ). please understand that the nature of a capitalist is that he owns productiv property and has workers. some of them do work, but in teori they do not need to.

[/quote]

I Think you should be concerned more so what would happen if the capitalists went on strike.

See: Atlas Shrugged
[/quote]

I have not read ayn rand, she is not big in my country, most dont know who she is. I heard about rand when I read a article by mike mentzer on HIT training years ago.

the capitalist dont have strikes, they force lock-out on the workers. its the right to privat property who makes lock-out possible, it shows the true color of the state, that the state is a class state.

[/quote]

This is nonsense.

The true colors of the state has been the protection of private property which allows for classes, that does not make it a “class state”.

Incidentally the protection of private property allows for civilization itself and therefore is much more important than any perceived economic inequities. [/quote]

all states in history ( I study history ) have been class states, a states purpose is to protect the people in power, the pharao in egypt, the ceasar in rome, the nobility in feudalisme and the capitalistcalss in our modern society. If you dont see that our global society is a class rule, then you need to wake up, brake the illusion as brecht said.

197

I have a bit different view on the state’s purpose, but tell me:

If classes are permeable (as they are today), are they still classes a la Marx?

If they just serve as a redundant label, why not simply say “upper managment & politicians”?

We do speak of western world’s society, of course.

198

what does permeable mean?

a politician is not in itself a part of the upper class, but some politicians belong to the upper class. the upper class is the people who owns the means of production. they are a class because they have the same interressts.

I talk about the global sociaty.

199

OK, last question, so I might properly understand your concept of class:

From your defintion, someone who owns a small company, has employed about two dozen people, owns very expensive hight tech tools and makes good money; is he upper clas or “just” a capitalist?
Do you speak exclusively about really big fish when talking about upper class (eg Berlusconi, the Bush clan etc) - people who command vast amounts of property, money, hired specialists, enjoy first class connections etc?

200

THe beauty of capitalism is “a fool and his money are quickly parted”

Secondly, as schwarzfahrer mentioned, how about class mobility and the ease thereof?

Granted in the antiquated examples you mentioned of the state controlling ruling interests, there was no class mobility. However there is in this country. Over half of the Forbes 400 wealthiest people were self made. This means, they were not born into wealth they earned it.

Higher education does wonderful things. My region was a huge manufacturing and mining economy. Many of my friends parents were associated with these industries, and were not rich by any means. My own parents combined for 60k a year. However, many of these friends of mine went to school, did well, and now make over six figures. I myself plan to invest in property (gasp!) and use that as my economic gain for financial stability. So… are they wrong for becoming part of the upper class?

Once again, I feel you are creating a straw man out of economic circumstance and if anything, reinforcing the status quo. This is really no different from current day liberal politicians who attempt to sympathize with the working class while rewarding them for being complacent sheep in return for votes as opposed to giving them incentive to work and be rewarded for their work.