To be honest, pittbull is right that you can poisen people with impunity.
Happens all the time.
In an ideal society, you eat what you produce.
Not so today.
Economically, it makes more sense to obfuscate food scandals then to make sure they never happen.
Ensure Information unequality, control media and law, we all know the drill.
Not even 100 years ago, smoking was deemed healhty by leading lobby…er… doctors.
Today it’s plastic, hormones, massive amounts of sugar etc.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
To be honest, pittbull is right that you can poisen people with impunity.
Happens all the time.
In an ideal society, you eat what you produce.
Not so today.
Economically, it makes more sense to obfuscate food scandals then to make sure they never happen.
Ensure Information unequality, control media and law, we all know the drill.
Not even 100 years ago, smoking was deemed healhty by leading lobby…er… doctors.
Today it’s plastic, hormones, massive amounts of sugar etc.
[/quote]
I personally doubt that a free society would want to go backwards to a point that you were self sufficient
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think you know what I mean 
[/quote]
I think you mean that people would willingly poison their customers and could remain in business.
That is not possible in a free society.[/quote]
Only a homicidal maniac would do that ,But it would be possible
[/quote]
So tell me exactly how having a government prevents homicidal maniacs from doing evil?
Evil people don’t follow rules that is why they are considered evil.
Good people follow the rules and don’t need them.
At least in a free market negligence is punished; on the other hand we now have protectionism that allows the most corrupt bankers to not only get bailed out but also to be given raises.[/quote]
It doesn’t except when they catch and jail them , but you tell me how it would be impossible in a free market ?[/quote]
Open competition makes people less prone to taking stupid risks.
[/quote]
Why ? If some one’s business was damaged by the rumor of poisoning all you would have to do is change the name of the product
I doubt insurance would allow it to happen.
Open competition not only keeps people from taking too much risk it also provides a means to manage the risk we do take.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I doubt insurance would allow it to happen.
Open competition not only keeps people from taking too much risk it also provides a means to manage the risk we do take.[/quote]Now jist a cotton pickin minute here. I now you ain’t sayin that you couldn’t run from a bad product by identity tricks because insurance would not allow it? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I doubt insurance would allow it to happen.
Open competition not only keeps people from taking too much risk it also provides a means to manage the risk we do take.[/quote]Now jist a cotton pickin minute here. I now you ain’t sayin that you couldn’t run from a bad product by identity tricks because insurance would not allow it? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
[/quote]
An unknown brand in the market would come at a higher risk to vendors and therefor would be under more scrutiny. Remember that retailers also have a job to protect their customers.
A brand is like credit.
Companies with established brands do not regularly set out to destroy something that takes many years and resources to establish.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally doubt that a free society would want to go backwards to a point that you were self sufficient
[/quote]
I don’t mean to imply that you should live exclusively on your own foods.
Not at all.
But i’d say that
I) whatever you produce, you should have an affinity to your product if that is humanly possible.
If it is food, you should be it’s greatest fan.
II) a certain degree of self sufficiency is a virtue.
PWI:
You have two cows- One is strong, pleasant to look at, it loves freedom and shits star-spangled manure.
The other is effeminate, confused; it hates freedom and it loves nothing better then destroying the fruited plains with the help of even crazier alien cows from beyond the shining sea through spreading discord and lies.
The Obama government comes and abducts both cows illegally into their secret FEMA butcheries.
It then gets reelected.
“Self sufficient” people are government’s greatest threat.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
To be honest, pittbull is right that you can poisen people with impunity.
Happens all the time.
In an ideal society, you eat what you produce.
Not so today.
Economically, it makes more sense to obfuscate food scandals then to make sure they never happen.
Ensure Information unequality, control media and law, we all know the drill.
Not even 100 years ago, smoking was deemed healhty by leading lobby…er… doctors.
Today it’s plastic, hormones, massive amounts of sugar etc.
[/quote]
I personally doubt that a free society would want to go backwards to a point that you were self sufficient
[/quote]
Some of us prefer it.
I like eating my own food, growing and cutting my own heating source and trying find ways to rely less and less on others. We are still part of society, but if the system collapsed tomorrow, we would be fine.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I doubt insurance would allow it to happen.
Open competition not only keeps people from taking too much risk it also provides a means to manage the risk we do take.[/quote]Now jist a cotton pickin minute here. I now you ain’t sayin that you couldn’t run from a bad product by identity tricks because insurance would not allow it? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
[/quote]
An unknown brand in the market would come at a higher risk to vendors and therefor would be under more scrutiny. Remember that retailers also have a job to protect their customers.
A brand is like credit.
Companies with established brands do not regularly set out to destroy something that takes many years and resources to establish.[/quote]Ok, so then by “insurance” you didn’t mean a company that covers unforseen future need for a present investment/fee? [quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:“Self sufficient” people are government’s greatest threat.[/quote]And see man here is where you get into trouble. This is one of your brilliant statements that you pull outta yer hat every so often and that I’ve been referring to for like three years now. However, self sufficiency is NOT a threat to government as a generic idea as you are here alleging. It certainly is a threat to the elitist snobs we have in power now who would be rendered useless if their dependent children of the welfare state ever grew up and took care of themselves.
It does not necessarily follow from this that there cannot be a formal societal structure that is not threatened by self sufficiency. We once had the closest thing to that yet. The thing that is constantly tripping you up is your fantastic idea that EVERYBODY would do the right thing if EVERYBODY else just got outta the way. Or that the rebels would be few and weak enough to always be handled privately and in the few exceptional cases where that is not possible then tough.
We humans are social critters. With no structured community to function within we simply do not. At least not efficiently and not for long. That is the take home truth. It’s designed into us. People who couldn’t care less about sports will find themselves sorta hoping their hometown team (or country in the Olympics) does well if they are in the news. It’s instinctual and there’s nuthin wrong with it in itself.
And in what world is being self sufficient regressive. Only an idiot would “want” to have to rely on someone else to provide their necessities.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:<<< And in what world is being self sufficient regressive. Only an idiot would “want” to have to rely on someone else to provide their necessities. [/quote]Don’t look now, but the idiots are on parade all over the western world.
I do apologize again for not getting back to you man. I actually will.
Self sufficiency is a threat to the progressives and progressive government. It is a threat to socialists and corporatists alike. Both need to control you, and if you don’t depend on them for some necessity, it is harder for them to control you without the open threat of violence.
Like the new EPA guidelines and other regulations attacking small businesses, small farms and people who believe in the right to use their private property.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:<<< And in what world is being self sufficient regressive. Only an idiot would “want” to have to rely on someone else to provide their necessities. [/quote]Don’t look now, but the idiots are on parade all over the western world.
I do apologize again for not getting back to you man. I actually will.
[/quote]
No I understand, I am not saying everyone that is not self sufficient is an idiot. But someone who would rather their own existence depend on another human being providing for them. There are instances where it is not possible, and there are luxuries and not necessities. But to not “want” to be able to survive without others providing for you is different.
I also agree the idiots are on parade in many societies around the world. The gaussian distribution applies to human intelligence and behavior as well.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I doubt insurance would allow it to happen.
Open competition not only keeps people from taking too much risk it also provides a means to manage the risk we do take.[/quote]Now jist a cotton pickin minute here. I now you ain’t sayin that you couldn’t run from a bad product by identity tricks because insurance would not allow it? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
[/quote]
An unknown brand in the market would come at a higher risk to vendors and therefor would be under more scrutiny. Remember that retailers also have a job to protect their customers.
A brand is like credit.
Companies with established brands do not regularly set out to destroy something that takes many years and resources to establish.[/quote]Ok, so then by “insurance” you didn’t mean a company that covers unforseen future need for a present investment/fee? [quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:“Self sufficient” people are government’s greatest threat.[/quote]And see man here is where you get into trouble. This is one of your brilliant statements that you pull outta yer hat every so often and that I’ve been referring to for like three years now. However, self sufficiency is NOT a threat to government as a generic idea as you are here alleging. It certainly is a threat to the elitist snobs we have in power now who would be rendered useless if their dependent children of the welfare state ever grew up and took care of themselves.
It does not necessarily follow from this that there cannot be a formal societal structure that is not threatened by self sufficiency. We once had the closest thing to that yet. The thing that is constantly tripping you up is your fantastic idea that EVERYBODY would do the right thing if EVERYBODY else just got outta the way. Or that the rebels would be few and weak enough to always be handled privately and in the few exceptional cases where that is not possible then tough.
We humans are social critters. With no structured community to function within we simply do not. At least not efficiently and not for long. That is the take home truth. It’s designed into us. People who couldn’t care less about sports will find themselves sorta hoping their hometown team (or country in the Olympics) does well if they are in the news. It’s instinctual and there’s nuthin wrong with it in itself.
[/quote]
I also meant insurance in the strict market sense of the word for covering risk. I cannot foresee a free society that does not insure ALL coverable risks – a coverable risk defined as a measurable probability that our behavior will cause financial loss either to ourself or someone we contract with or other individuals.
I don’t believe that self sufficiency is necessarily a bad or good idea. Obviously we cannot be completely self sufficient because otherwise we would not be having this conversation via ze interwebz. I like the idea that I don’t have to be controlled by my need for certain goods because I can produce them myself; but I don’t get carried away with it.
Camping gets really tiresome when it’s not just for a leisure holiday.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally doubt that a free society would want to go backwards to a point that you were self sufficient
[/quote]
I don’t mean to imply that you should live exclusively on your own foods.
Not at all.
But i’d say that
I) whatever you produce, you should have an affinity to your product if that is humanly possible.
If it is food, you should be it’s greatest fan.
II) a certain degree of self sufficiency is a virtue.
[/quote]
I eat well , I how ever just read an article how the poor pay more to live than the middle class and the wealthy trump (COSTS)of living of the middle class . I personally wish I had more time to devote to growing my food. It looks very promising for next winter
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I doubt insurance would allow it to happen.
Open competition not only keeps people from taking too much risk it also provides a means to manage the risk we do take.[/quote]Now jist a cotton pickin minute here. I now you ain’t sayin that you couldn’t run from a bad product by identity tricks because insurance would not allow it? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
[/quote]
An unknown brand in the market would come at a higher risk to vendors and therefor would be under more scrutiny. Remember that retailers also have a job to protect their customers.
A brand is like credit.
Companies with established brands do not regularly set out to destroy something that takes many years and resources to establish.[/quote]Ok, so then by “insurance” you didn’t mean a company that covers unforseen future need for a present investment/fee? [quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:“Self sufficient” people are government’s greatest threat.[/quote]And see man here is where you get into trouble. This is one of your brilliant statements that you pull outta yer hat every so often and that I’ve been referring to for like three years now. However, self sufficiency is NOT a threat to government as a generic idea as you are here alleging. It certainly is a threat to the elitist snobs we have in power now who would be rendered useless if their dependent children of the welfare state ever grew up and took care of themselves.
It does not necessarily follow from this that there cannot be a formal societal structure that is not threatened by self sufficiency. We once had the closest thing to that yet. The thing that is constantly tripping you up is your fantastic idea that EVERYBODY would do the right thing if EVERYBODY else just got outta the way. Or that the rebels would be few and weak enough to always be handled privately and in the few exceptional cases where that is not possible then tough.
We humans are social critters. With no structured community to function within we simply do not. At least not efficiently and not for long. That is the take home truth. It’s designed into us. People who couldn’t care less about sports will find themselves sorta hoping their hometown team (or country in the Olympics) does well if they are in the news. It’s instinctual and there’s nuthin wrong with it in itself.
[/quote]
I also meant insurance in the strict market sense of the word for covering risk. I cannot foresee a free society that does not insure ALL coverable risks – a coverable risk defined as a measurable probability that our behavior will cause financial loss either to ourself or someone we contract with or other individuals.
I don’t believe that self sufficiency is necessarily a bad or good idea. Obviously we cannot be completely self sufficient because otherwise we would not be having this conversation via ze interwebz. I like the idea that I don’t have to be controlled by my need for certain goods because I can produce them myself; but I don’t get carried away with it.
Camping gets really tiresome when it’s not just for a leisure holiday. [/quote]
Are you suggesting mandatory Insurance ? If not what protects against just changing names and denying any association with the incident?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Are you suggesting mandatory Insurance ? If not what protects against just changing names and denying any association with the incident?
[/quote]
Mandatory? No, but imagine if a credit score were negatively affected by not having certain types of insurance. Imagine if a low credit score signaled to other businesses and individuals that a certain person or business was too risky to associate with.
Changing names carries with it an other type of personal risk. People generally do not like to associate with other people they do not know. The only way to change names and not get caught is to be constantly on the move – but even technology makes that virtually impossible.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows. You give one to your neighbor.
COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.
… … CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies.You sell them and invest the proceeds with Bernie Madoff.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
AMERICAN CORPORATISM: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.
VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull[/quote]
Obama Class Warfare economics, you have two cows Obama convinces your neighbor to hate you because your neighbor has only one cow.