Why you can't ****ing trust the government to do anything right...

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I don't see how not having laws that favor one group over another means "permitting discriminatory treatment to occur."[/QUOTE]

Well that's really the big confusion here. People really believe absence of those types of laws creates discrimination. Nevermind the fact that all types of lawsuits and litigation are still possible.

People really believe you need that big-brother to stand there with their all-seeing eye watching everything you do and coming down on you like a hammer if you do something wrong. That's Freedom.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
If you permit discriminatory treatment to occur, you allow the dominance of one group/class (both in terms of economics, gender, race, etc.) over the others to continue and exacerbate itself.

That is not freedom.[/QUOTE]

See, that's the primary difference between you and me. You believe the governments' job is to permit behavior. I believe it's job is to limit behavior.

Your rights do not include the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property. Under your 'system', however, we are all property of the State, and therefore subject to it's and the peoples' whims and what they can be made to believe. It's ironic because it's exactly what you claim to be against whenever a Republican is in power. Your claim on "Liberalism" or any form of liberty is a sham.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I don't see how not having laws that favor one group over another means "permitting discriminatory treatment to occur."[/QUOTE]

I did not say "create," thrust. I said "permit."

WhitesOnly.jpg


This is acceptable to you. You support this. It is freedom in action. The tyranny of the majority.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well that's really the big confusion here. People really believe absence of those types of laws creates discrimination. Nevermind the fact that all types of lawsuits and litigation are still possible.

People really believe you need that big-brother to stand there with their all-seeing eye watching everything you do and coming down on you like a hammer if you do something wrong. That's Freedom.[/QUOTE]


Actually, what myke is saying is that no 'individual' should have the freedom to discriminate against any other for any reason in order for us to have a truly free society. I still would like to know how curtailing this kind of freedom can co-exist with the idea of personal liberty. If we are told how to act and think under penalty of law, we are not free.

Limiting personal discrimination is an absurd act in and of itself and there is no rational limit to the categories that should fall under it's jurisdiction. Am I allowed to discriminate against people who smell bad? Shouldn't they have the right to work in my store, in the position I created with my own effort and risk? is that only an absurd category because it doesn't have a group of people large enough to lobby a legislature? Someone needs to speak for the stinky people - and his name must be myke.

The downside of freedom is all the ugliness that comes with it. Tolerance of these abhorrent viewpoints is the hallmark of a free society. In no way, shape, or form are people who share Myke's philosophy champions of freedom. They represent the same fascist tendencies as the reactionary, white, republican,and christian fringe: The power to control your mind and body by fiat.
 
We've had this circular conversation a thousand times before. There are always limits to freedom.

Always.

I do not, and should not, ever have the freedom to take another person's life. But does that mean we no longer have a "free" society?

I should be able to hire Chinese labor to cheaply assemble toys made from lead paint. If your child dies from putting it in its mouth, I should not be held liable. Doing so would inhibit my freedom to participate in the marketplace on my own terms.

We've been here before, bmulligan. The only difference is that I realize that "personal liberty" is a cloak that can never be absolute - and you fail to recognize that distinction in arguing against my recommendations of limitations of freedom based on the shortcomings of this nation throughout its history, instead deciding to circumvent argument in favor of creating straw men like "personal liberty."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I did not say "create," thrust. I said "permit."

WhitesOnly.jpg


This is acceptable to you. You support this. It is freedom in action. The tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE]

No it is not acceptable, to me personally, but it must be tolerated until it physically harms the rights of another individual or his property.

Government should not be allowed to discriminate between individuals, however. It's the identical libertarian concept I mentioned before where government must treat all people, or corporations, or industries, if you prefer, equally. Nowhere does the Constitution say that all people must do the same to each other. Why doesn't it? Because to limit peoples' behavior and personal opinions and tendencies in this way may solve your immediate maladies of a free society, but the price of such action is totalitarianism and the end of liberty.


Does the burning of an American flag offend you? It offends me, personally, but there's no way in hell I'm going to try to pass a law that says you can't burn your own property on your own property. The arguments for and against this type of proposed injustice are virtually identical to our argument.

Here's the argument for limiting your freedom of opinion and use of your own property:
Proponents of the amendment argue that protecting the flag is necessary because of the uniquely important nature of the flag. They argue the flag is the most revered symbol of the United States itself, and thus burning it is a profoundly offensive gesture towards all its citizens.
Click to expand...
Racism is so abhorrent to a majority of people that legislature must be enacted to curtail your opinion and your right to speak it.

Arguments against:
Opponents of the flag desecration proposal, including civil liberties groups and First Amendment defenders, point out the rarity of flag desecration in the United States, and assert that the proposed amendment is the epitome of "a solution in search of a problem." They also say that an amendment making such activity illegal would undermine the very principles for which the flag stands; jailing protesters of dissenting opinion
Click to expand...
The burned flag, offensive to patriotic Americans must be tolerated, because being not offended or being free from denied happiness is not a right.

Keep digging, myke. Sooner or later, like the Flag Burning Amendment, your group will prevail at lynching the fundamental underlying principle of our society: Personal liberty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']I did not say "create," thrust. I said "permit."

WhitesOnly.jpg


This is acceptable to you. You support this. It is freedom in action. The tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE]

The little American flag make it OK.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We've had this circular conversation a thousand times before. There are always limits to freedom.

Always.

I do not, and should not, ever have the freedom to take another person's life. But does that mean we no longer have a "free" society?

I should be able to hire Chinese labor to cheaply assemble toys made from lead paint. If your child dies from putting it in its mouth, I should not be held liable. Doing so would inhibit my freedom to participate in the marketplace on my own terms.

We've been here before, bmulligan. The only difference is that I realize that "personal liberty" is a cloak that can never be absolute - and you fail to recognize that distinction in arguing against my recommendations of limitations of freedom based on the shortcomings of this nation throughout its history, instead deciding to circumvent argument in favor of creating straw men like "personal liberty."[/QUOTE]

Of course there are limits to freedom. I can't murder your wife without penalties, right? I can't steal your 360 without penalty, right? Your problem is that you continue to pait my idea of 'freedom' as a free for all, as if I believe any curtailment on any choice constitutes a breach of liberty. You know exactly what you're doing and why when you make those arguments. You are purposely distorting and using a lie to boost your own argument as to why we need to curtail freedom even more. Then you claim that action is in the name of freedom itself.

You are living a lie, and you're trying to sell it to people. The problem is that they don't realize the true cost - and I know YOU do. The destruction of persnal freedom is your primary goal. People cannot be trusted to do the right thing in any circumstance. Proper government planning of all societal aspects can help prevent the chaos of letting people make their own decisions.
 
Rather, what I'm doing is arguing that we clearly disagree on areas that should and should not be curtailed in the name of "freedom."

We clearly disagree. You think it should be here, I think it should be there. Neither more noble nor "American" than the other.

Quite simply, my argument is that the history of the United States is the history of systemic oppression that favored the landed elites, males, and whites. And it is a system of inequality that has always been shifted in favor of broader equality for all by law, and never by the free market.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Quite simply, my argument is that the history of the United States is the history of systemic oppression that favored the landed elites, males, and whites. And it is a system of inequality that has always been shifted in favor of broader equality for all by law, and never by the free market.[/QUOTE]

This may be true. And if it is, we have never actually had a truly libertarian society, and clearly too many people would be terrified of trying one.

Your argument may be sound, but where I fail to agree is that your advocated answer to oppression seems to be to essentially create counter oppression to try and equalize it, which clearly doesn't work imo.

Edit: It might be a misnomer to say it doesn't work - as it clearly gets desired results that you are fine with, but they come at a very high cost of personal liberty that I am not fine with.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Your argument may be sound, but where I fail to agree is that your advocated answer to oppression seems to be to essentially create counter oppression to try and equalize it, which clearly doesn't work imo.[/QUOTE]

Where hasn't it worked? The EEOA? FHAA? Minimum wage laws? Child labor laws? Civil Rights Act? Women's suffrage?

You might come up with examples that you feel did not work, but I wholly contend that examples like those listed above work more than they do not.

Moreover, I can't help but think the "one oppression to counter another" is an argument can't put much stock in. Reminds me of the strange arguments that come up if you accuse someone of being intolerant of (fill in group here) - that the original person is intolerant because they can't tolerate someone else's intolerance. They're similar styles of argument, IMO, and they don't lead, in terms of a progressive discourse, to much more than "nuh-uh/yeah-huh" stuff.
 
Well yeah. Basically you are arguing the government needs to force a few things to happen in society in order to be more free. The end results are often what you set out to get, statistically. And you are clearly happy with that. That's fine.

To me, I would at least like to see what a real true free market produced for a while. I'd like to see how checks and balances would (or would not) get created on their own. You could be right, but we don't know. It seems from the start, in this country, we have erred on the side of too much government interference to keep the wheels moving. I don't like that.

In many ways this whole argument is theoretical, since as you pointed out, we don't have a true free market baseline to compare against. It's all theoretical.

It's just the core of where you and some of us disagree. As you pointed out, neither of us is more American or right for believing those different issues.
 
A real, true free market would lead to chaos IMO.

People are inherently hedonistic, if you make it truly every man for himself, things are going to fall apart as there's nothing in place to uphold the social contract.

The real question is how many, and what type, of government influence do we need to regulate the market (using market broadly, not just for economics). I'd think we'd most all agree that it should be the least possible.

We just disagree on where the cutoff should be.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A real, true free market would lead to chaos IMO.

People are inherently hedonistic, if you make it truly every man for himself, things are going to fall apart as there's nothing in place to uphold the social contract.[/quote]
The government is supposed to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a government to ensure that the social contract is upheld.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) There are Unions that are large enough that they try to shift the pay scale within an entire industry. Say, the United Auto Worker's Union.[/quote]
Pooling resources in order to get better prices is a basic function of capitalism. Why should labor be excluded from that benefit? They may try to raise pay and benefits for all, but to my knowledge they've never seriously tried to standardize across the entire industry.

Besides, it's not like it doesn't happen all over the place all the time with a wink and a nod anyways. Law firms openly collude and cap pay. This is the pay scale for the top 110 law firms in America. If that's not collusion brother, nothing is.

http://www.lawfirmdiscussion.com/compensation/newyork07salary.php

In fact, something quite interesting in the big firm industry is happening right this second. Big firms, not wanting to lose face, are waiting to see if any other big ones cut salary. Everyone wants to, but no one wants to show weakness by doing it first. Traditionally offers are made that include salary. Offers are being held back EVERYWHERE in order to, well, openly collude on pay. Find a 3rd year with an offer and ask them if they've know how much they'll make. Ask them if that's unusual. You'll get an earful about how ridiculously open the collusion really is.

B.) So, if the three gas stations within one small town in the middle of no where got together and decided to start charging $10/gallon for gas, you'd be okay with that, since it's not the entire industry, but one localized case?
Click to expand...
Does that not happen already? In real terms when price deviation is less than a half a percent across an area, that's collusion.

"We" expect "the government" to work for us - but they do batshit crazy things.
"We" expect "companies" do make stuff for us - but they do batshit crazy things.
"We" expect a lot of things. We have to find a balance on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Your original point was that you can find relief in the courts. That's not the case.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']The government is supposed to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a government to ensure that the social contract is upheld.[/QUOTE]

Actually, in principle the American government is there to ensure that noone infringes on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

That being said, I have no doubt that the entitlement generation would take you literally.
 
[quote name='camoor']Actually, in principle the American government is there to ensure that noone infringes on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

That being said, I have no doubt that the entitlement generation would take you literally.[/QUOTE]

Camoor, your posts are making me bipolar. They either make me livid or I love them. This is one of the latter.

What would a country be like where they were not allowed to do anything unless it directly dealt with those three things? We'll never know, but I am confident it would not be chaos.

Edit: I think it's the pursuit of happiness interpretation that has divided this country politically so much. Everyone can define that in so many different ways, and many people feel we (gov) need to provide that happiness, which is where I deviate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']Actually, in principle the American government is there to ensure that noone infringes on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. [/quote]
Yeah, that's what I meant.
That being said, I have no doubt that the entitlement generation would take you literally.
Click to expand...
Unfortunatly, that seems to always be the case.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Camoor, your posts are making me bipolar. They either make me livid or I love them. This is one of the latter.

What would a country be like where they were not allowed to do anything unless it directly dealt with those three things? We'll never know, but I am confident it would not be chaos.

Edit: I think it's the pursuit of happiness interpretation that has divided this country politically so much. Everyone can define that in so many different ways, and many people feel we (gov) need to provide that happiness, which is where I deviate.[/QUOTE]

I agree, we'll just disagree on what the government should do in protecting those rights.

i.e. I support the government making sure every citizen has affordable health care options, as you can't pursue life, liberty or happiness if you don't have your health.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how the Libertarians in these threads act like private companies are neutral... they try to infringe on your life and liberty by design. I'm not even saying they are evil or out to get you, it's just a side-effect of economics. It took so much to get the government to intervene for the sake of the common man, I can't believe you guys take it for granted.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I love how the Libertarians in these threads act like private companies are neutral... they try to infringe on your life and liberty by design. I'm not even saying they are evil or out to get you, it's just a side-effect of economics. It took so much to get the government to intervene for the sake of the common man, I can't believe you guys take it for granted.[/QUOTE]


There you go myke. Looks like you have a prime candidate for leftist indoctrination.
 
Feds: Stimulus money sent to 4,000 cons[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]

[/FONT]
One day after the Herald reported some surprised Bay State inmates - including murderers and rapists - were cashing in $250 stimulus checks, federal officials revealed the same behind-bars bonus was mailed to nearly 4,000 cons nationwide.

A federal watchdog is now probing how the cons were cut the checks. The same cash also may have been sent to fugitive felons, people kicked out of the country and even individuals now deceased.

It’s all part of the massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - and what is becoming an accounting nightmare for red-faced feds.

“President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill has done more to help convicted criminals than it has to actually boost our economy and create jobs,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Sara Sendek.

The Inspector General of Social Security is now tracing the checks that were mailed to 3,900 prisoners at a cost of nearly $1 million after yesterday’s report in the Herald.

Social Security Administration spokesman Stephen Richardson said yesterday none of the prisoner recipients receive monthly Social Security benefits, meaning they should not qualify for a stimulus check. Such benefits are generally cut off to the incarcerated.

The IG also is investigating whether any improper payments were made to dead beneficiaries, felons on the run from the law, individuals living overseas and recipients no longer legally authorized to live in the United States, said IG spokesman George Penn.

Among the 23 inmate recipients in Massachusetts mentioned in yesterday’s Herald are a prisoner convicted of first-degree murder, three prisoners jailed for second-degree murder and five convicted rapists, according to the state Department of Correction.

Richardson said five Bay State prisoners received the payments legitimately because they were legally on Social Security in a three-month period before they went to jail.

The remaining checks were sent to individuals who were not properly identified as prisoners in Social Security records or to people where inaccurate Social Security numbers have since been found.

Only five Massachusetts prisoners have enough cash left to pay the government back, the DOC said.

Nationally, about 2,200 inmates who were mailed checks are entitled to the payments because they were not in prison and lawfully collecting Social Security at some point between November 2008 and January, Richardson said.

The federal goverment is examining whether the payment was due to the remaining 1,700 inmates because they were not identified as prisoners in the Social Security system, Richardson said.

The U.S. Treasury Department began mailing the $250 checks to 54.4 million Social Security beneficiaries, veterans and federal railroad retirees in May as part of a $13 billion spending plan.
Click to expand...
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]
[/FONT]http://www.bostonherald.com/news/re...ald_report_spurs_probe/srvc=home&position=als
 
The entire reasoning behind the writing of the Constitution was to limit the power of government over the rights of the states and the people. Anyone who has to deal with the government or any other person or entity that has power over your life should know, instinctively, that they are untrustworthy. Understanding this is a fundamental step in becoming an adult in this world. Unfortunately, some would wish that you remain a child for your entire existence so that they may retain their power over your life.

The fact that there are whoredes of people who would supplant their own will to that of a super entity and place their full faith and trust in it reveals the devolution of humankind and his mind. Let government be your god and you will soon find out that god doesn't even like you, or care about you, and looks at you as a means to his own existence and omnipotence.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I love how the Libertarians in these threads act like private companies are neutral... they try to infringe on your life and liberty by design. I'm not even saying they are evil or out to get you, it's just a side-effect of economics. It took so much to get the government to intervene for the sake of the common man, I can't believe you guys take it for granted.[/QUOTE]

I often think about this.

As private citizens we have jobs and a life, that leaves a scant amount of time to get informed.

In certain industries, corporations have paid operatives at every level scheming to tip the balances, change the rules, sneak cheap additives in and quality ingredients out. Time has proven that many executives and the flunkies they use to interface with government and the public have no morals, no sense of responsibility, and no goals beyond winning. It's not really about maximizing profits - it's more about staying in power and keeping unfair advantages. The people who run these industries are not capitalists, they are oligarchs.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']... the devolution of humankind and his mind. [/QUOTE]

Speaking of that, how is Michigan? Have they resorted to cannibalism yet? Is Michigan going to beat California as the first state to go feral?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The entire reasoning behind the writing of the Constitution was to limit the power of government over the rights of the states and the people. Anyone who has to deal with the government or any other person or entity that has power over your life should know, instinctively, that they are untrustworthy. Understanding this is a fundamental step in becoming an adult in this world. Unfortunately, some would wish that you remain a child for your entire existence so that they may retain their power over your life.[/quote]
The founders had no possible concept of the rise of the multinational corporation as a counter influence. Our system was set up based on an agrarian economy. Trying to superimpose those "reasonings" on today's reality as if it was an equitable or rational comparison is absurd.

The fact that there are whoredes of people who would supplant their own will to that of a super entity and place their full faith and trust in it reveals the devolution of humankind and his mind. Let government be your god and you will soon find out that god doesn't even like you, or care about you, and looks at you as a means to his own existence and omnipotence.
Click to expand...
That's just a tad beyond the pale of reason there skippy.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The founders had no possible concept of the rise of the multinational corporation as a counter influence. Our system was set up based on an agrarian economy. Trying to superimpose those "reasonings" on today's reality as if it was an equitable or rational comparison is absurd. [/QUOTE]
I suppose you have never heard of the Bank of England?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I love how the Libertarians in these threads act like private companies are neutral... they try to infringe on your life and liberty by design. I'm not even saying they are evil or out to get you, it's just a side-effect of economics. It took so much to get the government to intervene for the sake of the common man, I can't believe you guys take it for granted.[/QUOTE]

I don't know of a libertarian foolish enough to believe large corporations are neutral. But I know many non-libertarians that foolishly believe government is.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't know of a libertarian foolish enough to believe large corporations are neutral. But I know many non-libertarians that foolishly believe government is.[/QUOTE]

The government should be acting in the interest of its people.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Let government be your god and you will soon find out that god doesn't even like you, or care about you, and looks at you as a means to his own existence and omnipotence.[/QUOTE]

No need to do this; we see it already.

[quote name='speedracer']The founders had no possible concept of the rise of the multinational corporation as a counter influence.[/QUOTE]

Counter influence? The government and multinational corporations work in tandem, not against each other. See the OP. If only what you say were true at least it would make such a system similar to our two-party political system, where one set of dopes at least helps thwart the other set of dopes from time to time.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']The government should be acting in the interest of its people.[/QUOTE]

Yes, "should." Also, "woulda," "coulda," "shoulda."
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I suppose you have never heard of the Bank of England?[/QUOTE]
I've never heard of the Bank of England. I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night though.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't know of a libertarian foolish enough to believe large corporations are neutral. But I know many non-libertarians that foolishly believe government is.[/QUOTE]
I've never met anyone in my life that thinks of government as neutral. Make a point if you have one, but that's complete horse shit. Stop with with talk radio retardedness.

[quote name='elprincipe']Counter influence? The government and multinational corporations work in tandem, not against each other. See the OP. If only what you say were true at least it would make such a system similar to our two-party political system, where one set of dopes at least helps thwart the other set of dopes from time to time.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I just meant that it started that way (a counter influence), then the whole comments by Jefferson and Lincoln etc. about the corporation eating us, then them actually eating us.

We've danced this dance before I think. I'm gonna ask if you support more regulation to and you say you support the regulation on the books and I say we need more to address the current situation and you say we already have stuff on the books to deal with it and we go round and round.

Bout right? :D
 
[quote name='speedracer']The founders had no possible concept of the rise of the multinational corporation as a counter influence...
[/QUOTE]
C'mon, really? Really? You think the multi-national corporation is a modern invention?

I don't even know where to begin here. There's only so much one can do to make up for the failings of the public school system.

Someone please restrain me...
 
[quote name='willardhaven']The government should be acting in the interest of its people.[/QUOTE]

It's natural tendency is NOT to. I thought they still taught this in high school. At least they still teach math, right? Right ?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's natural tendency is NOT to. I thought they still taught this in high school. At least they still teach math, right? Right ?[/QUOTE]

It's easier to be condescending when you are not screwing up a three letter word.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It's easier to be condescending when you are not screwing up a three letter word.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's easier after a few cocktails and not worrying about perfunctory apostrophe placement. You got me, though!
 
So rather than just act like jerks, why don't we discuss the matter at hand? What would you propose to remedy the situation? In this case you could argue that consumers purchase a lead testing kit, but is that really a solution?
 
government?

nature?

right. I'll join this conversation again when we start using terms like "nature" to mean what they stand for.
 
It's easier to lob insults and wax poetic. You aren't helping the situation by throwing your arms up and giving them the raspberry though.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England[/QUOTE]
That was helpful. Thank you. I still don't have a damned clue what it is you're trying to convey.
[quote name='bmulligan']C'mon, really? Really? You think the multi-national corporation is a modern invention?[/quote]
At some point it would be easier if you read my fucking post and tried to understand what I was saying instead of whatever the hell just happened there. I didn't say anything of the sort and even then I clarified my statement later.
I don't even know where to begin here. There's only so much one can do to make up for the failings of the public school system.

Someone please restrain me...
Click to expand...
OHHHHHHH LLLLAAAWWWDDDDYYYYY SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM THE IDIOT THAT CAN'T READ! I'VE GOT THE VAPORS AND MUST BE RESTRAINED.
 
[quote name='speedracer']That was helpful. Thank you. I still don't have a damned clue what it is you're trying to convey.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know if it says this on that page, but the Bank of England was really one of the first multi-national corporations. It was owned by the Rothschild family, and expanded all over Europe, and eventually to the Colonies. When it expanded to the Colonies, it created a depression, and was a major cause of the revolution. The Founding Fathers knew what collaboration between a national bank and government was like. That's why the knew government's power had to be limited in order to stop this from happening in the new country.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I don't know if it says this on that page, but the Bank of England was really one of the first multi-national corporations. It was owned by the Rothschild family, and expanded all over Europe, and eventually to the Colonies. When it expanded to the Colonies, it created a depression, and was a major cause of the revolution. The Founding Fathers knew what collaboration between a national bank and government was like. That's why the knew government's power had to be limited in order to stop this from happening in the new country.[/QUOTE]

Everything you said is true, but was mostly forgotten by anyone important after Andrew Jackson kicked the bucket.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']government?

nature?

right. I'll join this conversation again when we start using terms like "nature" to mean what they stand for.[/QUOTE]


Let's do that. After that, we should go right into defining society and common good.

Or, maybe, we should just continue with anecdotal reasoning instead of a philosphical discussion.
 
[quote name='speedracer']That was helpful. Thank you. I still don't have a damned clue what it is you're trying to convey.

At some point it would be easier if you read my fucking post and tried to understand what I was saying instead of whatever the hell just happened there. I didn't say anything of the sort and even then I clarified my statement later.

OHHHHHHH LLLLAAAWWWDDDDYYYYY SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM THE IDIOT THAT CAN'T READ! I'VE GOT THE VAPORS AND MUST BE RESTRAINED.[/QUOTE]

Look, I do apologize for the insult. It was, perhaps, over the top, but not personal. But to say the founders had no possible concept of the influence of the multi-national blah-dee-blah is a huge escape from reality. I don't know of any other way to interpret that statement that you clarified subsequently. It's just plain wrong. I'll stick with the idea that you may have worded your idea imprecisely and I further misinterpreted it.

Comparing global influences 300 years ago to today is no stretch of the imagination. They are directly parallel. Not much has changed in the last 5000 years except now I know what my friends are doing 24/7 because of this internets thingy. I can also sail across the globe via satellite instead of sextant. Regardless of how much our technology has evolved, human nature, corporate nature, and governmental nature hasn't budged an iota. Certain principles remain unchanged.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Look, I do apologize for the insult. It was, perhaps, over the top, but not personal. But to say the founders had no possible concept of the influence of the multi-national blah-dee-blah is a huge escape from reality. I don't know of any other way to interpret that statement that you clarified subsequently. It's just plain wrong. I'll stick with the idea that you may have worded your idea imprecisely and I further misinterpreted it.

Comparing global influences 300 years ago to today is no stretch of the imagination. They are directly parallel. Not much has changed in the last 5000 years except now I know what my friends are doing 24/7 because of this internets thingy. I can also sail across the globe via satellite instead of sextant. Regardless of how much our technology has evolved, human nature, corporate nature, and governmental nature hasn't budged an iota. Certain principles remain unchanged.[/QUOTE]

One thing has changed - I think the current group of oligarchs are the least moral in the history of the United States. Given US history (robber barons, gilded age, S&L crisis...) that's saying something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top