Dennis Hardin

Richism: The Self-Righteous Bigotry of the Wall Street Protestors

Recommended Posts

An environment where you can't call a spade a spade is conducive to only one thing: evil. So that's why we have so many politeness-mongers running amok. Note how much politeness-mongering there is in the Federalized public education system. Everyone's opinion counts, and you're just supposed to politely entertain vile nonsense. Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force.

Well which one is the real problem? Politeness or deadly force? Both simultaneously so it appears...

You are so blinded by some kind of pathological anti-authoritarian bias that you fail to see discern even the blatantly obvious. Any kind of enforced rule of any sort you haven't agreed to, to you is a fascist gun to your head. Every law, a spiteful deliberate attempt to rob you of your freedom. Not a healthy outlook.

The problem (one possible problem) with totally free markets is cheaters. Sure, sometimes cheaters naturally get weeded out as they fail and in some markets this is no big deal. Somebody buys a crappy pair of shoes that fall apart in a week, no biggie. Don't buy them again and the company fails maybe. Other times, cheaters wipe out others life savings and leave them financially devastated. Sometimes people can be physically hurt, maimed or killed even as the result of fraud and related crimes. This alone is justification for a great deal of your business-related legal so-called fascism.

Some imaginary utopian voluntary fantasy world where all the individuals sign a voluntary rule set and enforcement policy is simply not possible nor desirable. We generally know some at least of what the basic rules should be as learned through history, trial and error, and hopefully some common sense. Do the rules sometimes become onerous and counter productive? Sure they do, and some laws are really bad, but the answer isn't that laws in principle have no philosophical validity unless everyone voluntarily agrees, or that only the laws that can be traced back to some natural law are valid. We've gone far beyond this.

Can we connect Moody's AAA rating of obvious worthless ( or crazy high-risk at best) mortgage-backed securities paper to a natural rights violation? Well, maybe you can but that's quite a stretch. Hey, people bought the paper willingly, so screw them right? That's bullshit and I think you (and Brant) know it.

Your kneejerk fascism reactions are curious. You behave like you're 14 years old.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well which one is the real problem? Politeness or deadly force? Both simultaneously so it appears...

Every time I think I've grasped the depth of your stupidity you demonstrate new lows...

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's something of a stretch.

It's not a stretch. A spade's a spade. Why do you think there is so much fascism if it's not because of fascists?

An environment where you can't call a spade a spade is conducive to only one thing: evil. So that's why we have so many politeness-mongers running amok. Note how much politeness-mongering there is in the Federalized public education system. Everyone's opinion counts, and you're just supposed to politely entertain vile nonsense. Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force. He may not be aware that that's what he's doing, but that's not my issue, it's his (I think he is quite aware actually). He points a gun and tells people what they can and can't do, according to his own ignorant opinions on what the standard ought to be, ignoring a proper standard based on individual rights. I see this in a flash from his sputtering and am outraged by it. You should be too.

When the human race finally grows up, then tyranny will be quelled. And it will be kept at bay by sternly calling a spade a spade. It won't be kept at bay by being nice and polite to it. You think I'm apoplectic as a character trait, when really the issue is that I'm responding to matters that should rile any actually rights-respecting person up. I'm only different in that I actually have a deep respect for rights, I can see the long-term beneficial consequences of respecting rights and the insidious harm of violating them. I respond to injustice in kind.

So I've explained why righteous indignation is virtuous. Please explain why you think it's not.

Shayne

If you want to call people names . . . . What does "righteous indignation" have to do with that? Don't you think you might be a little more powerful with your case if you eschewed that?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You are so blinded by some kind of pathological anti-authoritarian bias ..."

I guess we should ask Bob how much ass-kissing boot-licking of authority is a "healthy" amount.

It's not a mere "bias" Bob, it's a worldview. I reject any and all claims of authority over an innocent individual that they did not consent to. The individual is sovereign so long as he is peaceful.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politeness is a virtue when people deal in terms of reason. When they threaten initiation of force or justify the initiation of force, then they've crossed the line. They started the incivility, and it is uncivil to return politeness to them when in fact they are criminals or apologists of criminals.

So my view Brant is that you are the one who is not being civil here.

Shayne

Hoo, boy!

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to call people names . . . . What does "righteous indignation" have to do with that? Don't you think you might be a little more powerful with your case if you eschewed that?

--Brant

What do you have against apt names? It's called A is A.

Shayne

- Not sure what it is you want me to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force. He may not be aware that that's what he's doing, but that's not my issue, it's his (I think he is quite aware actually). He points a gun and tells people what they can and can't do, according to his own ignorant opinions on what the standard ought to be, ignoring a proper standard based on individual rights.

I made a longer post previously, but let me cut to the chase.

Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger.

What if the one of the parties is about to fraudulently steal the other's life savings? Oh, but that's not consensual anymore? What if the fraud is a little more well concealed? Maybe he sells you 75% of the equity in his company, then turns around and sells 75% to someone else? That shit's been done. Shouldn't he be able to make any financial instrument he wants? What if there's accounting info that he isn't required to disclose, or deliberately concealed, or "accidentally" forgot? The bottom line is we need rules AND GUNS to back them up. Consent just is one part of a much larger picture when people can cheat/mislead/defraud. Your ideas only work when people don't cheat (or, iin other words, n the real world, they are useless).

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoo, boy!

--Brant

Doesn't elucidate to me why you think it's civilized to be polite to unapologetic fascists.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force.

Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger.

Brant, what more evidence do you need?

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a mere "bias" Bob, it's a worldview. I reject any and all claims of authority over an innocent individual that they did not consent to. The individual is sovereign so long as he is peaceful.

Shayne

And the absurdity of your rejection is eclipsed only by its immaturity.

"Innocent" individual. Well, who decides on his innocence? Or is this 'principled' philosophical innocence that is axiomatic and self-evident?

Peaceful? In words or in actions? Can he libel you? Who decides what is libelous? Can he call you a dishonest moron with impunity?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force.

Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger.

Brant, what more evidence do you need?

Shayne

So, you're disagreeing with pulling the trigger on a thief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All and all, Shayne has the overall advantage so far--for the simple reason the U.S. is seriously knocking on the door of an overtly fascist state.

We’re definitely a mixed economy, so you can point fingers all day long about how the government is messing up this or that. The point being rancorously disputed here has been whether small businesses have access to capital in the present day US, and they do. In communist Russia, they didn’t at all. In fascist countries it was complicated. You had to be a party member, etc, too many possible reasons for being locked out for me to try listing them. To say the current US situation is equivalent to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy is, at the least, to engage in hyperbole.

As to the small business vs. big business issue, note that politicians are always talking about what they’re going to do to help small business. And there are favors bestowed, with strings attached of course. And small businesses do get bailed out, I’ve seen it, but have confidentiality reasons why I can’t talk about cases I know, and am not up for looking up others. They don't get the same level of media coverage, that's the main difference. To determine whether government bestows more favors on big business than small is beyond quantifying, it’s so messy how to begin?

Here’s something to think about, though: S-Corps were created only about 50 years ago, LLC’s more recently. Before that, if you wanted limited liability, you had to be a C-Corp, meaning double taxation. You could think of it as big business paying the government for a privilege denied to small business. Then that privilege was extended to small business*, without making them pay for it too . Sounds unfair to big business, right? I really don’t think of it that way, but have a hard time explaining where limited liability ought to come from, since it’s something that’s recognized where? In courts ultimately, in other words, by and through the government.

*of course a small business could be organized as a C-Corp, its just that a big business (i.e. public company) can't be an S-Corp or an LLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force. He may not be aware that that's what he's doing, but that's not my issue, it's his (I think he is quite aware actually). He points a gun and tells people what they can and can't do, according to his own ignorant opinions on what the standard ought to be, ignoring a proper standard based on individual rights.

I made a longer post previously, but let me cut to the chase.

Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger.

What if the one of the parties is about to fraudulently steal the other's life savings? Oh, but that's not consensual anymore? What if the fraud is a little more well concealed? Maybe he sells you 75% of the equity in his company, then turns around and sells 75% to someone else? That shit's been done. Shouldn't he be able to make any financial instrument he wants?

Well, yes. Of course.

If someone wants to give his life savings to a guy (Madoff, for example) and believes that this is a good idea, he *deserves* to lose it.

Clearly the honest banker doesn't deserve to be punished with regulations just because other people are guilty (aka stupid, irrational).

Put your money on a savings account of a *reputable* bank, such as the Deutsche Bank, and you won't lose it, it's that simple.

Don't gamble, don't give your money to people you don't know and whose business model you don't understand. All those people who lost their money in the finance crisis aren't vicitims. They are idiots. We don't need more regulation, we need more deserved reality for the idiots. How else will they learn?

The catastrophy is that the Zeitgeist excused the idiots and shifted the blame on the bankers. Not even Madoff deserves the bulk of the blame, let alone the honest part of banking.

That being said, I don't think America is knocking on the door of fascim. There are some fascinating similarities to the Weimar Republic, but the differences overweight the similarities substantially. Especially the internet makes a great difference for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a mere "bias" Bob, it's a worldview. I reject any and all claims of authority over an innocent individual that they did not consent to. The individual is sovereign so long as he is peaceful.

Shayne

And the absurdity of your rejection is eclipsed only by its immaturity.

"Innocent" individual. Well, who decides on his innocence? Or is this 'principled' philosophical innocence that is axiomatic and self-evident?

Peaceful? In words or in actions? Can he libel you? Who decides what is libelous? Can he call you a dishonest moron with impunity?

Bob

It is interesting that Bob asks his questions rhetorically. He believes no answer to these questions exist, and that because there are no answers, then that justifies his brutish authoritarianism. For him, impossibility of knowledge is his God. He is the pragmatist who actually knows the principle underlying his pragmatism. What a specimen.

Shayne

- Brant: Does he have to have "fascist" tattooed on his forehead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force.

Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger.

Brant, what more evidence do you need?

Shayne

So, you're disagreeing with pulling the trigger on a thief?

That wasn't the scenario. Does your perversion of basic communication know no bounds? Are you aware that you are perverting, or just utterly incompetent?

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that Bob asks his questions rhetorically. He believes no answer to these questions exist, and that because there are no answers, then that justifies his brutish authoritarianism. For him, impossibility of knowledge is his God. He is the pragmatist who actually knows the principle underlying his pragmatism. What a specimen.

Shayne

- Brant: Does he have to have "fascist" tattooed on his forehead?

Nope, not rhetorical at all. They're directly related to your assertion - and reality. They have to be answered or your principle is just another 'floating abstraction'.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, I don't think America is knocking on the door of fascim.

It went through the door long ago. What do you think fascism is, swastikas and gas chambers? That's not what it is at all. It's intensive control over the economy from a top down dictatorship, and if you step out of line, you are shot. That is what we are living in.

So why aren't people getting killed all the time? Because they OBEY. They SUBMIT. Which is quite prudent of course. But if they acted as free men, they would be shot. You see no one getting shot so you think there is no fascism, as if you wouldn't see slavery if no slaves complained or tried to escape. But slaves know the principle of the hidden gun, at least subconsciously: it's there waiting to be used, and so they OBEY and SUBMIT.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't the scenario. Does your perversion of basic communication know no bounds? Are you aware that you are perverting, or just utterly incompetent?

Shayne

Shayne, pal...um... the stuff that's written is stored in a database...

"That wasn't the scenario."

Uh... yeah...it was.

"What if the one of the parties is about to fraudulently steal the other's life savings?"

I'm the perverted and/or incompetent one? Really??? Well, perverted maybe (it's a gray area sometimes), but I can read! Can you?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that Bob asks his questions rhetorically. He believes no answer to these questions exist, and that because there are no answers, then that justifies his brutish authoritarianism. For him, impossibility of knowledge is his God. He is the pragmatist who actually knows the principle underlying his pragmatism. What a specimen.

Shayne

- Brant: Does he have to have "fascist" tattooed on his forehead?

Nope, not rhetorical at all. They're directly related to your assertion - and reality. They have to be answered or your principle is just another 'floating abstraction'.

Bob

How about we just agree that your mode of thought appears just as strange to me as mine does to you.

Shayne

- Principled people are from Mars, pragmatists are from Venus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It went through the door long ago. What do you think fascism is, swastikas and gas chambers? That's not what it is at all. It's intensive control over the economy from a top down dictatorship, and if you step out of line, you are shot. That is what we are living in.

By and large, I agree with this characterization, but I'm puzzled as to when you are shot. Do you mean literally shot?

America still has more freedom of speech than the rest of the world ever had. It also has a much more diverse ideological landscape than any other society in the history of mankind.

So what do you mean by "stepping out of line" and what does "shot" stand for? Death penalty is reserved for murder I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force. He may not be aware that that's what he's doing, but that's not my issue, it's his (I think he is quite aware actually). He points a gun and tells people what they can and can't do, according to his own ignorant opinions on what the standard ought to be, ignoring a proper standard based on individual rights.

I made a longer post previously, but let me cut to the chase.

Not only would I point the gun, I'd pull the trigger.

What if the one of the parties is about to fraudulently steal the other's life savings? Oh, but that's not consensual anymore? What if the fraud is a little more well concealed? Maybe he sells you 75% of the equity in his company, then turns around and sells 75% to someone else? That shit's been done. Shouldn't he be able to make any financial instrument he wants?

Well, yes. Of course.

If someone wants to give his life savings to a guy (Madoff, for example) and believes that this is a good idea, he *deserves* to lose it.

Clearly the honest banker doesn't deserve to be punished with regulations just because other people are guilty (aka stupid, irrational).

Really? I mean Really? What if your Gramma got hoodwinked by this guy? Now her retirement savings are gone. Her fault? Perhaps somewhat but 100%? Really?

It sounds like something a teenager would say. If so, don't worry, you'll probably grow up.

Put your money on a savings account of a *reputable* bank, such as the Deutsche Bank, and you won't lose it, it's that simple.

What about Lehman Brothers? And besides Shayne would whine that the government prevents small banks from starting up if everyone only invested in the big ones.

Don't gamble, don't give your money to people you don't know and whose business model you don't understand. All those people who lost their money in the finance crisis aren't vicitims. They are idiots. We don't need more regulation, we need more deserved reality for the idiots. How else will they learn?

There are a couple points in there, and this is an oversimplification. You are correct, lack of regulation is not the problem anymore than lack of regulation is responsible for somebody committing some other, violent crime. But it does not excuse the perpetrators.

Idiots? I'm guessing 16? 17?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Brant, you should be lecturing GHS about civility, not me. He brazenly proceeds in bad faith, whereas I consistently deal in terms of rational argument. And then I point this out, and I am gagged. And yet you're mad at me because I call a spade a spade.

Shayne

If you want civity, be civil.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Brant, you should be lecturing GHS about civility, not me. He brazenly proceeds in bad faith, whereas I consistently deal in terms of rational argument. And then I point this out, and I am gagged. And yet you're mad at me because I call a spade a spade.

Shayne

If you want civity, be civil.

--Brant

I want civility in my definition of it, not yours.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It went through the door long ago. What do you think fascism is, swastikas and gas chambers? That's not what it is at all. It's intensive control over the economy from a top down dictatorship, and if you step out of line, you are shot. That is what we are living in.

By and large, I agree with this characterization, but I'm puzzled as to when you are shot. Do you mean literally shot?

You are shot when you don't submit to the judge's order to yield your property for daring to violate their fascist regulations. You know this already subconsciously. Every regulation is ultimately backed up by a death threat, payable on your demand that your rights be respected.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By and large, I agree with this characterization, but I'm puzzled as to when you are shot. Do you mean literally shot?

It's just hyperbole. If you're familiar with the stories of the blackshirts and what they would do to people who spoke up against Mussolini, saying the US is fascist is just absurd. We'd all have are doors busted open in the middle of the night, be beaten with canes, then forced to drink a quart of castor oil, only for participating on OL.

And pointing out this abuse of language doesn't make me, or anyone else here, a defender of fascism, or even of the mixed economy. I gather Bob_Mac does favor a mixed economy, but I think he's the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...