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

[sjw]

Michael, speaking of the "next door" perspective: Romney is a guy who wears Magic Underwear with bizarre markings on them, and thinks that it protects him from harm. He participates in bizarre temple rituals. Do you really want someone like that in the White House?

I'd much prefer Cain.

Shayne

[Roger Bissell]

Michael, speaking of the "next door" perspective: Romney is a guy who wears Magic Underwear with bizarre markings on them, and thinks that it protects him from harm. He participates in bizarre temple rituals. Do you really want someone like that in the White House?

I'd much prefer Cain.

Shayne

Speaking of religious factors, there is really an ominous parallel here.

666 is the Mark of the Beast.

999 is the Mark of Cain.

Hmmmmm.

REB

[sjw]

Is this a reasonable representation of your view?: "It is hopeless, pointless, and even perverse to expect a political system to ever be instituted that, as a matter of principle (exceptions only due to individual error and rare corruption), respects individual rights."

Feel free to rephrase to match your view.

Shayne

More accurate to say that much of what you percieve to be structural injustices, are in reality less serious, less secure or even irrelevant. And also, some of your percieved injustices are not really injustices. It is usually not unjust to give preferred service to wealthy people.

Well, this is a blatant evasion of my question. Evidently you're lapsing into passive-aggressive mode again, or feel that your answer would put you at rhetorical disadvantage. Is there a reason why you want to hide your answer, or are you just not sure of your answer? Or perhaps you sense that your answer looks a lot like the dirty laundry that it is? I do know what your answer is by the way, I just want you to say it yourself.

Shayne

[sjw]

Speaking of religious factors, there is really an ominous parallel here.

666 is the Mark of the Beast.

999 is the Mark of Cain.

Hmmmmm.

REB

So by your mocking me, I take it that you think the distinction between a religious person who goes through the motions and believes his religion in a woozy manner, and one who literally believes that their Magic Underwear secures them from harm, is unimportant? Would you vote for someone who believed in UFO's? It's one thing to go along with the common culture, it's another to participate in intensive and weird rituals.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

I do know what your answer is by the way, I just want you to say it yourself.

Shayne

Cool!!! Please let me know what it is!

Does it involve a fascist nazi plural marriage freemason conspiracy?? I hope so. Always wanted to be a part of one of those!

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of religious factors, there is really an ominous parallel here.

666 is the Mark of the Beast.

999 is the Mark of Cain.

Roger,

Michele Bachmann fleshed this out.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qdiur-nN6b4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here is her quote about 999:

When you take the 999 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devli's in the details.

Michael

[sjw]

I do know what your answer is by the way, I just want you to say it yourself.

Shayne

Cool!!! Please let me know what it is!

Does it involve a fascist nazi plural marriage freemason conspiracy?? I hope so. Always wanted to be a part of one of those!

Bob

The passive-aggressive evasions continue...

It's a simple, straightforward question Bob.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

It's a simple, straightforward question Bob.

Shayne

Yes it is Shayne, and I provided you with a little bit of an explanation/elaboration. However, I will "evade" no longer. The answer to your simple question is.......

No.

(thought that much was obvious - my bad)

Is that better?

Bob

[sjw]

Is that better?

Bob

No.

Shayne

[sjw]

Let's make this even simpler for you Bob. Do you believe in natural/individual/inalienable rights? What, for you, defines the line that government should never cross?

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Let's make this even simpler for you Bob. Do you believe in natural/individual/inalienable rights? What, for you, defines the line that government should never cross?

Shayne

Yes, I do believe in natural/individual/inalienable rights.

Generally, but I cannot say there are no exceptions, the Government crosses this line when these rights are violated by the Government. Protecting individual rights should indeed be the highest priority. Problems so far?

Bob

[sjw]

Yes, I do believe in natural/individual/inalienable rights.

Generally, but I cannot say there are no exceptions, the Government crosses this line when these rights are violated by the Government. Protecting individual rights should indeed be the highest priority. Problems so far?

Bob

So, sometimes it is OK for the government to violate individual rights? When?

Does one have an individual right to (say) grow pot and sell it, or (say) create an alternative to fiat currency and trade it? Is it OK to send in a SWAT team when someone does these things? If you think it is not OK, what kinds of harm can you imagine that results from these individual rights being violated?

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Yes, I do believe in natural/individual/inalienable rights.

Generally, but I cannot say there are no exceptions, the Government crosses this line when these rights are violated by the Government. Protecting individual rights should indeed be the highest priority. Problems so far?

Bob

So, sometimes it is OK for the government to violate individual rights? When?

Well, maybe I own piece of land that becomes or just is strategically important for military defence. I don't like having my property rights violated, but the right thing to do could be to violate my rights to protect others no? Sure, this shouldn't be able to happen arbitrarily and without compensation (perhaps higher than market value), but I could certainly see where the balance of rights protection (life/property) for others outweighs my individual property rights.

Does one have an individual right to (say) grow pot and sell it, or (say) create an alternative to fiat currency and trade it? Is it OK to send in a SWAT team when someone does these things? If you think it is not OK, what kinds of harm can you imagine that results from these individual rights being violated?

Shayne

Grow and sell pot? Well, that's actually a more complex question, but for now, I'll say yes for the time being.

"or (say) create an alternative to fiat currency and trade it?"

Interesting question. I was just in Scotland. The bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale Bank both issue currency that's accepted everywhere as far as I could tell in addition to the regular Bank of England pounds. Doesn't seem to be a problem, and no, I'd have to say it's wrong to outlaw this anyway, and it doesn't seem to be impractical in reality.

Harm? Well, perhaps you could flesh this out. One thing is that I'd guess the government would do a poor job at managing it compared to a private bank, but governments have a wide range of irresponsibility depending on which government you look at. The US seems to be on the wrong side of this these days at least.

Bob

[sjw]

Well, maybe I own piece of land that becomes or just is strategically important for military defence. I don't like having my property rights violated, but the right thing to do could be to violate my rights to protect others no? Sure, this shouldn't be able to happen arbitrarily and without compensation (perhaps higher than market value), but I could certainly see where the balance of rights protection (life/property) for others outweighs my individual property rights.

Where do you draw the line?

In my approach I don't think in any such terms so I don't need to draw pragmatic lines. E.g., I don't consider it violating a homeowners property rights to save a hostage inside; I consider the hostage taker to be the rights violator in that scenario and my efforts to save the hostage, so long as they don't go beyond what is reasonable and necessary, are extensions of the rights-violating action of the perpetrator of the crime.

Your lack of principled thinking makes you high maintenance and high effort to communicate with. Of course, since the state of your mind is confused, I should expect the communication of your ideas to be confused in order to match.

Interesting question. I was just in Scotland. The bank of Scotland and the Clydesdale Bank both issue currency that's accepted everywhere as far as I could tell in addition to the regular Bank of England pounds. Doesn't seem to be a problem, and no, I'd have to say it's wrong to outlaw this anyway, and it doesn't seem to be impractical in reality.

The question isn't about whether a foreign bank can create currency, it's about a US citizen creating an alternate currency and the inevitable consequence: a SWAT team and a decade in prison. Please try to stay on topic, you're difficult enough as it is.

The question you haven't answered is whether you can imagine any untoward consequences from this kind of scenario, or whether you think that being forced to use a single fiat currency does any kind of substantial individual harm. Same for the pot question.

God you are tedious and petty-minded. I'm about to throw my hands up and be done with you.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Shayne, you're being ridiculous.

You asked me "So, sometimes it is OK for the government to violate individual rights? When?"

Well, I gave you an example of when an individual rights violation might occur. I thought I was answering your question directly. I'm so terribly sorry I didn't respond with an detailed outline of principles lest I be accused of the sin of "evading" again. I honestly thought you were asking about specifics. Anyway...

"In my approach I don't think in any such terms so I don't need to draw pragmatic lines."

You state that as if it's a good thing. You ask when it's OK for a government to violate rights, but you dismiss a "pragmatic" response. Absurd really.

Then you asked:

"Does one have an individual right to (say) grow pot and sell it, or (say) create an alternative to fiat currency and trade it? Is it OK to send in a SWAT team when someone does these things?"

Then whined when I didn't make specific reference to a US citizen. What I was getting at was that I've seen alternative currencies in other countries alongside the "official" currency and this seemed to work fine, and I was agreeing with you that no, it's not OK to outlaw this.

However, I have indeed used alternative currency in my country (and it probably happens in the US too, but I can't say for sure). I was a member of a barter network and certainly issued and spent "Barter Bucks" and had no SWAT team at my doorstep. Is that the third time now I've done something that you said I'd get a bullet in the head for? Is that a pragmatic bullet or a principled bullet??

It's abundantly clear "pragmatism" or "reality" isn't terribly relevant to your precious principled position. But again, that ain't a good thing.

The harm of poor monetary policy enabled by fiat currency is a reasonably well understood topic. The harm of money supply tampering by government and resulting, dare I say pragmatic effect of inflationary harm on the general public I have a reasonably good understanding of. But I think it's clear, you're not interested in this. Too real I guess?

Pot? Sure there's a harm in violating one's right to grow it. But dismissing the harm done by smoking it dismisses the entire pragmatic reality of the full picture. If you think having one's right violated is the only "harm" worthy of your attention, watch a loved one die of cancer and then tell me there's no harm again.

Bob

[sjw]

I don't know what fairy tale you're living in Bob, but the US legal tender laws are not a myth. There are serious consequences to creating a competing currency.

You claim it's OK for government to violate rights sometimes. You don't specify any principle or draw any line so anyone can tell how far you go with this, or why. If you handed government the power to violate individual rights, without any definition of when and where, what do you think the consequence would be?

You also seem to want pot to be outlawed. You weasel and hem and haw on this, but we can be assured that here's yet another place where you think it's OK to violate individual rights.

No one can know to what extent tyranny can reign under Bob's pragmatist system. His ideal system is some ill-defined mixture of a respect for rights, when he feels like it, and tyranny, when he feels like it. No wonder that when I point out instances of tyranny and their consequences, he is completely nonplussed. For him it's part of an undefined cost-benefit analysis completely devoid of principle, and he's arbitrarily drawn some magical line in the sand about what he's going to care about and what he's not, and that's that.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Bob seems to think there is no such thing as a victimless crime, mixing up the public and private sectors of proper human existence making a pragmatic stew to his liking. In his case he might as well be a conservative. Maybe he is.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

I don't know what fairy tale you're living in Bob, but the US legal tender laws are not a myth. There are serious consequences to creating a competing currency.

Um... I agreed that this is wrong. I pointed out that competing currencies happen elsewhere. We're NOT in disagreement yet or in a fairy tale yet. Try to keep up. Now at the mere mention, that maybe, just maybe, there might be alternative currencies right under your nose, which invalidates your original claim (now downgraded to "serious consequences"), you seem to fly into uncontrolled fits of blathering. Sorry that reality has a way of spiking some of those silly claims. All swans are not white.

You claim it's OK for government to violate rights sometimes. You don't specify any principle or draw any line so anyone can tell how far you go with this, or why. If you handed government the power to violate individual rights, without any definition of when and where, what do you think the consequence would be?

I offered an example. I did not say there are no rules or principles. You offered another example, but what about mine? Did the government violate my property rights or not? Oh right, you don't think in those terms, sorry.

You also seem to want pot to be outlawed. You weasel and hem and haw on this, but we can be assured that here's yet another place where you think it's OK to violate individual rights.

Weasel eh?? I said it's more complicated. Here's why. It's a principled argument, but I'm sure you won't like it.

There's a general economic assumption in free markets where one assumes that every man has his own best interests in mind when participating in transactions. This covers the vast majority of markets. I however, believe that medicine is an exception to this for a number of important reasons, but here's two:

1) We KNOW that the car salesman has his own best interest in mind when we shop for a car. We EXPECT the exact opposite with a doctor. We DEMAND that she has OUR best interests in mind.

2) There is an enormous knowledge gap between the doctor and patient. Much more than most other transactions.

The first item, combined with the reality that we are dealing often with matters of life and death, should lead a rational person to conclude, from a principled perspective, that the standard free-market benefits do not apply the same way in matters of medicine and health.

This complicates the issue of harmful behaviour, but I fear this could sidetrack the discussion and is not particularly pertinent to your other nonsense as a whole.

No one can know to what extent tyranny can reign under Bob's pragmatist system. His ideal system is some ill-defined mixture of a respect for rights, when he feels like it, and tyranny, when he feels like it. No wonder that when I point out instances of tyranny and their consequences, he is completely nonplussed. For him it's part of an undefined cost-benefit analysis completely devoid of principle, and he's arbitrarily drawn some magical line in the sand about what he's going to care about and what he's not, and that's that.

Shayne

No, not 'devoid of principle'. Principles without a reality check are useless. Most of your objections seem to be based on spasms in response to obvious reality holes in your principles. Your arguments in favour of ignoring reality don't work.

Bob

[sjw]

Peter Schiff makes far more sense than Dennis:

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I didn't follow that fourth 9 Schiff said would fall out of Cain's sleeve too well.

From what I understood of the math he presented, since employers would not be able to write off salaries, they would pass on the cost of their own corporate tax for the hole such wages put in their profits to the employees in the form of lower wages.

Sorry, but that's not another tax.

Cain himself stumbled over this kind of thinking when talking about the money of poor people in an interview I saw.

He gave the example of a loaf of bread. Since the hidden taxes embedded in the final cost from farmers, transporters, bakery factories, wholesale agents, retailers, etc., will no longer exist, the price of the loaf of bread will go down. He claimed the price actually will go down, too, because of competition.

But then he tried to pretend that this is a tax cut for the poor.

I think he (and Schiff) should chuck out that kind of muddying of the waters and talk about tax as tax, the cost of living as cost of living, etc. This stuff can be compared pretty easily when the categories are clear.

Cain's strongest electoral attribute is his perceived honesty. Doublespeak undermines that.

As for Schiff, as of this moment, his explanation did not convince me that there is a fourth 9.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael, I was intending to refer to his OWS remarks, I didn't listen closely to his Cain remarks. (The OWS stuff is around the last third of the video).

Shayne

[Selene]

Michael, I was intending to refer to his OWS remarks, I didn't listen closely to his Cain remarks. (The OWS stuff is around the last third of the video).

Shayne

Shayne:

I just listened to the last third of Schiff's video blog.

Several facts would illustrate that he is incorrect about certain aspects of the OWS group.

First, 85 % have jobs and most of those jobs appear to be good jobs.

Second, the unsecured student loan debt has just surpassed one trillion dollars [$1,000,000,000,000,000.00]. This is debt that has been guaranteed by government. It is also one of the most secure unsecured debts in the economy because it is virtually impossible to discharge in

bankruptcy. Therefore, it is similar to the scam of the mortgage derivatives which were guaranteed by Fanny and Freddy because the mortgages were sold as good debt because once the homeowner was into the mortgage and fell behind, they would not be able to refinance and therefore would be impaled on the original debt.

Third, the unholy crony socialist/fascist wedding of the government's guarantee of student loans have acted as incentives for the colleges and universities to maintain their absurd costs for their useless degrees. Nice little scheme they came up with!

Finally, almost all of the OWS crowd is opposed to capitalism in any form. I would again refer you to the Schoen poll above.

Adam

[sjw]

Ron Paul knows more than Dennis too:

Shayne

[sjw]

If Ron Paul were to win the nomination, Obama would be in serious trouble because of all the GOP candidates, he has the most power to draw in the democrat voters, not to mention all the voters who are fed up with the status quo.

Shayne

[sjw]

Now that George is supporting Romney, I suppose this video of a qualified endorsement of Ron Paul by him better come down:

Shayne