Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[Jonathan]

12 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

This histrionic comment at 25 seconds in turned me off of continuing to listen ... in the context of loaded language, emotional witness. 

If this is his topic statement, I'd rather spend six minutes listening to Aretha Franklin's "Respect." 

Now it makes sense that Watson is said to be mostly a shut-in. He could be afraid of the crumbling, dangerous world outside his doors in savage London.  I do admire his ability to extemporize on camera, but his epistemology is of the sucking chest wound kind, IMHO.  I can peruse a plain text caption version of his shtick later.

There is no accounting for rhetorical taste, I suppose -- one can relish a ringing, rousing declamation, even while its warrants may be as feeble as the structure of its argument; if it serves our worldview and biases (the Fallen World) we may be persuaded by almost any appeal to emotion.   Beware the cynicism and calculation of a would-be philosopher/guru/Truth-teller ... strong claims, weak warrants, sweeping generalities, confirmation bias ...

as Western

00:25

civilization collapses which it is so

00:28

does our ability to deal with minor

00:30

day-to-day struggles without breaking

00:32

down and wallowing in a pitiful puddle

00:35

of our own self-indulgent fragility

 

My favourite kind of hammy and histrionic faux-reportage/Cassandra-ism is that of fellow UK media personality Katie Hopkins.  My exemplar would be her videos earlier this year all exercised about the sidewalks and public spaces of Toronto. Brown people!  Too many!

Imagine what PJW could do with himself were he as brave and enterprising as Katie.

With an attitude like that, the New York Times should hire her. Then again, maybe she needs to up her hate game a bit more and publish her racist views more frequently to meet their standards.

J

[anthony]

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This histrionic comment at 25 seconds in turned me off of continuing to listen ... in the context of loaded language, emotional witness. 

If this is his topic statement, I'd rather spend six minutes listening to Aretha Franklin's "Respect." 

Now it makes sense that Watson is said to be mostly a shut-in. He could be afraid of the crumbling, dangerous world outside his doors in savage London.  I do admire his ability to extemporize on camera, but his epistemology is of the sucking chest wound kind, IMHO.  I can peruse a plain text caption version of his shtick later.

There is no accounting for rhetorical taste, I suppose -- one can relish a ringing, rousing declamation, even while its warrants may be as feeble as the structure of its argument; if it serves our worldview and biases (the Fallen World) we may be persuaded by almost any appeal to emotion.   Beware the cynicism and calculation of a would-be philosopher/guru/Truth-teller ... strong claims, weak warrants, sweeping generalities, confirmation bias ...

as Western

00:25

civilization collapses which it is so

00:28

does our ability to deal with minor

00:30

day-to-day struggles without breaking

00:32

down and wallowing in a pitiful puddle

00:35

of our own self-indulgent fragility

 

My favourite kind of hammy and histrionic faux-reportage/Cassandra-ism is that of fellow UK media personality Katie Hopkins.  My exemplar would be her videos earlier this year all exercised about the sidewalks and public spaces of Toronto. Brown people!  Too many!

Imagine what PJW could do with himself were he as brave and enterprising as Katie.

Yeah William. One "histrionic comment" shouldn't put you off the message, Watson's self-evidently correct observations of general, universal histrionics should be what interests you (student of human nature and psychology). Faked or exaggerated emotions are clearly a part and parcel of the new narcissistic, show-offy public face. The basic three which I see: miserable, enraged or ecstatic. Like Watson, I think a little more outward stoicism and restraint - if not self-respecting privacy - could go a long way. Reminds you, perhaps, of William James' theory?

"Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike ... the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble..."

Ahh. So his theory comes to pass.

You've heard me go on about causal reversal, emotions the response to values, and the rest. Watson, in his o.t.t. fashion puts his finger on more aspects, modern truths of human behavior - he is often insightful and intelligent (like most "alt-right", conservative-liberal thinkers now, he is more reasonable, incisive, deep, and concerned about individual freedom and civilisation than almost anyone on the Left. I include Peterson, Rubin, Molyneux and others, (although I don't follow any that closely). One must not mistake these guys deeply felt passions about those values - I'd include Alex Jones, too - for just superficial histrionics. They each realise something is going badly wrong with the West.

And on the other end, hysterical laughter - what is with that facial rictus I've been seeing so much of in the last years - people's wide open mouths showing you upper palettes and tonsils in an ostensive demonstration of 'joyfulness'? Often, that is clearly inappropriate, faked or forced, and imitated from the general "others" as well. "Sharing selfies" have driven that, I suspect, with 'reality' TV and movies following the craze. Sign of the times, we get more inauthentic emotions, as with inauthentic facts and cheapened values and unreason. Life mimics bad art, reason and honesty, especially emotional honesty, are in short supply. "Insipid sentimentality", JPW puts it. I respect-appreciate emotions, as you know. All this is not even decent, human emotion but ~sensationalism~ for others' consumption, I believe.

 

 

[william.scherk]

On 10/25/2016 at 12:34 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Protect yourself by using Reason, Rationality, Logic, and the epistemic standard of Objectivity, folks.

Better, identify the conspiracy theorist or conspiracy theory and reject outright.

And use volition: self-initiated, independent thought.

Here's a reasonably-fresh topical video from the folks at ARI: Bayer and Ghate Chat on Rand’s View of Conspiracy Theories (New Ideal)

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Still having doubts about the Deep State?

The link goes here:

Manafort’s Judge Is Under Federal Protection After Wave Of Threats

From the article:

Quote

Judge T.S. Ellis III revealed in open court Friday that he has received death threats relating to his presiding over Paul Manafort’s trial for bank and tax fraud at a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

The judge has since retained the protection of the U.S. Marshals Service.

“I have the marshal’s protection,” Ellis said. “I don’t even go to the hotel alone. I won’t even reveal the name of the hotel.”

“I had no idea this case excited this emotion in the public,” he added.

Ellis made the comments after a coalition of news organizations — including The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, NBC, Politico and BuzzFeed — requested the names and addresses of jurors seated for Manafort’s case.

“There is no reason to believe that extraordinary circumstances exist that would justify keeping jurors’ names sealed — particularly after they have rendered their verdict,” their motion reads.

But Ellis disagreed, and rejected the motion for fear the jurors would be subject to the same harassment he has received.

They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that.

This is the desperation of a dying elitist power group in collusion with a dying fake news legacy media.

Michael

[Peter]

“Root, root, root, for the home team.” Conspiracy Theories we hope come true? Where is the Deep State? “They” are hiding in plain sight. Revoking the Security Clearances of the Deep State’s operating personnel is not a purge in the sense of a dictatorship marginalizing its political opponents. However, it is one step in the direction of taking away unearned access, power and control *bestowed upon* insiders of the Deep State.

I am not suggesting that opposition to Trump is automatically a sign of the Deep State but it is suggestive and worthy of scrutiny. And by revoking security clearances, President Trump is not in any sense taking away an extra right any current or former government employee is entitled to. They are free to go about their lives, but without political or security access.

As an example, remember Senator Chuck Schumer getting in hot water for telling his best buds on the west coast what was just revealed in DC so that they could better play the stock market? As President Trump might say if he was the referee at a sporting event, “They are dirty. For shame. Toss their asses out!” Peter

Notes. Gosh. Doesn’t this sound like Rand’s Starnesville?

Robert Trancinski wrote about Elizabeth Warren:  To kick off her campaign as the "progressive" standard-bearer for 2020, Warren has proposed the Accountable Capitalism Act. As legislation, it is certain to go nowhere. But it is meant as a statement of where she stands and the direction she wants to take her party. Here is what it would do.

"Under the legislation, corporations with more than $1bn in annual revenue would be required to obtain a corporate charter from the federal government--and the document would mandate that companies not just consider the financial interests of shareholders. Instead, businesses would have to consider all major corporate stakeholders--which could include workers, customers, and the cities and towns where those corporations operate. Anyone who owns shares in the company could sue if they believed corporate directors were not meeting their obligations.

"Employees at large corporations would be able to elect at least 40% of the board of directors. An estimated 3,500 public US companies and hundreds of other private companies would be covered by the mandates." 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is how the left-wing conspiracy theories get injected itself into the mainstream:

Per a few of you who requested it. (From: my NYT bestseller The Smear). David Brock's network designed to appear as though lots of different grassroots groups and watchdogs share views and opinions--but it's the same group. pic.twitter.com/YPKJCAiGOo

— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) August 18, 2018

This is the same dude pretending he's lots of different people to create a false impression of consensus.

The aim of this is usually to smear targeted people more easily. And, truth be told, Brock does do real damage at times to a target he smears.

But there are other losers and they are not so visible. They are the unintended consequences. Here are an easy two:

1. The mainstream media loses credibility as, tiny chink by tiny chink, the light gradually illuminates the truth so much, people realize the mainstream media has been promoting falsehoods. After going through this process countless times with the same result, the general audience now knows the mainstream media lies by default. So they seek their news elsewhere when they want actual news. They still watch the mainstream news, but mostly to reinforce this belief or that. For real news like facts, they find other sources, many online.

2. The leftie true believers convince themselves that their message is more widespread and accepted in the culture than it really is. Then they get confused and disoriented when they lose elections and otherwise fail to gain power or change people.

Michael

[caroljane]

57 minutes ago, Peter said:

“Root, root, root, for the home team.” Conspiracy Theories we hope come true? Where is the Deep State? “They” are hiding in plain sight. Revoking the Security Clearances of the Deep State’s operating personnel is not a purge in the sense of a dictatorship marginalizing its political opponents.

 

 

Huh?

Well, if you say so. But what it is for sure, your Dear leader of the Republic exercises power just because he can, upon his own whim,to an unprecedented extent for presidents, ..the executive orders, the revocations, the firings of those who can be fired, the pardons - everything for which he couldn't'  get the approval of Congress .

He needs to be in total control. as he has for all his working life since he outlived the despotism of his own father, and does not see his present job as any different from his previous one, or as requiring any more consent or agreement from "enemies" (ie 51% of the US voting populace} than he did did the City of New York, or the hapless gulls who enrolled in his "university".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

34 minutes ago, caroljane said:

But what it is for sure, your Dear leader of the Republic exercises power just because he can, upon his own whim,to an unprecedented extent for presidents, ..the executive orders, the revocations, the firings of those who can be fired, the pardons - everything for which he couldn't'  get the approval of Congress .

He needs to be in total control. as he has for all his working life since he outlived the despotism of his own father...

Carol,

I thought you supported former President Obama.

Why are you suddenly telling the truth about him in a critical tone?

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Still having doubts about the Deep State?

Not doubts per se, but questions.  In this case, with context of various Fake News outlets seeking access post-verdict to jury members in the first Paul Manafort trial in Virginia, with the reaction to the "media" submission by the judge, I need the connecting of the dots, a couple of labels and maybe some thumbtacks and string:

-- who is the Deep State agent/s in the cast of characters in and surrounding the trial?
-- what part or parts has an otherwise unidentified Deep State strategy played in the trial? 
-- what has the presumed agent done -- from a list of 'actions' taken/described/inferred by the judge/Kevin Daley/MSK?
-- which assumed/reported action should be assigned to Deep State individuals, assumed operatives, named and unnamed actors?

The story from the Daily Caller's deep embed Kevin Daley had a few proffered facts but no real speculation, so I don't really get the story being told above.

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Quote

Judge T.S. Ellis III revealed in open court Friday that he has received death threats relating to his presiding over Paul Manafort’s trial for bank and tax fraud at a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

The judge has since retained the protection of the U.S. Marshals Service.

“I have the marshal’s protection,” Ellis said. “I don’t even go to the hotel alone. I won’t even reveal the name of the hotel.”

“I had no idea this case excited this emotion in the public,” he added.

Ellis made the comments after a coalition of news organizations — including The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, NBC, Politico and BuzzFeed — requested the names and addresses of jurors seated for Manafort’s case.

“There is no reason to believe that extraordinary circumstances exist that would justify keeping jurors’ names sealed — particularly after they have rendered their verdict,” their motion reads.

But Ellis disagreed, and rejected the motion for fear the jurors would be subject to the same harassment he has received.

They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that.

This is the desperation of a dying elitist power group in collusion with a dying fake news legacy media.

My questions would be:  the "It" in They're Not Even Hiding It Anymore is what?  "Spooks" are likely the they in "They're," and so Spooks are 'not even hiding it anymore,' even though they are 'supposed to hide stuff like that.'

What is "it," what is "stuff like that," and can you give an example from another trial of a well-hidden-by-spooks It/Stuff Like That?

The dying elitist power group is .... Deep State It-Hiding Spooks?

 

1 hour ago, Peter said:

“Root, root, root, for the home team.” Conspiracy Theories we hope come true? Where is the Deep State? “They” are hiding in plain sight. Revoking the Security Clearances of the Deep State’s operating personnel is not a purge in the sense of a dictatorship marginalizing its political opponents. However, it is one step in the direction of taking away unearned access, power and control *bestowed upon* insiders of the Deep State.

"Deep State operating personnel" are former honchos from the intelligence community, right?  As soon as Trump is finished being President, the next administration may have to purge hundreds and hundreds of Trump Deep Staters in turn.  

They may end up being in a set of soi-disant Dissidents, but so what? If they were Deeped, dipped in deep secrets --they will need harsh scrutiny if not uprooting when a new mandate of heaven is given to a Leader.

All IC or Top Secret 'insiders' from the Trump Era, named, shamed, rooted out and de-cleared -- so they cannot take advantage of the Nation's Secrets. Starting with Jared Kuchner ....

Corrrruption, as my friend Parm would say.

As of yet, the President of the United States has not decided to strip the security clearance of former National Security Advisor General Flynn, although ... he lied to federal agents about his meetings with agents of the Other Big Deep State.

I figure if the Deep State Actor is almost criminal, or at least guilty of civil harms, then put him-them on trial or sue them-him in the name of the Leader. It worked, sort of, in Turkey. The security of the Leader of the Nation must be paramount, right? 

1 hour ago, Peter said:

I am not suggesting that opposition to Trump is automatically a sign of the Deep State but it is suggestive and worthy of scrutiny. And by revoking security clearances, President Trump is not in any sense taking away an extra right any current or former government employee is entitled to. They are free to go about their lives, but without political or security access.

Jared will be miffed, Ivanka not so much. The two almost got everything they need out of China.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... which assumed/reported action should be assigned...

William,

Assumed and reported by whom? The mainstream fake news media?

I.e., Deep State toadies?

You want dogs to meow and cats to bark and ask for clarity.

The world is not a gotcha.

You have a good brain for observation. Use it.

Michael

[william.scherk]

14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

19 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... which assumed/reported action should be assigned...

Assumed and reported by whom?

You, brother Michael. 

There could be more to this frame of a story:   "They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that.'"

W5?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

So you want to know the "it."

We can start with the intimidation of death threats against a judge during a trial.

And the attempt by fake news media Deep State toady, CNN, to sue for the names of jurors so that CNN can harass them during a trial that the Deep State wants won and badly wants it won.

Does that do "it" for you?

That's the "it" they are not hiding anymore. They used to do things like Fisa Court warrants in secret, half-insinuations dropped on a judge at the country club and so on. Now they are openly threatening death to a judge and suing for the means to illegally tamper with a trial.

There is plenty more in that "it."

But if you can't see that, what's the use of saying anything else about it?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can see some different articles on this out there on the Interwebs, but this video by Jimmy Dore gives all the essentials.

That's right.

An 11 year old at Defcon changed voting results in a mockup.

The voting machines are a particular problem because their software is old and out of date, several security measures are not used, the passwords are stored in the machines IN TEXT, and on and on. And the voting machine companies charge the government an arm and a leg to supply them.

The media? What does the media say about this?

"But muh Russians!"

Pathetic...

This is a serious voting system integrity issue.

It's not a joke.

Michael

[Peter]

Carol wrote: He needs to be in total control. as he has for all his working life since he outlived the despotism of his own father . . . end quote

“Father, is that you? Hail Caesar!” I am sure you are using the evidence you “see and hear” Carol, but it is second hand. Someone on his White House staff recently commented that the President has quite a “temper.” I could elaborate on that but it would be speculation. And every time a “tell all political book” or a newspaper or e magazine "political article" is written, I don’t consider that the “whole truth.” No one is quite ready to make a “Watergate” movie about our President because he isn’t a crook and he is truthful to the extent that he can be in a top secret, for your eyes only, way. Peter   

Ellen Moore wrote: Ayn Rand defined "The Psychology of Psychologizing" in her essay reprinted in The Voice of Reason, originally published in The Objectivist, March, 1971.

"Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence." She described psychologizing as a "game that has many variants and ramifications, none of them innocent, a game that could be called a racket.  It consists, in essence, of substituting psychology for philosophy." She stated that many people use psychologizing "as a new form of mysticism: as a substitute for reason, cognition and objectivity, as an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment, both in the role of the judge and the judged."

Rand explained why some people are psychologizers, it gives them - "The unearned status of an "authority," the chance to air arbitrary pronouncements and frighten people or manipulate them, are some of the psychologizer's lesser motives.  His basic motive is worse. Observe that he seldom discovers any virtuous or positive elements hidden in his victims' subconscious; what he claims to discover are vices, weaknesses, flaws.  What he seeks is a chance to condemn - to pronounce a negative moral judgment, not on the grounds of objective evidence, but on the grounds of some intangible, unprovable processes in a man's subconscious untranslated into action.  This means: a chance to subvert morality."

"The basic motive of most psychologizers is *hostility*.  Caused by a profound self-doubt ...  he feels a chronic need to justify himself by demonstrating their evil, by seeking it, by hunting for it - and by inventing it.  The discovery of actual evil in a specific individual is a painful experience for a moral person.  But observe the almost triumphant glee with which a psychologizer discovers some ineffable evil in some bewildered victim.  He deludes himself into the belief that he is demonstrating his devotion to morality and can thus escape the necessity of applying moral principles to his own actions."

She speaks of the "humanitarian cynic" who turns psychology into a new "scientific" version of determinism - by means of unintelligible jargon derived from fantastically arbitrary theories - declares that man is ruled by the blind forces of his subconscious ..."

[tmj]

If the ACA( why does that look familiar?) is going to have any teeth, it better be inflation adjusted(able), not too hard imagine that Walt's Bait and Tackle down the street could list revenues in the bn s in the not distant future if Warren gets in.

Oh wait , he's private ,oh wait

[william.scherk]

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The media? What does the media say about this?

Rational Inquirers may need to check "the media" from the day that this story broke. I counted articles and programmes on this from CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC ... plus a variety of secondary or non-legacy media sites, ranging from Politico to Gateway Pundit. YMMV.

This might be a time when not paying attention to the Fake News Landscape leads to a blind spot ...

PS -- I posted this video in the Rigging thread Friday morning.

Edited August 19, 2018 by william.scherk
PS ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Rational Inquirers may need to check "the media" from the day that this story broke.

William,

Yeah...

They say "muh Russians!" How is that rational?

You know, a rational person does not need to look at and carefully examine 30 tons of garbage to see if a sack of garbage on the pile is garbage.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Joe Seyton over at the Reason.com flagship blog Hit and Run has had a posting up since the day after that particular Defcon Hacking Villages three-day event splashed into the Fake News ... 

[See also: DEF CON Vote Hacking Village Speaker Schedule for a list of who said what about which where and when on Day One. ]

Edited August 19, 2018 by william.scherk
Added link to Friday, Aug 10 Defcon "Voting Machine Hacking Village" event ...

[Jonathan]

The 11-year-old hacking story was extra-pretend scare-monger fake news designed to get attention and add to the Narrative. Claims were made and instantly accepted and reported as terrifying truths. No critical thinking whatsoever was applied, no pertinent question popped into journalists' empty heads, and therefore weren't asked.

J

[caroljane]

13 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

The 11-year-old hacking story was extra-pretend scare-monger fake news designed to get attention and add to the Narrative. Claims were made and instantly accepted and reported as terrifying truths. No critical thinking whatsoever was applied, no pertinent question popped into journalists' empty heads, and therefore weren't asked.

J

So does being old. make a story less true?

Obviously you had no room  in your head for facts, then or now. But as not a journalist you do not need to be concerned with such trifles as facts.

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, caroljane said:

So does being old. make a story less true?

Obviously you had no room  in your head for facts, then or now. But as not a journalist you do not need to be concerned with such trifles as facts.

Um, huh?

Are you drunk?

When you sober up, please take a look at the mess of words you've made above and see if you can guess what you might have been trying to convey.

J

[Peter]

William Sherk wrote: "Deep State operating personnel" are former honchos from the intelligence community, right?  As soon as Trump is finished being President, the next administration may have to purge hundreds and hundreds of Trump Deep Staters in turn. end quote   

I was thinking about William’s opinions. Will the Trump administration be part of the “deep state insiders” when President Trump’s time as President is over? He will still own a corporate empire and will presumably continue to run it. Of course he could also retire, leaving the corporation and the “government contacts” to his children. I wonder if former President Trump will be like Howard Hughes and allow his business empire to be used to further policies of the United States?

Remember this headline? “That Time The CIA And Howard Hughes Tried To Steal A Soviet Submarine” by Mark Strauss 4/10/14 12:20pm. end quote

Peter

Notes: The Perils of Populism by Robert Tracinski march 21, 2016: . . . Trumpism is a warning about what happens when you make a big show of being the party of the regular guy against the eggheads. We need the eggheads, too. The right needs to start depending a bit less on rabble-rousing populism and a bit more on the strength and influence of its thinkers and intellectual institutions. The left has a vast intellectual base in the universities and in generations of students indoctrinated in the universities. (Which does not prevent them from falling for a great deal of flim-flam and nonsense; more about that in a moment.) The right needs a similar base. What we need is not just intellectuals on the right but rather a dose of intellectualism, a greater regard for ideas and thoughtfulness and rational argumentation, as a corrective to the anti-intellectuality and irrational boosterism so evident in the Trump movement. Trump's rise is about anger and lashing out, about "burning down the establishment," without much regard for the consistency or logic of Trump's actual positions. That's what's makes it so unnerving. It's not just that Trump might do something crazy or irresponsible once he gets into office, though that's certainly likely. It's the fact that his supporters seem to be closed off to reason and arguments and are willing to support him no matter what he says or does . . . .  end quote

In “Corporations,” by Robert Hessen: “. . . . When a corporation is created, its officers, directors, and shareholders usually are the same people. They elect themselves or their nominees to the board of directors and then elect themselves as corporate officers. When the corporation later goes public, the founders accept the possibility of a dilution of control because they value the additional capital and because they expect to continue to control a majority of votes on the board and thus to direct the company's future policy and growth.

That the board of directors is dominated by "insiders" makes sense. The founders are the first directors; later, their places on the board are filled by the executives they groomed to succeed them. This arrangement does not injure new shareholders. As outside investors they buy shares of common stock because they discover corporations whose record of performance indicates a competent managerial system. They do not want to interfere with it or dismantle it; on the contrary, they willingly entrust their savings to it. They know that the best safeguard for their investments, if they become dissatisfied with the company's performance, is their ability to sell instantly their shares of a publicly traded corporation . . . Another technique used by critics to undermine the legitimacy of giant corporations is to equate them to government institutions and then to find them woefully deficient in living up to democratic norms (voting rights are based on number of shares owned, rather than one vote per person, for example). Thus shareholders are renamed "citizens," the board of directors is "the legislature," and the officers are "the executive branch." They call the articles of incorporation a "constitution," the bylaws "private statutes," and merger agreements "treaties."

But the analogy, however ingenious, is defective. It cannot encompass all the major groups within the corporation. If shareholders are called citizens or voters, what are other suppliers of capital called? Are bond-holders "resident aliens" because they cannot vote? And are those who buy convertible debentures "citizens in training" until they acquire voting rights? A belabored analogy cannot justify equating business and government.

hose who cannot distinguish between a government and a giant corporation are also unable to appreciate the significance of the fact that millions of people freely choose to invest their savings in the shares of publicly traded corporations. It is farfetched to believe that shareholders are being victimized—denied the control over corporate affairs that they expected to exercise, or being shortchanged on dividends—and yet still retain their shares and buy new shares or bid up the price of existing shares. If shareholders were victims, corporations could not possibly raise additional capital through new stock offerings. Yet they do so frequently.

Particular corporations can be mismanaged. They are sometimes too large or too diversified to operate efficiently, too slow to innovate, overloaded with debt, top-heavy with high-salaried executives, or too slow to respond to challenges from domestic or foreign competitors. But this does not invalidate corporations as a class. Whatever the shortcomings of particular companies or whole industries, corporations are a superb matchmaking mechanism to bring savers (investors) and borrowers (workers and managers) together for their mutual benefit. To appreciate the achievement of corporations, one has only to consider what the state of technology would be if workers or managers had to supply their own capital, or if industrialization were carried out under government auspices, using capital that was taxed or expropriated . . . .

From: "merjet" To: "OWL" <objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Corporations Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:13:49 -0600. Joe Duarte asked: What are corporations and why do they exist? Is there a good laissez-faire capitalist rationale for their existence?

In my view the rationale explains the why. Corporations provide a link between people who (1) have money available for capital investment but not promising ideas for its use, and (2) have promising ideas for capital investment but lack the money. The former could be called the providers of capital, and the latter the users or deployers of capital, or entrepreneurs.  The former provide the money for the latter, with a stake in the fortunes of the latter. When the stake is in the form of stock, the providers of capital can get a return on their money w/o risking their *other* assets. There is a great deal of fairness in this, since the providers of capital have far less control in its deployment. Such control is largely with the users of capital. It is they who make the decisions about what particular goods will be produced, plant and equipment, suppliers, raw materials, and labor.

Stock is often called equity capital. The providers share in the legal ownership of the business. The other basic form of capital is debt capital. In the latter the providers are not legal co-owners but loan money to the former (often as a bond) with a return more or less independent of the degree of success of the capital user. If the business fails, of course, the providers may get back less money than what they provided (bonds default). There are, of course, hybrid forms of capital like preferred stock and convertible bonds.

Typically the former group is a lot of people with relatively small amounts to invest and the latter group is far fewer but require large amounts of money. Obviously, there are wealthy businessmen who can be both providers of capital and users of capital, but typically *large scale* capital investment depends on money from numerous providers of capital.

There are, of course, intermediaries between the providers of capital and the users of capital. Prime examples are investment bankers, regular banks, venture capitalists, and insurance companies (especially life and annuity companies, who are big providers of money for long term investment, e.g. a factory or power plant that will be in use for many years.) HTH, Merlin Jetton

From: LeroyB3 To: objectivism Subject: Re: OWL: Re: Corporations Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:23:42 -0500. Merjet, What you described is investment and investment intermediaries, which can be corporations, but not all are.  Corporations are a legal entity. There doesn't have to be any investment in corporations at all. Corporations are a legal way to separate the business entity from the owners.  This protects the owners from personal liability if the corporation is ever sued along with some other perks.  This is not always, but most of the time a good thing.  This promotes innovation, certainty, and longevity to name a few. Levi Bauer

[william.scherk]

Peter's 'anchor' tag is not a working link.  The title of a Tracinski article published March 22 2016 is "Donald Trump Displays The Perils Of Populism."  The article appears in full at The Federalist.

28 minutes ago, Peter said:

Notes: The Perils of Populism by Robert Tracinski march 21, 2016: . . . Trumpism is a warning about what happens when you make a big show of being the party of the regular guy against the eggheads. We need the eggheads, too. [...] It's the fact that his supporters seem to be closed off to reason and arguments and are willing to support him no matter what he says or does . . . . 

A hamfisted calumny!  What a hateful and uninformed view of Trumpists, right?

Quote

[...] It is relatively easy to sell a nonsensical policy to other people who share your own biases. It’s easy to make the case to people like me that the government should adopt policies that benefit people like me — at the expense of people who are not like me. But when I have to make the case to those unfortunate individuals who are not like me — well, then it gets a lot harder. That requires making an argument that goes beyond my personal biases or immediate interests. I can’t just stir up people’s emotions because they might not share my emotional reactions. Instead, I have to argue on the basis of principles, appealing to universal ideas about logic, justice, and rights. It requires a more rational, intellectual argument, rather than just an appeal to emotion.

[Peter]

Aah. Thank ye William, fer yer medieval criticisms. I found the following college freshman quotes funny. Peter  

From: Michael Hardy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: History Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:15:57 -0500 (EST). I'm glad to see Andy Toronto posting Anders Hendriksson's comments on history.  A person named Richard Lederer wrote a much later version that has been circulating around the internet for years, taking some of his material from Hendriksson.  Hendriksson wrote at a time -- the early '80's -- when the internet was still known only to computer nerds.  His article from the Wilson Quarterly appears below. -- Mike Hardy @math.mit.edu

From the Wilson Quarterly, Spring 1983. Anders Hendricksson created this article out of extracts from papers submitted by freshmen at McMaster University and the University of Alberta: A REVIEW OF MODERN HISTORY

History, as we know, is always bias, because human beings have to be studied by other human beings, not by independent observers of another species. During the Middle Ages, everybody was middle aged. Church and state were co-operatic. Middle Evil society was made up of monks, lords, and surfs. It is unfortunate that we do not have a medieval European laid out on a table before us, ready for dissection. After a revival of infantile commerce slowly creeped into Europe, merchants appeared. Some were sitters and some were drifters. They roamed from town to town exposing themselves and organized big fairies in the countryside.  Medieval people were violent. Murder during this period was nothing. Everybody killed someone. England fought numerously for land in France and ended up winning and losing.  The Crusades were a series of military expanditions made by Christians seeking to free the holy land (the "Home Town" of Christ) from the Islams.

In the 1400 hundreds most Englishmen were perpendicular. A class of yeowls arose. Finally, Europe caught the  Black  Death.  The bubonic plague is a social disease in that it can be transmitted by intercourse and other etceteras. It was spread from port to port by inflected rats. Victims of the Black Death grew boobs on their necks. The plague also helped the emergence of the English language as the national language of England, France and Italy.

The Middle Ages slimpared to a halt. The renasence bolted in from the blue.  Life reeked with joy. Italy became robust, and more individuals felt the value of the human being. Italy, of course, was much closer to the rest of the world, thanks to northern Europe. Man was determined to civilize himself and his brothers, even if heads had to roll! It became sheik to be educated.  Art was on a more associated level. Europe was full of incredible churches with great art bulging out their doors. Renaissance merchants were beautiful and almost lifelike.

The Reformation happened when German nobles resented the idea that tithes were going to Papal France or the Pope thus enriching Catholic coiffures.  Traditions had become oppressive so they too were crushed in the wake of man's quest for  ressurection  above the  not-just-social beast he had become.  An angry Martin Luther nailed 95 theocrats to a church door. Theologically,  Luthar  was into  reorientation  mutation.  Calvinism was the most convenient religion since the days of the ancients.  Anabaptist services tended to be migratory.  The Popes, of course, were usually Catholic. Monks went right on seeing themselves as worms.  The last Jesuit priest died in the 19th century.

After the refirmation were wars both foreign and infernal. If the Spanish could gain the Netherlands they would have  a  stronghold throughout  northern  Europe, which would include their positions in Italy, Burgangy, central Europe  and  India  thus  surrounding France. The  German Emperor's lower passage was blocked by the French for years and years.

Louis XIV became King of the Sun. He gave the people food and artillery. If he didn't like someone, he sent them to the gallows to row for the rest of their lives. Vauban was the royal minister of flirtation.  In Russia the 17th century was known as the time of the bounding of the serfs. Russian nobles wore clothes only to humour Peter the Great. Peter filled his government with accidental people and built a new capital  near  the  European  boarder. Orthodox priests became government antennae.

The enlightenment was a reasonable time. Voltare wrote a book called Candy that got him into trouble with Frederick the Great. Philosophers were unknown yet, and the fundamental stake was one of religious toleration slightly confused with defeatism.  France was in a very serious state.  Taxation was a great drain on the state budget. The French revolution was accomplished  before  it happened.  The revolution evolved through monarchial, republican and tolarian phases until it catapulted into Napoleon.  Napoleon was ill with bladder problems and was very tense and unrestrained.

History, a record of things  left  behind  by  past  generations, started  in  1815.  Throughout the  comparatively  redical years  1815-1870 the western European continent was undergoing a Rampant period  of economic modification.  Industrialization was precipitating in England. Problems were so complexicated in  Paris,  out of a city population of one million people, two million able bodies were on the loose.

Great Britain, the USA and other European countrys had demictractic  leanings.  The middle class was tired and needed a rest. The old order could see the lid holding down new ideas  beginning  to shake.  Among  the goals of the chartists were universal suferage and an anal parliment. Voting was to be done by ballad.

A new time zone of national unification roared over the  horizon. Founder  of the new Italy was Cavour, an intelligent Sardine from the north. Nationalism aided Itally because  nationalisn  is  the growth  of  an  army.  We can see that nationalism succeeded for Itally because of France's big army. Napoleon III-IV mounted the French thrown. One thinks of Napoleon III as a live extension of the late, but great, Napoleon. Here too was the new Germany: loud, bold, vulgar and full of reality.

Culture fomented from Europe's tip to its top. Richard Strauss, who was violent but methodical like his wife made him, plunged into vicious and perverse plays. Dramatized were adventures in seduction and abortion. Music reeked with reality.  Wagner was master of music, and people did not forget his contribution. When he died, they labeled his seat "historical". Other countries had their own artists. France had Chekhov.

World War I broke out around 1912-1914. Germany was on one side of France and Russia was on the other. At war people  get  killed and then they aren't people any more, but friends. Peace was pro­claimed at Versigh, which was attended by George  Loid,  Primal Minister  of  England. President Wilson arrived with 14 pointers. In 1937 Lenin revolted Russia. Communism raged among the peas­ ants, and the civil war "team colours" were red and white.

Germany  was  displaced after WWI. This gave rise to Hitler. Germany was morbidly overexcited and unbalanced. Berlin  became  the decadent  capital  where  all  forms  of sexual deprivations were practised. A huge anti-semantic movement arose.  Attractive  slogans  like  "death to all Jews" were used by governmental groups. Hitler remilitarized the Rineland over a squirmish  between  Germany  and  France. The appeasers were blinded by the great red of the Soviets. Moosealini rested his foundations on  eight  million bayonets  and  invaded  Hi  Lee  Salasy.  Germany invaded Poland, France  invaded  Belgium,  and  Russia  invaded  everybody.   War screeched  to  an  end  when  a nukuleer explosion was dropped on Heroshima. A whole generation had been wipe  out  in  two  world wars,  and the forlorne families were left to pick up the peaces.

According to Fromm, individuation began historically in medieval times.  This was a period of small childhood. There is increasing experience as adolescence experiences its life development.  The last stage is us.

[caroljane]

7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Um, huh?

Are you drunk?

When you sober up, please take a look at the mess of words you've made above and see if you can guess what you might have been trying to convey.

J

lol. Sorry if my sentences are too grammatically dense for you.  Note the subjects and modifiers. Maybe my variation of" non-journalist "threw you off and I should have hyphenized it.

Not your fault, nobody needs to write complex conditional sentences anymore, or to comprehend them, obviously.