Money and Politics - The Money Masters

[Mikee]

In your socialist worldview, is there forced participation? Is there room for experiment or is every idea subject to the approval of the state or regulated out of existence? What about children? Do you allow home schooling, real unregulated home schooling?

[caroljane]

No, yes and no.,

[caroljane]

On the last no, unregulated home schooling is a bad idea since children are not the property of parents to be indoctrinated in whatever they whimsically decide.

[caroljane]

Children are individuals who deserve to encounter the larger world as well as the world of their families.

[Mikee]

On the last no, unregulated home schooling is a bad idea since children are not the property of parents to be indoctrinated in whatever they whimsically decide.

I'm done.

[Brant Gaede]

On the last no, unregulated home schooling is a bad idea since children are not the property of parents to be indoctrinated in whatever they whimsically decide.

Ah, yes, the regulators. Such a fine job they do with the public schools--why not all the schools?

--Brant

be obedient to the warfare-welfare state: go abroad and kill people, or Peace Core them, whatever turns you on

[Brant Gaede]

On the last no, unregulated home schooling is a bad idea since children are not the property of parents to be indoctrinated in whatever they whimsically decide.

I'm done.

That's because you're on the premise of winning an argument--or you can't stand it any more[?]

--Brant

Edited September 9, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[caroljane]

No he isn't, and yes he can't!

[Mikee]

On the last no, unregulated home schooling is a bad idea since children are not the property of parents to be indoctrinated in whatever they whimsically decide.

I'm done.

That's because you're on the premise of winning an argument--or you can't stand it any more.

--Brant

No. Because what needed to be demonstrated has been demonstrated. QED.

[caroljane]

It's Ok Mikee, I know it's hard to be wrong. I was wrong once. Ouch! Glad it never happened again.

[Brant Gaede]

On the last no, unregulated home schooling is a bad idea since children are not the property of parents to be indoctrinated in whatever they whimsically decide.

I'm done.

That's because you're on the premise of winning an argument--or you can't stand it any more.

--Brant

No. Because what needed to be demonstrated has been demonstrated. QED.

Ah, the third way.

--Brant

you're right about that and about the other that she's wrong (sorry for the bad news Carol)

[Brant Gaede]

No he isn't, and yes he can't!

I hope you had a shot of brandy and went right to bed.

--Brant

didn't see this until this morning

[Frediano]

You sure write a lot about things you don't care about.

Has this been a lot of writing? I suppose, relative to Twitter or bumper stickers.

[Brant Gaede]

You sure write a lot about things you don't care about.

Has this been a lot of writing? I suppose, relative to Twitter or bumper stickers.

Relative to me, anyway.

--Brant

banter warrior (but I don't twit)

[Frediano]

What you said. In Objectivist semantics, sanctioned by the Ayn Rand lexicon, you cannot be an individualist and a socialist at the same time . However in my language, I can be and am.

That's absolutely true; the difference between socialism and and national socialism is the difference between free association and forced association.

The difference between socialists and national socialists is their embrace of whips and guns and force.

Socialists -- like minded individuals who wish to form co-ops, non-profits, and communes, etc., are totally free to do so in afree nation, and more power to them. What they are not able to do in a free nation is round up their unwilling peers and force them to join at the point of a gun.

Some of our peers living in freedom choose socialism. Some choose capitalism. To each his own. Only via the fatfingiering of government can socialists be forced to participate in capitalism, as in, the unwilling shareholders of GM and Solyndra. Only via the fatfingering of government can capitalist be forced to participate in socialism, as in, the unwilling shareholders of GM and Solyndra.

Glad to illuminate the difference between those who advocate socialism, and those who advocate national socialism.

Advocates of 'national capitalism' would be outlawing co-ops and non-profits and communes and such. As in, nowhere to be seen. Those freely choosing to form co-ops and non-profits and communes with a free assiociation of like minded folks are free to have at it.

Not so national socialists, who claim otherwise; they say 'we would not ban free enterprise...only enslave it to the state.' They would claim to do so via pure democracy, just like a gang rape. "We had a vote, and the unwilling lost."

How can any thinking human being justify national socialism brought about by the ethics of a gang rape?

[Frediano]

Relative to me, anyway.

12,787 posts vs 173? I am a newbie.

[Frediano]

You sure write a lot about things you don't care about.

What part of "compassionate" is confusing to you?

"Totally not a problem in the least except for those who it is a problem."

There is a world of meaning in this sentence. Do you want to live in a world of peace and prosperity or a world that blows up in your face periodically and predictably?

You have a theory that compassion means, lining up with your worldview. You justify it by saying that if we don't cave to the endless demands of others demanding whatever whim they wish, they will riot. Well, no thank you to your view of Mad Max world, not signing up. Apparently, me getting out of the way and not riding others like ponies-- sucking all the profits out of their virtuous hides by employing them -- is not 'compassionate.' Or maybe, just not caring about the consequences when I get out of the way of them and their labor theory of value.

It is not 'compassionate' of me to not commandeer others lives and care about their lives more than they do? I can only change myself-- and did, 30 yrs ago. My path has a Pareto efficiency in excess of 100%. As many others are free to take the same path as so choose, and not diminish the whole. In fact, the more the better-- for those who choose. Many have. Enough? Enough for what? Enough for them.

For those who choose to cling to their ratcake politics, that is their choice. I am not their father, we are peers living in freedom. They do not need to report to my offices at 7:00am every morning. They do not need to do as they are told by me. They do not need to labor all week and hand over most of their creative efforts to me, to make my life better at the expense of theirs. And more to the point... vice versa. I do not accept as an obligation that which I have been long told is a defacto sign of my criminality-- employing others. They are free to choose their own path...and have-- including, waiting now five years for politicos in government, who claim to run some singular thing called 'the economy,' to deliver to them "jobs, jobs, jobs"...by printing zeros on paper bonds. 6 yrs? 10 yrs? 60 yrs? Five years not long enough?

If there is a compassionate flaw in the above reality, then my theory is, it is in those who pushed the meme that employing others was a defacto criminal act, and gave us this world that some enjoy far more than others. See Marx and his labor theory of value, and all the flotsam still floating in the wake of his wreckage today.. They can live with the consequences of their beliefs, I will live with the consequences of mine, and more power to them.

You've defined 'compassion' as me offering myself up to the tribe, to be ridden like a tribal property pony, to serve every whim and need and wish and desire except my own, with my benevolence directed not by me-- the mere creator of my 'excess wealth' -- but by you, the mere observer of my excess wealth.. Well, I'm here to tell you, screw that. Until you and yours actually get out the club and beat my skull in, I''m not signing up with your gibberish. If that is my motivation for state compassion-- your mob and its clubs -- well, bring your lunch, we'll make a day of it. But assuming the riot prevails, in the aftermath, who will you ride in this universe, as it is, then? The terminus of your worldview is two pathetic creatures in a hovel in rags, pointing to their own sores as their proof of their right to the last not so maggoty piece of rotted Elk. ("My need trumps your need.")

But long before the riot stage, there is the chains stage. Tired of the uncomfortable waiting for the creators-- and while the fangs are out and we are snarling, lets not call them 'creators'-- let's call them 'receivers' of the 'excess wealth' that only we create with our labor -- to show their benevolence, we allow our resentment to justify our chains directed at them. We outlaw benevolence and charity, and replace it with those folks and waiting rooms down at the SS office as our 'right', plus millions in new real estate in the counties around DC...the New Deal/Great Society. Worked out well for Northern Va. Not so well for Detroit. But, don't let me get in the way of your vision of national socialist compassion as it is in this world.

Your unilateral definition of compassion (I should work for you and yours and let you direct my benevolence and charity as you see fit) is not working out so well for those you claim to want to be compassionate towards. You claim I am not compassionate because in my theory of the economies, I don't care how long your victims let you lead them to Hell. I can live with you calling me not compassionate because of that.

How long is enough? How many generations lost to a bad idea are necessary, before the nation stops beating this dead horse-- before we back out of this going nowhere fast cul de sac of bad ideas that led the USSR onto the trash heap of history?

I can't care, because I don't control you and likeminded yours; I can only change myself, and have, 30 yrs ago. So feel free. You and the victims of your worldview can take all the time they need to figure this out, because the objective facts are, their consequences are their own to live with, to the best of my abilities to avoid them, which unfortunatly is not 100%. (I have to at the very least watch the tragedy of a once great nation failing under this rot.)

[Mikee]

You sure write a lot about things you don't care about.

What part of "compassionate" is confusing to you?

"Totally not a problem in the least except for those who it is a problem."

There is a world of meaning in this sentence. Do you want to live in a world of peace and prosperity or a world that blows up in your face periodically and predictably?

You have a theory that compassion means, lining up with your worldview. You justify it by saying that if we don't cave to the endless demands of others demanding whatever whim they wish, they will riot. Well, no thank you to your view of Mad Max world, not signing up. Apparently, me getting out of the way and not riding others like ponies-- sucking all the profits out of their virtuous hides by employing them -- is not 'compassionate.' Or maybe, just not caring about the consequences when I get out of the way of them and their labor theory of value.

It is not 'compassionate' of me to not commandeer others lives and care about their lives more than they do? I can only change myself-- and did, 30 yrs ago. My path has a Pareto efficiency in excess of 100%. As many others are free to take the same path as so choose, and not diminish the whole. In fact, the more the better-- for those who choose. Many have. Enough? Enough for what? Enough for them.

For those who choose to cling to their ratcake politics, that is their choice. I am not their father, we are peers living in freedom. They do not need to report to my offices at 7:00am every morning. They do not need to do as they are told by me. They do not need to labor all week and hand over most of their creative efforts to me, to make my life better at the expense of theirs. And more to the point... vice versa. I do not accept as an obligation that which I have been long told is a defacto sign of my criminality-- employing others. They are free to choose their own path...and have.

If there is a compassionate flaw in the above reality, then my theory is, it is in those who pushed the meme that employing others was a defacto criminal act, and gave us this world that some enjoy far more than others. See Marx and his labor theory of value, and all the flotsam still floating in the wake of his wreckage today.. They can live with the consequences of their beliefs, I will live with the consequences of mine, and more power to them.

You've defined 'compassion' as me offering myself up to the tribe, to be ridden like a tribal property pony, to serve every whim and need and wish and desire except my own, with my benevolence directed not by me-- the mere creator of my 'excess wealth' -- but by you, the mere observer of my excess wealth.. Well, I'm here to tell you, screw that. Until you and yours actually get out the club and beat my skull in, I''m not signing up with your gibberish. If that is my motivation for state compassion-- your mob and its clubs -- well, bring your lunch, we'll make a day of it. But assuming the riot prevails, in the aftermath, who will you ride in this universe, as it is, then? The terminus of your worldview is two pathetic creatures in a hovel in rags, pointing to their own sores as their proof of their right to the last not so maggoty piece of rotted Elk. ("My need trumps your need.")

But long before the riot stage, there is the chains stage. Tired of the uncomfortable waiting for the creators-- and while the fangs are out and we are snarling, lets not call them 'creators'-- let's call them 'receivers' of the 'excess wealth' that only we create with our labor -- to show their benevolence, we allow our resentment to justify our chains directed at them. We outlaw benevolence and charity, and replace it with those folks and waiting rooms down at the SS office as our 'right', plus millions in new real estate in the counties around DC...the New Deal/Great Society. Worked out well for Northern Va. Not so well for Detroit. But, don't let me get in the way of your vision of national socialist compassion as it is in this world.

Your unilateral definition of compassion (I should work for you and yours and let you direct my benevolence and charity as you see fit) is not working out so well for those you claim to want to be compassionate towards. You claim I am not compassionate because in my theory of the economies, I don't care how long your victims let you lead them to Hell. I can live with you calling me not compassionate because of that.

How long is enough? How many generations lost to a bad idea are necessary, before the nation stops beating this dead horse-- before we back out of this going nowhere fast cul de sac of bad ideas that led the USSR onto the trash heap of history?

I can't care, because I don't control you and likeminded yours; I can only change myself, and have, 30 yrs ago. So feel free. You and the victims of your worldview can take all the time they need to figure this out, because the objective facts are, their consequences are their own to live with, to the best of my abilities to avoid them, which unfortunatly is not 100%. (I have to at the very least watch the tragedy of a once great nation failing under this rot.)

Fred,

I hope your reply was aimed at Carol's comment quoted above; my comments were. I share your worldview, not Carol's.

[Frediano]

Peace and prosperity: free association.

[Frediano]

Mikee:

Indeed: me:

1] Fire

2] Ready

3] Aim

It was aimed at those who think national socialism is compassionate, not at those who think getting out of the way of the labor theory of value is compassionate.

regards,

Fred

[Mikee]

Peace and prosperity: free association.

Yes. Forced association as you so eloquently describe is what causes the "blowing up", always has and always will.

I like what Anya posted on another thread: "I think that most alternative social systems are demonstrably haywire and the potential of individualist capitalism is science-fiction outrageous." ...because of the not "blowing up" periodically.

[Brant Gaede]

Relative to me, anyway.

12,787 posts vs 173? I am a newbie.

Length of posts. I can't recall when I did one as long as your #167. Maybe never.

--Brant

[Frediano]

Relative to me, anyway.

12,787 posts vs 173? I am a newbie.

Length of posts. I can't recall when I did one as long as your #167. Maybe never.

--Brant

Wordy SOBs like me is why Twitter was invented; to keep out the blowhards.

OTOH... I've often wondered, in regards to Twitter; what is the purpose of all the consonants?

[Frediano]

Couldn't there be a new service...one that was restricted not to 140 ch, but simply 10 emoticons? Imagine the possibilities.

[Frediano]

The oddest reality about Rand's silent revolution is, there is no Galt's Gulch. There is no marching army of Randians(what an odd idea!) There is no John Galt flying around the nation convincing people to not contribute to the tribal madness. There is no fortress to storm. There is no 'shrugging', no people dropping out, as she described in her romantic work of fiction. There is only people hiding in plain sight-- people who 'ducked' decades ago, before contributing to the madness. You cannot enslave that which doesn't even exist. There is just the world, filled with people who have assessed tribal politics and have pretty much concluded the same thing, long ago. I've dealt with such people for 30 yrs. There is no civil war, no boot on the throat of socialism and socialists. There is just ... not supporting them by making their world work for them and being hated for it, and instead, watching them fail of their own terrible ideas. What I call 'the surprising face of social justice.'

It's one thing to go after CEOs. Go get them! I'll cheer. Are there many left? The fewer the sooner the better. That's what a mythical John Galt would do. But here's the dirty little secret: no need for a John Galt, because the socialists are acting the part! The CEOs that are left at this point are pretty much propped up by government, and vice versa. It's pretty much a mutual cripple defense league at this point.

Then what? Try more effective, if somehat confused, guilt? (How dare you folks not take advantage of folks by employing them and riding them like ponies!) When the impotency of that mirthful argument is finally apparent even to its advocates-- the ones taking it up the butt today for embracing such going nowhere nonsense-- will it be time to expose the fangs for what they have really been all along?

No doubt. Then, it will be time to storm the bastions of capitalism, like the Martin Tower in North Bethlehem, once home of Beth Steel--the Beth Steel that once employed 330,000 people. Been empty for 20 years...or maybe the country club down at Saucon, where the evil capitalists used to roam. Can round up a few chiroprachters and Buick salesmen and radiologists today, have at them for the necessary 15 minutes of going nowhere noise. Or maybe Wall Street? Why not. Go get the FaceBook IPOers and their 100B of capital thrown at a self-subscribing marketing data collection paltform that employs maybe 3400 people. What then? The FED? Storm the imperial buildings and discover all the printing presses and their infinite ability to print 0s on paper on our behalf?

This is going to be some revolution. Go get those damned capitalists at GM, at IBM, at Solyndra, at Curt Schilling's Studio 38...