As an interesting contrast re. the treatment of coerced charity, Jewish law requires that you donate upwards of 10% of your net income to charity—but does not mandate to whom the money goes.
(There are specified ways to measure the social efficacy of your charity, and some types don't count under this definition. E.g. money given to "Save the Whates" does not benefit people, so it does not count towards the 10% requirement.)
The charitable donation, while mandated, is under your complete control, not that of a central government or organization. Unless you choose to give your charity to such an intermediary.
The US system, while making a grudging nod toward this idea by making charity tax-deductible, largely works in the opposite fashion, as you have noted, Kevin. It is less a method of charity than of subjugation.
Who are the "right" people? Fundamentalists would like the right people in place to ban homosexuality. Some liberals would like to ban free speech ('cept they call it "hate" speech to not ruffle any feathers or raise the suspicions of the plebes).
The problem with people like you is that you assume you and your brethren are the right people when from my point of view, you're more dangerous than helpful.
So you vote for more power, but fail to realize that those you give the power to are temporary and that eventually, another Bush is elected and now has all this power to control your life.
That you can't see that simply is astounding.
The mess we're in today is from people like you thinking a central government can somehow make laws that apply to 300 million people. You can't run a 3 person business without stepping on someone's toes, much less 3M. You cannot do it. Period. It has never worked, it will never work, and anything else is wishful thinking.
The best thing you can do is to severely limit the government's reach. That way, if you want to sail your dingy into someone else's port, you can. If you want to give to charity, you can. If you want to mainline Flintstones Vitamins, go ahead. The government can't stop you.
But if, instead, you want some bureaucracy mandating exactly which church you must go to, what words you may not use when discussing your rulers, and what brand of trans-fats you must use when cooking, then by all means believe in the magic government fairy that will never make the wrong decision (because somehow, a bunch of Republicans got voted in and now they control the reigns).
I may agree with a lot of Republican ideas, but I don't want to give them power to enact them because Democrats often get elected and do exactly what I don't want them to do.
How do you plan on getting enough people together to elect the "right" people when you know most people don't agree with you?
Government reminds me of my anti-virus software. Completely irritating and evil, except for what happens when you don't have it.
Well, not entirely true, since I don't have it, but the less computer-versed out there seem to have trouble without antivirus and other security software.
I rather like James Madison's take:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The Federalist No. 51
Nice post. The "just change the people and it will be better" argument is used a lot when bad government shows up- especially with socialists and the USSR.
Business exists to serve others. It is how a businessman gets rich -- by serving as many people as he can as well as he can so that they will voluntarily part with their money in exchange for his product -- goods or services.
Government exists to control others. It is how governors get rich -- by controlling as many people as they can by controlling them well, so that they can be forced to part with their money in exchange for... what? Protection? Whatta racket.
The best government is that which governs least. (Thoreau by way of Joe Huffman)
The difficulty lies in the uncomfortable fact that a strictly limited government has a power vacuum at the top -- all that power just lying around waiting to be used... and it will.
And government does not -- WILL not -- listen to reason. It can only be stopped or slowed by application of counter-force, in the nature of a two-by-four right between the eyes. As a means of getting its attention, you see.
The purpose of the Constitution was to provide We the People with a mechanism to wield that force short of resort to the gun. And insofar as today's government wilfully ignores the provisions of our founding documents, it invites the alternative to the the alternative.
Kevin added 2 plus 2 and got 4.
I added 2 plus 2 and got 4.
"Collective thought" would read:
Kevin added 2 plus 2 and got 4.
I think Kevin is smart so I'm also saying 4.
So, no, not collective.
The fact that we both studied the data and came to the same conclusions indicates our ability to discern the truth and or accuracy of the issue at hand.
Bill Gates can't send a SWAT team through my door to make me buy Vista, but just try not buying the services of the Department of Homeland Security or the DEA one year and see who shows up...
"MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. (Oct. 22) -- Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.
NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly."
You might fucking DIE in a fiery plane crash, but The Prostitute wouldn't want to upset you by giving out the data that YOU paid for.
I'm getting a vision... of an incoherent explanation of how the only reason people buy consumer goods is because they've been brainwashed to by the Corporate Empire...
I hate using my precognition, it gives me such a headache.
Your statement about the founding fathers' notion of morality and religion being nearly one and the same rings true. Many of our FF were Masons, and the Masons require the belief in one living God in order to become a member because "no oath being binding on an atheist."
As to the one commenter's suggestion that Jewish law doesn't specify where to "donate" your ten percent, nothing could be further from the truth. It is to be given at your synagogue (church). Specifically your "home" church.
Speaking as one of those anarchists, I'd just like to remind everyone that, while government is evil by definition, it is only contingently necessary. We should aspire to the day when we find a way to render government unnecessary. That day will never arrive if we just give up and assume that necessity...
I am going to parse out my response in a couple of key areas.
First, I am going to try to explain the seeming hypocrisy of “government is evil” on the one hand and why I think government can work on the other. Second, I will respond specifically to Kevin’s points. Third, I will respond to some of the other points made here in comments.
Part One
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups. I think it is very possible that what we have here is an oligarchy. It’s not as bad as China but some days I really wonder….
Anyway, lobbyists run Washington, not politicians. Pretty much every current politician has been greased by some lobbyist group to further whatever cause they represent. The reason why I support someone like Barack Obama as opposed to Hillary Clinton is that one wants to change the way things work and the other wants to keep business as usual. “Of the people by the people for the people” is effectively gone. People like Obama (and me) want to open up the government to the people again. Accessibility is the key here. That is how government CAN work. There are good people out there. Some of them post on this blog. And, although I don’t agree with many things, I see a lot of honesty and integrity here. Someone like DJ or Unix, based on what they have written, would do an excellent job serving our country. Could they be corrupted? I doubt it.
Now, think of several hundred people or even a thousand that have that kind of integrity and who want to “ask not what their country can do for them but what they can do for their country.” That is how government can work. We let these people in and show them that the old ways are over. Right now they aren’t being allowed in because they refuse to suck off Corporate America. I am not espousing an all reaching all powerful government that does everything. Just the best and the brightest providing a framework in which the individual can live a better life.
I will read the Spooner site and give you my take. Looks interesting
I mostly agree with Paine’s statement that government is a necessary evil. But I don’t think that the natural state of mankind is tribal warfare…at least exclusively. There is a natural state of man that has gone largely ignored in our modern society. I know you are an atheist, Kevin, but the spiritual side of man…the part of him that is not animal….is not nurtured in our society. Call it the Grace of Christ, the Great Spirit or whatever you believe in but our nation is spiritually bankrupt at present. Most of our world is as well…therein lies the majority of our problems. We are too focused on the material and should our focus shift more to the spiritual, I wonder what kind of a creature man would be? But I digress…
In regards to taxation and the Crocket statement, I would refer you to my post, in response to DJ, regarding the taxation of the wealthy. I believed I showed that people like Paris Hilton are actually paying less tax now than they did 30 years ago. People are keeping more of their money, Kevin. And they are using it to fuck people over everyday. They are using it, not to be “individualistic”, but to acquire more control over the population through buying off politicians who will help them keep more of their money. I agree that government is broken, Kevin, but not for the reasons you believe it to be so.
“Businesses provide products and/or services and are in competition with other businesses. They must earn your money, resulting in a trade in which both parties find advantage.”
Absolutely false. There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it. And health care? While there are several choices, their main goal is take your money and still make you pay. There are some exceptions to this but for the most part, this industry has become so unregulated both parties rarely find advantage. Honestly, I don’t see much choice in corporate America. And it’s getting worse..
The Ravenwood quote was interesting…ok, let’s see he pays for his own health care. Fine. Now, he gets sick and his insurance company won’t cover him. Now what? He can’t go anywhere else because of his pre-existing condition. He dies. So what is the organizing principle to fix this problem. The free market will just take care of it? People are going to…what….stop buying insurance? Go to a different company?
Kevin, you have this notion that the free market is a magical place which allows people to be individuals. Your hero worship of Ayn Rand fails to take into context life that she led. She lived in a totalitarian regime whose family life was ruined during the nascence of the Soviet Union. Of course she is going to perceive the world in this way. It was her life. But it wasn’t American life…at least not until Bush Co has taken over.
Ironic that by voting for Bush (as I assume most of you did) and not voting for Gore or Kerry, you actually got what you thought Gore or Kerry would give you....probably worse than you thought it would be...
Government is not corrupting the free market. The free market is corrupting government. We are a society that is run by concentrated corporate ownership. Since you are fond of Orwell, I highly recommend the film ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE for a much more compelling argument than I think I can make. For a brief description check out this link:
“How do you plan on getting enough people together to elect the "right" people when you know most people don't agree with you?”
Good question, Robb, and I think I started to answer that above. But here’s a little more…the right people would be people like yourself. Your post was thoughtful and intelligent which means that you probably are as well. Go work for the US government. Your experience, vision, and knowledge will change both the government and your point of view once you see things from a different perspective.
“…if all people in government were perfectly "good" and altruistic.That will never happen.”
Unix, what would Yoda say to this? “That is why we fail
JohnS, great quote! Love it!
Bilgeman, so….you want a world with evil as well as good? I will comment on the NASA thing when I read more about it.
DJ, what’s funny is that you think “someone sells and someone buys, each side gains.” This might be true if I sell you jewelry that you give to your wife. But what about the people who work hard, pay for their health plan, and then are told they still have to pay? Sure, they could get another health plan outside of the employer’s but how much would that be? I only have once choice for heat and one choice for electricity. Why? One thing I have noticed as I have gotten older is that there is LESS choice, not more, as Corporate America has marched onwards.
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups. I think it is very possible that what we have here is an oligarchy. It’s not as bad as China but some days I really wonder….
Rather than directly argue with you on this, let me do the following. (But I have to note that essentially *every answer* you give has 2 components: Companies are evil, and there's a conspiracy to subvert wills.)
Let me just ask you to explain this: Since lobbying by corporations is a recent concept - why is our Constitution written as it is? Kevin spent a fair bit of time going back to "first principles" - the Constitution.
If you're correct, that government is evil because it's been taken over by the private sector, how does that gibe with concept of government embodied by the Constitution?
. Someone like DJ or Unix, based on what they have written, would do an excellent job serving our country. Could they be corrupted? I doubt it.
While I appreciate the compliment - and I've served the .fed directly, and currently work for a state government - don't doubt that I can be corrupted. Down that way lies utter foolishness!
Mark, we keep telling you you put your faith in people, not their actions, this is more proof of that. If someone says something you like, you implicitly trust them.
But Mark, I don't trust people that much. Neither should you. Evaluate them. Make sure they're still honest and uncorrupted "Trust, but Verify", to quote a wise man.
This is why the Constitution is (among) the most brilliant piece of human applied psychology. Notice the constant balance of power. The "may not" "shall not". Which almost outnumbers the may and shalls.
The problem with our current Government - is for the best of reasons and intentions, we've abandoned those protections in favor of large, institutional bureaucracies. With essentially no checks or balances. Virtually no oversight, and close to ultimate power.
That is how government can work. We let these people in and show them that the old ways are over.
How? How are you going to negate the Civil Service protections and hire these people (And who will select them?) into slots superior to people who have been there their entire career?
Right now they aren’t being allowed in because they refuse to suck off Corporate America.
Since this is such a cornerstone of your belief system, you really need to actually, you know, prove this is the case before you keep stating it as THE problem and all we do is fix that and things are fixed.
(Alternatively, you could trust me - as you said you would - to tell you that no, the government on the local, state, and federal level is not about "Sucking Off Corporate America")
Just the best and the brightest providing a framework in which the individual can live a better life.
Mottos make really shitty plans, Mark. Trust me on this.
"[To] provide solutions in real time to meet our customers' needs." - Halliburton Mission Statement
We are too focused on the material and should our focus shift more to the spiritual, I wonder what kind of a creature man would be?
In the last century, some ~200 million died for that very concept. Before that, the nature of god and worship of said same was the leading cause of conflict between "enlightened" nations. That's been used as a joke about "civilization" for a long time. "'How can you tell when you've got civilization?' 'Oh, that's when you have plenty to eat, and you go kill people for non-material reasons'".
Absolutely false. There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it.
Actually, there is. You're right, there's not a lot.
But that's because of government intervention, Mark, not because of the market. The Government awards those monopolies, allows "acceptable" margins of "profit". But there's always alternatives, Mark.
People are keeping more of their money, Kevin. And they are using it to fuck people over everyday.
*sigh*. Mark, statements like this give me pause that you can realistically be reached, or dealt with as a thinking individual.
Keeping more of their money, and you see that as a bad thing. *boggle*
Mark, unless they go bury the money in the backyard, it benefits the economy. If they're spending it, or even putting it in investments, then it's a good thing.
but to acquire more control over the population through buying off politicians who will help them keep more of their money.
Which is totally at odds with your prior statement. If the government has no power, then "buying it" buys you nothing. It's only because there's huge amounts to be had are those sorts of "buying politicians" worthwhile. Which is why ADM is all about ethanol.
But what about the people who work hard, pay for their health plan, and then are told they still have to pay?
As usual, you're not specific, so we can't really evaluate your arguments. "But what happens when..." But Mark, how is that different from your home or auto insurance? (You've been asked this before, and you didn't answer)
Other than only one of those you're a consumer, not a customer, and you have no choice in the plan, or it's coverage.
THANK you Markadelphia for the best belly-laugh of the week! And it's only Monday!
I'm out of town at the moment, typing this on a laptop actually perched on my lap, but let me address just one of the juicy tidbits you dropped here, actually the first sentence of your response:
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups. I think it is very possible that what we have here is an oligarchy.
NO. Government is evil because it concentrates the power to coerce into the hands of a few. IT IS BY DEFINITION AN OLIGARCHY. Some more, some less, but government concentrates power - somebody makes the decisions and hands out the orders which will be executed by the people with the guns/swords/great big sticks.
Unless and until you UNDERSTAND that FACT you will harbor the ILLUSION that government is NOT an inherent evil, best kept small and watched closely.
One of the bits of design genius in our Constitution was to attempt to make OUR oligarchy as large and cumbersome as possible while still allowing it to function as a government, with TWO houses of legislature, an executive, and a judicial branch, any ONE of which could STOP any grouping of the others, but requiring cooperation among all in order to accomplish anything. It took about 200 years to circumvent most of the roadblocks thrown up by that system.
But our government is STILL an oligarchy. Look the word up in the dictionary.
What you seem to be pining for is direct democracy - a system of government historically proven to be an unmitigated disaster.
Oh, and use that little search function on the upper left corner of the page to do a search on "Ayn Rand" in this blog. Look for a quotation from "Dipnut" concerning my purported "hero worship" of Ms. Rand. It should pop up in the first post on that page.
"Bilgeman, so….you want a world with evil as well as good? I will comment on the NASA thing when I read more about it."
You can save your time, I used it as but one of a long list of examples to choose from.
And don't get off-track, what I want is totally immaterial to the discussion at hand,which is the character of our government in particular, government in general, and whould we allow it greater power over our lives.
Evil and good exist whether I acknowledge their existence or not.
My aim here is one of clarifying the perception of reality.
You seem to believe in the inherent altruism of Government with a wistful faith mirrored only by those who profess the inherent altruism of Business.
From where I stand, both parties are worshipping at the feet of false idols.
Both Business and Government are the works of Man...and Man, no matter how hard he tries, will not build Paradise on Earth.
Ironic that by voting for Bush (as I assume most of you did) and not voting for Gore or Kerry, you actually got what you thought Gore or Kerry would give you....probably worse than you thought it would be...
Actually, no. While I was mostly agnostic in 2000, Bush did cut my taxes. Which wouldn't have happened under Gore.
Bush isn't conservative (or even a "neo-con"), and thus he's basically only done 2 things that really stand out:
Cut Taxes
Killed Terrorists.
I concur with Unix-Jedi. Whereas Gore or Kerry would have been an unmitigated disaster, Bush has merely been a disaster.
Speaking of political agnosticism, taxes and terrorists seem to be the two things that convert people. A standout example of the latter is former liberal Charles Johnson of LGF. My mother is an example of the former: a lifelong liberal Democrat who, upon receiving a huge tax bill from Clinton in 2000, told my brother and I in all seriousness that if we didn't vote for Bush we were out of the will.
Not to hijack the thread, but I couldn't let this one pass by.
Circa Bellum,
As to the one commenter's suggestion that Jewish law doesn't specify where to "donate" your ten percent, nothing could be further from the truth. It is to be given at your synagogue (church). Specifically your "home" church.
Don't confuse Jewish law with the Christian system of tithes. If you actually got that impression of charity from a Jew, he is either ignorant, or lying to you for personal gain.
The laws of charity are laid out in exhaustive detail by Maimonides. Here is a sample:
"The highest degree [of charity], exceeded by none, is that of a person who assists a poor Jew by providing him with a gift or a loan or by accepting him into a business partnership or by helping him find employment — in a word, by putting him where he can dispense with other people's aid."
I suppose as far as Mark is concerned, it boils down to the evils of "Big Business" vs the evils of "Big Government". Mark obviously feels "Big Business" is the bigger threat. Personally, I'd rather have to put up with "Big Business", since it does not have the power to imprison or kill me.
Kevin S:
Until it uses the money that's untaxed to buy the favors of the Big Government to force you to it's whim. Thus, we should tax everything,, and give it all to the government to prevent this collection of power.
(Dammit, just trying to make Mark's points unify gives me a splitting headache)
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups.
Mark;
What is a "special interest group"? (rhetorical question)
It is a group of individuals banded together to "petition the government for redress of grievances."
Ask yourself, "Why is this necessary?" (For, rest assured, were it not necessary, nobody would do it.)
The answer is pellucid in its clarity. Lobbying is necessary because, without it, the government will interfere in the business of private citizens -- pro-actively and gratuitously -- to said citizens' detriment.
The case of Microsoft is educational as a cautionary tale. Prior to being attacked at the behest of Netscape et all by the Clinton justice departments aintitrust division, Microsoft did not lobby. Had no corporate representatives in Washington.
Then, apparently on that basis, Microsoft was cut out from the herd and its corporate property strewn about the landscape to be pawed over by passersby. Why? For no reason other than the company refused to pay the Danegeld.
Well. They certainly learned THAT lesson. So now they have lobbyists. To protect their interests from the attention of the leviathan state.
Why is the NRA the most powerful lobbying group out there? (Possibly after AARP.) Why, because the government seems bent on vitiating the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Without that, the NRA would be a backwoods fraternal organization, nothing more.
For that matter, why AARP? Couldn't be because the state has arrogated to itself the power (it has nowhere in the Constitution) to rob from Peter to pay Paul. Of COURSE Paul lines up to get some. Who wouldn't?
So where does the corruption lie in this? In the people who react to what statists pervert government to do? Or the government which has inherent in its nature the power to corrupt?
When you twist a thing to a purpose for which it was never intended -- indeed, was designed NEVER to do -- that is a perversion. And when you pervert something so that it destroys people's lives -- as government does -- then that is evil.
Mark A: The case of Microsoft is educational as a cautionary tale. Prior to being attacked at the behest of Netscape et all by the Clinton justice departments aintitrust division, Microsoft did not lobby. Had no corporate representatives in Washington.
Then, apparently on that basis, Microsoft was cut out from the herd and its corporate property strewn about the landscape to be pawed over by passersby. Why? For no reason other than the company refused to pay the Danegeld.
Trust me, that's a really really really misunderstood reading of the whole situation. (I'd thought about bringing it up, as it's somewhat relevant, but it'll tangent off the discussion far away from this target. So I won't get into it, other than, no, that's really not a good example. (Though you're right about Microsoft not lobbying prior - they thought they had enough "control" not to need it.))
Unix: (kind of off topic)
"In the last century, some ~200 million died for that very concept. Before that, the nature of god and worship of said same was the leading cause of conflict between "enlightened" nations.
Might want to do some more thinking and research on this statement. Last century had very little to due with religion except as a veneer to a power grab. Even before the 20th century, you can't make that statement accurate. Good site: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
and to tie that in to the topic, the more power the government gets, the more likely we are looking at trouble. Humans are flawed and these flaws get magnified when people are given power. Power with no checks has caused calamity in every case. THAT shows the nature of man. You can't wish it away.
I think you're misreading what I'm saying.
When Mark says: "should our focus shift more to the spiritual, I wonder what kind of a creature man would be?", he echos, either intentionally or not, the Fascist/Marxist view of the world. Their "attempts" (not all really attempts, mind you) to "fix materialism" (and their stated goal of "Utopia") caused somewhere in the vicinity of ~200M deaths between 1900 and 2000. (Which your Rummel link actually backs up: " numbers killed in war during the lifetime of some still living, and largely unknown, is this shocking fact. This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international. Indeed, this number already approximates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war.")
Rather than argue further, I'll suggest that I think you've misread me, as we're almost totally in agreement here.
People have only one choice for their electricity and heat is because of a government enforced monopoly.
If one wishs to reduce the influence of "big business" on government the one effective way to do this is to reduce the power of government. That concentration of power, physical force, compels "big business" to attempt appeasing it.
As a worker for the Borg (Microsoft) off and on since '95 I know a little more about the internal culture and attitudes than most. A close friend of mine testified in one of the anti-trust actions the DOJ brought against MS.
MS wouldn't have even worried about the government granted monopoly of patents if they hadn't been forced to. Government, the threat of physical force, caused MS to hold it's nose and associate with the slime in Washington D.C. MS would love to sever this relationship. The only way this can be done is if the government threat of force is removed.
1. People in our government are for the most part, stupid, jealous and lazy.
2. Our government has federal programs run by these people and staffed by identical people.
3. The programs are for the most part, bloated, inefficient, and overstaffed, doing more nothing than anything, but employing undeserved millions.
"Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups."
Mark, you confuse symptoms with causes. The influence on our gubmint by private interests is merely a symptom. Yes, it is a significant symptom, but it is nonetheless only a symptom. To gain a very clear picture of the cause, consider a very clear statement by Lord Acton in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Gubmint concentrates the power to coerce, enforced literally at the point of a gun, in the hands of a relatively few people. It thus tends to attract people who lust after power, and it tends to corrupt all whom it attracts. And your solution is:
"Now, think of several hundred people or even a thousand that have that kind of integrity and who want to “ask not what their country can do for them but what they can do for their country.” That is how government can work. We let these people in and show them that the old ways are over."
I'm a student of history, Mark, not a scholar of history, just an absorbed, lifelong reader thereof. To the best of my knowledge, what you describe has never been successfully implemented during the whole of recorded human history. In my opinion, it never will be because it can't be.
And your solution is, "Try it again, only harder!
Sigh ... What's that called again?
No, Mark. You cannot have gubmint without evil. The two are inseparable. The very nature of gubmint is that you give others power and authority over you, depending only on the blind hope that they will not abuse it, and you.
No, your vision of fixing gubmint by putting the right people in it is a fool's dream. It won't work because it can't work.I don't know of a single person, anywhere in the world, to whom I would willingly cede such authority over me with the expectation that he would not be corrupted thereby and would not abuse the power he is given. And so, the buying of influence by private interests, and the selling of influence by those in gubmint, are all merely symptoms of, and results of, the corrupting influence of power.
Kevin points out, quite correctly, I think:
"What you seem to be pining for is direct democracy - a system of government historically proven to be an unmitigated disaster."
There is nothing in this world as politically powerful as a newly-elected House of Commons in London. There are no limits to their authority save the conscience of each individual member. Think not? Consider that the private citizen in England is now disarmed, that he can and will be imprisoned if he simply defends himself when he is attacked, and that there is nothing he can do about it, as Parliament Has Spoken.
Our system of gubmint was designed specifically to prevent the national gubmint both from having and from exercising such power. It is failing at both, more and more, because the people who are elected to it do not obey the rules laid down in its defining document, despite taking an oath to do so.
On a more practical note, I am not the answer, Mark, nor is a few thousand people like me. I do not have the patience to lead those who will not be lead, nor do I have any tolerance (as you well know) for the irrationality that drives the average person. Such people as I am are not attracted to gubmint service, and for that reason. To get them to serve, you would "... let these people in and show them that the old ways are over." Golly, gee, Mark, has the notion of making an uncorruptible gubmint corrupted you such that you would force these good people to do your bidding?
"I believed I showed that people like Paris Hilton are actually paying less tax now than they did 30 years ago. People are keeping more of their money, Kevin. And they are using it to fuck people over everyday. They are using it, not to be “individualistic”, but to acquire more control over the population through buying off politicians who will help them keep more of their money. I agree that government is broken, Kevin, but not for the reasons you believe it to be so."
My goodness, what a magnificently revealing statement!
The clear inferences are ...: 1) ... that you believe it is an awful thing if people keep more of what they own, instead of having it taken from them by the gubmint; 2) ... that people ought to have their money taken away from them because they might do things with it that you don't approve of; and, 3) ... that gubmint is broken because it doesn't do #2 to fix #1. You reveal yourself as a socialist, Mark, and there is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the feddle gubmint to do these things.
Kevin is right, Mark. You pine for a democracy, wherein the gubmint can do whatever its current members desire, which translates into whatever such power has currupted its current members into desiring, such as taking money from people because they have too much and because they might use it to buy things and/or to influence people.
Now, let's move on to economics. Your response to:
"Businesses provide products and/or services and are in competition with other businesses. They must earn your money, resulting in a trade in which both parties find advantage."
was to describe it as being "absolutely false". Mark, this shows an astounding lack of understanding about simple economics. Let's look at two examples, shall we?
#1: You are hungry. You have money. You go to the supermarket, put food in a shopping cart, and roll it up to the checkout stand. You exchange money for the food and then take the food home and eat it. You valued the food more than the money, which is why you willingly traded the money for the food. The supermarket owners valued the money more than the food, which is why they willingly traded for the food for the money.
Now, compare this to the statement you called "absolutely false". The supermarket is in competition with many other businesses selling food, as are the suppliers to the supermarket. It earned your money by providing what you wanted to buy. You and the supermarket engaged in a trade in which each found advantage. The statement is absolutely true, Mark.
#2: I am cold. I want to be warm. I can be warm by purchasing natural gas, which I can burn to provide heat, and by also purchasing electricity, which I can use to control the burning process and to distribute the heat throughout my house.
I buy natural gas from Oklahoma Natural Gas, Co., which is a distribution company. It in turn buys natural gas on the open market from any of the dozens of suppliers who produce natural gas in many states in the southwest. ONG thus buys gas at prices set per the law of supply and demand, in the same manner as the supermarket of the previous example. ONG in turn sells gas at rates that are set by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which is part of the gubmint. The rate schedules set by the OCC are intended to limit the profits of ONG, and they do a remarkably good job of doing so.
I buy electric energy from Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, which is a distribution company. It in turn buys electric energy on the open market from any of the dozens of suppliers who produce electric energy from many sources in many states in the southwest. OEC thus buys electric energy at prices set per the law of supply and demand, in the same manner as the supermarket of the previous example. OEC in turn sells electric energy at rates that are set by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which is part of the gubmint. The rate schedules set by the OCC are intended to limit the profits of OEC, and they do a remarkably good job of doing so.
Now, compare this to the statement that you called "absolutely false". The producers of natural gas and of electric energy are in competition with each other to supply such energy to the companies who distribute it to me. Those distribution companies are limited by the gubmint to rates that prevent them from price gouging, indeed to rates that force them to be very efficient to make a profit at all. ONG and OEC are in competition with each other, as I could use either natural gas or electric energy to provide the heat that I need, and people choose one or the other when they buy, build, or remodel a home. The service they each provide is first class, in my opinion. They earn my money by providing me with what I want to buy. We engage in a trade in which we each find advantage. Again, the statement is absolutely true, Mark.
And finally, we find this:
"DJ, what’s funny is that you think "someone sells and someone buys, each side gains.""
It's not funny at all, Mark, it is absolutely true. If neither the seller nor the buyer are forced to trade, then the trade doesn't happen unless both the buyer and the seller are willing. That both are willing means that each gains by the trade. If one side didn't think he would gain by the trade, then he wouldn't trade.
It is true in ALL cases that are not coerced. The gathering of taxes and property by the gubmint is coercion, Mark, not free trade, as you are forced to buy what the gubmint sells at the point of a gun. Buying health insurance, electricity, and gas is free trade, Mark, not coercion, as you are not forced to buy anything at all.
If you don't fundamentally understand this, then you have no business discussing economics at all, as such is its cornerstone.
Mark, I'm interested as to why you think Obama is a desirable candidate?
Obama never met a gun control law he didn't like. It matters not one whit where he stands on any other issue. He will never get my vote, or the vote of any other in my camp. It is the right of a free man to be armed, otherwise you're just a slave.
The left just doesn't understand the power of "The Gun Lobby." It's no mystery. I just told you.
"Since lobbying by corporations is a recent concept - why is our Constitution written as it is?.....that government is evil because it's been taken over by the private sector, how does that gibe with concept of government embodied by the Constitution?"
It doesn’t. Kevin is correct in stating we are way off the mark on what was originally intended. It is a sign that our country is heading for a downfall. It’s my opinion that the Republicans, more so than the Democrats, are responsible for this unholy marriage between corporate America and our government.
"you put your faith in people, not their actions, this is more proof of that. If someone says something you like, you implicitly trust them."
Well, I don’t like pretty much everything you say at all but I still trust you because you are actually passionate about something. You care and it shows. Based on this, I predict your actions will be honorable.
"How? How are you going to negate the Civil Service protections and hire these people (And who will select them?) into slots superior to people who have been there their entire career?"
I think you start by identifying who has been bought off and who hasn’t. Who is trying and who is not? Most of us know who these people are. Most of us also know that if the system was changed people like Colin Powell would be involved. Do you trust Colin Powell? I think he could marshal a large force of people willing to actually do some good for our country. He talks about this in his book. Beyond this, I honestly don’t know. It certainly requires more thought.
Some Shorter responses…
Kevin,
“Really, Mark, that was beneath you.”
Well, I apologize if I offended you but your blog does lead with a quote from her. The Dipnut quote does round out your perspective a little more. There is a pervasive, Randian view on Communism on this blog, though, that seems to me to be very single minded…based on her unquestionable personal bias. I literally feel like her ghost is channeled here.
Bilgeman, I see your points and agree for the most part.
Sarah, “Whereas Gore or Kerry would have been an unmitigated disaster, Bush has merely been a disaster.”
I completely disagree. We would have been ok with a Kerry presidency and much better off with Gore to begin with….I think bin Laden and Zawahari would actually be dead or behind bars by now. Just my opinion…
Kevin S., “since it does not have the power to imprison or kill me.”
Yes it does. Some of them do it everyday.
Mark Alger, “So where does the corruption lie in this? In the people who react to what statists pervert government to do? Or the government which has inherent in its nature the power to corrupt?”
The corruption lies in the fact that these groups pay for politicians campaigns and then when they are elected are expected to vote in favor of continued profits. This is especially true of that behemoth, the military industrial complex.
Unix-Jedi: Let me just ask you to explain this: Since lobbying by corporations is a recent concept - why is our Constitution written as it is? Kevin spent a fair bit of time going back to "first principles" - the Constitution.
If you're correct, that government is evil because it's been taken over by the private sector, how does that gibe with concept of government embodied by the Constitution?
Mark: It doesn’t. Kevin is correct in stating we are way off the mark on what was originally intended. It is a sign that our country is heading for a downfall. It’s my opinion that the Republicans, more so than the Democrats, are responsible for this unholy marriage between corporate America and our government.
You've missed the point of my question, totally, I'm afraid.
If, according to you, the problems with big government are only due to corporate "purchases" of bureacrats... Why is the Constitution so wary of big government, written 130 years before that was a realistic problem?
In other words, Mark, you're missing that your "explanation" doesn't jibe with the concerns of the "Founding Fathers" - who had the same concerns we do now - but you attribute those to realities that didn't become dominant until well after their lifetimes. If you are correct as to the problem, then explain why the Constitution is written as it is, when there weren't those kinds of corporations. Please.
Unix-Jedi: "How? How are you going to negate the Civil Service protections and hire these people (And who will select them?) into slots superior to people who have been there their entire career?"
Mark: I think you start by identifying who has been bought off and who hasn’t. Who is trying and who is not? Most of us know who these people are.
And again, how do you negate Civil Service Protections? Mark, have you ever fired anyone? Seen anyone fired out of government? Do you have any freaking idea how hard it is? This is not something you just get to wave your hand and say "Handle it! handle it, Roy!" - explain How Do You Do That?
Because it's not that simple. How do you identify these people? Sure, I could. I'd also fire all the nursing mothers and Dallas Cowboy fans. Hate the smell of stale milk and the Cowboys suck.
I mean, if we're just firing people without due process and recourse, why not? Mark, that's what you really don't get - Obama can't just come in and "fix" things. Hell, Bush can't even get the CIA to actually, you know, work to overthrow governments other than the United States of America. These aren't petty little details, they're fundamental to your cause, and you don't understand them in the slightest!
It's like trying to build a nuclear reactor when you can't pass basic physics - there's no practical way it could ever, possibly, safely work.
Or operate on someone without any idea of anatomy. Or surgical proceedures. "Sutures? They're just knots, right? Can't be that hard, we'll deal with that when we come to it!"
Most of us also know that if the system was changed people like Colin Powell would be involved. Do you trust Colin Powell?
Not particularly. Depends on what you're asking do I trust him about. His track record is less than stellar, even though he was a Media Golden Child for a long time. I don't necessarily distrust him, but he's got a track record of both success and failure, I wouldn't automatically expect him to be a success.
I think bin Laden and Zawahari would actually be dead or behind bars by now. Just my opinion…
What makes you think this? What, exactly, would either of them have done to lead to this outcome?
Can't help commenting on this: Well, I don’t like pretty much everything you say at all but I still trust you because you are actually passionate about something. You care and it shows. Based on this, I predict your actions will be honorable.
Hitler was very passionate about things. He cared, and it showed. Based on that, I guess you would have trusted his actions to be honorable?
This is why I think the liberal-Democrat mindset, at its root, is quite feminine. Women want to hear the right things, they want to be smooth-talked and placated. They care about lofty things like intentions and caring without much regard for the outcome. This is why the commies -- who are responsible for upwards of 100 million deaths -- get a free pass, since their intentions were good, but the Nazis and Richard Nixon were the greatest evils ever to befall mankind. You think that Republicans are cold-hearted and uncaring, but that's untrue -- we do care, but we care about the outcome, i.e. screw the intentions, does it actually work? We're pragmatists, not idealists.
The corruption lies in the fact that these groups pay for politicians campaigns and then when they are elected are expected to vote in favor of continued profits. This is especially true of that behemoth, the military industrial complex.
And yet, you STILL don't get it, do you? It is not the nature of commerce to order things this way. Only so long as government has and wields the power to take from this one and give to that one, such corruption will exist.
Businesses do not spend money on things that are not necessary to accomplish their ends. You don't increase the sales of widgets by paying Washington protection money. There's a reason they call them taxes. Same goes for lobbying money. if it wasn't NECESSARY, it wouldn't exist. And it's not commercial interests which make it necessary.
That is, unless the businessmen are themselves statists, bent on using the power of the state to gain what they can't gain fairly in the marketplace. Is that a fault of business or of government?
It has to do with the fundamental natures of things. Government REQUIRES this relationship as its raison d'etre. What is the frequent left-justification for government overreach? Government must provide those things that the private sector can't or won't. IOW, government must provide those things self-appointed "elites" deem right and proper, even though the population at large -- through the mechanisms of the market -- has determined that they are not desirable or too costly to pursue.
Meanwhile, commerce REQUIRES that the participants be, en large, moral individuals. Without trust, the market cannot exist. (Absent coercion, but then you get back to the government's monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.)
Yes, there are honest, good, and righteous civil servants, just as there are venal capitalists. But in neither case is it the majority of the breed -- or even the run of the mill.
But if even that will not persuade, look on it from a practical viewpoint. Where has government succeeded? Not, "where has government done things some deem good" but where has government SUCCEEDED -- done what it set out to do, in the time allotted and for the amount budgeted? I would argue that government, again, by its very nature, is bound to fail -- and miserably -- at anything it attempts. (And I do not exempt the military -- wars are won by those who fuck up the least.) The failure rate in government would put a businessman out of the game.
Which is perhaps beside the point, but then, perhaps spot-on it.
DJ, (and others) I do have some specfic responses for some of the comments here but I want to share this quote with all of you. It pertains to many of the things that DJ said in his two posts. See if you can guess who said it.
"I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."
You claim that govt is evil all because of nasty, wicked Corporations. But on your own blog you point out that Qwest Communications rebuffed the illegal overtures of the Federal Govt.
No, I don't believe I said that all corporations were evil. If I did, I was in error.
Unix, you are correct that was Obama. In answer to an earlier question by Ed, this would be one of the reasons why I like Obama. You are correct in his stance on gun control but I think if all of you sat in a room with him for an hour or two and conveyed your thoughts, I suspect he might change his mind. And maybe he might show you a different perspective as well :)
Mark (quoting Obama):"I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. "
Me: Did you realize that his logic breaks down right there? Every one of us does evil. Some more than others, but no one, not one single person is completely good. Sometimes that evil is intentional, sometimes it's accidental (through error or misplaced good intentions), but we all are broken, evil human beings. There is only a difference of degree.
To claim that we can eliminate evil, hardship and pain is not "humble and modest", it is massive, overwhelming hubris and ego of galactic, neigh, universe spanning proportions.
That simple fact is why designing a governmental system based on a mythical "perfect human" is such a stupid idea. Such a government must—in order to be truly effective—have absolute and total power of those being ruled. But because a "perfect human" is only a feverish wet dream never to be accomplished, you would only be able to put an evil being in a position to inflict evil on the governed.
Mark, you need to give up the fantasy of a perfect, benign, caring politician—nevermind an entire government bureaucracy full of them—because there is no such creature. Period. Only then can we actually discuss why it is necessary to have feedback systems which punish evil and reward good, not only for corporations (bad customer service/goods leads to lost sales, good service/goods leads to more sales), but also for governments which have no such natural feedback systems.
this would be one of the reasons why I like Obama.
Yes, Mark, we know.
I think if all of you sat in a room with him for an hour or two and conveyed your thoughts, I suspect he might change his mind.
No, Mark. He's not "for" gun control because he's misled. he's for gun control because his policies require control. More and more of it. The very opposite of liberty, actually. Individuals who pose a threat to his utopia have to be.. dealt with. Marginalized. Powerless.
No, we'd have very little to talk about. Especially if all he did was talk in florid but meaningless sound bites like the above. Oh, it's very nice and scripted. It's also not a plan.
(Note, this reply does not absolve you of the outstanding questions you've been asked above, about how it would work, and especially what corporation is imprisoning and killing daily in the US.)
OK, DJ, your stuff. The reason why I put this quote up from Obama is I think you might be giving in to “cynicism and inaction” when you say “No, your vision of fixing gubmint by putting the right people in it is a fool's dream. It won't work because it can't work.”
Or when you say
“what you describe has never been successfully implemented during the whole of recorded human history.”
Well, America is unlike any country in human history. Look at all of the things we have accomplished in 231 years. Not bad, eh? You see, DJ, for all of my bitching, I still think we have great potential. Based on what you have written, you have us defeated right out of the gate because we have a government.
I guess I am curious as to what our country would look like with no taxes and a barely minimal government. I suspect you would say something like “a nation filled with self-reliant people who can all be responsible for themselves, with the free market providing services.” That sounds more like Utopia to me than my vision. The authority you speak of, while not being the government, would then be corporations….which is kind of where we are heading now, if not there already. If man is corrupted in government, wouldn’t he also be corrupted in corporations as well?
"DJ, How about “Try it again only smarter and actually with qualified, energetic, inspired, and motivated people who love their country?”"
It's been tried for about 230 years, Mark. It hasn't worked because such people don't necessarily feel the call to gubmint service. Absent "finding them" (by what method? compulsory testing?) and forcing them to serve (by what method? holding their children hostage?) it won't happen any more in the future than it has in the past.
And, you've just validated, quite forcefully, my observation that "do it again, only harder!" characterizes your thinking on the matter.
"They are out there, DJ, and you are one of them. You sell yourself short."
Mark, this is quite revealing about you. You have no idea how shallow this observation of me is, and how shallow your similar observations about Obama are.
I know myself considerably better and more completely than you do. I'm a loner, Mark, a hermit by nature and an engineer by trade. I am motivated by history, by science, by engineering, by rational thinking, and by reality and truth, as best they can be determined. I am emphatically not motivated by thoughts of people management, or by thoughts of gubmint service, or by thoughts of political activity. I spent a profitable 26 year career in engineering in which I never once had anyone report to me in a table of organization, which was a condition I insisted on and which my employer agreed with. I was offered the job of Executive Vice President, and I turned it down. No, I did real work, not management.
I've seen politics close up, too. As I related before, my last employer (of 22 years) is a big but quiet contributor to Republican causes. The result is that I've met and conversed with Representatives, Senators, Attorneys General, and even a sitting Vice President. A few were quite intelligent, but most were just normal people, and a few were dumb as hammers. I want nothing to do, personally, with the world they work in.
And, everyone is corruptible, Mark, including me. The only difference between one person and the next is the price.
Now, just what do you not know about Obama that matters?
Sarah,
I think Gore would’ve immediately recognized the intricacies of the Islamic threat. I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda. I go back to the Wilkerson quote I put up here a while back…about how we should be leading with our ideas, which I think are better than bin Laden’s. Blowing stuff up is a smaller tool in a greater game of international public relations, something I think everyone can agree that Bush stinks at.
Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11 and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force.
Ah, Ed, spoken like a true evangelical. Simply put, I don’t agree. While I think man does good and man does bad…broken and evil? Everyone? Even in a small degree? It seems to me like we are wavering into that territory of “we are all evil sinners and God will punish us.” Sorry, I don’t buy it. I know I am going off an a tangent here but everyone is capable of having the Grace of Christ, which I believe is inherently good. No doubt, there is great evil in the world but I find it hard to qualify what your everyday joe does on daily basis as “evil and broken.”
"Well, America is unlike any country in human history. Look at all of the things we have accomplished in 231 years. Not bad, eh? You see, DJ, for all of my bitching, I still think we have great potential. Based on what you have written, you have us defeated right out of the gate because we have a government."
Well said, Mark, and almost correct. I wouldn't describe us as being "defeated right out of the gate because we have a government", rather I state categorically that we are suffering despite having the best form of gubmint mankind has ever come up with. As you agreed earlier, gubmint is a necessary evil. The biggest imperfection of our gubmint is that it doesn't have enough teeth to keep those we elect from ignoring it and/or violating it.
"I guess I am curious as to what our country would look like with no taxes and a barely minimal government. I suspect you would say something like “a nation filled with self-reliant people who can all be responsible for themselves, with the free market providing services.” That sounds more like Utopia to me than my vision."
No, I would say, "a nation that would be overrun in short order by some other nation with at least a small, but effective, military force." I don't believe in utopia, and dreamy thoughts of such have little, if any, influence on my understanding of reality.
"The authority you speak of, while not being the government, would then be corporations….which is kind of where we are heading now, if not there already.
I disagree completely. We are headed for more and more gubmint control of our lives, not less. Such is the dream of the Dimocrat Party in general and its leadership in particular.
"If man is corrupted in government, wouldn’t he also be corrupted in corporations as well?"
Certainly. Man is corrupted by being given power, no matter what that power is. Just watch a teenager when he is promoted from "french fryer" to "assistant shift supervisor" at the local Burger Barn. Suddenly, he gets to tell his classmates what to do, and they do it. Such is the essence of corruption by power; all else is details.
Mark:"Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11 and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force."
Me: Really? Like what?
You've argued repeatedly against the use of military force. How do you fight a war without engaging in warfare?
Mark:"I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda. "
Me: If such an idea actually exists, why haven't we heard it, even once? C'mon Mark. Really, really wishing hard enough that your chosen prophet would have come up with an idea if he was President, when he hasn't managed to come up with that idea anyway, is nothing more than building castles in the sky. What is the magical difference between Al Gore sitting in the White House and Al Gore sitting in his private jet? Al Gore can't even tell the difference between real science and the junk science he's pushing!
I think Gore would’ve immediately recognized the intricacies of the Islamic threat. I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda.
Because we didn't do that. Uh, Mark, do you remember how fast we cut Al Queda and the Taliban apart in "The Quagmire of Afghanistan?" "Afghanistan won't be like Iraq!" "The Brutal Afghan Winter"? No, you don't know how well we did. No, no, "Gore would have done better!"
That web of complexity? Why would Gore have realized it then, when he'd been part of the administration for the prior 8 years that had a track record of 0-for-10?
Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11
Mark, that "goodwill" lasted less than a week. And it was largely based on envy, and belief that the US would somehow do their laundry list of items. Bloody hell, less than a week after September 11, NATO - NATO was already waffling about the mutual defense pact.
You're welcome to your own opinions. Not your own facts.
and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force.
Wishful thinking, Mark. That's all it is. You've got no evidence that that would have worked that way. Just your belief that of course they'd have done better! Because.. Because.. Because... Well, they just would have, dammit!
Unix, sorry. I am going through and answering as many questions as I can.
Corporations that are killing people? Well, you can start with PG & E. You can also take a look at 3M in my own home state. In fact, how about Blackwater? Oh, maybe I shouldn't mention them...that one might sting a little.
Imprisoned? Well, I guess there are no corporations that have prisons like the government does.....but they do have other ways of imprisoning us. Actually, it's more like enslave us. I need to think a little more on this one...I will get back to you...
"I think Gore would’ve immediately recognized the intricacies of the Islamic threat. I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda."
[...]
"Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11 and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force."
Y'know, Mark, if you ever write a book, a good title would be Platitudes, Platitudes.
Remember the comments of John Kerry's CO on his fitness reports: "Needs constant supervision."
So, how about giving us a whole slew of specifics here, of details about just why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them?
Corporations that are killing people? Well, you can start with PG & E. You can also take a look at 3M in my own home state. In fact, how about Blackwater? Oh, maybe I shouldn't mention them...that one might sting a little.
Where Mark?
Where are they killing people?
Blackwater? I knew you were going to do there, because you can't not. (I'm just surprised you didn't use the "HALLIBURTON" verbal talisman again.)
Ok, Mark, again, where are those corporations imprisoning and killing people?
Now, we're talking inside the US. Not the war zone that's Iraq.
But OK, Mark, you want to go there? How is Blackwater operating in Iraq?
BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT GOVERNMENT SANCTION. They're working under the US and Iraqi government aegis.
Mark, you're not even able to make the handicap for this battle of wits.
You're right, the Bible does teach that. Yet even if there was no such thing as the Bible, the truth of such a statement should be as bloomin' obvious as the nose on your face.
So, point out any perfect human being in all of history. (Jesus Christ doesn't count.) You know, the one without any character flaws or mistakes of any kind.
Now think about these phrases:
"To err is _______ …"
"Remember, I'm only _______."
Finally, if you've never read it, I strongly suggest that you read Theodore Dalrymple's article on The Frivolity of Evil to fully understand just how easy it is for an average person, or even an above average person, to slip into committing evil acts.
I'm still mostly eating peanuts and watching the usual Weeknight Fight, but if Theodore Dalrymple (a conservative) is too unpalatable to glue your eyeballs to long enough to digest, Mark, you might try Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect. He's a psychologist, a self-described "bleeding heart liberal", and he ran one of the most seminal experiments on the psychology of power and the propensity to evil behavior in normal people in the history of the field.
He even spends the last half of the book on a Quixotic crusade trying to use the excellent first half of the book to prove that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld should be directly responsible for the Abu Ghraib abuses. I can handle hearing about that for the next several months if you can get scrubbed of the idea that there are good people and bad people and good people always do good and bad people always do bad.
Only a couple of quick comments, then I will leave you to hash it out with Mark some more:
There is a pervasive, Randian view on Communism on this blog, though...
That's because I believe, on that topic, Rand was RIGHT.
It doesn't mean I worship at her feet.
To get back to commerce: There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it.
Not so. You have the freedom to move. If you do not wish to move, you have (unless government regulation prohibits it) the ability to switch your home heating to, say, trucked-in LP Gas. You could even purchase a generator that runs off the same source and disconnect yourself from the grid. You could build a rammed-earth house and operate on solar. Or, if you really want to be cantankerous, you can have your gas and electricity shut off, cook and heat water with charcoal and bottled propane and use kerosene catalytic heaters to stay warm in the winter. Neither the gas nor the electric company will come to your door with guns and demand that you reconnect and buy energy from them.
But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for violating any number of environmental regulations. Regulations passed democratically with the blessings of your neighbors in an effort to "save the environment" from people burning fossil fuels.
I now return the spanking to the regularly scheduled commenters.
Kevin:"But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for violating any number of environmental regulations."
Me: You could also say, "But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for refusing to buy government services—i.e., not paying ALL of your taxes—even if you never use any of those "services'."
Right. I was waiting for Mark to reply to that point to point out that no, you don't have to buy electricity from the Electric Co. Sure, if you want the convenience of the wires outside - it's a monopoly (enforced by the .gov).
But you can (at least, depending on your zoning codes (which are which, Mark,
A) Corporations
B) Government
mandated and enforced?) make your own, via bike-mounted generator, solar, or other generation methods.
I'm currently very irritated at my electric (Which is a co-op, and apparently very not-professionally run) - and I'm seriously figuring out how much it would cost to get a NG generator, and generate my own power full-time.
And no, my co-op's not going to kick in my door, shoot my dogs, and stomp my cats if I do that. (Unless there one of the one's that Mark is going to enlighten us that's imprisoning and killing people here in the US.)
You want a corporation that is killing people as a matter of course in its' business?
Here's two:
Phillip Morris
and
RJ Reynolds.
Fact is, Mark-A is right about businesses killing people, and those who say otherwise have conveniently forgotten that growing, processing and retailing crack, meth and heroin are ALSO businesses.
They also are perhaps forgetful of Ford's Pinto, Minimata, and Thalidomide. As well as the airlines' ro;e in suppressing that NASA study i posted earlier.
In any major construction project, there are always some deaths "factored in" to the cost of completion.
These deaths, since they CAN be foreseen, could also be avoided, but it doesn't make "economic sense" to take the added precautions.
Someone who thinks that a few human lives will stop the Prostitute of Business in its' quest for Profit,(which, someone's notions of altruism notwithstanding, is what Business REALLY serves), is an utter fool.
And BTW, if you wanted to end the "Gun Control" bandwagon near as forever as you could, the Gun manufacturers need only advertise their products through the MSM.
Producers and Publishers HATE to offend advertisers.
Look at what advertising has done for the Brewing Industry, as opposed to the Tobacco Industry.
It's not really that simple. Not everyone smokes, not everyone owns a gun, but nearly everyone drinks, or accepts drinking. It's not so much advertising that's saved the alcohol industry, but the fact that most people are familiar with alcohol, and it's socially accepted.
But it's worth pointing out that no one is coming to my house and threatening me with violence if I don't drink or smoke. The corporations who are selling this stuff aren't killing anyone, it's people choosing to do something that's unhealthy.
One of the things that continually irritates me about the left is that they refuse to accept that people are free to make choices. The left wants to remove the wrong choices, for your own good, you see.
You're right that those companies (and drug dealers) are selling a lethal product. However, it's not quite the same thing as the government's power to kill.
In the case of companies selling a product, they're simply providing a product, but it's the user of that product who is choosing to put their life on the line. The victims of the companies' greed are voluntary victims.
In the case of governments, a person does not necessarily choose to become a target in order to die from government action. In fact, sometimes a person can be targeted by the government because they choose to do the right thing (think China), or even just because of things they have no control over, such as intelligence (think Cambodia) or race.
I'm not saying that our government does these things, at least not on a regular basis. However, the potential is always there because there are humans involved. The main point in this whole thread is that such events do not happen here because our government is held accountable by design.
While some corporations (and drug dealers) are guilty of wanton disregard for human life, the simple fact is that their victims are self-selecting. If no one chose to victimize themselves using those products, those companies would not be able to exist.
Governments have the potential to be far more dangerous than corporations because they have the power to victimize everyone. In fact, if you look back through history, you will find only governments killing large groups of people.
In short: companies = voluntary victims, government = involuntary victims. This is why governments are the greater danger and must be treated as such.
Mark, you need to read Kevin's last comment until you understand it. In response to your statement:
"There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it."
Kevin replied (with my emphasis):
"Not so. You have the freedom to move. If you do not wish to move, you have (unless government regulation prohibits it) the ability to switch your home heating to, say, trucked-in LP Gas. You could even purchase a generator that runs off the same source and disconnect yourself from the grid. You could build a rammed-earth house and operate on solar. Or, if you really want to be cantankerous, you can have your gas and electricity shut off, cook and heat water with charcoal and bottled propane and use kerosene catalytic heaters to stay warm in the winter. Neither the gas nor the electric company will come to your door with guns and demand that you reconnect and buy energy from them.
But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for violating any number of environmental regulations. Regulations passed democratically with the blessings of your neighbors in an effort to "save the environment" from people burning fossil fuels."
Dig for the essence here, Mark. It is:
1) Business, even the gas and electric companies, compete with each other for your money. You are not compelled by them to deal with them, to purchase their services or the products.
This is true even when, as with gas and electric companies, the competition happens in relative slow motion. As Kevin points out, you can move and so change what you need, you can stay where you are and change what you need, and you can even change such that you have no need to purchase gas and/or electricity. The choice is real and it is yours, even though it takes time and money to implement.
Been there, seen that. I lived in the mountains of northern New Mexico for a time. Just west of Taos is an "earth ship" community, in which the houses are built to take good advantage of solar power. Some have satellite TV and such, but they are not connected to the electric power grid, they have wells for water (which is damned tricky there), and they are not connected to piped-in natural gas. You can see the odd propane tank, but there are lots of propane suppliers in the area, all in cutthroat competition with each other.
Mark, here in Oklahoma, you can see commercials on TV, usually during the winter months, in which companies selling natural gas and companies selling electricity advertise their wares, each claiming that its source of energy is better for heating your house. They do this because they know that you have a choice about how to heat your home and that builders have a choice when they build new homes. This is competition, Mark, not coercion, and the fact that it happens in slow motion doesn't make it irrelevant.
2) Gubmint competes with no one. The primary difference between gubmint and business is that you are compelled by gubmint to deal with gubmint on gubmint's terms. You can lose your assets and your freedom by refusing to comply with gubmint's demands.
And, more and more gubmint control over our lives is not the answer to anyone's dislike of high prices. It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't make anything any cheaper, it simply replaces the freedom to choose for yourself with coercion.
Mark, you need to read Kevin's last comment until you understand it.
I daresay that is a fundamental problem for Mark. I used HIS point about corporate influence making govt evil (with a counter example from HIS blog) and his reply was he never said all corporations are evil. Sheesh!
So Mark, let's try again. Qwest rebuffed the govt on conducting illegal surveillance. Who was the bad guy in this little scenario? The govt, right? So how exactly does the govt contract it's evilness from corporations - in this SPECIFIC case?
“So, how about giving us a whole slew of specifics here, of details “about just why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them?”
I think Gore would not have invaded Iraq and actually finished the job in Afghanistan, hopefully taking the time to realize that you can’t use proxy troops, as Rumsfeld did, to fight a war. And it would take a lot more than 50 guys to find bin Laden at Tora Bora. In addition, I think he would’ve seen that, rather than sliming political opponents at home (Karl Rove and the you are either with us or a’gin us infantile, paranoia crowd), he would’ve used his PR acumen to get the message out to the Muslim World that we are not the demons bin Laden paints us to be. We are about hope, not death and destruction.
By not invading Iraq, Iran would not have benefited as greatly as it has right now. I don’t think they would have as much power as they currently enjoy and Amendinejad may never have come to power. It’s possible that we might have been able to run the table in the Middle East, making countries like Syria and people like Hamas look foolish in the face of our great (and benevolent) might. Of course, this is just my opinion….and about 1 billion others as well
“Where are they killing people?”
Well, Bilgeman did a good job of answering this question but here is some more….
PG & E used hexavalent chromium in water cooling towers to prevent scale and rust. They told the residents of Hinkley, CA that it was alright and that chromium was present in multivitamns so they could actually drink more water if they wanted to. As a result, many cancers, birth defects, and organ failures resulted. This happened in other communties as well.
3M is currently embroiled in a similar situation here. No one has died yet but our State Health Department has said it is only a matter of time before unusual cancer rates in the area start popping up. Predictions are that up to 150,000 people will be affected.
“Gubmint competes with no one.”
Actually government would compete with private industry for your dollars in regards to health care in Edwards’, Hillary’s or Obama’s plan. You’re example of choice in regards to electricity and heat applies here as well. That is how their health care plans would work. You are somewhat correct in saying that I have a choice here in Minnesota for my gas and electricity. For my gas, I have a). Center Point Energy or b). Logs from the trees in my back yard. No one is forcing me to choose 1 but 2 really isn’t much of a choice either. This is what I mean when I talk about enslavement. Bilgeman made this point very well up top….Centepoint is going to raise prices this year so they can make more money. They no people don’t really have a choice so they can do whatever they want.
Juris, I was wrong if I said that all coporations are evil.
Your example of Qwest actually proves all of our assertions. It proves yours because the evil is coming from the government. It proves mine because when you let scumbags like Dick Cheney run the show, than you get bad government. I wonder whether someone with even half a moral would do the same thing...?
Remember, Cheney is acting in the interests of corporations, not the safety of our government. By tracking phone calls, he is protecting his and his pals business interests in the Middle East. He is a coporate proxy, more or less, who is using the power of government to further their ends.
As a good Leftie, Mark, I can't believe that you didn't bring up the use of armed corporate security in the early decades of the 20'th century to bust unions.
But, that is beside the point. The point was: Where are the instances of corporations using armed force to get people to buy their products? It's not there. I can choose not to associate with a particular corporation. It may be difficult, but it is not impossible. There are books and websites that are dedicated to self sufficiency. But, and this is important, you can't disassociate from the government. They won't allow it and will, in the end, throw you in jail if you try.
As far as government competition with private enterprise: How can you have legitimate competition when the government doesn't have to make a profit?
"I can't believe that you didn't bring up the use of armed corporate security in the early decades of the 20'th century to bust unions."
Jeeze, as a arank and filer, I'm surprised that I didn't bring up our chums at Pinkerton and their Goon Squads.
The Copper Wars, anyone?
The Pullman Strike?
Bloody Thursday?
The Haymarket Strike?
Homestead Steel?
The Battle of the Overpass at GM,(with pictures!).
Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation Strike/Lockout?
(No deaths, but that was a classic for demonstrating what a pack of whores Business AND Government can be). On one side, Marc Rich, fugitive from justice, screwing over his employees, and then Billary Clinton "stands up for the little guy" by pardoning the filthy cocksucker.
Pretty much, after that statement, I, and others know that a fantasy statement is going to occur. Devoid of reference to history, law, physics, thermodynamics. But, all those things! Pish! Posh! DO it again, but HARDER THIS TIME! and actually finished the job in Afghanistan
He'd have gotten us into the Afghan quagmire that all the Media and Democrats were screaming Bush was getting us into.
And it would take a lot more than 50 guys to find bin Laden at Tora Bora.
Oh, sure, let's just drop in a million Green Berets! Wait, no, TWO! TWO MILLION! We'll get him now!
It’s possible that we might have been able to run the table in the Middle East, making countries like Syria and people like Hamas look foolish in the face of our great (and benevolent) might.
I'd ask "How", but I think I know the answer, so I'll forgo the dead horse.
Of course, this is just my opinion….and about 1 billion others as well
Nothing like ginning up your own supporters. Wait, if you and a billion others are on the same page, why aren't you fixing it?
“Where are they killing people?”
Well, Bilgeman did a good job of answering this question but here is some more….
No, he didn't. He pointed out 2 companies producing currently legal, but dangerous items that may affect your health. Just as Ford and GMC do. I'm not surprised you found his argument compelling, because it seemed to back you. But it didn't, really.
PG & E used hexavalent chromium in water cooling towers to prevent scale and rust.
Mark, you know how you get mad when we call you an idiot?
That's not the same thing, Mark. You cannot stay - hell, you can't understand the subject. You bounce around, with no concept of proof, chains of logic, logical followings....
Even a company deliberately poisioning the water isn't the same as the Governmental Force, Mark. The vast gulf between them is so staggering that it just defies description to try and elaborate how you don't understand what you're talking about. (More likely, you spouted, then when I asked for specifics, you dove for Wikipedia to find something.. Companies killing people. Here! Here!)
And how would I have guessed that it would only be something you could have seen in a movie?
Furthermore, at the time, Hexavalent chromium was considered safe. Brocovich's "investigation", while (with some major dressing up) is a great story, but its an example of the facts not getting in the way of a novel legal theory. It's not as bad as say, Edward's case, but in that case, everything that possibly happened was blamed on the water. Birth defects, by the way, have never been linked to Hexavalent chromium. But there I go again with those pesky facts.
Ok, what companies are imprisioning US citizens in lieu of the government?
The others have already given you better examples. Notice they're not common today. Notice the corporations don't go to your home, kick in your door, and force you to go to work. No, you won't notice that.
Mark, that comparision shows that you really, really, just have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.
If you didn't see it on USA Late At Night, didn't hear Obama say something soothing, you just can't grasp it, can you?
"PG & E used hexavalent chromium in water cooling towers to prevent scale and rust. They told the residents of Hinkley, CA that it was alright and that chromium was present in multivitamns so they could actually drink more water if they wanted to. As a result, many cancers, birth defects, and organ failures resulted. This happened in other communties as well."
Hafta call BS on this one, regardless of how the court case went. Hexavalent Chromium is indeed toxic, but it cannot exist in an acidic environment. It reverts to plain old trivalent Chromium immediately. The holding time for this unstable analyte is TWENTY-FOUR HOURS - the time we have from sampling to analysis before the stuff breaks down into more stable forms. So. Stomach acid being at a pH of around 2 takes care of this quite handily. Therefore ingestion of this won't poison you. Inhalation might, but not ingestion. I put this in the same pseudoscience category as that Dow lawsuit with regards to the breast implants.
U-J: Nothing kills the urge to debate in me faster than realizing I could be arguing the other guy's position better than he's doing it. Absent the possibility of changing someone's mind, either my opponent's or the audience's, the good I get out of it is practicing; if I could be doing better talking to myself, why bother?
"But, and this is important, you can't disassociate from the government. They won't allow it and will, in the end, throw you in jail if you try."
False. I can think of three people I know personally, 2 in Montana and 1 in Oregon (my godfather), who live off the land, don't pay taxes, and provide their own means of self sufficiency.
"let's just drop in a million Green Berets! Wait, no, TWO! TWO MILLION! We'll get him now!"
How about starting with the 600 rangers that Gary Bernsten requested while he was closing in on Tora Bora and heard nothing but silence from the Pentagon?
"False. I can think of three people I know personally, 2 in Montana and 1 in Oregon (my godfather), who live off the land, don't pay taxes, and provide their own means of self sufficiency."
The IRS will get them, sooner or later. They'll get their chunk out of their estate when they die, if they don't while they're alive. Notice I said "in the end". The IRS will really go after them if they become activists, eg. the family in New Hampshire that recently went to jail for tax evasion.
Absent the possibility of changing someone's mind, either my opponent's or the audience's
Occasionally - Mark shows glimpses of potential. He quickly reverts back to form and fantasy, but it's often enough to get my hopes up that he's reachable. I've had luck in the past with someone who sounded almost exactly like him - who's still a flaming liberal, but far less rapidly judgmental than he had been.
But also, it is for the audience. The people reading who say "Yeah! PG&E! When Pretty Woman went all Tom Cruise and you CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ... Hey, wait, that's wrong... Yeah, yeah, actually..."
I've had a fair amount of success through the years. I just have to keep from getting sidetracked by the actual stalking horse.
Mark: How about starting with the 600 rangers that Gary Bernsten requested while he was closing in on Tora Bora and heard nothing but silence from the Pentagon?
Just as a idle curiosity, you understand, can you give me any possible, potential, devil's advocate reasons why those 600 Rangers wouldn't be supplied on demand? (Ignoring that it's the CIA, not the DoD asking, according to you.)
Just to let you know, Unix...my stalwart and worthy opponent...I feel the same way about you :)
"can you give me any possible, potential, devil's advocate reasons why those 600 Rangers wouldn't be supplied on demand?"
Berntsen requested 600-1000 Army rangers at Tora Bora when they had intercepted radio signals which indicated that they had bin Laden and many of his forces cornered...Zawahari as well. He requested these troops from CENTCOM and did not even get a response. So, bin Laden slipped away because the people on the Pakistani side of the border were sympathetic to his cause.
Berntsen believes that the DoD wanted to minimalize US casualties and decided that they proxy force might do the job. The proxy force didn't care or was bought off by al Qaeda itself. I say that the Bush administration didn't care. They had the excuse they needed to go to Iraq and as early as Thanksgiving 2001 (maybe earlier) were looking at Iraq.
The greatest attack on our country's soil and the main perpatrators got away because bin Laden was deemed "unimportant."
Sort of off topic, but I just had to say that after so many years of watching debates break down into vitriol and bile without any real attempt to continue on with logic and reason, this is like a breath of fresh air!
Juris, I was wrong if I said that all coporations are evil.
OK. But if govt is evil BECAUSE of corporate influence, then you must assume most corporations are evil. I mean, if it was 50/50 (or better), govt shouldn't end up evil, right?
Remember, Cheney is acting in the interests of corporations, not the safety of our government.
Uh-huh. So what corporate interest was being served by the illicit NSA surveillance? If it was beneficial to corporate interests, why did Qwest balk at it? Oh, let's not forget that neither Bush nor Cheney can force a federal agency to do something illegal if the EMPLOYEES of that agency refuse to comply. None of those employees actions can be excused by, or blamed on, corporate influence, now can they?
Sort of off topic, but I just had to say that after so many years of watching debates break down into vitriol and bile without any real attempt to continue on with logic and reason, this is like a breath of fresh air!
That's because I have the best commenters on the internet!
An no, Mark, your options include far more than just burning logs from the trees in your back yard. I listed several.
If I get time this weekend, I think I'm going to get another post out of this.
Berntsen believes that the DoD wanted to minimalize US casualties and decided that they proxy force might do the job.
So where is the corporate corruption of good govt in this example Mark? Sure sounds like a classic case of bureaucratic ass-covering to me. Or did Rumsfeld meet Cheney in a room full of [illegal Cuban cigar] smoke with a cabal of fat CEOs to make sure the war didn't end too soon?
"So, how about giving us a whole slew of specifics here, of details about just why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them?"
Your response was:
"I think ..."
Sigh ...
We know what you claim to think. All you did was reiterate it. That explains nothing. In particular, it doesn't explain why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them.
Remember, Mark, they would have had no benefit of hindsight, had they been elected, and so any explanation of why they would have done so well cannot benefit from hindsight either. To explain why, you have to show that they would have acted differently, and thereby would have achieved better results, using only what they would have known at the time they knew it, and not by simply stating that you think so. Projection doesn't work here, either, so dig deep for the facts and show 'em to us.
And, Mark, go back to school. I suggest beginning with Economics 101. If you took it, you must have slept through it. LabRat's comments are dead on point, and are quite enlightening, as it explains much of my reaction to your blather. I could argue your position much better than you do, and it would still be dead wrong. Why bother?
"Just as a idle curiosity, you understand, can you give me any possible, potential, devil's advocate reasons why those 600 Rangers wouldn't be supplied on demand? (Ignoring that it's the CIA, not the DoD asking, according to you.)"
I can conjecture on why this was the case, even IF it had been a DoD request.
You have to understand that Afghanistan was a Special Operations Command war, not a CentCom show.
SOCOMM beat the Taliban with something less than 500 US boots on the ground in-country.
The rest of the Army, (of which CentCom is very definitely cut), did NOT like this AT ALL.
When less than a battalion of "Snake-eaters" armed with language skills, radios and laser designators, can deliver victory, the Heavy Armored big budget toys,(and commands), get left to the budget-cutters.
So, rather than the Rangers, the 10th Mountain Div gets sent in...to get a share of the win for the "Regular" team.
And just as an aside, I'm not at all certain that the CIA really WANTS to gakk bin Pig-Fucker.
If you wanted to zap the kinds of unknown people who share his shitty attitude towards us, picking a "plague baby" who's a 6 foot 5 inch Arab dependent on a kidney dialysis machine to keep him on this side of Allah's Paradise, ain't too bad a choice, see?
Look, converted Suburban Middle Class California White Boy Johnny Walker Lindh was able to get "face time" with the Butt-plug.
That was one hellvua lot better Devil's Advocate piece than Mark's "attempt". (One sentance, and then back to his opinion isn't really a real "Gee, let's see" try.)
Personally, I would have gone the logistics route, but that would have lost Mark quickly.
"No one is forcing me to choose 1 but 2 really isn’t much of a choice either. This is what I mean when I talk about enslavement."
Once more, Mark, words have meaning. Try using them accurately, willya? Your bad habits are showing yet again. They served you badly before and they don't serve you well now.
You are not a slave, Mark. There is not one aspect of your life that can be accurately characterized as "enslavement".
Regarding buying energy, you are free to choose whether to buy or not to buy the energy and services offered by CenterPoint Energy. You will not be chained, hobbled, beaten, imprisoned, killed, or otherwise harmed by CenterPoint Energy or by the gubmint regardless of the choice you make.
That you don't like the choices offered (which is quite apparent) does not negate the fact that the choice is yours to make. Despite the fact that the choice would be made in slow motion, that it would involve side effects such as upheaval and expense, it is your choice nonetheless.
"Centepoint is going to raise prices this year so they can make more money. They no people don’t really have a choice so they can do whatever they want."
Well, lessee now ...
I visited http://mn.centerpointenergy.com/global_navigation/Rates_tariffs/index.asp, where I found this:
"The following is a complete description of CenterPoint Energy's current rates and tariffs as approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission."
Yup. CenterPoint Energy is a publicly traded energy distribution company that is regulated, in your area, by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. It cannot simply raise its rates so it can make more money because the rates it charges the public for the energy it sells them are set by the gubmint.
BenD, thanks. I have a lot of respect for everyone that posts here.
"I mean, if it was 50/50 (or better), govt shouldn't end up evil, right?"
Eh...that's a tough one. Look, bureaucracy is certain to always be there. It really is bad now. Can anyone stop it? I don't know. Will it be our downfall? Possibly.
"So what corporate interest was being served by the illicit NSA surveillance?"
This is only my opinion...I have no proof whatsoever of anyone of this...but I think Dick Cheney, like some (not all) conservatives have dictator fantasies. By listening in on certain people's conversations...say a CEO of a rival company...competition can be elminated. Perhaps some of the rival bidders for certain Iraqi contracts?
"why did Qwest balk at it?"
Because they actually have people there who are mostly decent and understand the law.
"did Rumsfeld meet Cheney in a room full of [illegal Cuban cigar] smoke with a cabal of fat CEOs to make sure the war didn't end too soon?"
I highly recommend the film Why We Fight (2005 d: Eugene Jarecki) for an answer to this question. It explains fully why we are in Iraq and what corporate interests Cheney was acting on behalf of when we went to war. Just to let you know, it is very well balanced...plenty of conservatives like Richard Pearle are interviewed at length.
DJ, any point I make about Gore is pure conjecture and opinion so that's why all my sentences begin with "I think." As far as economics goes, why don't you read either of John Perkins books on how American business works?
pdwalker, Ah, yes. Some grist for the Republican fake outrage machine.
"Ah, yes. Some grist for the Republican fake outrage machine."
No wonder there is so much anger between both sides on these issues. Just because you don't think that the situation that was linked was outrageous, doesn't make the outrage felt by many people, fake.
Geez, I guess we should to be told what or what not we are supposed to be outraged about. Just think a whole new government department staffed by those good people you go on about could be created. The Department of Homeland Outrage.
"It explains fully why we are in Iraq".
Hell, I can do that in a few sentences.
- Saddam repeatedly violated the ceasefire he signed onto in the first gulf war.
- Saddam had WMDs in the form of chemical weapons. He used them on the Iranians in the 80-89 gulf war, and on his own people. He was not co-operating with the UN inspection teams and which led the western world (NOT just Bush) to believe that he still had stockpiles.
- Saddam was harboring and supporting terrorists. Zarqawi was being hosted by him prior to the war (harboring) and he was paying something like $25K per Palestinian suicide bomber family (supporting).
- This was not a stated reason, but its good enough for me: he attempted to assassinate one of our presidents. That really chaps my ass, and I feel it's grounds for war. I would feel the same way if Clinton had been the target. He's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard.
There. Two minutes of reading could have saved you having to sit through 1.5 hrs of propaganda.
You want real outrage? Here's some absolutely 100% genuine not-from-a-can, not-from-talk-radio freaking outrage.
Enslavement? ENSLAVEMENT?!! I refuse to just let that go with an "Oh, what can you expect from him anyway".
Using the same word for different situations implies that THEY ARE THE SAME THING, and it implies it for BOTH SITUATIONS. It doesn't just go "not liking my limited range of choices, most of which would involve great cost or inconvenience to me, is like slavery", it also goes:
Being ripped from your home, forcibly separated FOREVER from your family members, being forced to work- sometimes at intense manual labor tasks far beyond your capacity, living and dying with just about every single aspect of your life controlled by someone else's whim, IS JUST FREAKING LIKE LIMITED OR COSTLY HOME HEATING OPTIONS. WOW. I CAN SEE WHY PEOPLE GOT ALL UPSET ABOUT THAT AND HAD THAT WAR AND EVERYTHING!
You've annoyed me, but not until now have you actively disgusted me. You had your chance to redeem yourself when DJ pointed out you ONCE AGAIN weren't thinking clearly when you chose your words- hey, you're a mentally flexible guy, we keep having all these unrealistic expectations of you, you think on the fly, man! But instead you chose to gloss over it and act like nothing happened, and instead once again mock those evil, uncaring conservatives getting all in a tizzy about no big deal, really.
I'd ask how the hell you even look yourself in the eye when you look in the mirror, but I already know the answer.
I'm sorry if I just pissed in the "remarkbly civil discussion" well, but I also think there are some things that just never, ever deserve a civil response, and acting like slavery was a trivial issue because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that your issue is comparatively trivial is one of them.
No, LabRat, I think you deserve some Kudos.
We've been trying to talk sense to Mark, to lead him to water, but he just can't drop his loaded ways of thinking, his overloaded "meanings" of words (to mean what he wants them to, no more and no less). Perhaps we've gone too far.
I'm tired of it right now - He's left tons of questions I've tried to ask him unanswered, and shown he can't see the world but through his view, he's incapable of trying to see it through any other lens, which means he fails to understand.
I think you've hit a nail on the head with a hammer. He was misusing slavery, and we overlooked that, trying to get to "the real point". But the "real point" might should have been our opprobrium for his use of "slavery" to mean "convenience".
Well said, ma'am.
Yosemite, first of all this incident took place in England. The last time I checked that means none of our business.
Second, homosexuals are treated like crap in this country and it makes me sick to my stomach. People should have a right to be with whoever they want.
"Two minutes of reading could have saved you having to sit through 1.5 hrs of propaganda."
Have you seen the film, Kevin S.? Until you have, I think you should not judge it as propaganda. In addition, I recommend reading or watching President Eisenhower's farewell address, the central theme of the film, as to why we are in Iraq.
"We've been trying to talk sense to Mark"
could be translated as "getting him to think the same way all of us do." Doesn't sound like a great bastion of individuality to me at all. Many of you make good points and I can see how you think and feel the way you do. Most of the time I simply don't agree. Unix, I apologize if I don't answer all of your questions. There simply isn't time in my life. It's not that I don't have answers-it's that sometimes the answers require a 2-3 page essay.
Lab, there are different levels of enslavement. Are we enslaved like the people of Somalia? No. But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it. Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods. I am a slave to the "Man." So are you and everyone else. Sure, we are one of the most free countries on the planet but we could do a heckuva lot better.
"Have you seen the film, Kevin S.? Until you have, I think you should not judge it as propaganda."
Sorry, man. The fact that you're recommending it is the dealbreaker. That tells me plenty about the content.
" Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods."
Oh, it's not just corporations that want us hand-to-mouth in debt,(and that's MOSTLY for the purpose of employee discipline), but the government as well.
" But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it."
Correction: strike "slavery" and insert " debt serfdom".
And those who would argue the point:
Who owns your mortgage now? Is it the same company as it was when you closed, or did some other outfit buy it?
And yes, I'm going somewhere with this.
If your mortgage was sold, it's a no-brainer that it was purchased for less than its' face value.
But I'll betcha that YOU weren't allowed to buy your own note back by refinancing the same property,(at the new, lower price), for the purchase.
Because YOU are a debt serf.
It's a whole lot easier to keep people passive and obedient if they're working all the overtime they can to make the payment on the speedboat/dirtbike/Home Theatre/ Mortgage.
"DJ, any point I make about Gore is pure conjecture and opinion so that's why all my sentences begin with "I think."
No shit, dude, we understand that. We keep asking you why you think what you think, i.e. for something more than just conjecture. Reading comprehension still not up to speed yet, is it?
"As far as economics goes, why don't you read either of John Perkins books on how American business works?"
Because I prefer the works of Milton Friedman. Only this morning, I started reading Capitalism and Freedom again. Why don't you read his works?
"'We've been trying to talk sense to Mark' could be translated as "getting him to think the same way all of us do." Doesn't sound like a great bastion of individuality to me at all."
No, Mark, yet again, a thousand times, NO.
We're not trying to get you to think "like us", we're trying to get you to think "rationally", i.e. to explain your thinking, to provide logical explanations for your thinking, and to base your thinking on facts, not on emotion driven dogma. You won't do it.
"Unix, I apologize if I don't answer all of your questions. There simply isn't time in my life. It's not that I don't have answers-it's that sometimes the answers require a 2-3 page essay."
BULLSHIT.
You don't answer his questions because you plainly don't like the answers to his questions. You spend endless barrels of ink dancing around the answers, but as I stated before, you just can't get the peanut butter out of your jaws. You spend time by the fortnight pounding your keyboard here, and so your available time is not the issue.
Yet again, Mark, you are a phony, and nothing more. You don't fool anyone here.
"Lab, there are different levels of enslavement. [...] I am a slave to the "Man."
You're damned lucky she's not standing next to you.
No, Mark, you are not a slave to anyone in any way except to your own inability to admit it when you are shown to be wrong.
"Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods."
And you would teach us about economics?
Unix, you're right, man. What the hell's the point?
Here's an interesting tidbiit I ran across that shoiws how both business and government kill people.
This is about European shipping, but ships are arrested in US ports also, and their crews are effectively abandoned without visas.
Following the sea is a hard row to hoe to begin with, and being a crewman aboard an arrested ship can be very a grim fate.
Literally, death by corporate malfeasance and government bureaucracy:
"If in Ireland, UK and some other countries, the Admiralty Marshall or his equivalent can be relied upon to handle the safety issues, and the crew, decently, the same is not valid in many other countries of the world. Furthermore, even in European countries they are many cases of starving crews who had to be assisted by seamen's mission or other charitable organizations. Not later than July 1996, In Brussels, the capital of the European bureaucracy, the Baltiest 7, a Russian coaster damaged the loading installation. For two weeks the owner could not pay the damage not amounting to $100.000, the ship was promptly arrested but the crew was left without proper food supplies. One pilot had to take the initiative to bring some decent provisions collected from generous persons of his community. This case, among tens if not hundreds of the kind, shows that the actual implementation of the arrest laws have no provision to protect the dignity of seafarers.
At this stage, any civilized human being would question the legality, if not the sanity, of a court order which can bring a crew to starvation. Not one European country, and perhaps not one country in the world, is depriving the convicts of food, even the worse of them, the children killers, are taken care of while in custody. But this can happen to seafarers who are not guilty of any offense at all!
Many also are not realizing that the seafarers have often a peculiar immigration status, restricting some of their freedoms to act, to move, and for sure not affording them the same protection as the common citizen or the average tourist."
Somebody else may have mentioned it already, but I'm just taking a study break and don't have time to sort through 119 comments...
Kev, I'm surprised you missed this quote from the guy who mostly wrote the Constitution, James Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-quoted in the Annals on Congress, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, 1794.
Or, a century later, Grover Cleveland:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people."
Eh...that's a tough one. Look, bureaucracy is certain to always be there.
Mark, you really are the master of the non-answer. No wonder you are so apt to swallow leftist pablum. No points until you explain how corporations, on balance are evil, and thus cause govt to be evil. You can't have it both ways.
This is only my opinion...I have no proof whatsoever of anyone of this...
Mark, that's about what I'd expect from a fundamentalist Christian justifying (to himself as much as anyone) a dubious theological position. In short, you're long on belief and very, very short on facts. I can rather picture you as a medieval monk PASSIONATELY debating a meaningless point of religious trivia.
As far as economics goes, why don't you read either of John Perkins books on how American business works?
Would that include his work on time travel and shamanic transformation? Everything Perkins has written is fiction. There isn't a shred of real economics. That man is a certifiable fruitcake - and you would expect us to treat him as some kind of authority on economics? Howard Zinn is at least a man with a passing acquaintance with reality, even if he is far from a first-rate economist.
But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it.
You DARE call yourself a member of the reality-based community? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Only an imbecile would say he is addicted to air, or a slave to breathing, and dammit man, you are THIS close to that kind of absurdity. [I say this because I've had lefties tell me we are slaves to food, because, like after all dude, we gotta eat.]
It's a whole lot easier to keep people passive and obedient if they're working all the overtime they can to make the payment on the speedboat/dirtbike/Home Theatre/ Mortgage.
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, right?
If I may assist. Poor Markadelphia, and those who think like him, are overwhelmed upon exiting the womb - and all they long for is the care and safety they received while therein. You two beastly types, who use words for their plain and simple meaning, are actually terribly insensitive to the pains endured by these suffering souls. For them, having to pay for heat is slavery, because heat was provided without payment, nor even request, in that comfortable pre-birth existance. All of their needs should be met likewise, and when not - well, they must whine (or wail) at the injustice of the cold, cruel world - peopled by heartless, incompassionate sorts like you (and me).
"until you explain how corporations, on balance are evil, and thus cause govt to be evil. You can't have it both ways."
Why should I when Bilgeman did such a great job?
You could also check out the film "The Corporation" for a more compelling argument than I could ever make. Milton Friedman, mentioned above, is in the film.
"That man is a certifiable fruitcake"
Well, anything is possible but his books are pretty stunning. Considering the fact that much of the rest of the world views us this way there Why don't you read one and tell me what you think?
As to your last paragraph, I don't think anyone here is cold and heartless. Actually, what it really comes down is the pure definition of the word learning.
"A relatively permanent change in an organism's behavior due to experience."
My experiences in life have been different than yours have, juris. Throughout your life, these experiences have not only changed my behavior but they have altered my outlook on life. The same is true for you. Seeing the things I see on a daily basis leads me to question certain institutions and processes that you think, it appears, don't warrant observation because they are the living embodiement of your belief system and, naturally, your experiences.
Considering the fact that much of the rest of the world views us this way there is probably some truth to what he says. His books are pretty heavily backed up with facts. Why don't you read one and tell me what you think?
"The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, right?"
Pretty much.
Although no-one really cares if you're stupid or smart, so long as you're economically dependent on the whim of your creditors, employers,and,(ahem), public servants.
But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it. Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods. I am a slave to the "Man." So are you and everyone else.
Fuck. That. Noise.
You mendacious little slime mold. There aren't "forms" or "levels" of slavery, there's just slavery, THE PRACTICE OF OWNING HUMAN BEINGS. Anything else is NOT FUCKING SLAVERY. It may suck, it may be bad, it may be wrong, or it (like your refusal to consider any heating option that requires high degrees of work or cash investment to be a choice) may only be inconvenient, but it's NOT SLAVERY.
Using the word for anything other than slavery- pure, unadulterated, buying and selling and putting to labor- is moral vampirism. Every time you use that word for something that IS NOT SLAVERY, you rob some of the horror, some of the pain, some of the visceral wrongness from real slavery, the kind where people were sold at auction and worked until they died and never saw their families again. They didn't work for "The Man", they worked for A MAN, or men, with names and addresses and rational or irrational expectations who would send other men with guns and chains if they tried to do anything else. The same goes for genocide: every time you use the word to refer to anything that is not the systematic attempt to extirpate all members of a particular designated group from the earth- not annoy them, not kill some of them that happen to be in your way, not hurt their feelings- you suck out the horror. Notice how Hitler is practically treated as a joke now? Notice how there are people going around more and more openly insisting the Holocaust wasn't all that bad? It, and genocide in general, have been victims of that same fucking vampirism from complete worthless fools who try to borrow legitimacy for their pet issues by making it sound like a bigger deal by using the vocabulary of the true depths of human evil.
You know what you can do? You can quit your job. You can find another job. You can start your own business. You can go totally off the grid and become a hunter-gatherer. You can leave this bad nasty place altogether and move to Tora Bora. You know what slaves can't do? ANY OF THAT, or anything other than what their masters decide they're going to. Don't give me any bullshit about it's too hard, or it's uncomfortable, or that's not reasonable- it's POSSIBLE, and it's what REAL SLAVES did when they were finally freed, because ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN SLAVERY. I'm a spoiled rotten product of the twenty-first century too, which is why I haven't done any of that- but I would not ever have the unmitigated self-centered fucking NERVE to compare my preference for sacrificing a bit of my principles regarding self-reliance in order to get water and electricity and heat largely through the city.
I don't know if it's because you're a cynical asshole trying to borrow moral authority from someplace you should never touch, or if you're just so goddamned narrow-visioned and over-exposed to other vampires that you really truly cannot wrap your head around what slavery really was and why we should never, ever cheapen its horrors with trivial comparisons. The effect is the same: it's evil. Trivializing the greatest evils of history may be a relatively small evil, and thanks to millions of the self-centered and the lazy it may be a common evil, but it is nonetheless.
And no, hiding behind Bilgeman's legs now that he's suggested a different comparison (still exaggerated, as few serfs in history ever had the choice not to go into debt as most Americans do, but not nearly as revolting as the slavery thing) doesn't count. The fact that you were capable of writing that at all tells me all I need to know about your moral integrity- it's nonexistent.
You should chill out with the ad hominem attacks. You're not doing your arguments any good when you respond to your opponent's arguments by calling him a "mendacious little slime mold",(although I am SO tealing that!).
Look, ace, MarkA has a lot of bullshit that has been pumped into his head about the government.
And you have a bunch of bullshit floating around in YOUR nugget about Business.
The difference is that Mark, so far, doesn't come across like he's chewing the carpet and fixing to blow a gasket.
His use of the term "slavery" was, to my mind, overly broad, but not incorrect:
Oh, and Mark? Bilgeman didn't, actually, prove your point that you're grinning and pointing to.
That question, among many other, still stands.
"until you explain how corporations, on balance are evil, and thus cause govt to be evil. You can't have it both ways."
Every answer you give has the same "out". A slippery, non-"hard" answer.
Government's bad, mmmmkay, but you need good people in government, mmmkay, and then it's good, mmmmkay?
Gore would have done everything good Bush did, and nothing of the bad, and nothing bad of his own! He'd have done better! At everything!
Now, you've raised LabRat's ire, and she's insisting on a defined term. Instead of noticing why she's upset, and trying to understand that, you're just continuing down the same path.
But don't worry, you're really paying attention to people, their concerns, an what they need, right? Except, you're missing LabRat's point rather incredibly badly.
And you don't notice why this would color casual reader's opinion on your OTHER political views and insistences.
Sorry, but he never answered the question posed to you. Another non-answer, what a surprise.
You could also check out the film "The Corporation" for a more compelling argument than I could ever make.
Yet another appeal to authority. Are you unable to provide a cogent summary of the argument(s) and facts in the film? Or, are you like the lead character in Jerzy Kosinski's "Being There" (the novel or the film)?
His books are pretty heavily backed up with facts.
Does that include his books on time travel and shamanic transformation? I'd love to hear about those FACTS. Do tell.
Considering the fact that much of the rest of the world views us this way there Why don't you read one and tell me what you think?
Much of the world believes in a He-man Sky-God who is personally involved in each of our lives. Their viewpoint is not much of an endorsement in my eyes. And I don't need to read all the words of a fraud to know one when I see one. I really thought, at the beginning of this thread, that you weren't that gullible. I stand corrected.
Bilgeman: You're not doing your arguments any good when you respond to your opponent's arguments by calling him a "mendacious little slime mold"
Oh, when you've got someone ... err... like Mark, occasionally you've got to cut loose.
If slavery wasn't an example of free-market business capitalism at its' finest, I don't know what is.
Outside of certain tribal concepts, (where if you're removed from the tribe you're not allowed to rejoin - even then is still "governmental"), slavery requires a governing structure.
Without the ability to project a lot more force than the sole slaveholder, slavery is a very small and limited operation.
Debt slavery? I kind of understand where you're going, but the downside of bringing up those sorts of detail issues gives people like Mark who can't grasp the big picture the psuedo-intellectual out "see! see! yeah! that!"
And I still haven't seen anybody be beaten, kidnapped, or tasered for failing to fill out a credit application.
I haven't forgotten, by the way, Mark, you still owe me what corporations are detaining/imprisioning citizens "on a daily basis".
If slavery wasn't an example of free-market business capitalism at its' finest, I don't know what is.
Ah, you mean aside from slavery pre-dating free-market capitalism by a millenia or two? That slavery was ended within a century or so of the advent of Anglo-American capitalism (except in those realms of the world not under that particular hegemony). Yeah, capitalism was really to blame for slavery.
Seriously. Or are you racing Mark to the bottom?
I understand my delusion - that most people are rational. I don't want to live in a world where that isn't true - despite the boatloads of evidence to the contrary. There are times when I read Chomsky and go, okay - you got a point there. The problem is that leads to an unbreakable cycle where the only thing that ever changes is the elite doing the exploitation.
That's a rather sorry reading of the human condition - but I have to admit, it can be compelling.
Bilgeman, I am far from a worshipper of total free market capitalism; one of my many problems with the large-L Libertarian Party is their near-total blindness to its past abuses and potential for abuse. I do not, however, agree remotely with your "debt bondage" argument that Markadelphia might have had some kind of point; note the part in there about the staggering poverty there forces many parents to offer themselves or their own children as collateral against a loan.. In the US, you cannot claim a person, much less their child, if they default on a debt- and while it's not nearly as offensive to me as trying to claim that having choices that require sacrifices is like slavery, it's still pretty lousy to claim fear of bankruptcy or fear of wage garnishing is the same as fear of having to essentially sell your children.
That said, while I still think open contempt was a justifiable response, you're right in that the only useful thing I'm doing at this point is reminding people who are already on my side that this isn't just a word game. Mark doesn't get it and I'm dead sure at this point that he never will; turning up the volume will have no effect on him.
"Ah, you mean aside from slavery pre-dating free-market capitalism by a millenia or two?"
Uhhh, fella, as soon as any commodity, humans included, was purchased rather than being taken by force, free market capitalism was born.
"That slavery was ended within a century or so of the advent of Anglo-American capitalism"
Y'know, I'm sitting on a ship in Hampton Roads, just downriver from Jamestown. Anglo-American capitalism is what sent settlers here.
The tobacco plant is what made the colony economically viable, and chattel slavery was what made tobacco cultivation possible.
I wouldn't toot the "Anglo-American" exceptionalism horn too loudly, given this context.
"Yeah, capitalism was really to blame for slavery."
One did not purchase a slave FROM the government,slaves were not provided BY the government.
One bought slaves from a private firm, or a private party, chum. These are facts...it is also private free-market capitalist.
Deal with it.
"Seriously. Or are you racing Mark to the bottom?"
I work in the bilges of ships...far from any eeeeevil Gummint interference, and totally at the mercy of the Big Benevolent Company.
I was at "the bottom" long before MarkA knew there WAS a bottom. And I've been doing this for twenty years.
"The problem is that leads to an unbreakable cycle where the only thing that ever changes is the elite doing the exploitation."
That "problem" just happens to be the truth.
"That's a rather sorry reading of the human condition - but I have to admit, it can be compelling"
Well, there you are...my aim has been to clarify the perception of reality.
You're coming 'round...(though you don't want to).
"Oh, when you've got someone ... err... like Mark, occasionally you've got to cut loose."
I understand that...do YOU understand that, to him, some of the folks here come off exactly the same way?
It seems that a lot of "icons" are getting "clasted" hereabouts.
Why scream at him for his obduracy about his beloved Government, when the most I've been able to elicit here is that cherished Business can show "wanton disregard" for human life?
"...slavery requires a governing structure.
Without the ability to project a lot more force than the sole slaveholder, slavery is a very small and limited operation."
Force IS "governing structure"..."governing structure" IS force.
Whether that "structure" is called Business or is called Government, what difference does that make to the Smallest Minority?
"Debt slavery? I kind of understand where you're going, but the downside of bringing up those sorts of detail issues gives people like Mark who can't grasp the big picture the psuedo-intellectual out "see! see! yeah! that!""
If he's such a dullard, you should have no trouble at all convincing him of his erroneous beliefs...right?
"And I still haven't seen anybody be beaten, kidnapped, or tasered for failing to fill out a credit application."
Well, pallie, I've seen people beaten for failing to repay a loan.
You wanna know what sound a kneecap makes when it's crushed by a tire iron?
Loan-sharking is ALSO a Business, (and one remarkably free of pesky goverment regulation, too!).
Maybe something that I'm afraid we'll be seeing more of before too long,(given the record foreclosure rates); folks who can't or won't meet their mortgages get evicted if they don't vacate.
In most jurisdictions, this is done by the Sheriff...and he IS "authorized to use Force" to accomplish this task.
Meet the "governing structure"...(now get the Hell out, you deadbeat!).
Markadelphia:"Well, Bilgeman did a good job of answering this question but here is some more…."
Me: Mark, you and Bilgeman have done a good job of pointing out times when businesses have done something evil, even where people have died as a result. I agree that those actions were wrong.
However, I don't recall ever saying the businesses don't commit evil acts. In fact, I don't recall anyone claiming that businesses don't sometimes do evil things. They do. There's no question about it. So why are you trying to convince us of a point we already agree with?
Fortunately, I think your examples actually help make the point we are trying to get across to you. I'll lay them out as simply as I can:
1) Did these companies actively try to murder these people? That seems highly unlikely. At worst, these companies were criminally negligent. In other words, they just didn't care that they were hurting people.
On the other hand, there are numerous examples throughout history of governments targeting specific groups of people in order to kill them. Saddam's Iraq was a perfect example. He used WMD's against the Kurds. He had his secret police actively hunting down people so they could be tortured and murdered. (If you haven't already, you should definitely watch Innocents Betrayed. It's about gun control, but it is filled with example after example of governments actively murdering their own citizens.)
Do you understand the difference between these two types of evil? Tossing a brick off the roof of a building without checking to make sure no one would be hit by it is negligence. Looking over the edge to try to hit someone with the brick is a far more active kind of evil.
How many companies do you know of who have actively sought to kill people? Blackwater doesn't count because they are acting as the government's agents, i.e., they're temporarily part of the government.
This issue is actually the least important of these points, but you've been hung up on it, therefore I felt it was important to respond to it to try to help you understand it.
2) What is the source of the evil that these companies did? Did it come from viruses in their computer systems? Did it rise like a fog from the ground the buildings are built on? Was it due to words magically appearing in their business process documents? No. The evil came from human beings making decisions for their own purposes.
Once again we're back to the fact that it is the human factor that makes the difference. Whether it is human beings acting as individuals doing evil (we call them criminals), human beings acting within businesses doing evil (we call them white collar criminals), or human beings within governments doing evil (we call them bureaucrats or politicans), the simple fact is that humans are the problem, not their environment.
As I've said before, some humans are better at doing good acts more often than others, but there is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mark, how are you doing on that search for a perfect human being? Remember, you are free to search all through history for one.
Mark, you're convinced that we have an evil man as President. I can agree with that, though likely for different reasons. I think we can also agree that there are a heck of a lot of bad people in various levels of government who are harming the people that they're supposed to be serving.
If we can't keep bad people out of government now—or at any time in the past—what makes you think that we will ever be able to change that in the future?
3) Now that those companies have been caught, what is happening to them? Quite simply, they're facing consequences for their actions. There are lawsuits, fines, and a loss of credibility which should have lead to lost sales. Those men and/or women who have made particularly evil choices can find themselves losing everything and even facing jail time.
In other words, there is accountability for their actions. The government holds them accountable. Their customers hold them accountable. Their employees sometimes hold them accountable. And this is how it should be. By holding their feet to the fire in multiple ways, businesses are more careful to avoid making bad choices.
But where is the accountability for government? If the police don't bother to show up if you need their help, you can't sue them. The Supreme Court recently decided that the government can steal someone's home if it results in higher tax revenues. The government can take and keep assets by simply claiming that someone might be a drug dealer, and they frequently won't return the taken assets even when it is proven that the person is innocent. Police can make a mistake in doing a hot entry and kill someone innocent without suffering any significant consequences. Politicians can be caught taking bribes, writing bad checks, or even killing someone and get away with it.
And that's just in America (so far). If you look at history, you will see example after example of governments doing massively evil acts (for example, Stalin killing 20 million or so people) without having to answer for their crimes.
The point is simple, the ability to wield power with little or no accountability is an inherent attribute of governments. Therefore, every action which leads to less accountability and more government power is an action which allows the government to be more destructive when some person or group decided to misuse that power. (Remember, we cannot keep bad people out of the government.)
Finally, we get to the easiest AND MOST IMPORTANT point:
4) Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government allowed take money from taxpayers to provide any kind of charity? Hearless Libertarian hit this point square on the head when he quoted James Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Of course you responded with another quote from Madison:
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
Fine, it's an important topic, and it's from James Madison. It deserves some serious discussion. BUT, what does it have to do with the Constitution permitting the Federal Government of the United States of America to engage in "charity"? The ONLY quote which could legitimately answer this point MUST come from the U. S. Constitution. After all, it is the final authority on what the Federal Government can and cannot do.
Finally, keep this in mind. Point 4 is the most important point in this whole discussion. Points 1 through 3, and most of the discussion in these comments are all about Why point 4 is what it is.
I've been noticing that you've been getting rather abrasive with Markadelphia, especially lately. I definitely understand the impulse. I have to fight it too. However, might I suggest that calling him names is counterproductive? It's always harder to agree with someone who has put you on the defensive by calling you names, even when you realize that they're right. Calling names gets our pride involved, and it's next to impossible to swallow it.
Our goal is to educate Markadelphia, not torture him into submission. We're not in a position to do that. Besides, rock solid logic and evidence are the only things that have a chance of producing a true and long lasting change of mind. ("A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.") If he rejects those, then nothing you can say will change his mind. Bruising his ego is a sure fire way of having him retreat behind his shields where nothing can reach him.
juris_imprudent:"Mark, that's about what I'd expect from a fundamentalist Christian justifying (to himself as much as anyone) a dubious theological position. In short, you're long on belief and very, very short on facts."
Ummm, point of order. Mark is anything but a fundamentalist Christian. I, on the other hand, am. Furthermore, I am probably more militant about using facts, evidence and solid reasoning than probably 99.9% of the population. If you need some proof, just see the argument between Mark and I in the comments on Kevin's abortion post. I can point you to solid evidence supporting the accuracy of the Bible, but I will not do so here because it is wildly off topic.
We need to remain focused on the two most important points in this thread.
A) The Consitution does not allow the Federal Government to engage in any kind of charity.
and
B) Why the Founding Fathers designed our government that way.
" note the part in there about the staggering poverty there forces many parents to offer themselves or their own children as collateral against a loan.."
I don't need to note it, LabRat, I've seen it.
The modern form of slavery is seen in a bar in Phuket, Thailand. And it presents as an overweight and sweaty middle-aged Western "sex tourist" taking a child right by your table to her,(in this particular joint), crib upstairs...to fuck.
It happened right in front of me.
Did I kill it? Boy, did I want to...follow him upstairs and slide my shank right into the back of his skull.
Ahhh, but did I?
Of course not.
There was a cop there,y'see, to make sure that everyone behaved...and that the johns didn't "damage the goods".
And ain't that a heart-warming example of a Public-Private co-operative venture?
So...if I killed a child-fucker in a legally licensed whorehouse where children were pimped out, I'd go to jail,(and a very unpleasant one at that).
And if that doesn't tell you all about the characters of business and government, two mobs allied to exploit chidrens' bodies, then MarkA isn't the ONLY one 'round here who ain't "getting it".
There are nations on this Earth where I will not set foot on shore. And this has meant my not standing upon land for 94 days. (Try living 24/7 at your place of work for a week).
"In the US, you cannot claim a person, much less their child, if they default on a debt- and while it's not nearly as offensive to me as trying to claim that having choices that require sacrifices is like slavery,"
One of the main reasons this is so is that in this country, every citizen, if they so desire, can be armed to the fucking teeth. (Force/Governing Structure again...here it is not monopolized by the Government gang OR the Business gang.).
"...it's still pretty lousy to claim fear of bankruptcy or fear of wage garnishing is the same as fear of having to essentially sell your children."
It's a matter of degree, not of difference.
Fear is the common denominator, and Fear is exactly what "Force/Government Structure" aims to instill in the Smallest Minority.
Because Fear is the chains of the mind that make you a slave.
I've been noticing that you've been getting rather abrasive with Markadelphia, especially lately. I definitely understand the impulse. I have to fight it too. However, might I suggest that calling him names is counterproductive? It's always harder to agree with someone who has put you on the defensive by calling you names, even when you realize that they're right. Calling names gets our pride involved, and it's next to impossible to swallow it.
Our goal is to educate Markadelphia, not torture him into submission. We're not in a position to do that. Besides, rock solid logic and evidence are the only things that have a chance of producing a true and long lasting change of mind. ("A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.") If he rejects those, then nothing you can say will change his mind. Bruising his ego is a sure fire way of having him retreat behind his shields where nothing can reach him."
All true, Ed, and well said. But we've tried that approach for a long, long, time, and it hasn't worked with Mark.
His behavior is the same, day after day after day. He endlessly tells us what he "thinks" and he tries to justify what he "thinks" by pointing out that other people "think" the same. When asked for details, when asked for logical explanations, when asked for citations of facts in support such that we can check them for ourselves, indeed when asked questions of almost any kind, his response is almost invariably to repeat what he "thinks", to accuse us of trying to trap him, or to try to change the subject.
We have tried endlessly to get him to understand a simple thing, to wit, that if his beliefs are valid and supported by the facts, then he doesn't need to offer up bullshit in their defense, and that if his beliefs are not valid nor supported by the facts, then offering up bullshit in their defense will not redeem them. He gives no indication whatever that he understands this. In short, his behavior is stereotypical, almost surreal, actually, of a person who believes what he believes simply because he finds pleasure in his beliefs and who will not brook any intrusion of reality that upsets his beliefs.
The manner of the attempts that you deride are simply a form of, for lack of a more descriptive term, shock treatment. It is simply an attempt to find some level, some manner of communication, on which to reach him. And you're right, it doesn't work. He appears to be unreachable.
Uhhh, fella, as soon as any commodity, humans included, was purchased rather than being taken by force, free market capitalism was born.
Wrong. Exchange, and property, long pre-date what we call free-market capitalism. Lefties usually make that mistake, but mostly because they haven't actually read Marx - they've just read about him. Adam Smith first described capitalism as it had been forming in the 18th century. Some would argue that you could push the formation date back a couple of centuries to the guild era, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Anyhow, no one with any familiarity with economic history equates capitalism with the first farmer's market!
I wouldn't toot the "Anglo-American" exceptionalism horn too loudly, given this context.
William Wilberforce was English. Care to name someone more influential in ending slavery? Particularly someone outside of the Anglo-American context?
That "problem" just happens to be the truth.
I suppose that could be, but I'm not giving in just yet.
One of the main reasons this is so is that in this country, every citizen, if they so desire, can be armed to the fucking teeth.
No, it doesn't happen in this country, in that manner, because of govt. If that means chalking up a point for Markadelphia's side, so be it.
Trust me, you won't get off on a manslaughter (at least) charge just because you decided to end some pimp's life - no matter how justifiable in your mind. We don't take the law into our own hands except in rather limited circumstances.
By the way, this is a good time to note that capitalism (in my more narrow definition than yours) really only works [well] when you have a number of met preconditions. Our economic system isn't much more exportable than our system of govt, and I don't count many countries that have wholesale adopted either.
Ummm, point of order. Mark is anything but a fundamentalist Christian.
Ed, no offense intended to either party. The intent was to illustrate faith triumphing over facts. Since secular lefties claim to be appalled by that (seeing it only in the caricature of their polar opposites), I find it a potent tonic.
As for faith justified by reason, there aren't too many fundamentalists defending St. Thomas Aquinas. Y'all tend to be much more Augustinian in outlook. But we should take that discussion offline.
In which case our disagreement is perhaps largely semantic, but I still disagree. Part of my original point was that certain words lose their power the more you stretch them, and "degree"- when sufficiently large- is such a stretch. So long as neither wound is lethal, getting scratched and getting deeply slashed are matters of "degree, not difference", but one is a minor inconvenience that only very small children complain about and one is a matter for the emergency room. Insisting they're basically the same thing would serve no purpose for anyone except, say, a particularly slimy personal-injury lawyer trying to make a case out of the scratch.
For me, when one case is a set of options that looks like:
1)Take out a highly risky loan under totally unmeetable conditions, putting up yourself or your children as collateral
2)Die of starvation
and one looks more like:
1)Take out a loan with people who are bound by laws governing loans (though they may not obey them, and these people are usually, if not identifiable, at least somewhat shadier), under onerous conditions, with all your worldly assets as collateral
2)Don't take out a loan
...Then it's a disservice to the first case to call them both "debt slavery".
Fear may be "the chains of the mind", but hi, welcome to life. There are always going to be consequences for bad decisions, some of them are extremely severe- like death, which can be the consequence for a lot of bad choices- and we damn well SHOULD fear them. It's healthy. Classifying any set of conditions where decisions are made or work done out of fear of the consequences as something so dire as slavery is rendering the word utterly meaningless.
I agree that power in the hands of any concentration of people is, like fire, an inherently dangerous thing. That's why I'm a regular at a site like this. I also agree with Kevin that it's an inherently necessary thing.
As for my rudeness to Mark, I haven't changed my mind; he's been quite rude to us for a long time (repeated accusations of groupthink, constantly telling us what we think and why, etc.), I think that particular situation crossed my boundaries for politeness being required in response, and like DJ, I no longer think he IS reachable. I won't repeat it, because everyone who's pointed out it's not really productive is right, but I'm also not sorry. The fact that my religion doesn't require me to be civil no matter what the provocation probably plays into that. ;)
If Markaelphia wants to come across the pond and see what a full-on Government utopia Britain has become with its liberalist ideals taken to the extreme ("If it will save a single life it will all be worth it" mantra) then he's most welcome to do so.
If he wants a taster before committing to paying for a ticket, take a look at this blog :-
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/
It's patchy but it will be what America is headed for if you are not VERY careful.
I'm sure Markadelphia will argue that if ONLY the right people were in "power" then it will all be fine. I wonder if he wants to apply that argument to guns?? If ONLY the "right" people have guns then ...!! Hmmmmmmmmmmm I thought not.
Here the Government consumes over 42% (that's forty two percent in case you think I've typed it incorrectly)of the gross domestic product of the country and one in four working people work for the Government in one form or another.
My vote is with Kevin - government should exist ONLY to provide what the individual cannot such as armed forcees to defend the country.
Me? The house goes up for sale tomorrow and as soon as I have the cash in my hot little hands, I'm emigrating.
"Wow. I'm speechless. I don't even know where to begin."
You are speechless? That's a first. You're the most unspeechless person I know, except for one person in particular whom I worked "around" a long time ago, but I suspect he's dead now.
And, don't assume you have to begin at all. If you have nothing to say, then don't say it.
Me: I suggest keeping it simple. Show us where the Constitution supposedly gives the Federal Government the power to use tax money for charity. The "Why" is more complicated and can be dealt with later.
New Zealand - they have an anti political correctness minister. New Zealand may not be perfect but at least it's a start, unlike here where the lunatics definitely have taken over the asylum big style.
"Me: Exactly! That is why it is critical to keep government from getting any larger than it absolutely has to be."
Some Patrick Henry is in order here on this blog that is concerned about the Second Amendment:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
The wording "suspect every one" best sums up my own feelings in this matter.
Someone, waaaaaay upthread, posted that "Business exists to serve people", and this gob-smackingly stoopid statement, set off my rusty and cobwebbed old "Marxist Alarm".
No-one, save Mark, stood up and called "double-bullshit!" at this, yet folks trampled each other to castigate Government.
The "groupthink" that developed was apparently that Government was BAD, so Business must be GOOD.
Is business negligent in its' Evil?
I ask you...what would you say of the manufacturers of crematoria, the producers of Zyklon-B, and the merchants of barbed wire who actively sought, and jealously protected, their government contracts with the 3rd Reich?
This wen far beyond any sane person's definition of negligence, and ran, like a loaded freight train, into collusion.
Yes...this is a gun blog, and government is a well-defined, and closely watched threat to our Liberty.
But, let's not be wilfully blinded to Business, which is more often than not, the "penis" inside the Government "condom" that would fuck us all over.
I'd also point out, to one and all, that the Mainstream Media is elmost exclusively, a Business-owned, and Business-supoorted, organ...and they have proven themselves, again and again, to be no friends of our Second Amendment Liberty.
Phil B: New Zealand, eh? Lovely place, I understand. But stay out of the mines of Moria!
Bilgeman: Someone, waaaaaay upthread, posted that "Business exists to serve people", and this gob-smackingly stoopid statement, set off my rusty and cobwebbed old "Marxist Alarm".
No-one, save Mark, stood up and called "double-bullshit!" at this, yet folks trampled each other to castigate Government.
The "groupthink" that developed was apparently that Government was BAD, so Business must be GOOD.
You are correct here, and my excuse is that I was out of town and didn't have time to respond - thus leaving it for others. Business, too, is a concentration of power. It is unsurprising that business often sucks at the hind teat of government to maintain that power, but that doesn't make it excusable and we shouldn't be apologists for it here.
Bilgeman:"Someone, waaaaaay upthread, posted that "Business exists to serve people", and this gob-smackingly stoopid statement, set off my rusty and cobwebbed old "Marxist Alarm".
No-one, save Mark, stood up and called "double-bullshit!" at this, yet folks trampled each other to castigate Government."
Of course none of us disagreed with that statement, because it is a fundamentally true statement about what businesses do! They provide goods and/or services in exchange for money. That holds true for everything from young children selling lemonade or raking leaves for money all the way up to the largest corporations.
The fact that businesses sometimes do things that are wrong does not contradict with this statement one iota.
Can you point to even one business which gets money without providing any kind of product or service? Take a look at your local yellow pages. Can you point to any companies in there which are NOT competing to provide something in exchange for something they want (money)?
Businesses exist to make a profit. They do that by serving people, true, but the difference is not one of semantics. If a business can make a profit through harming people, then that niche will be filled. But usually such a business must have at least the tacit, if not direct support of government to do so.
Kevin, how can a business make a profit at harming people? I know organized crime engages in protection rackets, but that's a parasitic activity which cannot exist without legitimate businesses, not a true business activity.
Even businesses which sell something harmful, or which can be used for harm, can only do so if someone wants their product. In other words, they're serving those people.
Let's take illicit drugs for instance. Even though they're known to be harmful, people still buy them. That's why those businesses can still exist. If the demand were to dry up, so would the business.
Arms manufacturers are a prime example of where their products can be used for harm. If someone buys weapons to use them to commit murder, harm has been committed, but not by the business itself. Those same weapons could be used to prevent murder. Once again, the business is providing something which people want to buy. If no one wants to buy their weapons, the business ceases to exist.
Whether what the business does produces harm or not, it still boils down to the fact that the business provides a good or service for a price.
Ed, Bilgerman's rather generous definition of "business" includes organized crime. Then again, he thinks capitalism existed at the time of the first trade between bronze age farmers.
That said, too few proponents of capitalism have actually READ Adam Smith, who is none too kind to the owners of the means of production. He notes that they will make all effort to avoid competition and that one of the key roles for govt is to preclude collusion between producers, and to NOT grant selected producers govt favors (e.g. monopolies). What Smith didn't take into account was externalities - which is probably how most harms arise from business.
Bilgeman, I tried to respond here but was thwarted by the comment software which said I had to many links. See my post here for a response to your question:
I ask you...what would you say of the manufacturers of crematoria, the producers of Zyklon-B, and the merchants of barbed wire who actively sought, and jealously protected, their government contracts with the 3rd Reich?
I think I'm following what you're saying. In general terms, a pure, undiluted free market can produce situations where producers can cause harm. Is this correct?
"What Smith didn't take into account was externalities"
I'm not sure what you mean by "externalities." Could you elaborate?
Just a guess on my part but I assumed "externalities" meant things like lead in paint and gasoline being toxic to non-customers. Poor logging practices setting up the circumstances for a flood on downhill neighbors, things like that.
" Bilgerman's rather generous definition of "business" includes organized crime."
You're not a member of a union, are you?
"Then again, he thinks capitalism existed at the time of the first trade between bronze age farmers"
I said a "purchase", not a trade.
Would you prefer that I'd used the term "mercantilism" perhaps?
The rootstock of capitalism.
The point, ace, was that when people stopped shooting arrows and sticking spears into each other to obtain the goods and services they wanted or needed, and rather began bartering and/or buying these, "markets" were born.
Markets begat Trade and Trade begat Mercantilism which begat Capitalism.
The seed is THE vital and necessary precursor to all that follows.
Ed: Joe points in the right general direction on externalities. Usually unintended consequences the costs of which aren't borne by the original actor(s). It isn't insurmountable, or pervasive, but it can be a pretty big problem.
B-man: You're not a member of a union, are you?
Not me, but my brother was - until the union screwed him over. He has his own business now.
The rootstock of capitalism.
Lots of unpleasant things preceded capitalism. Even Marx saw capitalism as an improvement over the lot of the masses in pre-capitalist societies. That's a whole different game then saying that capitalism is to blame for those defects. Slavery existed for millenia before even mercantilism, let alone capitalism. It was the cradle of capitalism that led to the abolition of slavery. That slavery exists at all in this world today, it does so in non-Western societies.
btw - how you doing with finding a renowned non Anglo-American abolitionist?
It isn't insurmountable, or pervasive, but it can be a pretty big problem.
Given the right industry, it's both- the nature of mining as an industry, for example, makes running an operation in a clean and easily remediated fashion actually more expensive than it would be to "ruin and run" even if the company gets hit with the fullest extent of penalties for doing so. Mining doesn't have much of a direct-to-consumers market, and the people that DO buy direct can't afford to do without their products, so there's very little market pressure from people unhappy about an individual company's environmental record as well.
It's why mining still has such a black eye as an industry, environmentally speaking, as opposed to businesses like power plants- it was much easier and cheaper to run clean for the latter industry.
Being involved in a support industry for mining, I have to back up LabRat on this. Environmental remediation is exorbitantly expensive, and no mining company would do it if not forced to.
By pervasive, I meant throughout the entire economy. Mining though is a problematic case. Some of that has to be in part relying on laws written in the middle of the 19th century - claims on "public land" for a fraction of the value, etc.
The biggest problem is in trying to recapture the costs of the existing externalities. As you note, it ain't cheap, and resistance is stiff. If the costs were built in from the beginning then there isn't such an issue. Of course, that's not an easy thing to do either. Plus, remediating damage is more expensive then preventing it.
(R)emediating damage is more expensive then preventing it.
Well, digging a great big pit in the ground and turning the contents into dust the consistency of flour is, to a miner, progress. To an environmentalist, it's a disaster. Tough to convince people to prevent it, though, when in that dust is copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, rhenium, lead, iron, etc., etc., etc.
If it can't be grown, it must be mined. (And drilling for oil & gas is just a very specific kind of underground mining.)
Kevin, I hate to be nit-picky but that is pretty much my compulsive nature...
Which categories do you place software, solar energy collection, wind energy, hydroelectric production, and liquid nitrogen (and other liquid gas products)?
Liquid gases are physical products that are mined out of the air.
Software, like other products of the human mind (novels, films, poetry - blogs for that matter) are incorporeal. The media they are carried on (paper, plastic, celluloid, silicon memory chips and magnetic hard-drives) must be either grown or mined. Otherwise it exists only in the relatively few minds that can be reached directly by the originator - whose very existence depends on that which can be grown.
Solar, wind, and hydro are the conversion of one form of energy into another, but again those energy conversions cannot take place without physical products that must be either grown or mined.
"What's your point? If there's a market, it gets served."
The people that businesses serve are called stockholders and customers.
And, judging by the constant kvetching of consumers and the incessant mewling of stockholders, they don't really serve them all that well.
So who does business really serve?
Follow the money
I'd say the Board of Directors and the upper management. And the politicians who bend (us) over for all that industry PAC money.
Pretty much everyone else can usually count on getting the middle finger most of the time.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/10/mystery-of-government.html (178 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Good post Kevin.
As an interesting contrast re. the treatment of coerced charity, Jewish law requires that you donate upwards of 10% of your net income to charity—but does not mandate to whom the money goes.
(There are specified ways to measure the social efficacy of your charity, and some types don't count under this definition. E.g. money given to "Save the Whates" does not benefit people, so it does not count towards the 10% requirement.)
The charitable donation, while mandated, is under your complete control, not that of a central government or organization. Unless you choose to give your charity to such an intermediary.
The US system, while making a grudging nod toward this idea by making charity tax-deductible, largely works in the opposite fashion, as you have noted, Kevin. It is less a method of charity than of subjugation.
FWIW;
In a capitalist democracy, government is a prostitute competing in a beauty pageant.
It does what those who can afford to pay it wish it to do, but it wants to remain "popular".
It is thus always vaccillating(sp?)between the Scylla of Massive Suction, and the Charybdis of Public Esteem.
It has no conscience, no morality, and loyalty only to the twin Gods of Money and Media,(which is really but one God with two faces, Janus-like.).
That's about it, gang.
Mark,
Who are the "right" people? Fundamentalists would like the right people in place to ban homosexuality. Some liberals would like to ban free speech ('cept they call it "hate" speech to not ruffle any feathers or raise the suspicions of the plebes).
The problem with people like you is that you assume you and your brethren are the right people when from my point of view, you're more dangerous than helpful.
So you vote for more power, but fail to realize that those you give the power to are temporary and that eventually, another Bush is elected and now has all this power to control your life.
That you can't see that simply is astounding.
The mess we're in today is from people like you thinking a central government can somehow make laws that apply to 300 million people. You can't run a 3 person business without stepping on someone's toes, much less 3M. You cannot do it. Period. It has never worked, it will never work, and anything else is wishful thinking.
The best thing you can do is to severely limit the government's reach. That way, if you want to sail your dingy into someone else's port, you can. If you want to give to charity, you can. If you want to mainline Flintstones Vitamins, go ahead. The government can't stop you.
But if, instead, you want some bureaucracy mandating exactly which church you must go to, what words you may not use when discussing your rulers, and what brand of trans-fats you must use when cooking, then by all means believe in the magic government fairy that will never make the wrong decision (because somehow, a bunch of Republicans got voted in and now they control the reigns).
I may agree with a lot of Republican ideas, but I don't want to give them power to enact them because Democrats often get elected and do exactly what I don't want them to do.
How do you plan on getting enough people together to elect the "right" people when you know most people don't agree with you?
:)
Truly, a thing of beauty.
Excellent post. Spot on.
The kind of government Mark believes in can only happen if all people in government were perfectly "good" and altruistic.
That will never happen.
Kevin!
That's it, that's all; it's perfect!
Since the day has arrived that normal people have to WORRY about what the President or Congress is going to DO TO THEM, we indeed must make it stop.
Government reminds me of my anti-virus software. Completely irritating and evil, except for what happens when you don't have it.
Well, not entirely true, since I don't have it, but the less computer-versed out there seem to have trouble without antivirus and other security software.
I rather like James Madison's take:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The Federalist No. 51
pdwalker:
"The kind of government Mark believes in can only happen if all people in government were perfectly "good" and altruistic.
That will never happen."
And thank the Almighty for THAT.
What a nightmare.
A useful reference for this topic is The Road to Serfdom by Nobel Prize winner (economics) F.A. Hayek.
Good job Kevin.
Joe:
That book is in my truck right now. I started reading it in January, as a matter of fact.
Nice post. The "just change the people and it will be better" argument is used a lot when bad government shows up- especially with socialists and the USSR.
Well done, Kevin. Thank you!
100/10X, Kevin. I'm saving this one.
1. People in our government are, for the most part, competent and effective.
Bwahahaaaaaa. How exactly does he guarantee this?
Ah, alas poor Yorick, I am but an individual, now, in a sea of collective thought. Ironic, isn't it? :)
Let me take some time to thoroughly respond to your post, KB.
The difference between government and business:
Business exists to serve others. It is how a businessman gets rich -- by serving as many people as he can as well as he can so that they will voluntarily part with their money in exchange for his product -- goods or services.
Government exists to control others. It is how governors get rich -- by controlling as many people as they can by controlling them well, so that they can be forced to part with their money in exchange for... what? Protection? Whatta racket.
The best government is that which governs least. (Thoreau by way of Joe Huffman)
The difficulty lies in the uncomfortable fact that a strictly limited government has a power vacuum at the top -- all that power just lying around waiting to be used... and it will.
And government does not -- WILL not -- listen to reason. It can only be stopped or slowed by application of counter-force, in the nature of a two-by-four right between the eyes. As a means of getting its attention, you see.
The purpose of the Constitution was to provide We the People with a mechanism to wield that force short of resort to the gun. And insofar as today's government wilfully ignores the provisions of our founding documents, it invites the alternative to the the alternative.
And more's the pity.
M
It's "collective thought" Mark, because we've actually studied Constitutional history.
And aren't you a big one for "consensus"?
I await your reply, though I'm going out of town again, so things might get slow.
I wouldn't say "collective thought".
Kevin added 2 plus 2 and got 4.
I added 2 plus 2 and got 4.
"Collective thought" would read:
Kevin added 2 plus 2 and got 4.
I think Kevin is smart so I'm also saying 4.
So, no, not collective.
The fact that we both studied the data and came to the same conclusions indicates our ability to discern the truth and or accuracy of the issue at hand.
I'm confused, what does Hamlet's dead court jester have to do with self-proclaimed victimhood?
I'm still working on my response but I saw this and I just about coughed up a lung..
"that they will voluntarily part with their money in exchange for his product -- goods or services."
That is the funniest thing I have heard in months. Voluntarily? Hee Hee Hee...yeah....that's it.
What was the last item you purchased at gunpoint, Mark?
Kevin has the short explanation, Mark. He's dead on, as usual. I'll give you the long explanation, free of charge.
When you buy something, you value what you buy more than you value the money you buy it with, hence you are willing to exchange one for the other.
When you sell something, you value the money you get more than you value what you sell, hence you are willing to exchange one for the other.
So, when someone sells and someone buys, each side gains. This is how wealth is created.
Tell us, Mark. What's funny about this?
Bill Gates can't send a SWAT team through my door to make me buy Vista, but just try not buying the services of the Department of Homeland Security or the DEA one year and see who shows up...
Another article along the same vein:
The Song That Is Irresistible: How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction
By Robert Higgs
http://www.mises.org/story/2749
"Bill Gates can't send a SWAT team through my door to make me buy Vista..."
I'd bet he'd like to, seeing as how it's such a success. /snark
Thank you Kevin, it was a very interesting read. Good stuff, etc, etc.
The Great Whore at Work:
"MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. (Oct. 22) -- Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized.
NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly."
You might fucking DIE in a fiery plane crash, but The Prostitute wouldn't want to upset you by giving out the data that YOU paid for.
Mark...any input on this?
Partly off-topic - but still regarding governmental intrusions -
Kevin, the comment you left at my place finally gave me the impulse to write a post.
*fingers to temples*
I'm getting a vision... of an incoherent explanation of how the only reason people buy consumer goods is because they've been brainwashed to by the Corporate Empire...
I hate using my precognition, it gives me such a headache.
Your statement about the founding fathers' notion of morality and religion being nearly one and the same rings true. Many of our FF were Masons, and the Masons require the belief in one living God in order to become a member because "no oath being binding on an atheist."
As to the one commenter's suggestion that Jewish law doesn't specify where to "donate" your ten percent, nothing could be further from the truth. It is to be given at your synagogue (church). Specifically your "home" church.
Speaking as one of those anarchists, I'd just like to remind everyone that, while government is evil by definition, it is only contingently necessary. We should aspire to the day when we find a way to render government unnecessary. That day will never arrive if we just give up and assume that necessity...
Hogwash. Its virtually impossible to find an owners manual for a 1998 Camry.
I am going to parse out my response in a couple of key areas.
First, I am going to try to explain the seeming hypocrisy of “government is evil” on the one hand and why I think government can work on the other. Second, I will respond specifically to Kevin’s points. Third, I will respond to some of the other points made here in comments.
Part One
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups. I think it is very possible that what we have here is an oligarchy. It’s not as bad as China but some days I really wonder….
Anyway, lobbyists run Washington, not politicians. Pretty much every current politician has been greased by some lobbyist group to further whatever cause they represent. The reason why I support someone like Barack Obama as opposed to Hillary Clinton is that one wants to change the way things work and the other wants to keep business as usual. “Of the people by the people for the people” is effectively gone. People like Obama (and me) want to open up the government to the people again. Accessibility is the key here. That is how government CAN work. There are good people out there. Some of them post on this blog. And, although I don’t agree with many things, I see a lot of honesty and integrity here. Someone like DJ or Unix, based on what they have written, would do an excellent job serving our country. Could they be corrupted? I doubt it.
Now, think of several hundred people or even a thousand that have that kind of integrity and who want to “ask not what their country can do for them but what they can do for their country.” That is how government can work. We let these people in and show them that the old ways are over. Right now they aren’t being allowed in because they refuse to suck off Corporate America. I am not espousing an all reaching all powerful government that does everything. Just the best and the brightest providing a framework in which the individual can live a better life.
Part Two
Now onto some direct responses….
I will read the Spooner site and give you my take. Looks interesting
I mostly agree with Paine’s statement that government is a necessary evil. But I don’t think that the natural state of mankind is tribal warfare…at least exclusively. There is a natural state of man that has gone largely ignored in our modern society. I know you are an atheist, Kevin, but the spiritual side of man…the part of him that is not animal….is not nurtured in our society. Call it the Grace of Christ, the Great Spirit or whatever you believe in but our nation is spiritually bankrupt at present. Most of our world is as well…therein lies the majority of our problems. We are too focused on the material and should our focus shift more to the spiritual, I wonder what kind of a creature man would be? But I digress…
In regards to taxation and the Crocket statement, I would refer you to my post, in response to DJ, regarding the taxation of the wealthy. I believed I showed that people like Paris Hilton are actually paying less tax now than they did 30 years ago. People are keeping more of their money, Kevin. And they are using it to fuck people over everyday. They are using it, not to be “individualistic”, but to acquire more control over the population through buying off politicians who will help them keep more of their money. I agree that government is broken, Kevin, but not for the reasons you believe it to be so.
“Businesses provide products and/or services and are in competition with other businesses. They must earn your money, resulting in a trade in which both parties find advantage.”
Absolutely false. There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it. And health care? While there are several choices, their main goal is take your money and still make you pay. There are some exceptions to this but for the most part, this industry has become so unregulated both parties rarely find advantage. Honestly, I don’t see much choice in corporate America. And it’s getting worse..
The Ravenwood quote was interesting…ok, let’s see he pays for his own health care. Fine. Now, he gets sick and his insurance company won’t cover him. Now what? He can’t go anywhere else because of his pre-existing condition. He dies. So what is the organizing principle to fix this problem. The free market will just take care of it? People are going to…what….stop buying insurance? Go to a different company?
Kevin, you have this notion that the free market is a magical place which allows people to be individuals. Your hero worship of Ayn Rand fails to take into context life that she led. She lived in a totalitarian regime whose family life was ruined during the nascence of the Soviet Union. Of course she is going to perceive the world in this way. It was her life. But it wasn’t American life…at least not until Bush Co has taken over.
Ironic that by voting for Bush (as I assume most of you did) and not voting for Gore or Kerry, you actually got what you thought Gore or Kerry would give you....probably worse than you thought it would be...
Government is not corrupting the free market. The free market is corrupting government. We are a society that is run by concentrated corporate ownership. Since you are fond of Orwell, I highly recommend the film ORWELL ROLLS IN HIS GRAVE for a much more compelling argument than I think I can make. For a brief description check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell_Rolls_in_His_Grave.
I know I have been evoking Kennedy a lot here but basically if you want to sum up the way I feel about government, this is it.
“I am an idealist without illusions.”
Part Three
Comments on the comments….
“How do you plan on getting enough people together to elect the "right" people when you know most people don't agree with you?”
Good question, Robb, and I think I started to answer that above. But here’s a little more…the right people would be people like yourself. Your post was thoughtful and intelligent which means that you probably are as well. Go work for the US government. Your experience, vision, and knowledge will change both the government and your point of view once you see things from a different perspective.
“…if all people in government were perfectly "good" and altruistic.That will never happen.”
Unix, what would Yoda say to this? “That is why we fail
JohnS, great quote! Love it!
Bilgeman, so….you want a world with evil as well as good? I will comment on the NASA thing when I read more about it.
DJ, what’s funny is that you think “someone sells and someone buys, each side gains.” This might be true if I sell you jewelry that you give to your wife. But what about the people who work hard, pay for their health plan, and then are told they still have to pay? Sure, they could get another health plan outside of the employer’s but how much would that be? I only have once choice for heat and one choice for electricity. Why? One thing I have noticed as I have gotten older is that there is LESS choice, not more, as Corporate America has marched onwards.
Mark:
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups. I think it is very possible that what we have here is an oligarchy. It’s not as bad as China but some days I really wonder….
Rather than directly argue with you on this, let me do the following. (But I have to note that essentially *every answer* you give has 2 components: Companies are evil, and there's a conspiracy to subvert wills.)
Let me just ask you to explain this: Since lobbying by corporations is a recent concept - why is our Constitution written as it is? Kevin spent a fair bit of time going back to "first principles" - the Constitution.
If you're correct, that government is evil because it's been taken over by the private sector, how does that gibe with concept of government embodied by the Constitution?
. Someone like DJ or Unix, based on what they have written, would do an excellent job serving our country. Could they be corrupted? I doubt it.
While I appreciate the compliment - and I've served the .fed directly, and currently work for a state government - don't doubt that I can be corrupted. Down that way lies utter foolishness!
Mark, we keep telling you you put your faith in people, not their actions, this is more proof of that. If someone says something you like, you implicitly trust them.
But Mark, I don't trust people that much. Neither should you. Evaluate them. Make sure they're still honest and uncorrupted "Trust, but Verify", to quote a wise man.
This is why the Constitution is (among) the most brilliant piece of human applied psychology. Notice the constant balance of power. The "may not" "shall not". Which almost outnumbers the may and shalls.
The problem with our current Government - is for the best of reasons and intentions, we've abandoned those protections in favor of large, institutional bureaucracies. With essentially no checks or balances. Virtually no oversight, and close to ultimate power.
That is how government can work. We let these people in and show them that the old ways are over.
How? How are you going to negate the Civil Service protections and hire these people (And who will select them?) into slots superior to people who have been there their entire career?
Right now they aren’t being allowed in because they refuse to suck off Corporate America.
Since this is such a cornerstone of your belief system, you really need to actually, you know, prove this is the case before you keep stating it as THE problem and all we do is fix that and things are fixed.
(Alternatively, you could trust me - as you said you would - to tell you that no, the government on the local, state, and federal level is not about "Sucking Off Corporate America")
Just the best and the brightest providing a framework in which the individual can live a better life.
Mottos make really shitty plans, Mark. Trust me on this.
"[To] provide solutions in real time to meet our customers' needs." - Halliburton Mission Statement
We are too focused on the material and should our focus shift more to the spiritual, I wonder what kind of a creature man would be?
In the last century, some ~200 million died for that very concept. Before that, the nature of god and worship of said same was the leading cause of conflict between "enlightened" nations. That's been used as a joke about "civilization" for a long time. "'How can you tell when you've got civilization?' 'Oh, that's when you have plenty to eat, and you go kill people for non-material reasons'".
Absolutely false. There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it.
Actually, there is. You're right, there's not a lot.
But that's because of government intervention, Mark, not because of the market. The Government awards those monopolies, allows "acceptable" margins of "profit". But there's always alternatives, Mark.
People are keeping more of their money, Kevin. And they are using it to fuck people over everyday.
*sigh*. Mark, statements like this give me pause that you can realistically be reached, or dealt with as a thinking individual.
Keeping more of their money, and you see that as a bad thing. *boggle*
Mark, unless they go bury the money in the backyard, it benefits the economy. If they're spending it, or even putting it in investments, then it's a good thing.
but to acquire more control over the population through buying off politicians who will help them keep more of their money.
Which is totally at odds with your prior statement. If the government has no power, then "buying it" buys you nothing. It's only because there's huge amounts to be had are those sorts of "buying politicians" worthwhile. Which is why ADM is all about ethanol.
"Farm Subsidies". In Manhattan. (The map was everywhere, it was the first to load out of Google).
But what about the people who work hard, pay for their health plan, and then are told they still have to pay?
As usual, you're not specific, so we can't really evaluate your arguments. "But what happens when..." But Mark, how is that different from your home or auto insurance? (You've been asked this before, and you didn't answer)
Other than only one of those you're a consumer, not a customer, and you have no choice in the plan, or it's coverage.
“I am an idealist without illusions.”
ROFLOL!!!
THANK you Markadelphia for the best belly-laugh of the week! And it's only Monday!
I'm out of town at the moment, typing this on a laptop actually perched on my lap, but let me address just one of the juicy tidbits you dropped here, actually the first sentence of your response:
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups. I think it is very possible that what we have here is an oligarchy.
NO. Government is evil because it concentrates the power to coerce into the hands of a few. IT IS BY DEFINITION AN OLIGARCHY. Some more, some less, but government concentrates power - somebody makes the decisions and hands out the orders which will be executed by the people with the guns/swords/great big sticks.
Unless and until you UNDERSTAND that FACT you will harbor the ILLUSION that government is NOT an inherent evil, best kept small and watched closely.
One of the bits of design genius in our Constitution was to attempt to make OUR oligarchy as large and cumbersome as possible while still allowing it to function as a government, with TWO houses of legislature, an executive, and a judicial branch, any ONE of which could STOP any grouping of the others, but requiring cooperation among all in order to accomplish anything. It took about 200 years to circumvent most of the roadblocks thrown up by that system.
But our government is STILL an oligarchy. Look the word up in the dictionary.
What you seem to be pining for is direct democracy - a system of government historically proven to be an unmitigated disaster.
Oh, and use that little search function on the upper left corner of the page to do a search on "Ayn Rand" in this blog. Look for a quotation from "Dipnut" concerning my purported "hero worship" of Ms. Rand. It should pop up in the first post on that page.
Really, Mark, that was beneath you.
Mark:
"Bilgeman, so….you want a world with evil as well as good? I will comment on the NASA thing when I read more about it."
You can save your time, I used it as but one of a long list of examples to choose from.
And don't get off-track, what I want is totally immaterial to the discussion at hand,which is the character of our government in particular, government in general, and whould we allow it greater power over our lives.
Evil and good exist whether I acknowledge their existence or not.
My aim here is one of clarifying the perception of reality.
You seem to believe in the inherent altruism of Government with a wistful faith mirrored only by those who profess the inherent altruism of Business.
From where I stand, both parties are worshipping at the feet of false idols.
Both Business and Government are the works of Man...and Man, no matter how hard he tries, will not build Paradise on Earth.
Couldn't quite fit this in:
Ironic that by voting for Bush (as I assume most of you did) and not voting for Gore or Kerry, you actually got what you thought Gore or Kerry would give you....probably worse than you thought it would be...
Actually, no. While I was mostly agnostic in 2000, Bush did cut my taxes. Which wouldn't have happened under Gore.
Bush isn't conservative (or even a "neo-con"), and thus he's basically only done 2 things that really stand out:
Cut Taxes
Killed Terrorists.
So I gotta give him props for those.
I concur with Unix-Jedi. Whereas Gore or Kerry would have been an unmitigated disaster, Bush has merely been a disaster.
Speaking of political agnosticism, taxes and terrorists seem to be the two things that convert people. A standout example of the latter is former liberal Charles Johnson of LGF. My mother is an example of the former: a lifelong liberal Democrat who, upon receiving a huge tax bill from Clinton in 2000, told my brother and I in all seriousness that if we didn't vote for Bush we were out of the will.
Not to hijack the thread, but I couldn't let this one pass by.
Circa Bellum,
As to the one commenter's suggestion that Jewish law doesn't specify where to "donate" your ten percent, nothing could be further from the truth. It is to be given at your synagogue (church). Specifically your "home" church.
Don't confuse Jewish law with the Christian system of tithes. If you actually got that impression of charity from a Jew, he is either ignorant, or lying to you for personal gain.
The laws of charity are laid out in exhaustive detail by Maimonides. Here is a sample:
"The highest degree [of charity], exceeded by none, is that of a person who assists a poor Jew by providing him with a gift or a loan or by accepting him into a business partnership or by helping him find employment — in a word, by putting him where he can dispense with other people's aid."
I suppose as far as Mark is concerned, it boils down to the evils of "Big Business" vs the evils of "Big Government". Mark obviously feels "Big Business" is the bigger threat. Personally, I'd rather have to put up with "Big Business", since it does not have the power to imprison or kill me.
Kevin S:
Until it uses the money that's untaxed to buy the favors of the Big Government to force you to it's whim.
Thus, we should tax everything,, and give it all to the government to prevent this collection of power.
(Dammit, just trying to make Mark's points unify gives me a splitting headache)
Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups.
Mark;
What is a "special interest group"? (rhetorical question)
It is a group of individuals banded together to "petition the government for redress of grievances."
Ask yourself, "Why is this necessary?" (For, rest assured, were it not necessary, nobody would do it.)
The answer is pellucid in its clarity. Lobbying is necessary because, without it, the government will interfere in the business of private citizens -- pro-actively and gratuitously -- to said citizens' detriment.
The case of Microsoft is educational as a cautionary tale. Prior to being attacked at the behest of Netscape et all by the Clinton justice departments aintitrust division, Microsoft did not lobby. Had no corporate representatives in Washington.
Then, apparently on that basis, Microsoft was cut out from the herd and its corporate property strewn about the landscape to be pawed over by passersby. Why? For no reason other than the company refused to pay the Danegeld.
Well. They certainly learned THAT lesson. So now they have lobbyists. To protect their interests from the attention of the leviathan state.
Why is the NRA the most powerful lobbying group out there? (Possibly after AARP.) Why, because the government seems bent on vitiating the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Without that, the NRA would be a backwoods fraternal organization, nothing more.
For that matter, why AARP? Couldn't be because the state has arrogated to itself the power (it has nowhere in the Constitution) to rob from Peter to pay Paul. Of COURSE Paul lines up to get some. Who wouldn't?
So where does the corruption lie in this? In the people who react to what statists pervert government to do? Or the government which has inherent in its nature the power to corrupt?
When you twist a thing to a purpose for which it was never intended -- indeed, was designed NEVER to do -- that is a perversion. And when you pervert something so that it destroys people's lives -- as government does -- then that is evil.
M
Mark A:
The case of Microsoft is educational as a cautionary tale. Prior to being attacked at the behest of Netscape et all by the Clinton justice departments aintitrust division, Microsoft did not lobby. Had no corporate representatives in Washington.
Then, apparently on that basis, Microsoft was cut out from the herd and its corporate property strewn about the landscape to be pawed over by passersby. Why? For no reason other than the company refused to pay the Danegeld.
Trust me, that's a really really really misunderstood reading of the whole situation. (I'd thought about bringing it up, as it's somewhat relevant, but it'll tangent off the discussion far away from this target. So I won't get into it, other than, no, that's really not a good example. (Though you're right about Microsoft not lobbying prior - they thought they had enough "control" not to need it.))
Unix: (kind of off topic)
"In the last century, some ~200 million died for that very concept. Before that, the nature of god and worship of said same was the leading cause of conflict between "enlightened" nations.
Might want to do some more thinking and research on this statement. Last century had very little to due with religion except as a veneer to a power grab. Even before the 20th century, you can't make that statement accurate. Good site: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
and to tie that in to the topic, the more power the government gets, the more likely we are looking at trouble. Humans are flawed and these flaws get magnified when people are given power. Power with no checks has caused calamity in every case. THAT shows the nature of man. You can't wish it away.
6Kings:
I think you're misreading what I'm saying.
When Mark says: "should our focus shift more to the spiritual, I wonder what kind of a creature man would be?", he echos, either intentionally or not, the Fascist/Marxist view of the world. Their "attempts" (not all really attempts, mind you) to "fix materialism" (and their stated goal of "Utopia") caused somewhere in the vicinity of ~200M deaths between 1900 and 2000. (Which your Rummel link actually backs up: " numbers killed in war during the lifetime of some still living, and largely unknown, is this shocking fact. This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international. Indeed, this number already approximates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war.")
Rather than argue further, I'll suggest that I think you've misread me, as we're almost totally in agreement here.
People have only one choice for their electricity and heat is because of a government enforced monopoly.
If one wishs to reduce the influence of "big business" on government the one effective way to do this is to reduce the power of government. That concentration of power, physical force, compels "big business" to attempt appeasing it.
As a worker for the Borg (Microsoft) off and on since '95 I know a little more about the internal culture and attitudes than most. A close friend of mine testified in one of the anti-trust actions the DOJ brought against MS.
MS wouldn't have even worried about the government granted monopoly of patents if they hadn't been forced to. Government, the threat of physical force, caused MS to hold it's nose and associate with the slime in Washington D.C. MS would love to sever this relationship. The only way this can be done is if the government threat of force is removed.
1. People in our government are for the most part, stupid, jealous and lazy.
2. Our government has federal programs run by these people and staffed by identical people.
3. The programs are for the most part, bloated, inefficient, and overstaffed, doing more nothing than anything, but employing undeserved millions.
Part 1, due to line break limits:
"Government is evil because it has been taken over by the private sector i.e. special interests groups."
Mark, you confuse symptoms with causes. The influence on our gubmint by private interests is merely a symptom. Yes, it is a significant symptom, but it is nonetheless only a symptom. To gain a very clear picture of the cause, consider a very clear statement by Lord Acton in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Gubmint concentrates the power to coerce, enforced literally at the point of a gun, in the hands of a relatively few people. It thus tends to attract people who lust after power, and it tends to corrupt all whom it attracts. And your solution is:
"Now, think of several hundred people or even a thousand that have that kind of integrity and who want to “ask not what their country can do for them but what they can do for their country.” That is how government can work. We let these people in and show them that the old ways are over."
I'm a student of history, Mark, not a scholar of history, just an absorbed, lifelong reader thereof. To the best of my knowledge, what you describe has never been successfully implemented during the whole of recorded human history. In my opinion, it never will be because it can't be.
And your solution is, "Try it again, only harder!
Sigh ... What's that called again?
No, Mark. You cannot have gubmint without evil. The two are inseparable. The very nature of gubmint is that you give others power and authority over you, depending only on the blind hope that they will not abuse it, and you.
No, your vision of fixing gubmint by putting the right people in it is a fool's dream. It won't work because it can't work.I don't know of a single person, anywhere in the world, to whom I would willingly cede such authority over me with the expectation that he would not be corrupted thereby and would not abuse the power he is given. And so, the buying of influence by private interests, and the selling of influence by those in gubmint, are all merely symptoms of, and results of, the corrupting influence of power.
Kevin points out, quite correctly, I think:
"What you seem to be pining for is direct democracy - a system of government historically proven to be an unmitigated disaster."
There is nothing in this world as politically powerful as a newly-elected House of Commons in London. There are no limits to their authority save the conscience of each individual member. Think not? Consider that the private citizen in England is now disarmed, that he can and will be imprisoned if he simply defends himself when he is attacked, and that there is nothing he can do about it, as Parliament Has Spoken.
Our system of gubmint was designed specifically to prevent the national gubmint both from having and from exercising such power. It is failing at both, more and more, because the people who are elected to it do not obey the rules laid down in its defining document, despite taking an oath to do so.
On a more practical note, I am not the answer, Mark, nor is a few thousand people like me. I do not have the patience to lead those who will not be lead, nor do I have any tolerance (as you well know) for the irrationality that drives the average person. Such people as I am are not attracted to gubmint service, and for that reason. To get them to serve, you would "... let these people in and show them that the old ways are over." Golly, gee, Mark, has the notion of making an uncorruptible gubmint corrupted you such that you would force these good people to do your bidding?
Part 2, due to line break limits:
Now, let's move on to taxes. We find this gem:
"I believed I showed that people like Paris Hilton are actually paying less tax now than they did 30 years ago. People are keeping more of their money, Kevin. And they are using it to fuck people over everyday. They are using it, not to be “individualistic”, but to acquire more control over the population through buying off politicians who will help them keep more of their money. I agree that government is broken, Kevin, but not for the reasons you believe it to be so."
My goodness, what a magnificently revealing statement!
The clear inferences are ...: 1) ... that you believe it is an awful thing if people keep more of what they own, instead of having it taken from them by the gubmint; 2) ... that people ought to have their money taken away from them because they might do things with it that you don't approve of; and, 3) ... that gubmint is broken because it doesn't do #2 to fix #1. You reveal yourself as a socialist, Mark, and there is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the feddle gubmint to do these things.
Kevin is right, Mark. You pine for a democracy, wherein the gubmint can do whatever its current members desire, which translates into whatever such power has currupted its current members into desiring, such as taking money from people because they have too much and because they might use it to buy things and/or to influence people.
Now, let's move on to economics. Your response to:
"Businesses provide products and/or services and are in competition with other businesses. They must earn your money, resulting in a trade in which both parties find advantage."
was to describe it as being "absolutely false". Mark, this shows an astounding lack of understanding about simple economics. Let's look at two examples, shall we?
#1: You are hungry. You have money. You go to the supermarket, put food in a shopping cart, and roll it up to the checkout stand. You exchange money for the food and then take the food home and eat it. You valued the food more than the money, which is why you willingly traded the money for the food. The supermarket owners valued the money more than the food, which is why they willingly traded for the food for the money.
Now, compare this to the statement you called "absolutely false". The supermarket is in competition with many other businesses selling food, as are the suppliers to the supermarket. It earned your money by providing what you wanted to buy. You and the supermarket engaged in a trade in which each found advantage. The statement is absolutely true, Mark.
#2: I am cold. I want to be warm. I can be warm by purchasing natural gas, which I can burn to provide heat, and by also purchasing electricity, which I can use to control the burning process and to distribute the heat throughout my house.
I buy natural gas from Oklahoma Natural Gas, Co., which is a distribution company. It in turn buys natural gas on the open market from any of the dozens of suppliers who produce natural gas in many states in the southwest. ONG thus buys gas at prices set per the law of supply and demand, in the same manner as the supermarket of the previous example. ONG in turn sells gas at rates that are set by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which is part of the gubmint. The rate schedules set by the OCC are intended to limit the profits of ONG, and they do a remarkably good job of doing so.
I buy electric energy from Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, which is a distribution company. It in turn buys electric energy on the open market from any of the dozens of suppliers who produce electric energy from many sources in many states in the southwest. OEC thus buys electric energy at prices set per the law of supply and demand, in the same manner as the supermarket of the previous example. OEC in turn sells electric energy at rates that are set by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which is part of the gubmint. The rate schedules set by the OCC are intended to limit the profits of OEC, and they do a remarkably good job of doing so.
Now, compare this to the statement that you called "absolutely false". The producers of natural gas and of electric energy are in competition with each other to supply such energy to the companies who distribute it to me. Those distribution companies are limited by the gubmint to rates that prevent them from price gouging, indeed to rates that force them to be very efficient to make a profit at all. ONG and OEC are in competition with each other, as I could use either natural gas or electric energy to provide the heat that I need, and people choose one or the other when they buy, build, or remodel a home. The service they each provide is first class, in my opinion. They earn my money by providing me with what I want to buy. We engage in a trade in which we each find advantage. Again, the statement is absolutely true, Mark.
And finally, we find this:
"DJ, what’s funny is that you think "someone sells and someone buys, each side gains.""
It's not funny at all, Mark, it is absolutely true. If neither the seller nor the buyer are forced to trade, then the trade doesn't happen unless both the buyer and the seller are willing. That both are willing means that each gains by the trade. If one side didn't think he would gain by the trade, then he wouldn't trade.
It is true in ALL cases that are not coerced. The gathering of taxes and property by the gubmint is coercion, Mark, not free trade, as you are forced to buy what the gubmint sells at the point of a gun. Buying health insurance, electricity, and gas is free trade, Mark, not coercion, as you are not forced to buy anything at all.
If you don't fundamentally understand this, then you have no business discussing economics at all, as such is its cornerstone.
Mark, I'm interested as to why you think Obama is a desirable candidate?
Obama never met a gun control law he didn't like. It matters not one whit where he stands on any other issue. He will never get my vote, or the vote of any other in my camp. It is the right of a free man to be armed, otherwise you're just a slave.
The left just doesn't understand the power of "The Gun Lobby." It's no mystery. I just told you.
Unix,
"Since lobbying by corporations is a recent concept - why is our Constitution written as it is?.....that government is evil because it's been taken over by the private sector, how does that gibe with concept of government embodied by the Constitution?"
It doesn’t. Kevin is correct in stating we are way off the mark on what was originally intended. It is a sign that our country is heading for a downfall. It’s my opinion that the Republicans, more so than the Democrats, are responsible for this unholy marriage between corporate America and our government.
"you put your faith in people, not their actions, this is more proof of that. If someone says something you like, you implicitly trust them."
Well, I don’t like pretty much everything you say at all but I still trust you because you are actually passionate about something. You care and it shows. Based on this, I predict your actions will be honorable.
"How? How are you going to negate the Civil Service protections and hire these people (And who will select them?) into slots superior to people who have been there their entire career?"
I think you start by identifying who has been bought off and who hasn’t. Who is trying and who is not? Most of us know who these people are. Most of us also know that if the system was changed people like Colin Powell would be involved. Do you trust Colin Powell? I think he could marshal a large force of people willing to actually do some good for our country. He talks about this in his book. Beyond this, I honestly don’t know. It certainly requires more thought.
Some Shorter responses…
Kevin,
“Really, Mark, that was beneath you.”
Well, I apologize if I offended you but your blog does lead with a quote from her. The Dipnut quote does round out your perspective a little more. There is a pervasive, Randian view on Communism on this blog, though, that seems to me to be very single minded…based on her unquestionable personal bias. I literally feel like her ghost is channeled here.
Bilgeman, I see your points and agree for the most part.
Sarah, “Whereas Gore or Kerry would have been an unmitigated disaster, Bush has merely been a disaster.”
I completely disagree. We would have been ok with a Kerry presidency and much better off with Gore to begin with….I think bin Laden and Zawahari would actually be dead or behind bars by now. Just my opinion…
Kevin S., “since it does not have the power to imprison or kill me.”
Yes it does. Some of them do it everyday.
Mark Alger, “So where does the corruption lie in this? In the people who react to what statists pervert government to do? Or the government which has inherent in its nature the power to corrupt?”
The corruption lies in the fact that these groups pay for politicians campaigns and then when they are elected are expected to vote in favor of continued profits. This is especially true of that behemoth, the military industrial complex.
DJ,
How about “Try it again only smarter and actually with qualified, energetic, inspired, and motivated people who love their country?”
They are out there, DJ, and you are one of them. You sell yourself short.
More responses for you later….off to class…
Mark:
Unix-Jedi: Let me just ask you to explain this: Since lobbying by corporations is a recent concept - why is our Constitution written as it is? Kevin spent a fair bit of time going back to "first principles" - the Constitution.
If you're correct, that government is evil because it's been taken over by the private sector, how does that gibe with concept of government embodied by the Constitution?
Mark: It doesn’t. Kevin is correct in stating we are way off the mark on what was originally intended. It is a sign that our country is heading for a downfall. It’s my opinion that the Republicans, more so than the Democrats, are responsible for this unholy marriage between corporate America and our government.
You've missed the point of my question, totally, I'm afraid.
If, according to you, the problems with big government are only due to corporate "purchases" of bureacrats... Why is the Constitution so wary of big government, written 130 years before that was a realistic problem?
In other words, Mark, you're missing that your "explanation" doesn't jibe with the concerns of the "Founding Fathers" - who had the same concerns we do now - but you attribute those to realities that didn't become dominant until well after their lifetimes. If you are correct as to the problem, then explain why the Constitution is written as it is, when there weren't those kinds of corporations. Please.
Unix-Jedi: "How? How are you going to negate the Civil Service protections and hire these people (And who will select them?) into slots superior to people who have been there their entire career?"
Mark: I think you start by identifying who has been bought off and who hasn’t. Who is trying and who is not? Most of us know who these people are.
And again, how do you negate Civil Service Protections? Mark, have you ever fired anyone? Seen anyone fired out of government? Do you have any freaking idea how hard it is? This is not something you just get to wave your hand and say "Handle it! handle it, Roy!" - explain How Do You Do That?
Because it's not that simple. How do you identify these people? Sure, I could. I'd also fire all the nursing mothers and Dallas Cowboy fans. Hate the smell of stale milk and the Cowboys suck.
I mean, if we're just firing people without due process and recourse, why not? Mark, that's what you really don't get - Obama can't just come in and "fix" things. Hell, Bush can't even get the CIA to actually, you know, work to overthrow governments other than the United States of America. These aren't petty little details, they're fundamental to your cause, and you don't understand them in the slightest!
It's like trying to build a nuclear reactor when you can't pass basic physics - there's no practical way it could ever, possibly, safely work.
Or operate on someone without any idea of anatomy. Or surgical proceedures. "Sutures? They're just knots, right? Can't be that hard, we'll deal with that when we come to it!"
Most of us also know that if the system was changed people like Colin Powell would be involved. Do you trust Colin Powell?
Not particularly. Depends on what you're asking do I trust him about. His track record is less than stellar, even though he was a Media Golden Child for a long time. I don't necessarily distrust him, but he's got a track record of both success and failure, I wouldn't automatically expect him to be a success.
I think bin Laden and Zawahari would actually be dead or behind bars by now. Just my opinion…
What makes you think this? What, exactly, would either of them have done to lead to this outcome?
Can't help commenting on this: Well, I don’t like pretty much everything you say at all but I still trust you because you are actually passionate about something. You care and it shows. Based on this, I predict your actions will be honorable.
Hitler was very passionate about things. He cared, and it showed. Based on that, I guess you would have trusted his actions to be honorable?
This is why I think the liberal-Democrat mindset, at its root, is quite feminine. Women want to hear the right things, they want to be smooth-talked and placated. They care about lofty things like intentions and caring without much regard for the outcome. This is why the commies -- who are responsible for upwards of 100 million deaths -- get a free pass, since their intentions were good, but the Nazis and Richard Nixon were the greatest evils ever to befall mankind. You think that Republicans are cold-hearted and uncaring, but that's untrue -- we do care, but we care about the outcome, i.e. screw the intentions, does it actually work? We're pragmatists, not idealists.
Mark:
Kevin S., “since it does not have the power to imprison or kill me.”
Yes it does. Some of them do it everyday.
Then you should have no problem naming the specific corporations doing the imprisioning and killing, as well as some of the victims/prisioners.
MDelphia...
The corruption lies in the fact that these groups pay for politicians campaigns and then when they are elected are expected to vote in favor of continued profits. This is especially true of that behemoth, the military industrial complex.
And yet, you STILL don't get it, do you? It is not the nature of commerce to order things this way. Only so long as government has and wields the power to take from this one and give to that one, such corruption will exist.
Businesses do not spend money on things that are not necessary to accomplish their ends. You don't increase the sales of widgets by paying Washington protection money. There's a reason they call them taxes. Same goes for lobbying money. if it wasn't NECESSARY, it wouldn't exist. And it's not commercial interests which make it necessary.
That is, unless the businessmen are themselves statists, bent on using the power of the state to gain what they can't gain fairly in the marketplace. Is that a fault of business or of government?
It has to do with the fundamental natures of things. Government REQUIRES this relationship as its raison d'etre. What is the frequent left-justification for government overreach? Government must provide those things that the private sector can't or won't. IOW, government must provide those things self-appointed "elites" deem right and proper, even though the population at large -- through the mechanisms of the market -- has determined that they are not desirable or too costly to pursue.
Meanwhile, commerce REQUIRES that the participants be, en large, moral individuals. Without trust, the market cannot exist. (Absent coercion, but then you get back to the government's monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.)
Yes, there are honest, good, and righteous civil servants, just as there are venal capitalists. But in neither case is it the majority of the breed -- or even the run of the mill.
But if even that will not persuade, look on it from a practical viewpoint. Where has government succeeded? Not, "where has government done things some deem good" but where has government SUCCEEDED -- done what it set out to do, in the time allotted and for the amount budgeted? I would argue that government, again, by its very nature, is bound to fail -- and miserably -- at anything it attempts. (And I do not exempt the military -- wars are won by those who fuck up the least.) The failure rate in government would put a businessman out of the game.
Which is perhaps beside the point, but then, perhaps spot-on it.
M
DJ, (and others) I do have some specfic responses for some of the comments here but I want to share this quote with all of you. It pertains to many of the things that DJ said in his two posts. See if you can guess who said it.
"I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."
Mark:
Who else would you quote but Obama?
Hey Mark,
You claim that govt is evil all because of nasty, wicked Corporations. But on your own blog you point out that Qwest Communications rebuffed the illegal overtures of the Federal Govt.
Don't you feel just a tiny bit foolish?
No, I don't believe I said that all corporations were evil. If I did, I was in error.
Unix, you are correct that was Obama. In answer to an earlier question by Ed, this would be one of the reasons why I like Obama. You are correct in his stance on gun control but I think if all of you sat in a room with him for an hour or two and conveyed your thoughts, I suspect he might change his mind. And maybe he might show you a different perspective as well :)
Mark (quoting Obama): "I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. "
Me: Did you realize that his logic breaks down right there? Every one of us does evil. Some more than others, but no one, not one single person is completely good. Sometimes that evil is intentional, sometimes it's accidental (through error or misplaced good intentions), but we all are broken, evil human beings. There is only a difference of degree.
To claim that we can eliminate evil, hardship and pain is not "humble and modest", it is massive, overwhelming hubris and ego of galactic, neigh, universe spanning proportions.
That simple fact is why designing a governmental system based on a mythical "perfect human" is such a stupid idea. Such a government must—in order to be truly effective—have absolute and total power of those being ruled. But because a "perfect human" is only a feverish wet dream never to be accomplished, you would only be able to put an evil being in a position to inflict evil on the governed.
Mark, you need to give up the fantasy of a perfect, benign, caring politician—nevermind an entire government bureaucracy full of them—because there is no such creature. Period. Only then can we actually discuss why it is necessary to have feedback systems which punish evil and reward good, not only for corporations (bad customer service/goods leads to lost sales, good service/goods leads to more sales), but also for governments which have no such natural feedback systems.
this would be one of the reasons why I like Obama.
Yes, Mark, we know.
I think if all of you sat in a room with him for an hour or two and conveyed your thoughts, I suspect he might change his mind.
No, Mark. He's not "for" gun control because he's misled. he's for gun control because his policies require control. More and more of it. The very opposite of liberty, actually. Individuals who pose a threat to his utopia have to be.. dealt with. Marginalized. Powerless.
No, we'd have very little to talk about. Especially if all he did was talk in florid but meaningless sound bites like the above. Oh, it's very nice and scripted. It's also not a plan.
(Note, this reply does not absolve you of the outstanding questions you've been asked above, about how it would work, and especially what corporation is imprisoning and killing daily in the US.)
DJ,
OK, DJ, your stuff. The reason why I put this quote up from Obama is I think you might be giving in to “cynicism and inaction” when you say “No, your vision of fixing gubmint by putting the right people in it is a fool's dream. It won't work because it can't work.”
Or when you say
“what you describe has never been successfully implemented during the whole of recorded human history.”
Well, America is unlike any country in human history. Look at all of the things we have accomplished in 231 years. Not bad, eh? You see, DJ, for all of my bitching, I still think we have great potential. Based on what you have written, you have us defeated right out of the gate because we have a government.
I guess I am curious as to what our country would look like with no taxes and a barely minimal government. I suspect you would say something like “a nation filled with self-reliant people who can all be responsible for themselves, with the free market providing services.” That sounds more like Utopia to me than my vision. The authority you speak of, while not being the government, would then be corporations….which is kind of where we are heading now, if not there already. If man is corrupted in government, wouldn’t he also be corrupted in corporations as well?
"DJ, How about “Try it again only smarter and actually with qualified, energetic, inspired, and motivated people who love their country?”"
It's been tried for about 230 years, Mark. It hasn't worked because such people don't necessarily feel the call to gubmint service. Absent "finding them" (by what method? compulsory testing?) and forcing them to serve (by what method? holding their children hostage?) it won't happen any more in the future than it has in the past.
And, you've just validated, quite forcefully, my observation that "do it again, only harder!" characterizes your thinking on the matter.
"They are out there, DJ, and you are one of them. You sell yourself short."
Mark, this is quite revealing about you. You have no idea how shallow this observation of me is, and how shallow your similar observations about Obama are.
I know myself considerably better and more completely than you do. I'm a loner, Mark, a hermit by nature and an engineer by trade. I am motivated by history, by science, by engineering, by rational thinking, and by reality and truth, as best they can be determined. I am emphatically not motivated by thoughts of people management, or by thoughts of gubmint service, or by thoughts of political activity. I spent a profitable 26 year career in engineering in which I never once had anyone report to me in a table of organization, which was a condition I insisted on and which my employer agreed with. I was offered the job of Executive Vice President, and I turned it down. No, I did real work, not management.
I've seen politics close up, too. As I related before, my last employer (of 22 years) is a big but quiet contributor to Republican causes. The result is that I've met and conversed with Representatives, Senators, Attorneys General, and even a sitting Vice President. A few were quite intelligent, but most were just normal people, and a few were dumb as hammers. I want nothing to do, personally, with the world they work in.
And, everyone is corruptible, Mark, including me. The only difference between one person and the next is the price.
Now, just what do you not know about Obama that matters?
Sarah,
I think Gore would’ve immediately recognized the intricacies of the Islamic threat. I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda. I go back to the Wilkerson quote I put up here a while back…about how we should be leading with our ideas, which I think are better than bin Laden’s. Blowing stuff up is a smaller tool in a greater game of international public relations, something I think everyone can agree that Bush stinks at.
Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11 and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force.
“but we all are broken, evil human beings.”
Ah, Ed, spoken like a true evangelical. Simply put, I don’t agree. While I think man does good and man does bad…broken and evil? Everyone? Even in a small degree? It seems to me like we are wavering into that territory of “we are all evil sinners and God will punish us.” Sorry, I don’t buy it. I know I am going off an a tangent here but everyone is capable of having the Grace of Christ, which I believe is inherently good. No doubt, there is great evil in the world but I find it hard to qualify what your everyday joe does on daily basis as “evil and broken.”
"Well, America is unlike any country in human history. Look at all of the things we have accomplished in 231 years. Not bad, eh? You see, DJ, for all of my bitching, I still think we have great potential. Based on what you have written, you have us defeated right out of the gate because we have a government."
Well said, Mark, and almost correct. I wouldn't describe us as being "defeated right out of the gate because we have a government", rather I state categorically that we are suffering despite having the best form of gubmint mankind has ever come up with. As you agreed earlier, gubmint is a necessary evil. The biggest imperfection of our gubmint is that it doesn't have enough teeth to keep those we elect from ignoring it and/or violating it.
"I guess I am curious as to what our country would look like with no taxes and a barely minimal government. I suspect you would say something like “a nation filled with self-reliant people who can all be responsible for themselves, with the free market providing services.” That sounds more like Utopia to me than my vision."
No, I would say, "a nation that would be overrun in short order by some other nation with at least a small, but effective, military force." I don't believe in utopia, and dreamy thoughts of such have little, if any, influence on my understanding of reality.
"The authority you speak of, while not being the government, would then be corporations….which is kind of where we are heading now, if not there already.
I disagree completely. We are headed for more and more gubmint control of our lives, not less. Such is the dream of the Dimocrat Party in general and its leadership in particular.
"If man is corrupted in government, wouldn’t he also be corrupted in corporations as well?"
Certainly. Man is corrupted by being given power, no matter what that power is. Just watch a teenager when he is promoted from "french fryer" to "assistant shift supervisor" at the local Burger Barn. Suddenly, he gets to tell his classmates what to do, and they do it. Such is the essence of corruption by power; all else is details.
Mark: "Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11 and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force."
Me: Really? Like what?
You've argued repeatedly against the use of military force. How do you fight a war without engaging in warfare?
Mark: "I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda. "
Me: If such an idea actually exists, why haven't we heard it, even once? C'mon Mark. Really, really wishing hard enough that your chosen prophet would have come up with an idea if he was President, when he hasn't managed to come up with that idea anyway, is nothing more than building castles in the sky. What is the magical difference between Al Gore sitting in the White House and Al Gore sitting in his private jet? Al Gore can't even tell the difference between real science and the junk science he's pushing!
Mark:
I think Gore would’ve immediately recognized the intricacies of the Islamic threat. I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda.
Because we didn't do that. Uh, Mark, do you remember how fast we cut Al Queda and the Taliban apart in "The Quagmire of Afghanistan?" "Afghanistan won't be like Iraq!" "The Brutal Afghan Winter"? No, you don't know how well we did. No, no, "Gore would have done better!"
That web of complexity? Why would Gore have realized it then, when he'd been part of the administration for the prior 8 years that had a track record of 0-for-10?
Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11
Mark, that "goodwill" lasted less than a week. And it was largely based on envy, and belief that the US would somehow do their laundry list of items. Bloody hell, less than a week after September 11, NATO - NATO was already waffling about the mutual defense pact.
You're welcome to your own opinions. Not your own facts.
and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force.
Wishful thinking, Mark. That's all it is. You've got no evidence that that would have worked that way. Just your belief that of course they'd have done better! Because.. Because.. Because... Well, they just would have, dammit!
Unix, sorry. I am going through and answering as many questions as I can.
Corporations that are killing people? Well, you can start with PG & E. You can also take a look at 3M in my own home state. In fact, how about Blackwater? Oh, maybe I shouldn't mention them...that one might sting a little.
Imprisoned? Well, I guess there are no corporations that have prisons like the government does.....but they do have other ways of imprisoning us. Actually, it's more like enslave us. I need to think a little more on this one...I will get back to you...
"I think Gore would’ve immediately recognized the intricacies of the Islamic threat. I think he would’ve pinpointed, with much greater accuracy, how to fight and defeat Al Qaeda."
[...]
"Gore would’ve used the world’s goodwill that we had after 9-11 and defeated bin Laden using a much wider array of force and not just military force."
Y'know, Mark, if you ever write a book, a good title would be Platitudes, Platitudes.
Remember the comments of John Kerry's CO on his fitness reports: "Needs constant supervision."
So, how about giving us a whole slew of specifics here, of details about just why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them?
Corporations that are killing people? Well, you can start with PG & E. You can also take a look at 3M in my own home state. In fact, how about Blackwater? Oh, maybe I shouldn't mention them...that one might sting a little.
Where Mark?
Where are they killing people?
Blackwater? I knew you were going to do there, because you can't not. (I'm just surprised you didn't use the "HALLIBURTON" verbal talisman again.)
Ok, Mark, again, where are those corporations imprisoning and killing people?
Now, we're talking inside the US. Not the war zone that's Iraq.
But OK, Mark, you want to go there? How is Blackwater operating in Iraq?
BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT GOVERNMENT SANCTION. They're working under the US and Iraqi government aegis.
Mark, you're not even able to make the handicap for this battle of wits.
Mark: "Sorry, I don’t buy it."
Me: You are soooo predictable.
You're right, the Bible does teach that. Yet even if there was no such thing as the Bible, the truth of such a statement should be as bloomin' obvious as the nose on your face.
So, point out any perfect human being in all of history. (Jesus Christ doesn't count.) You know, the one without any character flaws or mistakes of any kind.
Now think about these phrases:
"To err is _______ …"
"Remember, I'm only _______."
Finally, if you've never read it, I strongly suggest that you read Theodore Dalrymple's article on The Frivolity of Evil to fully understand just how easy it is for an average person, or even an above average person, to slip into committing evil acts.
I'm still mostly eating peanuts and watching the usual Weeknight Fight, but if Theodore Dalrymple (a conservative) is too unpalatable to glue your eyeballs to long enough to digest, Mark, you might try Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect. He's a psychologist, a self-described "bleeding heart liberal", and he ran one of the most seminal experiments on the psychology of power and the propensity to evil behavior in normal people in the history of the field.
He even spends the last half of the book on a Quixotic crusade trying to use the excellent first half of the book to prove that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld should be directly responsible for the Abu Ghraib abuses. I can handle hearing about that for the next several months if you can get scrubbed of the idea that there are good people and bad people and good people always do good and bad people always do bad.
Damn! Y'all have been busy.
Unfortunately, so have I.
Only a couple of quick comments, then I will leave you to hash it out with Mark some more:
There is a pervasive, Randian view on Communism on this blog, though...
That's because I believe, on that topic, Rand was RIGHT.
It doesn't mean I worship at her feet.
To get back to commerce: There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it.
Not so. You have the freedom to move. If you do not wish to move, you have (unless government regulation prohibits it) the ability to switch your home heating to, say, trucked-in LP Gas. You could even purchase a generator that runs off the same source and disconnect yourself from the grid. You could build a rammed-earth house and operate on solar. Or, if you really want to be cantankerous, you can have your gas and electricity shut off, cook and heat water with charcoal and bottled propane and use kerosene catalytic heaters to stay warm in the winter. Neither the gas nor the electric company will come to your door with guns and demand that you reconnect and buy energy from them.
But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for violating any number of environmental regulations. Regulations passed democratically with the blessings of your neighbors in an effort to "save the environment" from people burning fossil fuels.
I now return the spanking to the regularly scheduled commenters.
Carry on.
Kevin: "But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for violating any number of environmental regulations."
Me: You could also say, "But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for refusing to buy government services—i.e., not paying ALL of your taxes—even if you never use any of those "services'."
Kevin B:
Right. I was waiting for Mark to reply to that point to point out that no, you don't have to buy electricity from the Electric Co. Sure, if you want the convenience of the wires outside - it's a monopoly (enforced by the .gov).
But you can (at least, depending on your zoning codes (which are which, Mark,
A) Corporations
B) Government
mandated and enforced?) make your own, via bike-mounted generator, solar, or other generation methods.
I'm currently very irritated at my electric (Which is a co-op, and apparently very not-professionally run) - and I'm seriously figuring out how much it would cost to get a NG generator, and generate my own power full-time.
And no, my co-op's not going to kick in my door, shoot my dogs, and stomp my cats if I do that. (Unless there one of the one's that Mark is going to enlighten us that's imprisoning and killing people here in the US.)
Unix-Jedi:
You want a corporation that is killing people as a matter of course in its' business?
Here's two:
Phillip Morris
and
RJ Reynolds.
Fact is, Mark-A is right about businesses killing people, and those who say otherwise have conveniently forgotten that growing, processing and retailing crack, meth and heroin are ALSO businesses.
They also are perhaps forgetful of Ford's Pinto, Minimata, and Thalidomide. As well as the airlines' ro;e in suppressing that NASA study i posted earlier.
In any major construction project, there are always some deaths "factored in" to the cost of completion.
These deaths, since they CAN be foreseen, could also be avoided, but it doesn't make "economic sense" to take the added precautions.
Someone who thinks that a few human lives will stop the Prostitute of Business in its' quest for Profit,(which, someone's notions of altruism notwithstanding, is what Business REALLY serves), is an utter fool.
And BTW, if you wanted to end the "Gun Control" bandwagon near as forever as you could, the Gun manufacturers need only advertise their products through the MSM.
Producers and Publishers HATE to offend advertisers.
Look at what advertising has done for the Brewing Industry, as opposed to the Tobacco Industry.
Whores...the lot of 'em.
It's not really that simple. Not everyone smokes, not everyone owns a gun, but nearly everyone drinks, or accepts drinking. It's not so much advertising that's saved the alcohol industry, but the fact that most people are familiar with alcohol, and it's socially accepted.
But it's worth pointing out that no one is coming to my house and threatening me with violence if I don't drink or smoke. The corporations who are selling this stuff aren't killing anyone, it's people choosing to do something that's unhealthy.
One of the things that continually irritates me about the left is that they refuse to accept that people are free to make choices. The left wants to remove the wrong choices, for your own good, you see.
Piss on that.
Sebastian -
"The left wants to remove the wrong choices - AS THEY DEFINE WRONG -,for your own good, you see."
There fixed it for you
Bilgeman,
You're right that those companies (and drug dealers) are selling a lethal product. However, it's not quite the same thing as the government's power to kill.
In the case of companies selling a product, they're simply providing a product, but it's the user of that product who is choosing to put their life on the line. The victims of the companies' greed are voluntary victims.
In the case of governments, a person does not necessarily choose to become a target in order to die from government action. In fact, sometimes a person can be targeted by the government because they choose to do the right thing (think China), or even just because of things they have no control over, such as intelligence (think Cambodia) or race.
I'm not saying that our government does these things, at least not on a regular basis. However, the potential is always there because there are humans involved. The main point in this whole thread is that such events do not happen here because our government is held accountable by design.
While some corporations (and drug dealers) are guilty of wanton disregard for human life, the simple fact is that their victims are self-selecting. If no one chose to victimize themselves using those products, those companies would not be able to exist.
Governments have the potential to be far more dangerous than corporations because they have the power to victimize everyone. In fact, if you look back through history, you will find only governments killing large groups of people.
In short: companies = voluntary victims, government = involuntary victims. This is why governments are the greater danger and must be treated as such.
Mark, you need to read Kevin's last comment until you understand it. In response to your statement:
"There is no competition at all for my electricity or my heat. I have one, affordable choice, for each and that is it."
Kevin replied (with my emphasis):
"Not so. You have the freedom to move. If you do not wish to move, you have (unless government regulation prohibits it) the ability to switch your home heating to, say, trucked-in LP Gas. You could even purchase a generator that runs off the same source and disconnect yourself from the grid. You could build a rammed-earth house and operate on solar. Or, if you really want to be cantankerous, you can have your gas and electricity shut off, cook and heat water with charcoal and bottled propane and use kerosene catalytic heaters to stay warm in the winter. Neither the gas nor the electric company will come to your door with guns and demand that you reconnect and buy energy from them.
But the government might come - with guns - and take you away for violating any number of environmental regulations. Regulations passed democratically with the blessings of your neighbors in an effort to "save the environment" from people burning fossil fuels."
Dig for the essence here, Mark. It is:
1) Business, even the gas and electric companies, compete with each other for your money. You are not compelled by them to deal with them, to purchase their services or the products.
This is true even when, as with gas and electric companies, the competition happens in relative slow motion. As Kevin points out, you can move and so change what you need, you can stay where you are and change what you need, and you can even change such that you have no need to purchase gas and/or electricity. The choice is real and it is yours, even though it takes time and money to implement.
Been there, seen that. I lived in the mountains of northern New Mexico for a time. Just west of Taos is an "earth ship" community, in which the houses are built to take good advantage of solar power. Some have satellite TV and such, but they are not connected to the electric power grid, they have wells for water (which is damned tricky there), and they are not connected to piped-in natural gas. You can see the odd propane tank, but there are lots of propane suppliers in the area, all in cutthroat competition with each other.
Mark, here in Oklahoma, you can see commercials on TV, usually during the winter months, in which companies selling natural gas and companies selling electricity advertise their wares, each claiming that its source of energy is better for heating your house. They do this because they know that you have a choice about how to heat your home and that builders have a choice when they build new homes. This is competition, Mark, not coercion, and the fact that it happens in slow motion doesn't make it irrelevant.
2) Gubmint competes with no one. The primary difference between gubmint and business is that you are compelled by gubmint to deal with gubmint on gubmint's terms. You can lose your assets and your freedom by refusing to comply with gubmint's demands.
And, more and more gubmint control over our lives is not the answer to anyone's dislike of high prices. It doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't make anything any cheaper, it simply replaces the freedom to choose for yourself with coercion.
Mark, you need to read Kevin's last comment until you understand it.
I daresay that is a fundamental problem for Mark. I used HIS point about corporate influence making govt evil (with a counter example from HIS blog) and his reply was he never said all corporations are evil. Sheesh!
So Mark, let's try again. Qwest rebuffed the govt on conducting illegal surveillance. Who was the bad guy in this little scenario? The govt, right? So how exactly does the govt contract it's evilness from corporations - in this SPECIFIC case?
“So, how about giving us a whole slew of specifics here, of details “about just why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them?”
I think Gore would not have invaded Iraq and actually finished the job in Afghanistan, hopefully taking the time to realize that you can’t use proxy troops, as Rumsfeld did, to fight a war. And it would take a lot more than 50 guys to find bin Laden at Tora Bora. In addition, I think he would’ve seen that, rather than sliming political opponents at home (Karl Rove and the you are either with us or a’gin us infantile, paranoia crowd), he would’ve used his PR acumen to get the message out to the Muslim World that we are not the demons bin Laden paints us to be. We are about hope, not death and destruction.
By not invading Iraq, Iran would not have benefited as greatly as it has right now. I don’t think they would have as much power as they currently enjoy and Amendinejad may never have come to power. It’s possible that we might have been able to run the table in the Middle East, making countries like Syria and people like Hamas look foolish in the face of our great (and benevolent) might. Of course, this is just my opinion….and about 1 billion others as well
“Where are they killing people?”
Well, Bilgeman did a good job of answering this question but here is some more….
PG & E used hexavalent chromium in water cooling towers to prevent scale and rust. They told the residents of Hinkley, CA that it was alright and that chromium was present in multivitamns so they could actually drink more water if they wanted to. As a result, many cancers, birth defects, and organ failures resulted. This happened in other communties as well.
3M is currently embroiled in a similar situation here. No one has died yet but our State Health Department has said it is only a matter of time before unusual cancer rates in the area start popping up. Predictions are that up to 150,000 people will be affected.
“Gubmint competes with no one.”
Actually government would compete with private industry for your dollars in regards to health care in Edwards’, Hillary’s or Obama’s plan. You’re example of choice in regards to electricity and heat applies here as well. That is how their health care plans would work. You are somewhat correct in saying that I have a choice here in Minnesota for my gas and electricity. For my gas, I have a). Center Point Energy or b). Logs from the trees in my back yard. No one is forcing me to choose 1 but 2 really isn’t much of a choice either. This is what I mean when I talk about enslavement. Bilgeman made this point very well up top….Centepoint is going to raise prices this year so they can make more money. They no people don’t really have a choice so they can do whatever they want.
Juris, I was wrong if I said that all coporations are evil.
Your example of Qwest actually proves all of our assertions. It proves yours because the evil is coming from the government. It proves mine because when you let scumbags like Dick Cheney run the show, than you get bad government. I wonder whether someone with even half a moral would do the same thing...?
Remember, Cheney is acting in the interests of corporations, not the safety of our government. By tracking phone calls, he is protecting his and his pals business interests in the Middle East. He is a coporate proxy, more or less, who is using the power of government to further their ends.
“Where are they killing people?”
As a good Leftie, Mark, I can't believe that you didn't bring up the use of armed corporate security in the early decades of the 20'th century to bust unions.
But, that is beside the point. The point was: Where are the instances of corporations using armed force to get people to buy their products? It's not there. I can choose not to associate with a particular corporation. It may be difficult, but it is not impossible. There are books and websites that are dedicated to self sufficiency. But, and this is important, you can't disassociate from the government. They won't allow it and will, in the end, throw you in jail if you try.
As far as government competition with private enterprise: How can you have legitimate competition when the government doesn't have to make a profit?
Yosemite Sam:
"I can't believe that you didn't bring up the use of armed corporate security in the early decades of the 20'th century to bust unions."
Jeeze, as a arank and filer, I'm surprised that I didn't bring up our chums at Pinkerton and their Goon Squads.
The Copper Wars, anyone?
The Pullman Strike?
Bloody Thursday?
The Haymarket Strike?
Homestead Steel?
The Battle of the Overpass at GM,(with pictures!).
Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation Strike/Lockout?
(No deaths, but that was a classic for demonstrating what a pack of whores Business AND Government can be). On one side, Marc Rich, fugitive from justice, screwing over his employees, and then Billary Clinton "stands up for the little guy" by pardoning the filthy cocksucker.
Mark:
I think
Pretty much, after that statement, I, and others know that a fantasy statement is going to occur. Devoid of reference to history, law, physics, thermodynamics. But, all those things! Pish! Posh!
DO it again, but HARDER THIS TIME!
and actually finished the job in Afghanistan
He'd have gotten us into the Afghan quagmire that all the Media and Democrats were screaming Bush was getting us into.
And it would take a lot more than 50 guys to find bin Laden at Tora Bora.
Oh, sure, let's just drop in a million Green Berets! Wait, no, TWO! TWO MILLION! We'll get him now!
It’s possible that we might have been able to run the table in the Middle East, making countries like Syria and people like Hamas look foolish in the face of our great (and benevolent) might.
I'd ask "How", but I think I know the answer, so I'll forgo the dead horse.
Of course, this is just my opinion….and about 1 billion others as well
Nothing like ginning up your own supporters. Wait, if you and a billion others are on the same page, why aren't you fixing it?
“Where are they killing people?”
Well, Bilgeman did a good job of answering this question but here is some more….
No, he didn't. He pointed out 2 companies producing currently legal, but dangerous items that may affect your health. Just as Ford and GMC do. I'm not surprised you found his argument compelling, because it seemed to back you. But it didn't, really.
PG & E used hexavalent chromium in water cooling towers to prevent scale and rust.
Mark, you know how you get mad when we call you an idiot?
That's not the same thing, Mark. You cannot stay - hell, you can't understand the subject. You bounce around, with no concept of proof, chains of logic, logical followings....
Even a company deliberately poisioning the water isn't the same as the Governmental Force, Mark. The vast gulf between them is so staggering that it just defies description to try and elaborate how you don't understand what you're talking about. (More likely, you spouted, then when I asked for specifics, you dove for Wikipedia to find something.. Companies killing people. Here! Here!)
And how would I have guessed that it would only be something you could have seen in a movie?
Furthermore, at the time, Hexavalent chromium was considered safe. Brocovich's "investigation", while (with some major dressing up) is a great story, but its an example of the facts not getting in the way of a novel legal theory. It's not as bad as say, Edward's case, but in that case, everything that possibly happened was blamed on the water. Birth defects, by the way, have never been linked to Hexavalent chromium. But there I go again with those pesky facts.
Ok, what companies are imprisioning US citizens in lieu of the government?
The others have already given you better examples. Notice they're not common today. Notice the corporations don't go to your home, kick in your door, and force you to go to work. No, you won't notice that.
Mark, that comparision shows that you really, really, just have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.
If you didn't see it on USA Late At Night, didn't hear Obama say something soothing, you just can't grasp it, can you?
"PG & E used hexavalent chromium in water cooling towers to prevent scale and rust. They told the residents of Hinkley, CA that it was alright and that chromium was present in multivitamns so they could actually drink more water if they wanted to. As a result, many cancers, birth defects, and organ failures resulted. This happened in other communties as well."
Hafta call BS on this one, regardless of how the court case went. Hexavalent Chromium is indeed toxic, but it cannot exist in an acidic environment. It reverts to plain old trivalent Chromium immediately. The holding time for this unstable analyte is TWENTY-FOUR HOURS - the time we have from sampling to analysis before the stuff breaks down into more stable forms. So. Stomach acid being at a pH of around 2 takes care of this quite handily. Therefore ingestion of this won't poison you. Inhalation might, but not ingestion. I put this in the same pseudoscience category as that Dow lawsuit with regards to the breast implants.
U-J: Nothing kills the urge to debate in me faster than realizing I could be arguing the other guy's position better than he's doing it. Absent the possibility of changing someone's mind, either my opponent's or the audience's, the good I get out of it is practicing; if I could be doing better talking to myself, why bother?
"But, and this is important, you can't disassociate from the government. They won't allow it and will, in the end, throw you in jail if you try."
False. I can think of three people I know personally, 2 in Montana and 1 in Oregon (my godfather), who live off the land, don't pay taxes, and provide their own means of self sufficiency.
"let's just drop in a million Green Berets! Wait, no, TWO! TWO MILLION! We'll get him now!"
How about starting with the 600 rangers that Gary Bernsten requested while he was closing in on Tora Bora and heard nothing but silence from the Pentagon?
"False. I can think of three people I know personally, 2 in Montana and 1 in Oregon (my godfather), who live off the land, don't pay taxes, and provide their own means of self sufficiency."
The IRS will get them, sooner or later. They'll get their chunk out of their estate when they die, if they don't while they're alive. Notice I said "in the end". The IRS will really go after them if they become activists, eg. the family in New Hampshire that recently went to jail for tax evasion.
LabRat:
Absent the possibility of changing someone's mind, either my opponent's or the audience's
Occasionally - Mark shows glimpses of potential. He quickly reverts back to form and fantasy, but it's often enough to get my hopes up that he's reachable. I've had luck in the past with someone who sounded almost exactly like him - who's still a flaming liberal, but far less rapidly judgmental than he had been.
But also, it is for the audience. The people reading who say "Yeah! PG&E! When Pretty Woman went all Tom Cruise and you CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ... Hey, wait, that's wrong... Yeah, yeah, actually..."
I've had a fair amount of success through the years. I just have to keep from getting sidetracked by the actual stalking horse.
Call it a personal failing.
Mark:
How about starting with the 600 rangers that Gary Bernsten requested while he was closing in on Tora Bora and heard nothing but silence from the Pentagon?
Just as a idle curiosity, you understand, can you give me any possible, potential, devil's advocate reasons why those 600 Rangers wouldn't be supplied on demand? (Ignoring that it's the CIA, not the DoD asking, according to you.)
Donald Luskin's post "WHY DO RICH CORPORATIONS GIVE MONEY TO POPULIST DEMOCRATS?" is worth checking out.
Is it some kind of death-wish? Hardly. It's called payola. And the "culture of corruption" surrounding it would make Tom DeLay blush...
"He quickly reverts back to form and fantasy"
Just to let you know, Unix...my stalwart and worthy opponent...I feel the same way about you :)
"can you give me any possible, potential, devil's advocate reasons why those 600 Rangers wouldn't be supplied on demand?"
Berntsen requested 600-1000 Army rangers at Tora Bora when they had intercepted radio signals which indicated that they had bin Laden and many of his forces cornered...Zawahari as well. He requested these troops from CENTCOM and did not even get a response. So, bin Laden slipped away because the people on the Pakistani side of the border were sympathetic to his cause.
Berntsen believes that the DoD wanted to minimalize US casualties and decided that they proxy force might do the job. The proxy force didn't care or was bought off by al Qaeda itself. I say that the Bush administration didn't care. They had the excuse they needed to go to Iraq and as early as Thanksgiving 2001 (maybe earlier) were looking at Iraq.
The greatest attack on our country's soil and the main perpatrators got away because bin Laden was deemed "unimportant."
Sort of off topic, but I just had to say that after so many years of watching debates break down into vitriol and bile without any real attempt to continue on with logic and reason, this is like a breath of fresh air!
Mark,
Juris, I was wrong if I said that all coporations are evil.
OK. But if govt is evil BECAUSE of corporate influence, then you must assume most corporations are evil. I mean, if it was 50/50 (or better), govt shouldn't end up evil, right?
Remember, Cheney is acting in the interests of corporations, not the safety of our government.
Uh-huh. So what corporate interest was being served by the illicit NSA surveillance? If it was beneficial to corporate interests, why did Qwest balk at it? Oh, let's not forget that neither Bush nor Cheney can force a federal agency to do something illegal if the EMPLOYEES of that agency refuse to comply. None of those employees actions can be excused by, or blamed on, corporate influence, now can they?
Sort of off topic, but I just had to say that after so many years of watching debates break down into vitriol and bile without any real attempt to continue on with logic and reason, this is like a breath of fresh air!
That's because I have the best commenters on the internet!
An no, Mark, your options include far more than just burning logs from the trees in your back yard. I listed several.
If I get time this weekend, I think I'm going to get another post out of this.
Berntsen believes that the DoD wanted to minimalize US casualties and decided that they proxy force might do the job.
So where is the corporate corruption of good govt in this example Mark? Sure sounds like a classic case of bureaucratic ass-covering to me. Or did Rumsfeld meet Cheney in a room full of [illegal Cuban cigar] smoke with a cabal of fat CEOs to make sure the war didn't end too soon?
I asked you a simple question, Mark:
"So, how about giving us a whole slew of specifics here, of details about just why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them?"
Your response was:
"I think ..."
Sigh ...
We know what you claim to think. All you did was reiterate it. That explains nothing. In particular, it doesn't explain why these two buffoons would have done so well if only we'd let them.
Remember, Mark, they would have had no benefit of hindsight, had they been elected, and so any explanation of why they would have done so well cannot benefit from hindsight either. To explain why, you have to show that they would have acted differently, and thereby would have achieved better results, using only what they would have known at the time they knew it, and not by simply stating that you think so. Projection doesn't work here, either, so dig deep for the facts and show 'em to us.
And, Mark, go back to school. I suggest beginning with Economics 101. If you took it, you must have slept through it. LabRat's comments are dead on point, and are quite enlightening, as it explains much of my reaction to your blather. I could argue your position much better than you do, and it would still be dead wrong. Why bother?
behold! The power of the state
This is just one of many reasons why governments should never be given so much power over people's lives.
Unix-Jedi:
"Just as a idle curiosity, you understand, can you give me any possible, potential, devil's advocate reasons why those 600 Rangers wouldn't be supplied on demand? (Ignoring that it's the CIA, not the DoD asking, according to you.)"
I can conjecture on why this was the case, even IF it had been a DoD request.
You have to understand that Afghanistan was a Special Operations Command war, not a CentCom show.
SOCOMM beat the Taliban with something less than 500 US boots on the ground in-country.
The rest of the Army, (of which CentCom is very definitely cut), did NOT like this AT ALL.
When less than a battalion of "Snake-eaters" armed with language skills, radios and laser designators, can deliver victory, the Heavy Armored big budget toys,(and commands), get left to the budget-cutters.
So, rather than the Rangers, the 10th Mountain Div gets sent in...to get a share of the win for the "Regular" team.
And just as an aside, I'm not at all certain that the CIA really WANTS to gakk bin Pig-Fucker.
If you wanted to zap the kinds of unknown people who share his shitty attitude towards us, picking a "plague baby" who's a 6 foot 5 inch Arab dependent on a kidney dialysis machine to keep him on this side of Allah's Paradise, ain't too bad a choice, see?
Look, converted Suburban Middle Class California White Boy Johnny Walker Lindh was able to get "face time" with the Butt-plug.
And the Spook Academy can't?
Bilgeman:
That was one hellvua lot better Devil's Advocate piece than Mark's "attempt". (One sentance, and then back to his opinion isn't really a real "Gee, let's see" try.)
Personally, I would have gone the logistics route, but that would have lost Mark quickly.
"No one is forcing me to choose 1 but 2 really isn’t much of a choice either. This is what I mean when I talk about enslavement."
Once more, Mark, words have meaning. Try using them accurately, willya? Your bad habits are showing yet again. They served you badly before and they don't serve you well now.
You are not a slave, Mark. There is not one aspect of your life that can be accurately characterized as "enslavement".
Regarding buying energy, you are free to choose whether to buy or not to buy the energy and services offered by CenterPoint Energy. You will not be chained, hobbled, beaten, imprisoned, killed, or otherwise harmed by CenterPoint Energy or by the gubmint regardless of the choice you make.
That you don't like the choices offered (which is quite apparent) does not negate the fact that the choice is yours to make. Despite the fact that the choice would be made in slow motion, that it would involve side effects such as upheaval and expense, it is your choice nonetheless.
"Centepoint is going to raise prices this year so they can make more money. They no people don’t really have a choice so they can do whatever they want."
Well, lessee now ...
I visited http://mn.centerpointenergy.com/global_navigation/Rates_tariffs/index.asp, where I found this:
"The following is a complete description of CenterPoint Energy's current rates and tariffs as approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission."
Yup. CenterPoint Energy is a publicly traded energy distribution company that is regulated, in your area, by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. It cannot simply raise its rates so it can make more money because the rates it charges the public for the energy it sells them are set by the gubmint.
Now, see what I mean by going back to school?
Unix-Jedi:
"Personally, I would have gone the logistics route, but that would have lost Mark quickly."
Actually, I was anchored at Diego Garcia for the Afghanistan opening act.
Supplying 600 Light Infantry Rangers would have been very "do-able".
The ship I was sitting on carried the war supplies for a Marine Expeditionary Brigade for 30 days in combat.
We could have offloaded the gear at the dock, trucked it to the airstrip, and then the Air Force could have airlifted it into Bagram or Uzbekistan.
From Bagram, truck it up to Tora Bora.
Total time to accomplish this...1 week or so.
But the deal of giving Marine supplies to the Army, and co-ordinating the AF...that would require some heavy "whip-cracking" at the Pentagon.
And Hell to Pay in the bureaucratic wars afterward.
BenD, thanks. I have a lot of respect for everyone that posts here.
"I mean, if it was 50/50 (or better), govt shouldn't end up evil, right?"
Eh...that's a tough one. Look, bureaucracy is certain to always be there. It really is bad now. Can anyone stop it? I don't know. Will it be our downfall? Possibly.
"So what corporate interest was being served by the illicit NSA surveillance?"
This is only my opinion...I have no proof whatsoever of anyone of this...but I think Dick Cheney, like some (not all) conservatives have dictator fantasies. By listening in on certain people's conversations...say a CEO of a rival company...competition can be elminated. Perhaps some of the rival bidders for certain Iraqi contracts?
"why did Qwest balk at it?"
Because they actually have people there who are mostly decent and understand the law.
"did Rumsfeld meet Cheney in a room full of [illegal Cuban cigar] smoke with a cabal of fat CEOs to make sure the war didn't end too soon?"
I highly recommend the film Why We Fight (2005 d: Eugene Jarecki) for an answer to this question. It explains fully why we are in Iraq and what corporate interests Cheney was acting on behalf of when we went to war. Just to let you know, it is very well balanced...plenty of conservatives like Richard Pearle are interviewed at length.
DJ, any point I make about Gore is pure conjecture and opinion so that's why all my sentences begin with "I think." As far as economics goes, why don't you read either of John Perkins books on how American business works?
pdwalker, Ah, yes. Some grist for the Republican fake outrage machine.
"Ah, yes. Some grist for the Republican fake outrage machine."
No wonder there is so much anger between both sides on these issues. Just because you don't think that the situation that was linked was outrageous, doesn't make the outrage felt by many people, fake.
Geez, I guess we should to be told what or what not we are supposed to be outraged about. Just think a whole new government department staffed by those good people you go on about could be created. The Department of Homeland Outrage.
"It explains fully why we are in Iraq".
Hell, I can do that in a few sentences.
- Saddam repeatedly violated the ceasefire he signed onto in the first gulf war.
- Saddam had WMDs in the form of chemical weapons. He used them on the Iranians in the 80-89 gulf war, and on his own people. He was not co-operating with the UN inspection teams and which led the western world (NOT just Bush) to believe that he still had stockpiles.
- Saddam was harboring and supporting terrorists. Zarqawi was being hosted by him prior to the war (harboring) and he was paying something like $25K per Palestinian suicide bomber family (supporting).
- This was not a stated reason, but its good enough for me: he attempted to assassinate one of our presidents. That really chaps my ass, and I feel it's grounds for war. I would feel the same way if Clinton had been the target. He's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard.
There. Two minutes of reading could have saved you having to sit through 1.5 hrs of propaganda.
You want real outrage? Here's some absolutely 100% genuine not-from-a-can, not-from-talk-radio freaking outrage.
Enslavement? ENSLAVEMENT?!! I refuse to just let that go with an "Oh, what can you expect from him anyway".
Using the same word for different situations implies that THEY ARE THE SAME THING, and it implies it for BOTH SITUATIONS. It doesn't just go "not liking my limited range of choices, most of which would involve great cost or inconvenience to me, is like slavery", it also goes:
Being ripped from your home, forcibly separated FOREVER from your family members, being forced to work- sometimes at intense manual labor tasks far beyond your capacity, living and dying with just about every single aspect of your life controlled by someone else's whim, IS JUST FREAKING LIKE LIMITED OR COSTLY HOME HEATING OPTIONS. WOW. I CAN SEE WHY PEOPLE GOT ALL UPSET ABOUT THAT AND HAD THAT WAR AND EVERYTHING!
You've annoyed me, but not until now have you actively disgusted me. You had your chance to redeem yourself when DJ pointed out you ONCE AGAIN weren't thinking clearly when you chose your words- hey, you're a mentally flexible guy, we keep having all these unrealistic expectations of you, you think on the fly, man! But instead you chose to gloss over it and act like nothing happened, and instead once again mock those evil, uncaring conservatives getting all in a tizzy about no big deal, really.
I'd ask how the hell you even look yourself in the eye when you look in the mirror, but I already know the answer.
I'm sorry if I just pissed in the "remarkbly civil discussion" well, but I also think there are some things that just never, ever deserve a civil response, and acting like slavery was a trivial issue because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that your issue is comparatively trivial is one of them.
No, LabRat, I think you deserve some Kudos.
We've been trying to talk sense to Mark, to lead him to water, but he just can't drop his loaded ways of thinking, his overloaded "meanings" of words (to mean what he wants them to, no more and no less). Perhaps we've gone too far.
I'm tired of it right now - He's left tons of questions I've tried to ask him unanswered, and shown he can't see the world but through his view, he's incapable of trying to see it through any other lens, which means he fails to understand.
I think you've hit a nail on the head with a hammer. He was misusing slavery, and we overlooked that, trying to get to "the real point". But the "real point" might should have been our opprobrium for his use of "slavery" to mean "convenience".
Well said, ma'am.
Yosemite, first of all this incident took place in England. The last time I checked that means none of our business.
Second, homosexuals are treated like crap in this country and it makes me sick to my stomach. People should have a right to be with whoever they want.
"Two minutes of reading could have saved you having to sit through 1.5 hrs of propaganda."
Have you seen the film, Kevin S.? Until you have, I think you should not judge it as propaganda. In addition, I recommend reading or watching President Eisenhower's farewell address, the central theme of the film, as to why we are in Iraq.
"We've been trying to talk sense to Mark"
could be translated as "getting him to think the same way all of us do." Doesn't sound like a great bastion of individuality to me at all. Many of you make good points and I can see how you think and feel the way you do. Most of the time I simply don't agree. Unix, I apologize if I don't answer all of your questions. There simply isn't time in my life. It's not that I don't have answers-it's that sometimes the answers require a 2-3 page essay.
Lab, there are different levels of enslavement. Are we enslaved like the people of Somalia? No. But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it. Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods. I am a slave to the "Man." So are you and everyone else. Sure, we are one of the most free countries on the planet but we could do a heckuva lot better.
"Have you seen the film, Kevin S.? Until you have, I think you should not judge it as propaganda."
Sorry, man. The fact that you're recommending it is the dealbreaker. That tells me plenty about the content.
MarkA:
" Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods."
Oh, it's not just corporations that want us hand-to-mouth in debt,(and that's MOSTLY for the purpose of employee discipline), but the government as well.
" But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it."
Correction: strike "slavery" and insert " debt serfdom".
And those who would argue the point:
Who owns your mortgage now? Is it the same company as it was when you closed, or did some other outfit buy it?
And yes, I'm going somewhere with this.
If your mortgage was sold, it's a no-brainer that it was purchased for less than its' face value.
But I'll betcha that YOU weren't allowed to buy your own note back by refinancing the same property,(at the new, lower price), for the purchase.
Because YOU are a debt serf.
It's a whole lot easier to keep people passive and obedient if they're working all the overtime they can to make the payment on the speedboat/dirtbike/Home Theatre/ Mortgage.
"DJ, any point I make about Gore is pure conjecture and opinion so that's why all my sentences begin with "I think."
No shit, dude, we understand that. We keep asking you why you think what you think, i.e. for something more than just conjecture. Reading comprehension still not up to speed yet, is it?
"As far as economics goes, why don't you read either of John Perkins books on how American business works?"
Because I prefer the works of Milton Friedman. Only this morning, I started reading Capitalism and Freedom again. Why don't you read his works?
"'We've been trying to talk sense to Mark' could be translated as "getting him to think the same way all of us do." Doesn't sound like a great bastion of individuality to me at all."
No, Mark, yet again, a thousand times, NO.
We're not trying to get you to think "like us", we're trying to get you to think "rationally", i.e. to explain your thinking, to provide logical explanations for your thinking, and to base your thinking on facts, not on emotion driven dogma. You won't do it.
"Unix, I apologize if I don't answer all of your questions. There simply isn't time in my life. It's not that I don't have answers-it's that sometimes the answers require a 2-3 page essay."
BULLSHIT.
You don't answer his questions because you plainly don't like the answers to his questions. You spend endless barrels of ink dancing around the answers, but as I stated before, you just can't get the peanut butter out of your jaws. You spend time by the fortnight pounding your keyboard here, and so your available time is not the issue.
Yet again, Mark, you are a phony, and nothing more. You don't fool anyone here.
"Lab, there are different levels of enslavement. [...] I am a slave to the "Man."
You're damned lucky she's not standing next to you.
No, Mark, you are not a slave to anyone in any way except to your own inability to admit it when you are shown to be wrong.
"Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods."
And you would teach us about economics?
Unix, you're right, man. What the hell's the point?
Here's an interesting tidbiit I ran across that shoiws how both business and government kill people.
This is about European shipping, but ships are arrested in US ports also, and their crews are effectively abandoned without visas.
Following the sea is a hard row to hoe to begin with, and being a crewman aboard an arrested ship can be very a grim fate.
Literally, death by corporate malfeasance and government bureaucracy:
"If in Ireland, UK and some other countries, the Admiralty Marshall or his equivalent can be relied upon to handle the safety issues, and the crew, decently, the same is not valid in many other countries of the world. Furthermore, even in European countries they are many cases of starving crews who had to be assisted by seamen's mission or other charitable organizations. Not later than July 1996, In Brussels, the capital of the European bureaucracy, the Baltiest 7, a Russian coaster damaged the loading installation. For two weeks the owner could not pay the damage not amounting to $100.000, the ship was promptly arrested but the crew was left without proper food supplies. One pilot had to take the initiative to bring some decent provisions collected from generous persons of his community. This case, among tens if not hundreds of the kind, shows that the actual implementation of the arrest laws have no provision to protect the dignity of seafarers.
At this stage, any civilized human being would question the legality, if not the sanity, of a court order which can bring a crew to starvation. Not one European country, and perhaps not one country in the world, is depriving the convicts of food, even the worse of them, the children killers, are taken care of while in custody. But this can happen to seafarers who are not guilty of any offense at all!
Many also are not realizing that the seafarers have often a peculiar immigration status, restricting some of their freedoms to act, to move, and for sure not affording them the same protection as the common citizen or the average tourist."
Somebody else may have mentioned it already, but I'm just taking a study break and don't have time to sort through 119 comments...
Kev, I'm surprised you missed this quote from the guy who mostly wrote the Constitution, James Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-quoted in the Annals on Congress, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, 1794.
Or, a century later, Grover Cleveland:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people."
Bilgeman, you know what? Debt serfdom is a more appropiate word than slavery. Your points are spot on, sir!
And your second post is also very interesting.
DJ, "Why don't you read his works?"
I will.
Since HL just mentioned James Madison, how about this quote?
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
Yep.
Eh...that's a tough one. Look, bureaucracy is certain to always be there.
Mark, you really are the master of the non-answer. No wonder you are so apt to swallow leftist pablum. No points until you explain how corporations, on balance are evil, and thus cause govt to be evil. You can't have it both ways.
This is only my opinion...I have no proof whatsoever of anyone of this...
Mark, that's about what I'd expect from a fundamentalist Christian justifying (to himself as much as anyone) a dubious theological position. In short, you're long on belief and very, very short on facts. I can rather picture you as a medieval monk PASSIONATELY debating a meaningless point of religious trivia.
As far as economics goes, why don't you read either of John Perkins books on how American business works?
Would that include his work on time travel and shamanic transformation? Everything Perkins has written is fiction. There isn't a shred of real economics. That man is a certifiable fruitcake - and you would expect us to treat him as some kind of authority on economics? Howard Zinn is at least a man with a passing acquaintance with reality, even if he is far from a first-rate economist.
But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it.
You DARE call yourself a member of the reality-based community? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Only an imbecile would say he is addicted to air, or a slave to breathing, and dammit man, you are THIS close to that kind of absurdity. [I say this because I've had lefties tell me we are slaves to food, because, like after all dude, we gotta eat.]
It's a whole lot easier to keep people passive and obedient if they're working all the overtime they can to make the payment on the speedboat/dirtbike/Home Theatre/ Mortgage.
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, right?
LabRat, Unix-Jedi
If I may assist. Poor Markadelphia, and those who think like him, are overwhelmed upon exiting the womb - and all they long for is the care and safety they received while therein. You two beastly types, who use words for their plain and simple meaning, are actually terribly insensitive to the pains endured by these suffering souls. For them, having to pay for heat is slavery, because heat was provided without payment, nor even request, in that comfortable pre-birth existance. All of their needs should be met likewise, and when not - well, they must whine (or wail) at the injustice of the cold, cruel world - peopled by heartless, incompassionate sorts like you (and me).
"until you explain how corporations, on balance are evil, and thus cause govt to be evil. You can't have it both ways."
Why should I when Bilgeman did such a great job?
You could also check out the film "The Corporation" for a more compelling argument than I could ever make. Milton Friedman, mentioned above, is in the film.
"That man is a certifiable fruitcake"
Well, anything is possible but his books are pretty stunning. Considering the fact that much of the rest of the world views us this way there Why don't you read one and tell me what you think?
As to your last paragraph, I don't think anyone here is cold and heartless. Actually, what it really comes down is the pure definition of the word learning.
"A relatively permanent change in an organism's behavior due to experience."
My experiences in life have been different than yours have, juris. Throughout your life, these experiences have not only changed my behavior but they have altered my outlook on life. The same is true for you. Seeing the things I see on a daily basis leads me to question certain institutions and processes that you think, it appears, don't warrant observation because they are the living embodiement of your belief system and, naturally, your experiences.
Oops....bad sentence above...should be...
Considering the fact that much of the rest of the world views us this way there is probably some truth to what he says. His books are pretty heavily backed up with facts. Why don't you read one and tell me what you think?
juris:
"The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, right?"
Pretty much.
Although no-one really cares if you're stupid or smart, so long as you're economically dependent on the whim of your creditors, employers,and,(ahem), public servants.
Which renders one effectively powerless.
But there is a form of slavery going on here and I think you need to really take a look at it. Corporations in this country bank on keeping the level of fear up in this country so we consume more goods. I am a slave to the "Man." So are you and everyone else.
Fuck. That. Noise.
You mendacious little slime mold. There aren't "forms" or "levels" of slavery, there's just slavery, THE PRACTICE OF OWNING HUMAN BEINGS. Anything else is NOT FUCKING SLAVERY. It may suck, it may be bad, it may be wrong, or it (like your refusal to consider any heating option that requires high degrees of work or cash investment to be a choice) may only be inconvenient, but it's NOT SLAVERY.
Using the word for anything other than slavery- pure, unadulterated, buying and selling and putting to labor- is moral vampirism. Every time you use that word for something that IS NOT SLAVERY, you rob some of the horror, some of the pain, some of the visceral wrongness from real slavery, the kind where people were sold at auction and worked until they died and never saw their families again. They didn't work for "The Man", they worked for A MAN, or men, with names and addresses and rational or irrational expectations who would send other men with guns and chains if they tried to do anything else. The same goes for genocide: every time you use the word to refer to anything that is not the systematic attempt to extirpate all members of a particular designated group from the earth- not annoy them, not kill some of them that happen to be in your way, not hurt their feelings- you suck out the horror. Notice how Hitler is practically treated as a joke now? Notice how there are people going around more and more openly insisting the Holocaust wasn't all that bad? It, and genocide in general, have been victims of that same fucking vampirism from complete worthless fools who try to borrow legitimacy for their pet issues by making it sound like a bigger deal by using the vocabulary of the true depths of human evil.
You know what you can do? You can quit your job. You can find another job. You can start your own business. You can go totally off the grid and become a hunter-gatherer. You can leave this bad nasty place altogether and move to Tora Bora. You know what slaves can't do? ANY OF THAT, or anything other than what their masters decide they're going to. Don't give me any bullshit about it's too hard, or it's uncomfortable, or that's not reasonable- it's POSSIBLE, and it's what REAL SLAVES did when they were finally freed, because ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN SLAVERY. I'm a spoiled rotten product of the twenty-first century too, which is why I haven't done any of that- but I would not ever have the unmitigated self-centered fucking NERVE to compare my preference for sacrificing a bit of my principles regarding self-reliance in order to get water and electricity and heat largely through the city.
I don't know if it's because you're a cynical asshole trying to borrow moral authority from someplace you should never touch, or if you're just so goddamned narrow-visioned and over-exposed to other vampires that you really truly cannot wrap your head around what slavery really was and why we should never, ever cheapen its horrors with trivial comparisons. The effect is the same: it's evil. Trivializing the greatest evils of history may be a relatively small evil, and thanks to millions of the self-centered and the lazy it may be a common evil, but it is nonetheless.
And no, hiding behind Bilgeman's legs now that he's suggested a different comparison (still exaggerated, as few serfs in history ever had the choice not to go into debt as most Americans do, but not nearly as revolting as the slavery thing) doesn't count. The fact that you were capable of writing that at all tells me all I need to know about your moral integrity- it's nonexistent.
LabRat:
You should chill out with the ad hominem attacks. You're not doing your arguments any good when you respond to your opponent's arguments by calling him a "mendacious little slime mold",(although I am SO tealing that!).
Look, ace, MarkA has a lot of bullshit that has been pumped into his head about the government.
And you have a bunch of bullshit floating around in YOUR nugget about Business.
The difference is that Mark, so far, doesn't come across like he's chewing the carpet and fixing to blow a gasket.
His use of the term "slavery" was, to my mind, overly broad, but not incorrect:
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/types.html
You might check the term below the definition of "chattel slavery" given in the link.
Debt Bondage...
And frankly, I don't get your outrage over SLAVERY anyway.
If slavery wasn't an example of free-market business capitalism at its' finest, I don't know what is.
Oh, yeah...and it was GOVERNMENT action that emancipated the chattel here, in Europe, in South America, and at sea...NOT Business.
Go figure...
(If the right thing is done, it's probably for all the wrong reasons.).
(standing well back from LabRat)
Oh, and Mark? Bilgeman didn't, actually, prove your point that you're grinning and pointing to.
That question, among many other, still stands.
"until you explain how corporations, on balance are evil, and thus cause govt to be evil. You can't have it both ways."
Every answer you give has the same "out". A slippery, non-"hard" answer.
Government's bad, mmmmkay, but you need good people in government, mmmkay, and then it's good, mmmmkay?
Gore would have done everything good Bush did, and nothing of the bad, and nothing bad of his own! He'd have done better! At everything!
Now, you've raised LabRat's ire, and she's insisting on a defined term. Instead of noticing why she's upset, and trying to understand that, you're just continuing down the same path.
But don't worry, you're really paying attention to people, their concerns, an what they need, right? Except, you're missing LabRat's point rather incredibly badly.
And you don't notice why this would color casual reader's opinion on your OTHER political views and insistences.
Why should I when Bilgeman did such a great job?
Sorry, but he never answered the question posed to you. Another non-answer, what a surprise.
You could also check out the film "The Corporation" for a more compelling argument than I could ever make.
Yet another appeal to authority. Are you unable to provide a cogent summary of the argument(s) and facts in the film? Or, are you like the lead character in Jerzy Kosinski's "Being There" (the novel or the film)?
His books are pretty heavily backed up with facts.
Does that include his books on time travel and shamanic transformation? I'd love to hear about those FACTS. Do tell.
Considering the fact that much of the rest of the world views us this way there Why don't you read one and tell me what you think?
Much of the world believes in a He-man Sky-God who is personally involved in each of our lives. Their viewpoint is not much of an endorsement in my eyes. And I don't need to read all the words of a fraud to know one when I see one. I really thought, at the beginning of this thread, that you weren't that gullible. I stand corrected.
Bilgeman:
You're not doing your arguments any good when you respond to your opponent's arguments by calling him a "mendacious little slime mold"
Oh, when you've got someone ... err... like Mark, occasionally you've got to cut loose.
If slavery wasn't an example of free-market business capitalism at its' finest, I don't know what is.
Outside of certain tribal concepts, (where if you're removed from the tribe you're not allowed to rejoin - even then is still "governmental"), slavery requires a governing structure.
Without the ability to project a lot more force than the sole slaveholder, slavery is a very small and limited operation.
Debt slavery? I kind of understand where you're going, but the downside of bringing up those sorts of detail issues gives people like Mark who can't grasp the big picture the psuedo-intellectual out "see! see! yeah! that!"
And I still haven't seen anybody be beaten, kidnapped, or tasered for failing to fill out a credit application.
I haven't forgotten, by the way, Mark, you still owe me what corporations are detaining/imprisioning citizens "on a daily basis".
If slavery wasn't an example of free-market business capitalism at its' finest, I don't know what is.
Ah, you mean aside from slavery pre-dating free-market capitalism by a millenia or two? That slavery was ended within a century or so of the advent of Anglo-American capitalism (except in those realms of the world not under that particular hegemony). Yeah, capitalism was really to blame for slavery.
Seriously. Or are you racing Mark to the bottom?
I understand my delusion - that most people are rational. I don't want to live in a world where that isn't true - despite the boatloads of evidence to the contrary. There are times when I read Chomsky and go, okay - you got a point there. The problem is that leads to an unbreakable cycle where the only thing that ever changes is the elite doing the exploitation.
That's a rather sorry reading of the human condition - but I have to admit, it can be compelling.
Bilgeman, I am far from a worshipper of total free market capitalism; one of my many problems with the large-L Libertarian Party is their near-total blindness to its past abuses and potential for abuse. I do not, however, agree remotely with your "debt bondage" argument that Markadelphia might have had some kind of point; note the part in there about the staggering poverty there forces many parents to offer themselves or their own children as collateral against a loan.. In the US, you cannot claim a person, much less their child, if they default on a debt- and while it's not nearly as offensive to me as trying to claim that having choices that require sacrifices is like slavery, it's still pretty lousy to claim fear of bankruptcy or fear of wage garnishing is the same as fear of having to essentially sell your children.
That said, while I still think open contempt was a justifiable response, you're right in that the only useful thing I'm doing at this point is reminding people who are already on my side that this isn't just a word game. Mark doesn't get it and I'm dead sure at this point that he never will; turning up the volume will have no effect on him.
juris:
"Ah, you mean aside from slavery pre-dating free-market capitalism by a millenia or two?"
Uhhh, fella, as soon as any commodity, humans included, was purchased rather than being taken by force, free market capitalism was born.
"That slavery was ended within a century or so of the advent of Anglo-American capitalism"
Y'know, I'm sitting on a ship in Hampton Roads, just downriver from Jamestown. Anglo-American capitalism is what sent settlers here.
The tobacco plant is what made the colony economically viable, and chattel slavery was what made tobacco cultivation possible.
I wouldn't toot the "Anglo-American" exceptionalism horn too loudly, given this context.
"Yeah, capitalism was really to blame for slavery."
One did not purchase a slave FROM the government,slaves were not provided BY the government.
One bought slaves from a private firm, or a private party, chum. These are facts...it is also private free-market capitalist.
Deal with it.
"Seriously. Or are you racing Mark to the bottom?"
I work in the bilges of ships...far from any eeeeevil Gummint interference, and totally at the mercy of the Big Benevolent Company.
I was at "the bottom" long before MarkA knew there WAS a bottom. And I've been doing this for twenty years.
"The problem is that leads to an unbreakable cycle where the only thing that ever changes is the elite doing the exploitation."
That "problem" just happens to be the truth.
"That's a rather sorry reading of the human condition - but I have to admit, it can be compelling"
Well, there you are...my aim has been to clarify the perception of reality.
You're coming 'round...(though you don't want to).
Unix-Jedi:
"Oh, when you've got someone ... err... like Mark, occasionally you've got to cut loose."
I understand that...do YOU understand that, to him, some of the folks here come off exactly the same way?
It seems that a lot of "icons" are getting "clasted" hereabouts.
Why scream at him for his obduracy about his beloved Government, when the most I've been able to elicit here is that cherished Business can show "wanton disregard" for human life?
"...slavery requires a governing structure.
Without the ability to project a lot more force than the sole slaveholder, slavery is a very small and limited operation."
Force IS "governing structure"..."governing structure" IS force.
Whether that "structure" is called Business or is called Government, what difference does that make to the Smallest Minority?
"Debt slavery? I kind of understand where you're going, but the downside of bringing up those sorts of detail issues gives people like Mark who can't grasp the big picture the psuedo-intellectual out "see! see! yeah! that!""
If he's such a dullard, you should have no trouble at all convincing him of his erroneous beliefs...right?
"And I still haven't seen anybody be beaten, kidnapped, or tasered for failing to fill out a credit application."
Well, pallie, I've seen people beaten for failing to repay a loan.
You wanna know what sound a kneecap makes when it's crushed by a tire iron?
Loan-sharking is ALSO a Business, (and one remarkably free of pesky goverment regulation, too!).
Maybe something that I'm afraid we'll be seeing more of before too long,(given the record foreclosure rates); folks who can't or won't meet their mortgages get evicted if they don't vacate.
In most jurisdictions, this is done by the Sheriff...and he IS "authorized to use Force" to accomplish this task.
Meet the "governing structure"...(now get the Hell out, you deadbeat!).
Unix-Jedi: "Where are they killing people?"
Markadelphia: "Well, Bilgeman did a good job of answering this question but here is some more…."
Me: Mark, you and Bilgeman have done a good job of pointing out times when businesses have done something evil, even where people have died as a result. I agree that those actions were wrong.
However, I don't recall ever saying the businesses don't commit evil acts. In fact, I don't recall anyone claiming that businesses don't sometimes do evil things. They do. There's no question about it. So why are you trying to convince us of a point we already agree with?
Fortunately, I think your examples actually help make the point we are trying to get across to you. I'll lay them out as simply as I can:
1) Did these companies actively try to murder these people? That seems highly unlikely. At worst, these companies were criminally negligent. In other words, they just didn't care that they were hurting people.
On the other hand, there are numerous examples throughout history of governments targeting specific groups of people in order to kill them. Saddam's Iraq was a perfect example. He used WMD's against the Kurds. He had his secret police actively hunting down people so they could be tortured and murdered. (If you haven't already, you should definitely watch Innocents Betrayed. It's about gun control, but it is filled with example after example of governments actively murdering their own citizens.)
Do you understand the difference between these two types of evil? Tossing a brick off the roof of a building without checking to make sure no one would be hit by it is negligence. Looking over the edge to try to hit someone with the brick is a far more active kind of evil.
How many companies do you know of who have actively sought to kill people? Blackwater doesn't count because they are acting as the government's agents, i.e., they're temporarily part of the government.
This issue is actually the least important of these points, but you've been hung up on it, therefore I felt it was important to respond to it to try to help you understand it.
2) What is the source of the evil that these companies did? Did it come from viruses in their computer systems? Did it rise like a fog from the ground the buildings are built on? Was it due to words magically appearing in their business process documents? No. The evil came from human beings making decisions for their own purposes.
Once again we're back to the fact that it is the human factor that makes the difference. Whether it is human beings acting as individuals doing evil (we call them criminals), human beings acting within businesses doing evil (we call them white collar criminals), or human beings within governments doing evil (we call them bureaucrats or politicans), the simple fact is that humans are the problem, not their environment.
As I've said before, some humans are better at doing good acts more often than others, but there is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mark, how are you doing on that search for a perfect human being? Remember, you are free to search all through history for one.
Mark, you're convinced that we have an evil man as President. I can agree with that, though likely for different reasons. I think we can also agree that there are a heck of a lot of bad people in various levels of government who are harming the people that they're supposed to be serving.
If we can't keep bad people out of government now—or at any time in the past—what makes you think that we will ever be able to change that in the future?
3) Now that those companies have been caught, what is happening to them? Quite simply, they're facing consequences for their actions. There are lawsuits, fines, and a loss of credibility which should have lead to lost sales. Those men and/or women who have made particularly evil choices can find themselves losing everything and even facing jail time.
In other words, there is accountability for their actions. The government holds them accountable. Their customers hold them accountable. Their employees sometimes hold them accountable. And this is how it should be. By holding their feet to the fire in multiple ways, businesses are more careful to avoid making bad choices.
But where is the accountability for government? If the police don't bother to show up if you need their help, you can't sue them. The Supreme Court recently decided that the government can steal someone's home if it results in higher tax revenues. The government can take and keep assets by simply claiming that someone might be a drug dealer, and they frequently won't return the taken assets even when it is proven that the person is innocent. Police can make a mistake in doing a hot entry and kill someone innocent without suffering any significant consequences. Politicians can be caught taking bribes, writing bad checks, or even killing someone and get away with it.
And that's just in America (so far). If you look at history, you will see example after example of governments doing massively evil acts (for example, Stalin killing 20 million or so people) without having to answer for their crimes.
The point is simple, the ability to wield power with little or no accountability is an inherent attribute of governments. Therefore, every action which leads to less accountability and more government power is an action which allows the government to be more destructive when some person or group decided to misuse that power. (Remember, we cannot keep bad people out of the government.)
Finally, we get to the easiest AND MOST IMPORTANT point:
4) Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government allowed take money from taxpayers to provide any kind of charity? Hearless Libertarian hit this point square on the head when he quoted James Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Of course you responded with another quote from Madison:
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
Fine, it's an important topic, and it's from James Madison. It deserves some serious discussion. BUT, what does it have to do with the Constitution permitting the Federal Government of the United States of America to engage in "charity"? The ONLY quote which could legitimately answer this point MUST come from the U. S. Constitution. After all, it is the final authority on what the Federal Government can and cannot do.
Finally, keep this in mind. Point 4 is the most important point in this whole discussion. Points 1 through 3, and most of the discussion in these comments are all about Why point 4 is what it is.
Well, pallie, I've seen people beaten for failing to repay a loan.
You wanna know what sound a kneecap makes when it's crushed by a tire iron?
Loan-sharking is ALSO a Business, (and one remarkably free of pesky goverment regulation, too!).
Did they bust his kneecaps before or after they forced him to take out the loan from unscrupulous money lenders?
DJ and others,
I've been noticing that you've been getting rather abrasive with Markadelphia, especially lately. I definitely understand the impulse. I have to fight it too. However, might I suggest that calling him names is counterproductive? It's always harder to agree with someone who has put you on the defensive by calling you names, even when you realize that they're right. Calling names gets our pride involved, and it's next to impossible to swallow it.
Our goal is to educate Markadelphia, not torture him into submission. We're not in a position to do that. Besides, rock solid logic and evidence are the only things that have a chance of producing a true and long lasting change of mind. ("A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.") If he rejects those, then nothing you can say will change his mind. Bruising his ego is a sure fire way of having him retreat behind his shields where nothing can reach him.
juris_imprudent: "Mark, that's about what I'd expect from a fundamentalist Christian justifying (to himself as much as anyone) a dubious theological position. In short, you're long on belief and very, very short on facts."
Ummm, point of order. Mark is anything but a fundamentalist Christian. I, on the other hand, am. Furthermore, I am probably more militant about using facts, evidence and solid reasoning than probably 99.9% of the population. If you need some proof, just see the argument between Mark and I in the comments on Kevin's abortion post. I can point you to solid evidence supporting the accuracy of the Bible, but I will not do so here because it is wildly off topic.
We need to remain focused on the two most important points in this thread.
A) The Consitution does not allow the Federal Government to engage in any kind of charity.
and
B) Why the Founding Fathers designed our government that way.
LabRat:
" note the part in there about the staggering poverty there forces many parents to offer themselves or their own children as collateral against a loan.."
I don't need to note it, LabRat, I've seen it.
The modern form of slavery is seen in a bar in Phuket, Thailand. And it presents as an overweight and sweaty middle-aged Western "sex tourist" taking a child right by your table to her,(in this particular joint), crib upstairs...to fuck.
It happened right in front of me.
Did I kill it? Boy, did I want to...follow him upstairs and slide my shank right into the back of his skull.
Ahhh, but did I?
Of course not.
There was a cop there,y'see, to make sure that everyone behaved...and that the johns didn't "damage the goods".
And ain't that a heart-warming example of a Public-Private co-operative venture?
So...if I killed a child-fucker in a legally licensed whorehouse where children were pimped out, I'd go to jail,(and a very unpleasant one at that).
And if that doesn't tell you all about the characters of business and government, two mobs allied to exploit chidrens' bodies, then MarkA isn't the ONLY one 'round here who ain't "getting it".
There are nations on this Earth where I will not set foot on shore. And this has meant my not standing upon land for 94 days. (Try living 24/7 at your place of work for a week).
"In the US, you cannot claim a person, much less their child, if they default on a debt- and while it's not nearly as offensive to me as trying to claim that having choices that require sacrifices is like slavery,"
One of the main reasons this is so is that in this country, every citizen, if they so desire, can be armed to the fucking teeth. (Force/Governing Structure again...here it is not monopolized by the Government gang OR the Business gang.).
"...it's still pretty lousy to claim fear of bankruptcy or fear of wage garnishing is the same as fear of having to essentially sell your children."
It's a matter of degree, not of difference.
Fear is the common denominator, and Fear is exactly what "Force/Government Structure" aims to instill in the Smallest Minority.
Because Fear is the chains of the mind that make you a slave.
Bilgeman: Fear is the common denominator, and Fear is exactly what "Force/Government Structure" aims to instill in the Smallest Minority.
Because Fear is the chains of the mind that make you a slave.
Me: Exactly! That is why it is critical to keep government from getting any larger than it absolutely has to be.
I have to say, this is probably the finest comment thread at TSM - EVER.
Good work, y'all.
"DJ and others,
I've been noticing that you've been getting rather abrasive with Markadelphia, especially lately. I definitely understand the impulse. I have to fight it too. However, might I suggest that calling him names is counterproductive? It's always harder to agree with someone who has put you on the defensive by calling you names, even when you realize that they're right. Calling names gets our pride involved, and it's next to impossible to swallow it.
Our goal is to educate Markadelphia, not torture him into submission. We're not in a position to do that. Besides, rock solid logic and evidence are the only things that have a chance of producing a true and long lasting change of mind. ("A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.") If he rejects those, then nothing you can say will change his mind. Bruising his ego is a sure fire way of having him retreat behind his shields where nothing can reach him."
All true, Ed, and well said. But we've tried that approach for a long, long, time, and it hasn't worked with Mark.
His behavior is the same, day after day after day. He endlessly tells us what he "thinks" and he tries to justify what he "thinks" by pointing out that other people "think" the same. When asked for details, when asked for logical explanations, when asked for citations of facts in support such that we can check them for ourselves, indeed when asked questions of almost any kind, his response is almost invariably to repeat what he "thinks", to accuse us of trying to trap him, or to try to change the subject.
We have tried endlessly to get him to understand a simple thing, to wit, that if his beliefs are valid and supported by the facts, then he doesn't need to offer up bullshit in their defense, and that if his beliefs are not valid nor supported by the facts, then offering up bullshit in their defense will not redeem them. He gives no indication whatever that he understands this. In short, his behavior is stereotypical, almost surreal, actually, of a person who believes what he believes simply because he finds pleasure in his beliefs and who will not brook any intrusion of reality that upsets his beliefs.
The manner of the attempts that you deride are simply a form of, for lack of a more descriptive term, shock treatment. It is simply an attempt to find some level, some manner of communication, on which to reach him. And you're right, it doesn't work. He appears to be unreachable.
"Good work, y'all."
Thanks for having us.
B-man,
Uhhh, fella, as soon as any commodity, humans included, was purchased rather than being taken by force, free market capitalism was born.
Wrong. Exchange, and property, long pre-date what we call free-market capitalism. Lefties usually make that mistake, but mostly because they haven't actually read Marx - they've just read about him. Adam Smith first described capitalism as it had been forming in the 18th century. Some would argue that you could push the formation date back a couple of centuries to the guild era, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Anyhow, no one with any familiarity with economic history equates capitalism with the first farmer's market!
I wouldn't toot the "Anglo-American" exceptionalism horn too loudly, given this context.
William Wilberforce was English. Care to name someone more influential in ending slavery? Particularly someone outside of the Anglo-American context?
That "problem" just happens to be the truth.
I suppose that could be, but I'm not giving in just yet.
B-man,
One of the main reasons this is so is that in this country, every citizen, if they so desire, can be armed to the fucking teeth.
No, it doesn't happen in this country, in that manner, because of govt. If that means chalking up a point for Markadelphia's side, so be it.
Trust me, you won't get off on a manslaughter (at least) charge just because you decided to end some pimp's life - no matter how justifiable in your mind. We don't take the law into our own hands except in rather limited circumstances.
By the way, this is a good time to note that capitalism (in my more narrow definition than yours) really only works [well] when you have a number of met preconditions. Our economic system isn't much more exportable than our system of govt, and I don't count many countries that have wholesale adopted either.
Ummm, point of order. Mark is anything but a fundamentalist Christian.
Ed, no offense intended to either party. The intent was to illustrate faith triumphing over facts. Since secular lefties claim to be appalled by that (seeing it only in the caricature of their polar opposites), I find it a potent tonic.
As for faith justified by reason, there aren't too many fundamentalists defending St. Thomas Aquinas. Y'all tend to be much more Augustinian in outlook. But we should take that discussion offline.
It's a matter of degree, not of difference.
In which case our disagreement is perhaps largely semantic, but I still disagree. Part of my original point was that certain words lose their power the more you stretch them, and "degree"- when sufficiently large- is such a stretch. So long as neither wound is lethal, getting scratched and getting deeply slashed are matters of "degree, not difference", but one is a minor inconvenience that only very small children complain about and one is a matter for the emergency room. Insisting they're basically the same thing would serve no purpose for anyone except, say, a particularly slimy personal-injury lawyer trying to make a case out of the scratch.
For me, when one case is a set of options that looks like:
1)Take out a highly risky loan under totally unmeetable conditions, putting up yourself or your children as collateral
2)Die of starvation
and one looks more like:
1)Take out a loan with people who are bound by laws governing loans (though they may not obey them, and these people are usually, if not identifiable, at least somewhat shadier), under onerous conditions, with all your worldly assets as collateral
2)Don't take out a loan
...Then it's a disservice to the first case to call them both "debt slavery".
Fear may be "the chains of the mind", but hi, welcome to life. There are always going to be consequences for bad decisions, some of them are extremely severe- like death, which can be the consequence for a lot of bad choices- and we damn well SHOULD fear them. It's healthy. Classifying any set of conditions where decisions are made or work done out of fear of the consequences as something so dire as slavery is rendering the word utterly meaningless.
I agree that power in the hands of any concentration of people is, like fire, an inherently dangerous thing. That's why I'm a regular at a site like this. I also agree with Kevin that it's an inherently necessary thing.
As for my rudeness to Mark, I haven't changed my mind; he's been quite rude to us for a long time (repeated accusations of groupthink, constantly telling us what we think and why, etc.), I think that particular situation crossed my boundaries for politeness being required in response, and like DJ, I no longer think he IS reachable. I won't repeat it, because everyone who's pointed out it's not really productive is right, but I'm also not sorry. The fact that my religion doesn't require me to be civil no matter what the provocation probably plays into that. ;)
Wow. I'm speechless. I don't even know where to begin.
As ever, a spot on posting from Kevin.
If Markaelphia wants to come across the pond and see what a full-on Government utopia Britain has become with its liberalist ideals taken to the extreme ("If it will save a single life it will all be worth it" mantra) then he's most welcome to do so.
If he wants a taster before committing to paying for a ticket, take a look at this blog :-
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/
It's patchy but it will be what America is headed for if you are not VERY careful.
I'm sure Markadelphia will argue that if ONLY the right people were in "power" then it will all be fine. I wonder if he wants to apply that argument to guns?? If ONLY the "right" people have guns then ...!! Hmmmmmmmmmmm I thought not.
Here the Government consumes over 42% (that's forty two percent in case you think I've typed it incorrectly)of the gross domestic product of the country and one in four working people work for the Government in one form or another.
My vote is with Kevin - government should exist ONLY to provide what the individual cannot such as armed forcees to defend the country.
Me? The house goes up for sale tomorrow and as soon as I have the cash in my hot little hands, I'm emigrating.
"Wow. I'm speechless. I don't even know where to begin."
You are speechless? That's a first. You're the most unspeechless person I know, except for one person in particular whom I worked "around" a long time ago, but I suspect he's dead now.
And, don't assume you have to begin at all. If you have nothing to say, then don't say it.
"The house goes up for sale tomorrow and as soon as I have the cash in my hot little hands, I'm emigrating." - Phil B
Where to?
Markadelphia: "I don't even know where to begin."
Me: I suggest keeping it simple. Show us where the Constitution supposedly gives the Federal Government the power to use tax money for charity. The "Why" is more complicated and can be dealt with later.
New Zealand - they have an anti political correctness minister. New Zealand may not be perfect but at least it's a start, unlike here where the lunatics definitely have taken over the asylum big style.
Ed-Man:
"Me: Exactly! That is why it is critical to keep government from getting any larger than it absolutely has to be."
Some Patrick Henry is in order here on this blog that is concerned about the Second Amendment:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
The wording "suspect every one" best sums up my own feelings in this matter.
Someone, waaaaaay upthread, posted that "Business exists to serve people", and this gob-smackingly stoopid statement, set off my rusty and cobwebbed old "Marxist Alarm".
No-one, save Mark, stood up and called "double-bullshit!" at this, yet folks trampled each other to castigate Government.
The "groupthink" that developed was apparently that Government was BAD, so Business must be GOOD.
Is business negligent in its' Evil?
I ask you...what would you say of the manufacturers of crematoria, the producers of Zyklon-B, and the merchants of barbed wire who actively sought, and jealously protected, their government contracts with the 3rd Reich?
This wen far beyond any sane person's definition of negligence, and ran, like a loaded freight train, into collusion.
Yes...this is a gun blog, and government is a well-defined, and closely watched threat to our Liberty.
But, let's not be wilfully blinded to Business, which is more often than not, the "penis" inside the Government "condom" that would fuck us all over.
I'd also point out, to one and all, that the Mainstream Media is elmost exclusively, a Business-owned, and Business-supoorted, organ...and they have proven themselves, again and again, to be no friends of our Second Amendment Liberty.
Phil B: New Zealand, eh? Lovely place, I understand. But stay out of the mines of Moria!
Bilgeman: Someone, waaaaaay upthread, posted that "Business exists to serve people", and this gob-smackingly stoopid statement, set off my rusty and cobwebbed old "Marxist Alarm".
No-one, save Mark, stood up and called "double-bullshit!" at this, yet folks trampled each other to castigate Government.
The "groupthink" that developed was apparently that Government was BAD, so Business must be GOOD.
You are correct here, and my excuse is that I was out of town and didn't have time to respond - thus leaving it for others. Business, too, is a concentration of power. It is unsurprising that business often sucks at the hind teat of government to maintain that power, but that doesn't make it excusable and we shouldn't be apologists for it here.
Bilgeman: "Someone, waaaaaay upthread, posted that "Business exists to serve people", and this gob-smackingly stoopid statement, set off my rusty and cobwebbed old "Marxist Alarm".
No-one, save Mark, stood up and called "double-bullshit!" at this, yet folks trampled each other to castigate Government."
Of course none of us disagreed with that statement, because it is a fundamentally true statement about what businesses do! They provide goods and/or services in exchange for money. That holds true for everything from young children selling lemonade or raking leaves for money all the way up to the largest corporations.
The fact that businesses sometimes do things that are wrong does not contradict with this statement one iota.
Can you point to even one business which gets money without providing any kind of product or service? Take a look at your local yellow pages. Can you point to any companies in there which are NOT competing to provide something in exchange for something they want (money)?
Ed:
Businesses exist to make a profit. They do that by serving people, true, but the difference is not one of semantics. If a business can make a profit through harming people, then that niche will be filled. But usually such a business must have at least the tacit, if not direct support of government to do so.
Kevin, how can a business make a profit at harming people? I know organized crime engages in protection rackets, but that's a parasitic activity which cannot exist without legitimate businesses, not a true business activity.
Even businesses which sell something harmful, or which can be used for harm, can only do so if someone wants their product. In other words, they're serving those people.
Let's take illicit drugs for instance. Even though they're known to be harmful, people still buy them. That's why those businesses can still exist. If the demand were to dry up, so would the business.
Arms manufacturers are a prime example of where their products can be used for harm. If someone buys weapons to use them to commit murder, harm has been committed, but not by the business itself. Those same weapons could be used to prevent murder. Once again, the business is providing something which people want to buy. If no one wants to buy their weapons, the business ceases to exist.
Whether what the business does produces harm or not, it still boils down to the fact that the business provides a good or service for a price.
Ed, Bilgerman's rather generous definition of "business" includes organized crime. Then again, he thinks capitalism existed at the time of the first trade between bronze age farmers.
That said, too few proponents of capitalism have actually READ Adam Smith, who is none too kind to the owners of the means of production. He notes that they will make all effort to avoid competition and that one of the key roles for govt is to preclude collusion between producers, and to NOT grant selected producers govt favors (e.g. monopolies). What Smith didn't take into account was externalities - which is probably how most harms arise from business.
Bilgeman, I tried to respond here but was thwarted by the comment software which said I had to many links. See my post here for a response to your question:
juris,
I think I'm following what you're saying. In general terms, a pure, undiluted free market can produce situations where producers can cause harm. Is this correct?
"What Smith didn't take into account was externalities"
I'm not sure what you mean by "externalities." Could you elaborate?
Just a guess on my part but I assumed "externalities" meant things like lead in paint and gasoline being toxic to non-customers. Poor logging practices setting up the circumstances for a flood on downhill neighbors, things like that.
juris:
" Bilgerman's rather generous definition of "business" includes organized crime."
You're not a member of a union, are you?
"Then again, he thinks capitalism existed at the time of the first trade between bronze age farmers"
I said a "purchase", not a trade.
Would you prefer that I'd used the term "mercantilism" perhaps?
The rootstock of capitalism.
The point, ace, was that when people stopped shooting arrows and sticking spears into each other to obtain the goods and services they wanted or needed, and rather began bartering and/or buying these, "markets" were born.
Markets begat Trade and Trade begat Mercantilism which begat Capitalism.
The seed is THE vital and necessary precursor to all that follows.
Kevin:
"They do that by serving people"
Some people.
Gun manufacturers only serve part of the population. Candy manufacturers, ditto.
What's your point? If there's a market, it gets served.
Ed: Joe points in the right general direction on externalities. Usually unintended consequences the costs of which aren't borne by the original actor(s). It isn't insurmountable, or pervasive, but it can be a pretty big problem.
B-man: You're not a member of a union, are you?
Not me, but my brother was - until the union screwed him over. He has his own business now.
The rootstock of capitalism.
Lots of unpleasant things preceded capitalism. Even Marx saw capitalism as an improvement over the lot of the masses in pre-capitalist societies. That's a whole different game then saying that capitalism is to blame for those defects. Slavery existed for millenia before even mercantilism, let alone capitalism. It was the cradle of capitalism that led to the abolition of slavery. That slavery exists at all in this world today, it does so in non-Western societies.
btw - how you doing with finding a renowned non Anglo-American abolitionist?
It isn't insurmountable, or pervasive, but it can be a pretty big problem.
Given the right industry, it's both- the nature of mining as an industry, for example, makes running an operation in a clean and easily remediated fashion actually more expensive than it would be to "ruin and run" even if the company gets hit with the fullest extent of penalties for doing so. Mining doesn't have much of a direct-to-consumers market, and the people that DO buy direct can't afford to do without their products, so there's very little market pressure from people unhappy about an individual company's environmental record as well.
It's why mining still has such a black eye as an industry, environmentally speaking, as opposed to businesses like power plants- it was much easier and cheaper to run clean for the latter industry.
Being involved in a support industry for mining, I have to back up LabRat on this. Environmental remediation is exorbitantly expensive, and no mining company would do it if not forced to.
By pervasive, I meant throughout the entire economy. Mining though is a problematic case. Some of that has to be in part relying on laws written in the middle of the 19th century - claims on "public land" for a fraction of the value, etc.
The biggest problem is in trying to recapture the costs of the existing externalities. As you note, it ain't cheap, and resistance is stiff. If the costs were built in from the beginning then there isn't such an issue. Of course, that's not an easy thing to do either. Plus, remediating damage is more expensive then preventing it.
(R)emediating damage is more expensive then preventing it.
Well, digging a great big pit in the ground and turning the contents into dust the consistency of flour is, to a miner, progress. To an environmentalist, it's a disaster. Tough to convince people to prevent it, though, when in that dust is copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, rhenium, lead, iron, etc., etc., etc.
If it can't be grown, it must be mined. (And drilling for oil & gas is just a very specific kind of underground mining.)
Kevin, I hate to be nit-picky but that is pretty much my compulsive nature...
Which categories do you place software, solar energy collection, wind energy, hydroelectric production, and liquid nitrogen (and other liquid gas products)?
Liquid gases are physical products that are mined out of the air.
Software, like other products of the human mind (novels, films, poetry - blogs for that matter) are incorporeal. The media they are carried on (paper, plastic, celluloid, silicon memory chips and magnetic hard-drives) must be either grown or mined. Otherwise it exists only in the relatively few minds that can be reached directly by the originator - whose very existence depends on that which can be grown.
Solar, wind, and hydro are the conversion of one form of energy into another, but again those energy conversions cannot take place without physical products that must be either grown or mined.
"Kevin, how can a business make a profit at harming people?"
By making, marketing, and selling cigarettes.
Kevin:
"What's your point? If there's a market, it gets served."
The people that businesses serve are called stockholders and customers.
And, judging by the constant kvetching of consumers and the incessant mewling of stockholders, they don't really serve them all that well.
So who does business really serve?
Follow the money
I'd say the Board of Directors and the upper management. And the politicians who bend (us) over for all that industry PAC money.
Pretty much everyone else can usually count on getting the middle finger most of the time.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>