If Ron Paul doesnt win we should...

canndo

Well-Known Member
The Federal Government did not create any of those things you listed. Not a damned one. People with ideas created those things and the heavy hand of government took them over.

You seem to conclude that all travel would be dangerous without a Government regulation, that all pills would be made of poison, all drinking water would be filth and that all food would contain salmonella. I can tell you with 100% certainty that all of those things exist in one form or another right now this very minute even though it is under the ever watchful eye of a bureaucrat somewhere in a office. Spinach that kills? totally possible under government control and regulation, don't believe me? read the news much?
As always, the contention is that if there is any failure of regulations than no regulations are any good at all. We can look at times before regulation of drugs, and come up with some pretty nasty situations. We can do the same with regulation of food. You and I are a product of helpful federal regulations, it is you who won't admit it.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I am perpetually amused when people stand, healthy, relatively free, well educated, capable of traveling safely, confidently drinking water, taking pills, eating food holding perpetualy that their government doesn't "work" as though all those assurances that they are in a stable, orderly and safe society just happened.

It's not "my" government. I never consented. Seeking "permission" to travel does not equate to traveling safely. I have a well...dug it myself. Don't take pills. Eating food? Hmm, I thought it was me that planted that garden, not some bureaucrat. Guess I missed that one. We don't live in a safe orderly society. The United States holds more prisoners than any other country. One person in 33 is a felon, largely because of prohibitive law. The "country" is in deep deep debt, yet it still tries to police the world on borrowed money.

A polite society starts with responsible individual actions or inactions. Do the right thing, lead by example, do not initiate aggression. None of those tenets are consistent with government. I am amused by those that falsely believe they are free.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
It's not "my" government. I never consented. Seeking "permission" to travel does not equate to traveling safely. I have a well...dug it myself. Don't take pills. Eating food? Hmm, I thought it was me that planted that garden, not some bureaucrat. Guess I missed that one. We don't live in a safe orderly society. The United States holds more prisoners than any other country. One person in 33 is a felon, largely because of prohibitive law. The "country" is in deep deep debt, yet it still tries to police the world on borrowed money.

A polite society starts with responsible individual actions or inactions. Do the right thing, lead by example, do not initiate aggression. None of those tenets are consistent with government. I am amused by those that falsely believe they are free.

So you have a well - and you grow all of your own food, how nice (really), did your parents do the same? and their parents? did they have any need for electricity? You don't need permission to travel but your car and the airplanes you use are regulated and are as safe as they are because of government regulation. We have only to look back before such regulations to see the difference. I said nothing about freedom. A polite society almost always involves the absence of large corporations, or at least the regulation of them.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
So you have a well - and you grow all of your own food, how nice (really), did your parents do the same? and their parents? did they have any need for electricity? You don't need permission to travel but your car and the airplanes you use are regulated and are as safe as they are because of government regulation. We have only to look back before such regulations to see the difference. I said nothing about freedom. A polite society almost always involves the absence of large corporations, or at least the regulation of them.
The largest monopolistic "corporation" is the government of the United States. You conveniently fail to address the debt, the prison rate and the fact that to travel in most modes a person must be granted permission. Electricity doesn't come from government either. Mine comes from Photo voltaic. My parents grew a good bit o ftheir food, as far as I know the "government" doesn't grow food unless you count the county farm I did time at for the crime of self ownership. My truck is safe because I just did the brakes. Government does not ensure safety. In fact government has killed many more people than individuals acting alone. Ever hear of a thing called war?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
The largest monopolistic "corporation" is the government of the United States. You conveniently fail to address the debt, the prison rate and the fact that to travel in most modes a person must be granted permission. Electricity doesn't come from government either. Mine comes from Photo voltaic. My parents grew a good bit o ftheir food, as far as I know the "government" doesn't grow food unless you count the county farm I did time at for the crime of self ownership. My truck is safe because I just did the brakes. Government does not ensure safety. In fact government has killed many more people than individuals acting alone. Ever hear of a thing called war?

I am talking about regulation. So what if the government is the largest. Wars may well kill people but that has nothing to do with regulation and safety. Debt? not applicable, prison rate? not applicable. No the government doesn't grow food but it sees to it that the food is generaly safe, the same with drugs and transportation. I don't have to get permission from the government to go anywhere in the United States. How old is your truck? Does it have seat belts or airbags?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
By the way, your example is just that, an example, it is anecdotal and applies to only a tiny percentage of the citizens of the U.S. Your claiming that you have never benifited from government does not apply to many and it does not disprove my statment.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I am talking about regulation. So what if the government is the largest. Wars may well kill people but that has nothing to do with regulation and safety. Debt? not applicable, prison rate? not applicable. No the government doesn't grow food but it sees to it that the food is generaly safe, the same with drugs and transportation. I don't have to get permission from the government to go anywhere in the United States. How old is your truck? Does it have seat belts or airbags?
A license is "permission". Wars have nothing to do with safety? Okay. People are made to serve involuntarily, pay for war involuntarily and the people that die as a result of war um they might think war has something to with safety.

If I get back to this forum....I'll address the rest of your post later. The government does not assure food safety. Sorry.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
A license is "permission". Wars have nothing to do with safety? Okay. People are made to serve involuntarily, pay for war involuntarily and the people that die as a result of war um they might think war has something to with safety.

If I get back to this forum....I'll address the rest of your post later. The government does not assure food safety. Sorry.
We havn't been made to serve involuntarily for 50 years. We pay for war because it is a part of the package, we are also protected by our military, there are other countries who would take advantage if we had none - this also is safety. A license is not permission to travel, it is permission to drive, two completely different things. So many conflate different things as though they were all the same old "government opression". The federal government does not issue driver's licenses.

Nothing "assures" safety but it does tend to make food and drugs more safe. I can't recall a single instance of mad cow disease in the United States, and I don't think there has been one. Do you believe that is just coincidence?
 

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
You must understand Rob, the people you are arguing against are still asleep, they are all so dependent on the current system, they can see of no other way.

Capitalism is the system. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, corporations. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to wake up. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
As always, the contention is that if there is any failure of regulations than no regulations are any good at all. We can look at times before regulation of drugs, and come up with some pretty nasty situations. We can do the same with regulation of food. You and I are a product of helpful federal regulations, it is you who won't admit it.
You mean like the regulatuions that protect us from cantaloupe that kills? Or spinach that kills? Oh wait, all those things just happened last year, guess the regulations aren't working. Solution? More regulations!! Because if something doesn't work, more of it surely will.

You can regulate food all you want, people still gonna be killed by it. You can regulate pills all you want, people still gonna be killed by them. You can regulate air traffic, air maintenance, air travel, terrorism, and search people inside and out and yet airplanes will still fall out of the sky and people who intend to do harm will still get on board. You can regulate every single aspect of travel upon our highways and roads, yet there will still be thousands upon thousands of vehicle accident related deaths. Life is full of risk, you can't regulate it away.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
You mean like the regulatuions that protect us from cantaloupe that kills? Or spinach that kills? Oh wait, all those things just happened last year, guess the regulations aren't working. Solution? More regulations!! Because if something doesn't work, more of it surely will.

You can regulate food all you want, people still gonna be killed by it. You can regulate pills all you want, people still gonna be killed by them. You can regulate air traffic, air maintenance, air travel, terrorism, and search people inside and out and yet airplanes will still fall out of the sky and people who intend to do harm will still get on board. You can regulate every single aspect of travel upon our highways and roads, yet there will still be thousands upon thousands of vehicle accident related deaths. Life is full of risk, you can't regulate it away.

More absolutism masquerading as reason NoDrama. "The bull tore the fence down and all of the cattle are in the garden" "well don't bother mending the fence and putting the cattle back, it's obvious fences don't work".
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
You must understand Rob, the people you are arguing against are still asleep, they are all so dependent on the current system, they can see of no other way.

Capitalism is the system. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, corporations. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to wake up. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
I am far from asleep, I see the damage capitalism does, and I see what it does when it infects representative and constitutional republics but another system to replace it totaly is difficult to imagine, help me imagine it.
 

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
Okay, I'll bite. Capitalism is not based on just private ownership, but indirect ownership of the means of production - which is land, labor and capital, both physical and financial. Indirect meaning most owners don't actually use those means of production, but just take the profit generated by them. It also means direct financing through the use of stocks and bonds, which soon becomes indirect as well as soon as they are sold on the secondary market.

Both indirect ownership and financing are the roots of the evils behind modern capitalism. It divorces accountability of the financiers from how they generate their financial flows. It is also overly concerned with only those financial flows, and not with the real flow of goods, and if those goods are actually beneficial, only if their interest payments or dividend checks are coming.

How to address those issues?

Socialism 3.0 - The cooperative commonwealth.

1)Banking is through member-owned institutions based on Islamic principles, i.e no interest, no traditional loans. Most assets purchased through a joint-venture with the bank who is then bought out by the debtor/co-owner. Bonds may be issued on a preferred stock basis - no voting rights and first claim to net profits. Payable only if profits exist. Non-callable. Make financing either partners or subservient to the groups they work with, not the dominant party.

2)Most firms are cooperatives or social enterprises, i.e. non-profits. Indirect ownership is illegal. Financing mostly through bank joint-ventures or bonds. Strict debt to equity of no more than 10 to 1 allowed.

3)Social accounting is required for all firms greater than 10 employees. No more than 50 employees or must convert to a cooperative. No more than 500 employees total per firm, but any firm may join consortia with others. Accountability means recognizing that all costs must be accounted for, especially environmental and social, not just the financial costs, and clear ownership must be present to hold them accountable for their actions.

4)All non-residential land is owned by 'trusts' which lease land for non-residential purposes. Revenues are divided between the 'trust' and the resident members of the trust region. Leases can only be revoked by court order, but the lessee may cancel with proper notice. Land cannot be 'owned', it is only held in stewardship for a bit, and the only steward that can be halfway trusted is the entire public itself. (Any vacant properties after five years have to be 'leased' at auction to the highest bidder, or sold if residential.)

5)Social government. Majority of government functions except for the bare essentials are transferred to government-chartered but independent trusts which receive an initial endowment to manage their operations. Membership in the trusts is open, but voluntary. Don't like libraries, don't use them. Need to go to the ER - head to the non-profit hospital that covers care through its investments, not its patient fees.

The transition could take place over the next 20 - 50 years. Stage one is creating the alternative banking institutions and scaling up those institutions and establishing them on a global level; stage two is buying out capitalist firms and converting them to cooperatives; stage three is buying out the non-residential land and converting them to the trusts. The final stage will be the restructuring of governments and the creation of the social trusts.

At least that's how i would do it.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
More absolutism masquerading as reason NoDrama. "The bull tore the fence down and all of the cattle are in the garden" "well don't bother mending the fence and putting the cattle back, it's obvious fences don't work".
No, more like common sense. "If the bull tears the fence down you should move the bull, not keep rebuilding the fence each day." Instead of "regulating " banks , perhaps if they actually prosecuted some of them (Removing the bull) the rest of the cattle(the Banksters) might behave a little better. After all, cattle just follow the leaders, if the leaders are all afraid to do anything wrong because the regulators actually do their jobs, well then just maybe things would be a little better around here. That isn't how regulations work though, Regulators are actually the protectors of the elite, making sure that those TBTF never have to be held accountable, while going after what in comparison is small potatoes with a vengeance reserved for Dirty Harry. You have judges at the SEC who have been quoted as saying they would never rule in disfavor of one of the big banks. ever.

Regulations protect them, not you.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Okay, I'll bite. Capitalism is not based on just private ownership, but indirect ownership of the means of production - which is land, labor and capital, both physical and financial. Indirect meaning most owners don't actually use those means of production, but just take the profit generated by them. It also means direct financing through the use of stocks and bonds, which soon becomes indirect as well as soon as they are sold on the secondary market.

Both indirect ownership and financing are the roots of the evils behind modern capitalism. It divorces accountability of the financiers from how they generate their financial flows. It is also overly concerned with only those financial flows, and not with the real flow of goods, and if those goods are actually beneficial, only if their interest payments or dividend checks are coming.

How to address those issues?

Socialism 3.0 - The cooperative commonwealth.

1)Banking is through member-owned institutions based on Islamic principles, i.e no interest, no traditional loans. Most assets purchased through a joint-venture with the bank who is then bought out by the debtor/co-owner. Bonds may be issued on a preferred stock basis - no voting rights and first claim to net profits. Payable only if profits exist. Non-callable. Make financing either partners or subservient to the groups they work with, not the dominant party.

2)Most firms are cooperatives or social enterprises, i.e. non-profits. Indirect ownership is illegal. Financing mostly through bank joint-ventures or bonds. Strict debt to equity of no more than 10 to 1 allowed.

3)Social accounting is required for all firms greater than 10 employees. No more than 50 employees or must convert to a cooperative. No more than 500 employees total per firm, but any firm may join consortia with others. Accountability means recognizing that all costs must be accounted for, especially environmental and social, not just the financial costs, and clear ownership must be present to hold them accountable for their actions.

4)All non-residential land is owned by 'trusts' which lease land for non-residential purposes. Revenues are divided between the 'trust' and the resident members of the trust region. Leases can only be revoked by court order, but the lessee may cancel with proper notice. Land cannot be 'owned', it is only held in stewardship for a bit, and the only steward that can be halfway trusted is the entire public itself. (Any vacant properties after five years have to be 'leased' at auction to the highest bidder, or sold if residential.)

5)Social government. Majority of government functions except for the bare essentials are transferred to government-chartered but independent trusts which receive an initial endowment to manage their operations. Membership in the trusts is open, but voluntary. Don't like libraries, don't use them. Need to go to the ER - head to the non-profit hospital that covers care through its investments, not its patient fees.

The transition could take place over the next 20 - 50 years. Stage one is creating the alternative banking institutions and scaling up those institutions and establishing them on a global level; stage two is buying out capitalist firms and converting them to cooperatives; stage three is buying out the non-residential land and converting them to the trusts. The final stage will be the restructuring of governments and the creation of the social trusts.

At least that's how i would do it.
Sounds like a nice mix of marxism and socialism....

Course our ancestors got on a boat and risked life and limb to escape people that think like you.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
No, more like common sense. "If the bull tears the fence down you should move the bull, not keep rebuilding the fence each day." Instead of "regulating " banks , perhaps if they actually prosecuted some of them (Removing the bull) the rest of the cattle(the Banksters) might behave a little better. After all, cattle just follow the leaders, if the leaders are all afraid to do anything wrong because the regulators actually do their jobs, well then just maybe things would be a little better around here. That isn't how regulations work though, Regulators are actually the protectors of the elite, making sure that those TBTF never have to be held accountable, while going after what in comparison is small potatoes with a vengeance reserved for Dirty Harry. You have judges at the SEC who have been quoted as saying they would never rule in disfavor of one of the big banks. ever.



Regulations protect them, not you.
You were saying that regulation doesn't keep food safe and regulation doesn't make drugs safe and now you talk about banks. Handy, but because someone gets sick on spinach doesn't mean regs don't work, and that is what we were talking about. You might consider that if you have no new place for the Bull, a little more sturdy fence might work just as well.

Find a case of mad cow disease in the U.S. yet?
 

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
Sounds like a nice mix of marxism and socialism....

Course our ancestors got on a boat and risked life and limb to escape people that think like you.
If i remember correctly, in the 1600's England was ruled by a monarchy. They left to escape slavery and persecution.
 
Top