The top Saudi clerics have found another person to execute for free speech. We have previously seen a number of people accused of blasphemy for brief tweets or Facebook entries or even reading a book or speaking insulting thoughts at prayer. There is now a campaign to execute 23-year-old journalist Hamza Kashgari for a tweet that he sent to Mohammad on his birthday about Kashgari’s faith. There is no evidence that Mohammad is actually one of his followers but Mohammad’s followers are pretty ticked and labelled Kashgari an “apostate” who must be killed for his offense to Islam.
You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.
The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.
Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”
Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Source: Washington Post
Osama bin Laden said he wanted his children to abandon Jihad and go to America to get a good education.
Is that confirmed?
“Why should I when you are doing such an excellent job of it yourself?”
Because you’re a fraud if you can’t. I can back all of my assertions. You have yet to back any of yours. Since you haven’t offered a cogent rebuttal, I’m going to go with you can’t.
Put up or shut up.
Fine. I’m glad you have doubled down on the whole “prohibition is the perfect example of a truly free market” idea because it is so easy to refute. Just remember, I tried to get you to read Von Mises or at least look up the definition of ‘free market’ to no avail. I know, I know, you have “read” Von Mises. If that is truly the case, your comprehension needs work.
Before I define these terms for you, I truly hope that this is a moment that will encourage you to resume your studies and to read a broader range of material at a deeper level. Perhaps try Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. It is an easy read that can really help you along your educational path. Of course, you will probably just dismiss Hayek like you dismissed Von Mises, “Von Mises is an idiot.” So eloquent and truly a “proven” statement and “totally backed up just like all your assertions.”
Alas, I wish you good luck.
Vocabulary Words Defined:
Free Market- 1. Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
Prohibition- 2. A law or regulation forbidding something.
As you can see, your previous interpretation below is clearly inaccurate, incongruent, and was in fact quite ironic to suggest alcohol prohibition is a good example of a free market since it is a good example of the exact opposite.
“That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss.”
– Gene H. providing his example of a truly free market
“What I said is precisely correct: the only governing mechanism of a black market is the same mechanic that laissez-faire economics endorses – supply and demand. This is true no matter what condition creates a black market. When the condition is artificially high prices due to prohibition? Supply and demand rules. When the condition is artificially low prices by tax avoidance? Supply and demand rules.”
-Gene H. expounds upon his knowledge of supply and demand, black markets, and free markets
There is nothing free about a market that is under government illegality. Why would I buy alcohol of low quality and at a high price from a mobster in a basement and risk getting arrested or worse if I could instead walk to the convenience store and plop $6.00 on the counter for a six pack that is name brand? I wouldn’t. Freer markets work much better than ones more restricted by governments, which is what prohibition is truly a good example of.
Of course I am a fraud and can’t back up any of my assertions etc. etc. blather, blather. I’ve read your correspondence with Bron, and I got to say you may also want to re-read your copy of The Constitution or take that class on Constitutional Law one more time (just not if it is taught by Barack Obama : ). Of course, you will continue to call him an idiot, just like Von Mises, just like Hayek, just like me.
Of course Bron could take the time to quote you the federalist and anti-federalist papers to let the founders speak for themselves, but I hope he sees that would be a waste of time on you.
See you around the bend.
Bron,
That you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to the Preamble is widely known and demonstrated. You don’t get to make up your own meanings to words no matter how many times you try that tactic. Justice does require equitable solutions. That is a fact. Just as promotion of the general welfare incorporates not just material provisions but the application of social justice. The pursuit of justice applies to all of the law, including the other functions of government listed in the Preamble. That you want to ignore the promotion of the general welfare or make up some meaning that suits your ideology instead of using the plain meaning of the terms is your failing.
Gene H:
“It creates a duty to create equity as justice requires equity and a duty to promote the lives and best interests of all Americans among other things.”
Justice in the sense the founders meant was not and is not social justice which is what you are saying it means. No way did the founders believe all men were equally endowed with the same skills and talents. The only universal endowment was our right to our life and to be treated equally under an objective law.
As much as you refuse to admit it and have gone to great lengths to prove otherwise, this country was formed to protect the rights of the individual.
I have read von Mises. He’s was an idiot concerning human nature and his theories reflect that fact. Also, if you understood the difference between a market mechanic, how law operates and their interrelation in action, you’d know you’re full of crap. What I said is precisely correct: the only governing mechanism of a black market is the same mechanic that laissez-faire economics endorses – supply and demand. This is true no matter what condition creates a black market. When the condition is artificially high prices due to prohibition? Supply and demand rules. When the condition is artificially low prices by tax avoidance? Supply and demand rules.
Again, do try to come back with a cogent rebuttal. As in prove me wrong. You haven’t even come close yet.
Why should I when you are doing such an excellent job of it yourself?
You’re still not even close to a cogent rebuttal, dipstick. Lots of Paul-ian raving using a word you clearly don’t know the meaning of, but no rebuttal.
You said my definitions were wrong. You said I didn’t know what I was talking about.
Prove. It.
I’m betting you’ll continue to be long on bullshit and short on substance.
“That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss.”
– Gene H.
If you truly understood the definitions of the words YOU use, then you would see that the sentence above is incongruent. I referred you to actually read Von Mises or look up the definition of free market. ‘If you are too lazy too read, that is your problem.’
More on the health care insurance industry. Did you know you can only buy insurance from a company in your state? That is one of the many federal government regulations on insurance that increases costs and stifles competition. Furthermore, are you not aware of how much money insurance companies spend on lobbying the federal government? How about obama’s new plan? there is no public option, which i was for, i thought it better than the current bullshit and it was optional. yes it is socialist. but so is the current mandate to buy health care. So we have government regulations of health care to make everything better. They drive up prices and then force us to buy it. How absurd. Do the capitalists profit? Absolutely, but they would not have these beneficial policies without government “regulations.” We would be better off without it, socialism often benefits the capitalists and hurts those it wants to help. But those capitalists are not part of a free market. Look up crony capitalism or crony socialism for more on our current economic sytem.
Telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about isn’t a rebuttal either.
Prove me wrong.
Step up or step off.
“I asked for evidence of how Von Mises policies lead to corporatism. ”
And I referred you to other threads where that has already been demonstrated. If you’re too lazy to read, that’s your problem.
“You seem to not know the difference between corporatism and a free market and are making a “false equivalence.””
It’s a good thing you used quotes, because you obviously don’t know what a false equivalence is. I’ll tell you what isn’t a false equivalence: being above the law and being exempt from the law are the same thing. That you’re too stupid to understand that is your problem, not mine. Laissez-faire capitalism is where private parties are free from state intervention, including regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies. There has never been a laissez-faire state or economy. Why? Because it’s a fantasy that markets are self-correcting, that markets provide just outcomes and that profitability equates to maximum efficiency. If you want to see the lie in von Mises, specifically in regards to his statements on profitability and efficiency, one need look no further than the health care insurance industry. We have a for profit health care industry in this country and it is rife with inefficiencies in the forms of duplicative channels of information processes forced on health care providers, denial of coverage to maximize profits (to keep that simple for you, that’s denying coverage so some insurance executive asshat can get a bonus or take an executive spa vacation), and keeping risk pools purposefully smaller than the maximum size possible thus keeping the cost of coverage and provision artificially inflated. Price and value (utility) can both be calculated in the absence of a free market.
Laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism without rules. Capitalism where industry gets to define what laws apply to it when is corporatism which is as good as not having any rules. Capitalism without rules is anarchy. Anarchy invites the tyranny of the strong over the weak. Von Mises was a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. Deal with it.
“If any form of government tells the people what they can and cannot purchase in the marketplace, then whatever else it is (democratic or fascist) it is also socialist.”
Bullshit. Unless, of course, you’d consider a prohibition on selling nuclear weapons to individual citizens or enemy states an example of socialism. There are public policy reasons for prohibited transactions that go beyond the simple lens of profitability. Your statement is illustrating ignorance about what socialism is for certain, but it isn’t my ignorance it’s illustrating. Socialism is, in the broadest sense, an economic system characterized by social ownership – in the form of cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership, autonomous state enterprises or a combination thereof – or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy paired with a compatible political philosophy. Any form of government that has a military and/or commonly owned social infrastructure is to one degree or another socialized. It has to be or it won’t work. Contrary to von Mises assertion, socialism not only works in various forms and degrees, but it is necessary for government of any reasonable form to function. When socialism fails is when it is distorted into the extremist form called Communism. Communism, just like it’s extremist capitalist counterpart laissez-faire economics, fails because it doesn’t take human nature into account. Where communism fails to take individual motivation to work into account, laissez-faire capitalism caters to one of the most dangerous and damaging maladaptive behaviors of mankind: unbridled greed.
The only bigger fool than von Mises are his followers.
Feel free to come back when you can come somewhere close to a cogent rebuttal too. Because that wasn’t a rebuttal either.
If I need to prove how “prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market” and other of your gems then this is more of a waste of time than I thought. I referred you to actually read Von Mises or look up the definition of free market. ‘If you are too lazy too read, that is your problem.’
Summary: “The healthcare system in this country is a good example of free market capitalism and how Von Mises principles would make health care be like.”
-While it some of it is for profit, some of it is under government control. When we talk about free markets we don’t mean simply “for profit.” We mean free from government interference and regualtion and private ownership of the means of production. In a free market if a person wants to go to a certain person for care, they can pay them and go. Many natural remedies are currently prohibited by our current for profit and socialist system. It is illegal to seek them out in many cases. The number of doctors is limited by the government, there can only be so many (driving up prices). That is not the free market. But the easiest way to prove you wrong is the existance of medicaire and medicaid. Government did make profit off of this, they took money from people, promised it was for health care, and then spent it somewhere else. These programs did not help the health care system in this country. They drove up prices. Furthermore, the health care industry is filled with government regulation. The medicaire system has no money and is collapsing. None of this is part of a free market system in health care which would look much different including lower prices and healthy alternatives. There, I am educating you when you should be educating yourself.
Buying books on amazon is a much better example of free market (though there is sales tax). I am free to buy books in any store I like or even online. There are no regulations specifying where, when, or what books I can buy. Why is that such a horrible problem in your opinion? Do we need government to control book buying for the common good? Or to unfairly stifle competition on the internet and force us to buy books only in physical stores? Amazingly publishers find authors and decide how many copies to print without the central authority of the federal government telling them what to publish and how many. How on earth does it work? the market tells publishers which books are likely to sell and which ones aren’t, then they take chances. Right now book buying is a pleasure. Health care is not. But books are an example when the evil of capitalism is on full display. How awful it is! We have a choice, we can go more socialist or we can go towards free markets.
You define socialism well, but then say bullshit that prohibition and any other good and service prohibited or controlled by the government isn’t socialism. What is government and how is it paid for? Communally with taxes. When our government controls (sometimes attempts to control) a market or prohibits certain goods and services, that is socialism. Socialism doesn’t only fail when it inevitibly becomes communism. Socialism fails along the way to. Look at health care! (Or alcohol prohibition).
Democracy is not a panacea. We were supposed to have a constitutional republic- A representative government that is restricted in what it can do by a constitution. (Even that is not a panacea). Instead our children are taught all this democracy nonsense. Democracy- The will of the 51% , The tyranny of the majority. Prohibition, though a socialist policy, was done in proper constitutional republic form. They passed an amendment! It is the same with the income tax. Where is the amendment for No Child Left Behind or marijuana prohibition? But again, we are talking about forms of governance instead of economic systems. I believe in the free market. I believe it works better than a centrally controlled system that forces people to participate against their will. However, in a free market economy people are not prevented from communally owning and operating things if they choose to do so. They are just prevented from having the force of government to do so. Free markets cannot exist in a socialist economy. Both economic systems could exist in this country with our current form of government, but you must quit blaming “capitalism” for everything and not also socialism, because whether you like it or not, we are getting more socialist every day.
Bron: “Actually, no it isnt. I didnt see John D. using a tommy gun to suppress competition as Al Capone did in Chicago during prohibition. The real analogy is between socialism and Al Capone. Both use force, one government the other a gun. The effect is the same, higher prices for all and shortages plus much destruction.
I might also point out that John D. brought the price of lamp oil so low it allowed the poor to have light and ended the hunting of whales for oil. John D. single handedly saved the whales and helped the poor. And he wasnt even an altruist but someone who was rationally self interested.”
——————
Boy, turn your back on a thread for 24 hours and it becomes a maelstrom of Libertarianism v. regulation! Who’da thunk it? 🙂
As a re-drop in to this thread I was struck by your praise of Rockefeller.
Unrestrained capitalism as it was practiced by J D Rockefeller and the other barons of late 19th /early 20th century industry was a Ponzi scheme, all wealth moved to the top of the pyramid which was held by those that got there first.
I at one time read a number of books about the genealogy of America’s industrial might and Rockefeller played a prominent role in several of them. Making lamp oil cheap wasn’t an act of kindness nor making oil, Standard Oil, ubiquitous and affordable in general, an act of philanthropy.
He undercut the price of all competitors and either they formed partnerships with him, sold out to him or he drove them out of business. Independents didn’t have a chance. Often with the help of syndicates and alliances (such as railroads that shipped his product) constructed for that purpose. He was more than once investigated and prosecuted for anti-trust violations.
It was an oft repeated business model employed by capitalists that managed to get in on the ground floor of an emerging industry and get rich off of it. Competition could be quashed by under-cutting the price to the point that no one could compete.
I was very young when I got interested in the subject- I believe it was a summer school class taught by the most charismatic (and handsome) teacher I ever knew (LOL, some of my motivation for learning is questionable) but even so, it was pretty obvious that un-regulated capitalism leads directly to monopoly by very few players in any given industry.
What halted Rockefellers absolute dominance of the oil market was discoveries of oil overseas.
He may well have been a great philanthropist but he was not a nice man.
“That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss.”
– Gene H.
Good night, wish I could say it has been fun. Very sad news for the journalist tonight.
Me and Bron have a lot more history than you know about, so your observations there aren’t worth shit.
““Only socialist and fascist FORMS (note the plurality of the word form) of government create legislation that attempts to prevent people from acting of their own free will even if it harms no one else or their property.””
Still a false equivalence and an incomplete analysis. There are many forms of government and most of them can create legislation that prevents people from acting of their own free will even if it harms no one else or their property.
Your statement on black markets and their mechanic is still missing the point about the laissez-faire dependence on free markets as a self-correcting mechanism. Liquor sales prove my point that a regulated market fosters both social stability and reasonable trade whereas no regulation does the exact opposite. That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss. Laissez-faire economics depends on not having markets regulated. Above the law. That is exactly the condition created by black markets. You’re above the law if you simply ignore it as much as you are if you are otherwise exempt.
The rest of what you say on that issue is drivel. Prohibition was signed into law over the veto of Woodrow Wilson and the disaster it became was largely propagated under the administration of Calvin Coolidge, a small government conservative. Prohibition wasn’t a socialist movement, but rather a conservative/religious movement hiding under the guise of medical reason. But I see like most Ron Paul supporters, you label anything you don’t like or understand “socialism”. I don’t mind when you use words you don’t know the meaning of or speak without knowing the history of events. I think it’s funny.
Almost as funny as “I think maybe you were insinuating that Democrats are progressives, sorry to say but it just ain’t so, joe.” There isn’t a dimes difference in the Corporatist policies of either party when it comes down to it and neither party is truly progressive. They are both entrenched in the campaign finance/graft machine and represent the status quo. However, in promoting corporatism, there is no difference between them and the Libertarians either. Different wrappings. Same package. The confusion here is yours in thinking I think any of the partisan options currently presented to this country are worth a damn.
“So if you support socialism for some things and not others, then how do you keep it running the way you want it to when you are not in office? The answer is that if we can allow the federal government certain intrusions because the majority of americans like them, even when they are not supported by our founding document, then the federal government has no limits when people who do not respect the people are in power.”
Carefully crafted and legally sound enabling legislation designed to prevent usurpation and abuses. It can be done . . . when legislators actually do the job they were elected to do instead of allowing industry to write law that is supposed to regulate them. Systems, including law, are only as fool proof as their engineering.
“Hence Section 1021 of the NDAA is signed into law without a whimper, and those who site the unconstitutionality of it are laughed out of town, precisely because it has become such a common practice to break with the constitution in other matters.”
Moving the goal posts. As to those questioning the legality of it here? Do some research. The Constitutionality of it was quite robustly challenged in this forum.
“You’re like all Ron Paul supporters. Long on bullshit, short on proof.”
So now all Ron Paul supporters are long on bullshit and short on proof. Do you have any proof to back up that statement?”
Search for Ron Paul and/or Ayn Rand in this blog and do your own homework. I’d suggest starting here and here. It would help the case for Libertarians if they didn’t rely upon the teachings of a demonstrably crazy woman like Ayn Rand.
“He was a political apologist for laissez-faire economics that eschewed scientific method in favor of political polemic that is based in incredibly wrong assumptions about human nature, that free markets are self-correcting, provide just outcomes and are incapable of grievous abuses if simply left to their own devices.”
-Evidence?”
That von Mises eschewed the scientific method is common knowledge. It’s a primary and common criticism of his work. Economics, as dismal as it is, that dismisses the Method is worse than useless as an analytical tool. Since economics without the ability to act as an analytical tool is useless, what else could von Mises claptrap be other than a political polemic? Nothing. Because a political polemic is what it is. As a science it has no value at all. It merely makes proclamations. As far as it being based in disastrous assumptions about human nature? See organized crime under Prohibition to see what unregulated trade gets you. Without market controls, the strong subjugate the weak. That is the essential nature of lawlessness.
“Time and again history shows that in the absence of restraint, business will do horrible things in the name of profits – from selling adulterated products to abusive labor practices to outright participation in industrial genocide. ”
-Which time? which example? Which businesses?”
Again, do your own homework into the economic collaboration between private industry and government during WWII Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Do your own homework into the reason the FDA was created in the first place. Do your own research into the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the current CDS debacle on Wall Street. I’m not here to fill the gaps in your limited education.
“Von Mises pays a lot of lip service to liberty and property rights, but in the end, his policies if put into play would lead to simply a different flavor of fascism than what is already queued up to consume what is left of the American ideals of democratic justice and liberty for all as envisioned by your founders.”
-Evidence?”
When corporations dictate the law and how it applies to them, that’s corporatism. When they dictate policy too? That’s fascism. Specifically it is Italian Fascism a.k.a Corporatist Fascism (like most forms, there are many flavors). I know it must be troubling to you that you don’t know what these political science terms actually mean any more than you understand what socialism means, but again, it didn’t stop you from misusing them. Do your own homework.
“We’ve had your type fly through here before and to a one they’ve all been dismantled.”
-Proclaiming I’ve been thoroughly dismantled at the end of your post is as silly as me proclaiming your ignorance at the beginning of my post. Though I am sure you will write a last post and proclaim your victory. Say it all you want about how I have been ruined and dismantled, but it doesn’t make it true (except maybe in your own head. Like propaganda, repeat the lie enough and…)’
Learn to read. I said nothing about what has been done to you, but what has been done to others spreading your ridiculous message in the past. If you want to see how Libertarian and Austrian School of thought has been dismantled here in the past, do your own homework. I’m not here to repeat myself or to educate you. You said I was wrong. You prove it. The burden of proof is upon you to prove I’m wrong as challenger, despite your effort to shift it. That’s how debate works. Assertion, rebuttal, counterclaim. Attempting to shift the burden of proof isn’t a rebuttal any more than your claim that I’m ignorant or my definitions are wrong is a rebuttal. Get to work. I’m not going to give rebuttal for you nor am I going to provide you with any more evidence than I already have (which mainly consisted of pointing you in the right direction to do your own work) until you give a cogent rebuttal. Then I’ll gladly dismantle your rebuttal argument assuming you’re actually capable of making one.
Again, you constantly misrepresent or, more likely, misunderstand my opinion while providing evidence for questions unasked. I didn’t ask for evidence of corporatism. I asked for evidence of how Von Mises policies lead to corporatism. You seem to not know the difference between corporatism and a free market and are making a “false equivalence.”
Absolving any doubt that you do not understand what a free market is was provided when you stated that “prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market.” The imbecility of tht statement is startling. Please read Von Mises before attempting to refute his philosophy. Or at least read a definition of “free market.” I am sorry that you don’t know what you are talking about. and of course many forms of government could pass legislation prohibiting alcohol: oligarchy, fascism, communism, democracy, etc. But what you don’t seem to understand is the definition of socialism. If any form of government tells the people what they can and cannot purchase in the marketplace, then whatever else it is (democratic or fascist) it is also socialist.
Way to go Interpol! You got your man!!! Justice is served and we are all safer!!!!
……..
Disgusting.
To be honest, I was really just regurgitating your tactics on this thread, just in a more concise manner (I used one word, instead of too many). See here how you completely dismiss Bron without citing any evidence.
“He simply regurgitates whatever appeals to the confirmation bias rooted in his Objectivism. His beliefs dictate his knowledge, not the other way around.”
and again here.
“Your analysis is as usual simplistic and informed by your dogma rather than by the facts of both human nature and complex systems.”
and also here.
“We need someone to provide the bad examples around here.”
The funny thing about that second statement is that I completely agree with it, if applied to you.
But then you turn that around on me:
“You’re like all Ron Paul supporters. Long on bullshit, short on proof.”
So now all Ron Paul supporters are long on bullshit and short on proof. Do you have any proof to back up that statement?
I’ll treat some of this like I would if a student made these claims in a paper for class.
“I put “economics” in quotes because von Mises wasn’t a real economist.” (Perhaps start with the definition of economist)
-Evidence?
He was a political apologist for laissez-faire economics that eschewed scientific method in favor of political polemic that is based in incredibly wrong assumptions about human nature, that free markets are self-correcting, provide just outcomes and are incapable of grievous abuses if simply left to their own devices.”
-Evidence?
“Time and again history shows that in the absence of restraint, business will do horrible things in the name of profits – from selling adulterated products to abusive labor practices to outright participation in industrial genocide. ”
-Which time? which example? Which businesses?
“Von Mises pays a lot of lip service to liberty and property rights, but in the end, his policies if put into play would lead to simply a different flavor of fascism than what is already queued up to consume what is left of the American ideals of democratic justice and liberty for all as envisioned by your founders.”
-Evidence?
Again, I can say, “you are wrong, Von Mises’ policies would not lead to a simply different flavor of fascism than what is already queued up to consume what is left of the American ideals of a democratic justice and liberty for all as envisioned by your founders.” But why get in a debate with someone who states the above as obvious and prove facts when they are the exact opposite, and at the same time demanding others provide ‘proof’ while providing no evidence himself?
How about when I said: “Only socialist and fascist FORMS (note the plurality of the word form) of government create legislation that attempts to prevent people from acting of their own free will even if it harms no one else or their property.”
Then you said: “Socialism is also not the equivalent of fascism….”
Then I: “Furthermore, I see your strawman. I never said socialism is the same as fascism…”
Then you: “You see nothing other than your own futile attempt to escape your false equivalence.”
Your logic is truly amusing! Thanks for the laughs.
However, I want to clarify this point. I think you may believe I would rather have the blackmarket of the 1920’s in Alcohol than the current situation. That is not my point. I ask how the regulation in the 1920’s of prohibition was better than we are now that the market is much more freed up than it was. There is still licensing and taxes, but if people apply and receive permits they can do as they please within the confines of the state as opposed to being pushed into the blackmarket. I agree with the opposite of this! Freeing up markets is a good thing!!! Don’t you agree? Where is the economic tyranny of that market?
When I say blackmarkets are not inherently evil, that is because the market is not the problem. The market will exist whether or not the state allows it. The problem is that government deems it illegitimate, pushes it underground, and then violence erupts between sellers and the state and sellers themselves while bribery and blackmail become common practice.
Furthermore, the prohibition of alcohol was a socialist action. So if you support socialism for some things and not others, then how do you keep it running the way you want it to when you are not in office? The answer is that if we can allow the federal government certain intrusions because the majority of americans like them, even when they are not supported by our founding document, then the federal government has no limits when people who do not respect the people are in power. Hence Section 1021 of the NDAA is signed into law without a whimper, and those who site the unconstitutionality of it are laughed out of town, precisely because it has become such a common practice to break with the constitution in other matters.
Finally, “Obama is not a progressive, he sold a progressive bill of goods but in practice he’s a centrist Republican)”
Well, actually he has some progressive policies: federal healthcare, federal schooling, higher taxation are some examples. But you have confused an ideology (progress- simply defined as a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas) with a political party (Republican- someone who is a member of the Republican party).
You really cannot compare a political ideology with a political party. Party platforms and beliefs change (how many democrats supported the Iraq war while Obama was in office and opposed it when Bush was in office).
So, to correct your statement one could make it, “Obama has some progressive policies and is in fact a Democrat.” Evidence? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Barack_Obama_a_Republican_or_a_Democrat
I think maybe you were insinuating that Democrats are progressives, sorry to say but it just ain’t so, joe.
“We’ve had your type fly through here before and to a one they’ve all been dismantled.”
-Proclaiming I’ve been thoroughly dismantled at the end of your post is as silly as me proclaiming your ignorance at the beginning of my post. Though I am sure you will write a last post and proclaim your victory. Say it all you want about how I have been ruined and dismantled, but it doesn’t make it true (except maybe in your own head. Like propaganda, repeat the lie enough and…)
But don’t worry, I don’t plan on writing back yet again on this post and I don’t post regularly. I come here for the Turley, not to “teach the unteachable.” So proclaim your victory. Cyberspace glory awaits.
Raw Story is reporting:
Malaysia does not have a formal extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, but do have close ties. My reading of the story is that Kashgari will probably be extradited to Saudi Arabia to be executed.
Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/10/malaysian-police-detain-saudi-tweeter/
Damn!
You stating I’m ignorant isn’t proof any more than you saying my definitions are wrong isn’t proof, so save your smarmy bullshit for someone who cares about something other than proofs. You’re like all Ron Paul supporters. Long on bullshit, short on proof. The Libertarian platform, while it does have some practical planks appealing to actual progressives (and no, Obama is not a progressive, he sold a progressive bill of goods but in practice he’s a centrist Republican), is structurally unsound in its reliance upon the Austrian School of “Economics”. I put “economics” in quotes because von Mises wasn’t a real economist. He was a political apologist for laissez-faire economics that eschewed scientific method in favor of political polemic that is based in incredibly wrong assumptions about human nature, that free markets are self-correcting, provide just outcomes and are incapable of grievous abuses if simply left to their own devices. A polemic of greed is good if left to it’s own whim. Time and again history shows that in the absence of restraint, business will do horrible things in the name of profits – from selling adulterated products to abusive labor practices to outright participation in industrial genocide. Von Mises pays a lot of lip service to liberty and property rights, but in the end, his policies if put into play would lead to simply a different flavor of fascism than what is already queued up to consume what is left of the American ideals of democratic justice and liberty for all as envisioned by your founders.
We’ve had your type fly through here before and to a one they’ve all been dismantled. A Libertarian state is a delusional dream that has unfortunately captured a lot of people who are rightly and thoroughly disgusted with what has been done to our country by both major parties. That doesn’t change that their proposed solutions are by in large delusional and/or disasters waiting to happen. While their hearts may be in the right place, their minds aren’t. Libertarianism is simply another path to oligarchy and economic tyranny. It is simply corporatism in a different suit. And corporate fascism has worked so well in the past! Just ask Mussolini.
Your ignorance proves my point, thanks. Have a good night : )
“There is nothing inherently wrong with the black market. Your terminology is wrong and you often state opinions and false assumptions as facts, “it leads to the same ‘economic tyranny’…” no it doesn’t and it isn’t irrelevant. Would you describe the current state of beer and liquor sales in this country as economic tyranny? What about the lower prices and the less violence now that the state has allowed it to be legal again? How does that regulation make life more just? How does it equalize our lives? It doesn’t.
It makes things worse for everyone.”
No, I state facts that are facts and if you think my terminology is wrong, prove it.
“Would you describe the current state of beer and liquor sales in this country as economic tyranny? What about the lower prices and the less violence now that the state has allowed it to be legal again? How does that regulation make life more just?It doesn’t. It makes things worse for everyone.”
Really. I would think that not having gangsters blow up bars and restaurants and kill civilians with indiscriminate gunfire during turf wars was a good thing and providing for a more just and peaceful society, but if you want to go back to the days of black market liquor, no regulations (other than prohibition itself) and the resultant violence, then you have a radically different definition of a just society than I do.
“Furthermore, I see your strawman. I never said socialism is the same as fascism. I said that only in those types of governments can (and democracy can be socialist) actions that do not harm others and their property be illegal. Socialism is what you advocate for, correct? So it works to bailout manufacturers? Like the soviets did as well? What is socialism realized fully if not communism? And there were many reasons “we kicked ass,” one is that we got seriously involved during a practical stalemate and tipped the balance.”
You see nothing other than your own futile attempt to escape your false equivalence. As to what I advocate? I only advocate socialism insofar as certain systems should be socialized where private industry has failed or proven themselves bad actors – like health care insurance and energy. I’m for regulated capitalism. Also, you’re showing your ignorance. There is a huge difference between state owned manufacturing industry and propping up private manufacturing during a downturn. Just like there is a huge difference between socialism and communism. If you’d ever read Marx, let alone understood him, you’d know that he saw socialism as a step toward an inevitable communism. A position that has proven historically and practically incorrect. Communism is just as much an extremist form of economics and politics as laissez-faire capitalism is and both fail for making disastrous assumptions about human nature that are demonstrably false.
“But you cannot celebrate socialism and denounce the freemarket and then say that the bailouts aren’t part of socialism as the way you see it. Socialism isn’t the perfect utopia you see in your head (just democracy) socialism is the real world where real governments interefere with real markets and real industries.”
I didn’t say that it was utopia. I said it is a solution for some of our problems.
“In our nation, that has taken the form of TARP. That is socialism in action my friend. Either we allow government to get involved or we don’t.”
Another false equivalence based on the assumptions of laissez-faire thinking. You also missed the essential nature of TARP if you think it was socialism. It was fascism in action, “my friend”.
“If you think they should get involved, but only when you think it is just, then the government will act exactly how you want it to when you are chancellor. But what happens when our socialist system isn’t run by someone as just as you?”
Too bad for you I use an objective legal definition for what justice entails that I can both define and defend.
“Well, look in the rearview mirror of America. The best way to eliminate waste and corruption is to eliminate the mechanisms that allow for unjust controls and rewards.”
Like campaign finance that is actually little more than formalized graft.
Democracy is a salient and protected feature of our government. Capitalism, let alone the extremist laissez-faire version, isn’t. We are free to adopt any form of economics we like as long as property rights are respected and that includes many forms of socialism. There is only one form of economic practice that is prima facie unconstitutional and that’s communism (in which there is no recognition of personal property).
If you want to argue with me, slick? You better come better prepared than you have so far.
“Certainly the Ludlow Massacre was a bad thing. But I doubt the UMWA were guiltless.”
They were attacked and responded in kind, against both the National Guard and the companies. He who strikes the first blow holds the ethical culpability for initiating violence.
“Greed and homicide are pretty far apart on the spectrum of bad human behavior. Homicide is a violation of a persons right to life, while greed isnt even a crime. A crime would be theft or fraud which may have been caused by a persons greed, but greed is not a crime.”
Not really. Homicide is an action. Greed is a motive. As a motive, it influences the commission of all sorts of crimes, from fraud and theft to kidnapping and homicide. The motive itself is not per se illegal, but many of the resulting actions based upon greed are criminal. I never said greed was a crime in itself. Acting upon it can be.
“And any way government should protect life, liberty and property.”
Too bad for you that’s not the narrow province of proper functions for our government as defined by the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This goes far beyond simply protecting life, liberty and property. It creates a duty to create equity as justice requires equity and a duty to promote the lives and best interests of all Americans among other things.
Also, a graduated scale for taxation is perfectly fair as the benefit derived as income increases is not a linear progression, but a logarithmic progression.
“The problem is the insatiable desire of government for revenue to spend.”
No. The problem is that government spending has largely been co-opted by the 1% and the corporate to act in their narrow self interests and against the interests of the majority. The “problem” is corruption and malfeasance, not taxing and spending, both of which are Constitutional powers of Congress (and states from their own constitutions). The monies collected by government aren’t outrageous other than corporations and the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share. The monies are being misspent due to corruption to benefit the few at the expense of the many. That is the problem.
“Buffet and the other millionaires are doing that for their own self promotion and publicity.”
Really? Or do they recognize that falling governmental services and failing infrastructure compounded by increasing income disparity pose an actual threat to the fabric of society? A society from which they derive enormous benefits? A society, that were it to collapse, would cost them everything? Just because it is good PR doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing. The two are not mutually exclusive.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the black market. Your terminology is wrong and you often state opinions and false assumptions as facts, “it leads to the same ‘economic tyranny’…” no it doesn’t and it isn’t irrelevant. Would you describe the current state of beer and liquor sales in this country as economic tyranny? What about the lower prices and the less violence now that the state has allowed it to be legal again? How does that regulation make life more just? How does it equalize our lives? It doesn’t.
It makes things worse for everyone.
Furthermore, I see your strawman. I never said socialism is the same as fascism. I said that only in those types of governments can (and democracy can be socialist) actions that do not harm others and their property be illegal. Socialism is what you advocate for, correct? So it works to bailout manufacturers? Like the soviets did as well? What is socialism realized fully if not communism? And there were many reasons “we kicked ass,” one is that we got seriously involved during a practical stalemate and tipped the balance.
But you cannot celebrate socialism and denounce the freemarket and then say that the bailouts aren’t part of socialism as the way you see it. Socialism isn’t the perfect utopia you see in your head (just democracy) socialism is the real world where real governments interefere with real markets and real industries. In our nation, that has taken the form of TARP. That is socialism in action my friend. Either we allow government to get involved or we don’t. If you think they should get involved, but only when you think it is just, then the government will act exactly how you want it to when you are chancellor. But what happens when our socialist system isn’t run by someone as just as you? Well, look in the rearview mirror of America. The best way to eliminate waste and corruption is to eliminate the mechanisms that allow for unjust controls and rewards.
To answer all of your (mis)statements on my portable device is a torture I’d rather not endure on my portable device this Saturday afternoon. Good day.
Gene H:
Certainly the Ludlow Massacre was a bad thing. But I doubt the UMWA were guiltless. Unions were pretty violent back then and many unions were involved in violence while on strike. Unions should be allowed to strike but companies should be allowed to hire other workers if they do.
Greed and homicide are pretty far apart on the spectrum of bad human behavior. Homicide is a violation of a persons right to life, while greed isnt even a crime. A crime would be theft or fraud which may have been caused by a persons greed, but greed is not a crime.
I am all for the rule of law, an objective legal system is necessary to human civilization. I dont agree with Rothbard or ekeyra or anarchocapitalist about a free market court system, that wouldnt work too well. And any way government should protect life, liberty and property.
I seriously doubt all businessmen are moral actors just as I doubt all government employees are moral actors or all priests are moral actors.
Why is it fair for a person making $1,000,000 a year to pay a higher percentage of his income than a person making $60,000 per year? A person making the million is paying around $250,000 while the person making 60k is paying around $12,000 in federal taxes assuming deductions. This assumes the higher earnings are W2 but even if they are taxed at 15% it is still $150,000. Which is 10 times more. The thing to do is lower the rate of the people who make less money, now that would be fair and equitable. And also help the economy, putting more of people’s own money in their pockets is stimulus of the best kind.
The problem is the insatiable desire of government for revenue to spend.
Buffet and the other millionaires are doing that for their own self promotion and publicity.