Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Some comments in the ongoing debate regarding the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren got me to thinking about our political system and people’s reactions to it. Warren is criticized by the Right for obvious reasons, given her strong stances on managing the economy and controlling the excesses of the Corporate Culture. In a sense she offends their sense of political purity, but then that is but a given because she is a Democrat. We have seen though on the Right that such conservative stalwarts as Richard Lugar have gone down to primary defeat because he failed the Tea Parties test of what a “true” conservative should be. Richard Lugar failed the “purity” test even though his conservative history is impeccable. In my conception political purity conforms to “party line” thinking, punishing those that fail to adhere in all respects to the standards of a given faction’s concept of standards their candidates must adhere to in order to retain enthusiastic support. I use “faction”, rather than “party”, because our two party political system actually represents an amalgam of various factions imperfectly coalescing under the rubric of a “Political Party”.
From a Left, or even Centrist perspective, there has been both amusement and trepidation about how the “Tea Party” faction has exerted control over the Republican Party. Then too, there is the same reaction to the power exerted by Fundamentalist Christians, a group that at some points overlaps with the “Tea Party”. A human trait is to see the foibles of groups we define as “other”, while being oblivious to the idiosyncrasies of the groups we are aligned with. Liberals, Progressives, Radicals and even Leftist Centrists like to believe that they are immune from the turmoil that they see in their Right Wing opposites, yet the “Left” and even the “Center” also routinely define people in terms of litmus tests of political purity. This was highlighted by certain comments on the Warren thread where people who were seemingly in tune with her domestic policy views, disliked her positions on the Middle East and appeared to hold them against her. This has definitely been true with many progressives and/or civil libertarians in viewing this current Administration. My purpose here is not one of castigation for anyone’s perspective; rather I’m interested in exploring the phenomenon of the belief that political figures need to meet all of our expectations in their positions, or be unworthy of our support. My own perspective is that tests of political purity are self defeating because it is impossible for any particular political figure to be in perfect agreement with all that any of us individually believe and politics becomes oppression without the ability to negotiate. The process of real negotiation requires compromise. What follows is why I believe that is true. Before my discussion though, I think a definition of perspectives would be helpful. There are some of us, including myself to a certain degree, who believe that we are living under a corporate oligarchy and as such the common pretense that our national fate is in the hands of the majority’s vote, is but pleasant mythology. I wrote about this in my guest blog Published 1, March 17, 2012: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/ .One logical conclusion that can be drawn from believing that democracy is an illusion, is that voting is a wasted effort, since whatever person we choose will either be a corporate stooge, or unelectable. I can respect those who draw that conclusion since the evidence of its truth is quite convincing. My own conclusion is not quite there yet, even though I do believe that we are under the rule of a coalition of the Military Industrial Complex and of the Corporate Elite. The redeeming feature to me is that I don’t believe in the homogeneity of the “ruling classes”. I think that they are made up of various factions and roiled by clashing egos. In my estimation voting for politicians thus has value because the vote affects the competition among our oligarchs. There is a qualitative difference for instance between Buffett/Gates and the Koch Brothers, in the sense that the former believe in more humane social policies and the latter have a draconian social view.
If one believes that Democracy is completely illusory, then why bother voting, since voting is a futile exercise? The logical conclusion of such a belief is to disdain all of American politics and politicians as being tools of the Oligarchy. From that perspective it isn’t a question of particular policy, since almost every player in normative politics is not to be trusted. So the question becomes how do the people change things when the political process is believed to be non-existent? Obviously, if it is ones view that America politics is a total sham, then a massive uprising of the people would be needed to make change. How does that uprising occur? Will its’ nature be peaceful, or violent? While I know there are “militias” out in the hills of places like Idaho, are they capable of banding together to overthrow our current government, I think not. Violent revolutions always seem to breed unforeseen and unpleasant excesses, which make their original aims moot. So the question becomes how do we effect a peaceful revolution? The answer is simple, but the process itself is immensely complex. A peaceful revolution can come about when you are able to convince an overwhelming majority of the people that the current system needs change and that they need to refuse to cooperate with it. Think of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. When the media is in the hands of corporations though, the issue is one of how does the message of change come across to reach the populace? It’s a question I’ve pondered for years.
Back in the 60’s there was the idea of “dropping out” of a corrupt system. Its problem was that it was espoused by many and practiced by few. The truth was that for those “dropping out” the system didn’t miss their participation, nor would it now. A current conservative stratagem is to make voting harder, thereby limiting turnout of voters negative to their cause. We solve nothing by not voting. We could vote, but cast our votes for nascent opposition parties. This is not a bad premise in my estimation, even though in our loaded political system, minority party effectiveness is more limited than under parliamentary government. Let us think though about a minority party legislator’s ability to be effective once elected, since I assume that the process of gaining political power through organizing a minority party opposition would be slow and could be violently opposed. Think of the police reactions to Occupy Wall Street. However, OWS does show that the elite can feel threatened by a mass movement.
When we discuss the election of someone whose political views are outside of what the “mainstream allows”, we need to take into account how much positive influence they can have on the political process, if they are unwilling to compromise their “political purity”. Let us take the real instance of Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist, as he does his job in the Senate. I believe that Bernie is the most ethical and perceptive Senator we have had in the Senate in a long time. He is also an effective Senator in terms of being able to not only put forth a progressive point of view, but to actually influence Senate activity. In order to be effective in the Senate, Bernie has had to compromise on certain issues and thus would certainly be seen from the orthodox socialist perspective to have sold out. In contrast let us take another man whose career I’ve admired, Dennis Kucinich. Dennis has been an aggressive/effective spokesman on a national level for unpopular, yet valid causes. Within the house though he has not been able to effectuate change simply because Dennis does not do compromise well
In today’s world a political change process is mainly effectuated in four ways:
1. Violent revolution, which is highly problematic at best.
2. Massive non cooperation with the system, ala Gandhi and King, which can be very successful based
upon the right circumstances.
3. Organizing and creating an opposition political movement, a possibly fruitful, yet hard process to carry
out with success..
4. Working within the system, imperfect as it may be, to effect slow change.
All of the above can be work to effect change in a given context, but one factor is a given no matter which method is chosen. To build a mass movement in a diverse population the need to compromise is paramount. This need to compromise is called “coalition building”. The Right has been effective at this for years when you think of the coalition between religious fundamentalists, lukewarm objectivists and outright corporatists. What would Jesus, Ayn Rand and even Adam Smith think of the ways their teachings have been presumably melded? In the past the Left also coalesced around certain issues, bringing together groups that were hardly homogeneous. However, from the 60’s onward building of coalitions on the Left has broken down. “Centrists” and “Liberals” became anathema to “progressives” and “radicals”. After all that he had accomplished Martin Luther King became an “Uncle Tom” in the minds of “Black Power” advocates for his refusal to entertain the concept of violence as a tool.
The Left coalition also began to break down in the 60’s over the issue of Viet Nam. Working class union members generally supported the war that was drafting and killing their children. The leadership of the AFL-CIO, who had striven to disassociate themselves from Marxism during the McCarthy era, had become part of the country’s establishment. As George Meany, the AFL-CIO President, began to play golf with Eisenhower and major industrialists, the Union movement swung away from its Left Wing roots. The fact that the labor movement was overwhelmingly “white working class” in an era where Blacks were demanding equal status also took its toll on the coalition between Big Labor and the Democratic Party. The AFL-CIO and Teamsters supported Richard Nixon in 1968..
The labor movement’s departure from coalition with the Democratic Party was to have devastating consequences for its strength. Their workers, doing well financially aspired to a scaled down version of the American Dream. The threat that competition with Blacks for jobs and with the Left’s critique of muscular foreign policy, helped drive white workers into the Republican Party. The fact that their leadership had become cozy with Management and Republicans led the way. The power of the labor movement waned until today it is a shadow of what it once was. The Left coalition forged under FDR and informed experientially by the “Great Depression”, began to fight amongst themselves. The battles increasingly became issues of “purity of political belief”. When a person’s political value is weighed on only specific issues that are politically “black and white”, coalition becomes almost impossible. Without the ability to coalesce “Movements” face severe limitations in their ability to grow.
I believe that in the desire for reforming our governance to work for the interests of all the people, all viable methods must be used. Of the four methods I list above I believe that only the latter three are really viable. A violent revolution in this country will only hasten the totality of oppression, since violent revolutions never seem to work out the way people have planned and that the people once having risen find themselves ruled harshly by those they so hopefully followed. Refute this premise if you will, but please don’t cite the American Revolution. While it certainly had violence it was a rebellion of colonies against an overseas colonial state. By revolution I mean the rebellion of a people in a certain geographical area against their own government.
Methodologically, none of the three methods can work without bringing together people of differing standards via a coalition that accepts deviation from a “party line”. This seems obvious to me since rarely do those who wish change agree on all issues. Are there “deal breakers” that cannot brook compromise? That depends upon the individual, the perceived threat and the current circumstance. I have my own deal breakers, certainly, but I invoke them in context of my reading of the perceived threat.
What do you the reader think of the argument I’ve made? If you disagree please let me know, since I understand that on any given subject I can be wrong and I am really willing to learn. If you agree with me then what are your “deal breakers”? Perhaps if you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
@hskiprob: I am not interested in your analysis of the survey, you really are not competent to offer any opinion worth scientific spit.
I am not sure what you are trying to get me to look at; but if it were up to me, at some level of management people working for the government would no longer be permitted to work for private industry at all.
The only people allowed to manage more than 100 people or so would be required to sign lifetime contracts with the government as civil servants, and I would say to have at least 15 years of continuous service as a civil servant already under their belt.
This lifetime contract would ensure their pay at no less than that level, although it would not ensure their particular job, and it would ensure their retirement, pay and benefits. I believe there would be plenty of takers, most people in such positions are in it for the career anyway, and only such “lifers” would be permitted to negotiate any contract with a for-profit individual or firm.
Tony,
Notice how Skippy avoids responding to your proof re: the happiness index by changing the subject to a 43 year old report on a different topic?That type of deceit works well with the half bombed apres golfers who hang on his every word. Perhaps it is unfair but anyone called Skip usually also is a preppie who inherited his money and thinks they earned it.
Skip,
The report uses the following table to demonstrate this:
===========================================
Where’s the table?
Bron 1, June 10, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Tony C:
A fox would tear 99 chickens a new asshole and be well fed. That is why some government is necessary to protect the people from predators. But that doesnt mean you put the people in a small enclosure and have many guards running around.
But anyway humans arent chickens. Your analogy is telling. Comparing humans to chickens is a real tell into how you think about government. And what you think about people.
Rational chickens would kill the fox. Rational chickens dont need a farmer to protect them, they dont need a pen to keep them contained.
==================================================
You are contradicting yourself. How do 99 rational chickens kill the fox when the fox will tear them a new asshole and be very well fed? Do you want to be a rational chicken? Like Skippy.
“A bill of rights was added for obvious reasons.”
The bill of rights = the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Only at Amendment 13 was slavery abolished.
So we had a government that did not seem schizophrenic — including the bill of rights AND slavery within the same structure — for over 100 years. Does this say something about how authoritative Jefferson, Adams and Franklin’s pronouncements are in our society today?
Skip,
Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams
Remember when Ben Franklin was asked by a women what kind of government did you give us. I believe he stated “A Republic my dear, if you can keep it.” A bill of rights was added for obvious reasons.
To bad we have not protected them.
I wonder if the term ignorance come from phrase “to ignor” —- Perhaps Gene you need a bit clearer understanding of just what a democracy really is. Remember this Cute little parable. Two foxes and a chicken deciding what’s for lunch. Maybe that we help you remember it.
===========================================
You’re the chicken.
Skip,
When somebody uses the word “dude” while addressing somebody else that means they’re mentally deficient and not worth listening to. You’re the one who should leave. I don’t like writing responses to you except to tell you what you are.
@hskiprob: give me an example or two.
Why should I have to prove my claims when you just make bullshit claims without any justification or proof or examples at all?
Unregulated markets allow companies to compete by any means necessary. The first rule of business becomes making sure competition never gets a foothold; and that is done by forcing startups out of business through entirely unfair means. Like bribing suppliers to refuse them service, selling at beneath their cost in order to starve them out of business (and then recovering the cost of that by returning to monopolistic pricing), false advertising about new competition, purposely opening up a money-losing competitive site next to them, and so on.
Monopoly is the natural outcome of business competition; the objective of competition is to put one’s competitors out of business, and sooner or later somebody screws up, or a fire occurs, and a business is lost. Unregulated business gets dominated by the strongest player, even if they have to buy up competition, or collude to set prices with their competition and, like mafia families, define a territorial truce of non-competition so they have an effective monopoly within an area.
We prohibit many of those tactics by law precisely because they worked, in the past, to extort money from consumers and prevent actual competition.
An economy riddled with non-competition and monopolies is the natural state of an unregulated market; we have been there and done that, there was a good reason for Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting circa 1900, in the far more unregulated markets of that time, monopolies and collusion to fix prices was rampant, and Roosevelt’s efforts were applauded by the vast majority of Americans suffering sky high prices (in terms of hours of labor worked) because of it.
The people of 1900 were not buying your snake oil, and the people of 2012 want it even less.
@hskiprob: Because if you give me a country, I will send you tons of news to the contrary.
Your cherry picking is not evidence and not welcome. However, for a scientific approach, I suggest you Google the Gallup World Happiness report, which ranks countries in the world by how happy their citizens are. The top 11, in order, are:
Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, USA.
I will leave it to you to figure out whether the more socialist countries in the world are more “harmonious” than the USA. And just for good measure, the least happy countries in the world are also about the most unregulated markets imaginable.
Before I go into your highly scientific happiness index report, take a look at this.
Interestingly, the report references a statement by the late Senator William Proxmire, Democrat of Wisconsin, from 1969 about the revolving door of the military-industrial complex:
The easy movement of high ranking military officers into jobs with major defense contractors and the reverse movement of top executives in major defense contractors into high Pentagon jobs is solid evidence of the military industrial-complex in operation. It is a real threat to the public interest because it increases the chances of abuse . . . How hard a bargain will officers involved in procurement planning or specifications drive when they are one or two years from retirement and have the example to look at of over 2,000 fellow officers doing well on the outside after retirement?
In forty years, the problem has of course not gone away. The author of the CIP report notes that there are scores of former government officials working in the nuclear weapons lobby, providing it with special access to the government that it otherwise would not have. The report uses the following table to demonstrate this:
Tony tried to utilize the happiness index to correlate the use of socialism in a society to it’s overall happiness. He stated: I will leave it to you to figure out whether the more socialist countries in the world are more “harmonious” than the USA. And just for good measure, the least happy countries in the world are also about the most unregulated markets imaginable.
From LA TImes Article:
“The United States ranks 11th, just after Ireland. The unhappiest countries were Togo (ranked last), Benin, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Comoros, Haiti, Tanzania, Congo and Bulgaria. Bhutan, which pioneered the happiness index, is not included in the Gallup World Poll. (Other surveys rank countries differently from Gallup. It’s not hard to notice that the unhappiest countries are also some of the poorest.The four happiest countries have incomes that are 40 times higher than the four unhappiest countries, the report said. People can also expect to live 28 years longer in the happiest nations.”
A lot of things can make a country poor but we have also discussed the economic cycle of countires so at anyone time in one country could be very much different in another. Ireland a 20 years ago were in a civil war with the English. A happniess index may try to quantify how people feel about their government but that can change quickly, In 2004 and 2005 when the real estate market was booming, I bet in this country the happiness index was much higher than it was in 2009.
Good try Tony but a very very weak argument as usual. Understandably as you position is impossible to support.
@skip: but in free market societies that is generally false.
No, it isn’t. That is a lie.
Tony,give me an example or two. Where and When? If monopolies exist for any length of time, they are always government granted, like the US Post Office or Florida Power and Light. Perhaps in a few situation which are short term migratory situations such as the mining towns of the old west, you might get a one store town where the store owner surely had an economic advantage. Of course he had to pay a pretty penny to ship in supplies. No one says that free markets are perfect ther just way better than any form of fascism, which is what almostall countries eventually turn out until the collpse.
@Mike: That was me talking about pure communism; as opposed to the forms of socialism that DO preserve a merit-based reward system, for those willing to work harder, invent, create, take risks, etc.
Sweden is a good example of that because they provide for the basics of life through socialism funded by income taxes, but have a market-based economy for everything else. You can still start a company, work hard, get rich, hire servants, live in a big house, own a lot of land, etc. There is no cap on income, or net worth. They have far more entrepreneurs per capita than America, a more educated populace than America, better health care, unemployment and care for the poor than America.
@Bron: Capitalism within socialism works just fine; look at Sweden. Your claim that socialism just doesn’t work is bullshit, it is working fine in many parts of the world.
Pure communism has been pretty much a failure, that was what China was doing, but pure communism does not let individuals pursue prosperity and get ahead by working and producing value, pure communism does not reward people for developing their talents through practice and sacrifice. Socialism allows for those things, and that is why it can succeed (and has) where pure communism does not.
Socialism is not mutually exclusive with capitalism in the least, in fact socialism has been proven to increase and complement capitalism.
Mike Spindell:
I am sort of curious as to how skiprob is an authoritarian seeing as how he is a libertarian and further seeing as how libertarians dont allow for the initiation of force against others.
I am further confused by the fact that you can have socialism in a capitalist system but you cant have capitalism in a socialist system unless forced to like they do in China.
The authoritarians are far more prevalent on the left than on the right. Fundamentalist Christians dont count, we dont claim them and wish they would go away.
But I do admit to having a narrow mind when it comes to economics, that socialism shit just doesnt work and China had to accept capitalism to prosper.
“I am sort of curious as to how skiprob is an authoritarian seeing as how he is a libertarian and further seeing as how libertarians dont allow for the initiation of force against others.”
Bron,
An authoritarian is someone who adheres to the preaching of given authority with religious zealotry and are unable to see any other possibilities. It is defined not by ones beliefs on the political spectrum, but by their denial that theirs is not the only way. This has been the point of much of what I have blogged about here and the thrust of a large percentage of my comments. You will note that from my writings I have been just as critical of Leftist partisans, as I have of those on the Right. You might also remember, because I have written about it a lot in comments, that I had a great deal of experience with both Communists and Socialists in the 60’s. Perhaps too you might remember that I opposed them politically. I understand them far more than either you or Skip do because of actually knowing them and because they tried (but failed) to recruit me.
When you and Skip see Socialism, Communism and Marxism as all being the same you miss the boat historically and realistically. As has been pointed out by both Tony and Gene there is a continuum. Socialism, of the non-Marxist variety, can and does exist harmoniously in many countries where the citizens are very happy. However, I’m not certain that such things as universal healthcare are strictly socialist and as such antithetical to free enterprise. Health Care is one area where this is particularly true. Medicare has a three percent administrative cost, versus private insurance which has at least a 15% admin cost. Medicare works more efficiently and better than private health insurance at 20% of the cost of private insurance. However, the thing often missed by the Corporate elite in the US is that if Healthcare were Universal, business would be relieved of significant expenditures. This would lead to greater profits and a better ability to compete in other markets.
I worked in government on the executive level as a Budget Director, Agency Chief Contracting Officer, Director of Administration and as Deputy Director of Fiscal Integrity. Compared to the private sector, in many measurable ways, we worked much cheaper and with greater efficiency. I know this because I’ve had may friends who were quite successful in the private sector and through the years we’ve compared notes. In the end though, as I’ve stated many times, I’m not into any “Isms”, except for Pragmatism as a means to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to maximize their potential in life.
“Pure communism has been pretty much a failure, that was what China was doing, but pure communism does not let individuals pursue prosperity and get ahead by working and producing value, pure communism does not reward people for developing their talents through practice and sacrifice.”
Pure Communism is and has always been Utopian bullshit. It has been a vehicle for sociopaths like Lenin, Stalin and Mao to seize power and rule oppressively. The same is true though for Objectivism and what is presented
as Libertarianism, not to fail to mention Fascism. These are all philosophies that Authoritarians are drawn to despite their protestations. Authoritarians are drawn to philosophies like this because they are looking for simple solutions to deal with the complexities of humanity’s social interactions. The same is true for those who are doctrinaire religionists
As I’ve quoted before from Julius Caesar “The fault dear Brutus is not in the stars, but in ourselves”. No “Ism” will cure society of its’ ills, but “Isms” will continue to allow Sociopaths and Psychopaths to control weak minded people with absolutist approaches.
Mike stated: Socialism, of the non-Marxist variety, can and does exist harmoniously in many countries where the citizens are very happy.”
You must be defining harmony, as people who are not yet shooting one another in the Streets. Or you must be talking about places like Andora, which is one of the most free market places on the planet and very expensive to live.
Where are you talking about? Because if you give me a country, I will send you tons of news to the contrary.
I should say, I do not deny that free market principles can work, such as a consumer’s liberty to choose among vendors that compete on various combinations of price, quality, service, and rarity, or salary, benefits, hours, and safety. However, the competition is always in response to the consumer’s choices, and market failures occur when the consumer choice becomes limited or is eliminated. If there is only one place to work in town, the market allows that place to be draconian. If the “consumer” of emergency care is going to die without it, the price can be everything the consumer owns. If no grocer, distributor, or farmer is ever willing to accept liability for the food they sell and demands specifically to be released from all liability, the consumer has no choice but to take their chances (or buy enough land and spend enough time to grow their own food).
What works to drive competition is consumer choice, but in reality choice is often very limited or just non-existent, and in those cases what protects the consumer from predation is the laws that prevent predation.
Tony Stated: What works to drive competition is consumer choice, but in reality choice is often very limited or just non-existent, and in those cases what protects the consumer from predation is the laws that prevent predation.
In communist countires that would be generally true but in free market societies that is generally false. The greater the resrtictions (taxation and Regulations) generally the less competition. Remember I’m including the costs of things such as permiting, costs of inspections, fines etc. as part of taxation as a general term. Is a fishing license taxations?Yes. I’m having a hard time coming up with a product or service where as a consumer, I felt as if I’m being victimized and the only one I can think of is FP&L, our government granted utility monopoly or where I’m currenlty living, where the rates are even higher, the Lake Worth Utility.
Mike Spindell:
I dont agree with skiprob on every one of his ideas, I think his anarcho-capitalism is not right. There are also things like free market courts I dont agree with him about, I think that is a terrible idea. Also free market police and especially a mercenary army; that is truly a bad idea.
@hskiprob: I have seen homeowners screwed by developer that had already gutted his temporary corporation of all profits, and left the homeowners hanging. Is that what you are talking about?
The question is NOT whether an individual dentist or decorator or restaurant can gain a good reputation or not, you make the mistake of thinking that if your philosophy can work in just ONE hypothetical instance it must work in ALL cases.
This is not about that; this is about what will plausibly work in the vast majority of cases, what will minimize the harm done to others. Nothing will eliminate it. The fact is I understand the “invisible hand” just perfectly, and the logic is wrong, and it doesn’t work. The free market fails, in particular it fails on the liability issue, in particular it fails when people do not have the time or information needed to choose (like when they are bleeding to death, or must choose a path when no information is available). In particular it fails when competition does not appear because their share of the resultant market would not cover their costs. In particular it fails when people’s external circumstances, like responsibility to an extended family or a support network of friends or a spouse’s job or the savings they have from living in an inherited home or their desire to remain close to their doctor that has been treating them prevents them from making market choices like moving elsewhere to seek better employment.
I do not deny the free market can work in many circumstances, perhaps even most circumstances. But the free market can also fail, and in failing cause grievous harm and hardship and effectively cause all the ills of complete subjugation, and the only way to correct those failures is through law and law enforcement that prevents those ills.
The narrow mind, awash in the certainty of false belief, is unable to ascertain the difference between fact and fiction. It inevitably chooses comforting fiction, while in denial of actual fact. The denial is akin to intellectual blindness.
Supporting documentation: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/
From a poll::
Is Anarcho-Capitalism is a viable solution to government problems?: 1%
Was Ayn Rand full of shit”: 98%
Is selfishness a virtue?: 5%
Does Skip lie in defense of his positions? 99%
Does Skip provide facts instead of assertions?: 1%
Hint: My poll wasn’t done at the bar with my cronies after a “tough” round of golf.
“That is your opinion Mike that many people disagree with and that you have provided no “facts” to support. Like Tony and his inability to understand the invisable hand of the market, you are perhaps not taking into considerations something that you have not considered as your opinion is highly and extensively disputed.”
The problem is, I cannot know what you don’t know or should I just assume that you know everything.”
Skip,
You have been the one stating mere opinions here, in addition to providing various false intimations like “The US “nationalizing” companies, that I’ve proven false. While Tony and Gene have done the yeoman work of logically and factually showing your assertions to be laughably Utopian in content, I’ve also done the same to a lesser degree.
As far as my knowing everything, I’ve learned as I’ve aged that I was beginning on the path to wisdom when I realized I didn’t know everything, from your comments here, I see that you haven’t and may never reach that point of maturity.
http://www.cracked.com/video_18426_ayn-rand-5Bplaceholder5D.html
The true story!
@hskiprob: I think most products must be UL labeled to be sold in the US.
That is a LAW, dummy, it is not an OPTION.