Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

Originally posted by endisnighe

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c609ebf597d.jpg[/atsimg]

In the pre-corporate era free-market principles was a great thing. In ancient times I am quite certain there were many entrepreneurs selling their goods and services.

Today we have ENORMOUS multi-national corporations that have more money, power and influence than all the governments combined. Do you realise just how dangerous that can be?

Not only are they consolidating wealth between themselves by mergers and aquisitions but they are also consolidating that wealth with all the participating governments.

Lets make it nice and sweet then: Governments and multi-national firms are conspiring to create monopolies, keep employee wages artificially low, and harm the enviroment in the name of profit(BP is a great example).

If we focus on big-pharma, oil companies and the military-industrial complex we can see why the world is in such a pathetic mess. It would take me pages and pages to properly explain myself so I will keep it brief.

The military-industrial complex NEEDS WAR at least once per decade to sustain itself and that is the reason for the iraqi, afghan conflicts and the 9-11 debacle. By sustaining itself I am talking about reasonable turn-over in weapons manufacturing and the government having an excuse to keep all the service personell employed rather than unemployed collecting unemployment and welfare stamps. The elite need the military to be tip-top shape so they can USE IT whenever they want but mostly for imperialistic purposes.

Oil companies need more and more oil, which means new drilling territories and laxxer rules and regulations to follow. They have exhausted north america and europe for the most part and now are focusing on south america, africa, the middle east and asia. To be able to drill their they need local government coperation and reasonable kick-back in profits.

Big Pharma needs people to remain sick/uncured so they can keep selling their *treat the symptoms only* medication. If they cured people outright, which I am reasonably sure they could, then WHO THE HELL would keep buying THEIR MEDICINE? Do you see the conspiracy here? Also government(the elite) would HATE having a large percentage of the population live beyond 80 because medicare/medicaid/social security payments would overwhelm the system. I mean the system is bad enough as it is now, can you imagine if 70% of the population exceeding 80? Not to mention the lower any given population is the easier it is for them to control and force into covert slavery.

People need to think longer and harder. Stop being a god-damm ignorant fool! Take a freakin aspirin afterwards if your headache is unbearable OR let the elite solve everything with "natural disasters" and "uncurable diseases".

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

For conservatives its always illegal immigration, welfare state and taxes.

Conservatives conserve, and in the United States of America, if one is not conserving the Constitution, then they are no conservative. Your hopeless attempt to lump conservatives in with a Republican Party agenda, has nothing at all to do with American conservatism. You ignore all I say in order to cling to your fairy tale views of your opponents, pretending you are some heroic dragon slayer.

What does a PRIVATE federal reserve have to do with "big government"?

Odd you would ask that question since it was you who brought them up and pointed out that they were created by legislation, and now ask what that has to do with big government.

How does it matter if we have a "small" or "big" government if the government itself is a corporation?

The government has no business being a corporation. They are not in the business of business, they are in the business of government, and it that government isn't about protecting the Inalienable Rights of individuals, they serve no purpose at all.

Isn't a corporation private in that only a limited number of people own shares within it?

Corporations are statutorily created entities and have no place in a free market system. Corporations are antithetical to capitalism.

Please be VERY CAREFUL how you answer these questions as they are paramount to the discussion and will help me understand HOW WELL you comprehend economics and politics. Most people fail miserably....

Your understanding of economics is woefully ignorant, and you continue to display this ignorance as if it is your magic lance you use to slay imaginary dragons. Consider this ignorant remark;

Banking is paramount to a healthy economy and the rules®ulations applied by government are equally paramount in providing stability and growth. I am talking about commercial banks!

How is banking paramount to a healthy economy? What does banking have to do with supply and demand?

he problem is who issues the money. Does government issue the money via the treasury department or does the PRIVATE(corporate) FED? I prefer the first.

You want to have it both ways, and its not big governments fault they created the Fed, its the Fed's fault for acting like a private bank that was created that way by government, and lo and behold, once created, now look the government needs to be even bigger so it can regulate the monster it created. You should change your user name to St. George.

Banks provide stability and GROWTH to the economy if regulated properly. When regulation fails then many banks will fail and the economy will suffer.

Do you have any idea how many banking crisis there have been throughout the history of banking, and how these banks have literally destroyed economies? Oh wait, but that's because they weren't properly regulated and the problem is we just haven't made government big enough to properly regulate these monsters. Poor St. George, all alone with out a big government to help him slay the dragons.

They figure government is always bad and will always bring tyranny when it does'nt have to be that way.

Sure, just as soon as government is finally allowed to reach Leviathan stature, then they will benignly rule all us little people.

At the end of the day, it always comes down to people knowing how government works and participating in the decission process. If people are so ignorant by voting the same two parties again and again, then they deserve tyranny. I am sorry but this is the truth.

So, on the one hand you vehemently declare that people can not govern themselves, but if they fail to understand how government works they deserve tyranny, and this is why I have been insisting you make the tyrants arguments, and no amount of sad little emoticons will make it appear to be any less than what it is.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

For conservatives its always illegal immigration, welfare state and taxes.

Conservatives conserve, and in the United States of America, if one is not conserving the Constitution, then they are no conservative. Your hopeless attempt to lump conservatives in with a Republican Party agenda, has nothing at all to do with American conservatism. You ignore all I say in order to cling to your fairy tale views of your opponents, pretending you are some heroic dragon slayer.

How does what I said about welfare/illegal immigration/taxes NOT fit in with ALL conservatives? Why do you constantly bring the constitution into the equation to distract from other issues? Do ONLY conservatives care about the constitution? I think not my friend but go ahead and believe whatever makes you happy.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen
What does a PRIVATE federal reserve have to do with "big government"?

Odd you would ask that question since it was you who brought them up and pointed out that they were created by legislation, and now ask what that has to do with big government.

Yes I still ask the same question because you failed to answer it. Fact is you can't answer it WITHOUT bringing "big government" into the equation.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen
How does it matter if we have a "small" or "big" government if the government itself is a corporation?

The government has no business being a corporation. They are not in the business of business, they are in the business of government, and it that government isn't about protecting the Inalienable Rights of individuals, they serve no purpose at all.

They serve the illuminati purpose, not the "inalienable rights of individuals" or the constitution. Finally something we can agree on....

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Isn't a corporation private in that only a limited number of people own shares within it?

Corporations are statutorily created entities and have no place in a free market system. Corporations are antithetical to capitalism.

Yes they are statutorily created entities and have been in existance for a long time but I don't see why they have to be antithetical to capitalism.

Its simply a matter of regulating them and most governments have failed miserably at that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen
Please be VERY CAREFUL how you answer these questions as they are paramount to the discussion and will help me understand HOW WELL you comprehend economics and politics. Most people fail miserably....

Your understanding of economics is woefully ignorant, and you continue to display this ignorance as if it is your magic lance you use to slay imaginary dragons. Consider this ignorant remark;

Banking is paramount to a healthy economy and the rules®ulations applied by government are equally paramount in providing stability and growth. I am talking about commercial banks!


How is banking paramount to a healthy economy? What does banking have to do with supply and demand?

Banking is a business. It lends money for a profit! That doesn't mean they have to issue money as well though. Big difference!

By lowering and raising the interest rates they can facilitate stability and growth according to the prevalent economic conditions. Pretty much what they do now without the FED getting involved.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen
he problem is who issues the money. Does government issue the money via the treasury department or does the PRIVATE(corporate) FED? I prefer the first.

You want to have it both ways, and its not big governments fault they created the Fed, its the Fed's fault for acting like a private bank that was created that way by government, and lo and behold, once created, now look the government needs to be even bigger so it can regulate the monster it created. You should change your user name to St. George.

Can you stop using big government? It sounds really dumb!

The corporate FED is running the corporate USA government since 1913 and that is all that matters. One corporation running another corporation and all the other corporations below them.

If we had true socialism from the beginning none of this would ever happen.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen
Banks provide stability and GROWTH to the economy if regulated properly. When regulation fails then many banks will fail and the economy will suffer.

Do you have any idea how many banking crisis there have been throughout the history of banking, and how these banks have literally destroyed economies? Oh wait, but that's because they weren't properly regulated and the problem is we just haven't made government big enough to properly regulate these monsters. Poor St. George, all alone with out a big government to help him slay the dragons.

Yes they were NOT properly regulated! Isn't it obvious? DUH!!!

What kind of government do YOU suggest will get rid of all these kleptocrats? Libertarian, anarchy(no government) or what???

Go ahead speak up

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen
At the end of the day, it always comes down to people knowing how government works and participating in the decission process. If people are so ignorant by voting the same two parties again and again, then they deserve tyranny. I am sorry but this is the truth.

So, on the one hand you vehemently declare that people can not govern themselves, but if they fail to understand how government works they deserve tyranny, and this is why I have been insisting you make the tyrants arguments, and no amount of sad little emoticons will make it appear to be any less than what it is.

Were you not one of the people arguing that freedom of speech includes freedom of financially supporting your favorite candidate a few months ago?

Just curious....

Topic Creator really needs to calm down and take a xanax. Then we'll talk seriously

Originally posted by Luke Idea
Topic Creator really needs to calm down and take a xanax. Then we'll talk seriously

Poster needs to stick to the topic and stop chastising the OP or not post.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Black markets are in this age of heavily regulated "free markets", the only free market around. Black markets are not regulated. That they exist only goes to show that free markets can exist without regulation.

Yeah because Black markets are just peachy when it comes to consumer rights.....come on.

reply to post by OLDMATE

Yeah because Black markets are just peachy when it comes to consumer rights.....come on.

Yeah, right. Like you care one iota about consumers. First of all Rights are Rights, and consumers don't have any special rights above and beyond their Inalienable Rights. Secondly, governments create black markets showing complete disregard to the consumer who clearly wants that product.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Any battle fatigue there yet buddy?

Anyhow thanks for sharing your political roots with me, I really enjoyed learning that
and learning about the genesis of your perspective.

I have been reading this thread and it is nice to see so much opinion... It sort of sucks to see so much frustration at the same time, I feel it too, it seems to be on the menu everyday.

I often wonder if we really understand eachothers rationale for concern and actually comprehend them in the way other does.

Or do we fully understand them and disagree with the legitimacy of these concerns?



It seems to me the first is much more prevalent here... I see other people interacting
with you in a way that shows me they do not get the totality of the concept you embody. I will say even a half a year ago I might have been guilty of the same, but now I am very glad to explore these ideas and I feel it has been a notable milestone
in my ATS journey which stretches back long before Janky was fabricated.

I very much understand the conservative argument as I have really tried to seek it out.
This has not eroded all of my concerns, but it has not served to strengthen my liberal notions either. I feel assaulted by so many clashing ideas; do you choose principle of the heart or of the mind? Which is which? Does it even matter?

Does one damage liberty by taking liberty with liberty?

Does one damage liberty by defining liberty?

The rhetorical hurricane of the mind ensues

I am off to have a fight with my guitar... good night









[edit on 10-5-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red


More than fatigued my friend. It would be much more pleasurable strumming my own guitar than repeating myself over and over again here, to people who have no interest in what I am saying. I am grateful to know there are people out there, such as you, willing to listen and consider my thoughts.

It is nice to see so much opinion, even though I am clearly frustrated. I am still, as I will always be, a huge fan of the freedom to express oneself in the manner each see fit.

Perhaps we can never fully understand each others rationale, but this is the point of communication, to at least try. How odd that we can be so undeniably interconnected, and yet so separate and firmly so in our beliefs. Even so, that separateness is merely our view point, and our interconnectedness our only true reality.

Either I am fully understanding some here and just vehemently disagreeing, or I am guilty of not at all understanding the other position. It is hard to tell sometimes, and in the end, no matter how interconnected we may be, I can only understand things from my personal point of view.

I take heart in that you've come to understand me better, and hopefully the same is true of my understanding of you. It helps to maintain that faith, that in time those who I do consider my friends, even if I find opposition with them, may come to better understand me, and I them.

I used to, myself, use the term liberal as pejorative, as if being liberal meant being left wing, but I no longer view liberalism in such a way, and in terms of American liberalism, if a conservative is one who endeavors to conserve the Constitution then a liberal is one who takes a liberal view of that Constitution. I think both are necessary. I have argued this before, but perhaps it bears repeating. The Myth of Icarus, I think serves as a great analogy of the necessity of relationship between liberal and conservative.

Icarus was a brash and impetuous youth who had the audacity to soar where only eagles dared. It was his father Daedalus who gave Icarus this gift of flight, and with this gift, came dire warnings. Daedalus warned his son not to fly too high lest the heat of the sun melt the wax that kept the feathers of his wings in place, but Icarus ignored these warnings, and in the end it was his own hubris that brought about his horrid plummet. Liberals need conservatives, and should always heed their warnings, for surely it is not in an attempt to keep those liberals from flying, but from falling that these warnings are made.

One can not damage liberty by taking liberty with liberty, but by seizing power not theirs. When the power is spread evenly among us, we minimize the risk of corruption, and the only possible reason for wanting more power than we have, and indeed, the power we do have is quite extensive, would be to rule over others, and such an action is not taking liberty with liberty, but just simply taking liberty away from others.

Go play your music my friend, and let the melodies calm you and remind you of all that is right with this perfect world, and maybe tomorrow together we can make another attempt at finding truth in this site.





[edit on 10-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yeah, right. Like you care one iota about consumers. First of all Rights are Rights, and consumers don't have any special rights above and beyond their Inalienable Rights. Secondly, governments create black markets showing complete disregard to the consumer who clearly wants that product.

First of all "Like you car one iota about consumers". Yeah because im a one of them...

There are many consumer rights.....well atleast in my SOCIALIST country anyway...

Also the term Black market specifically mean the government has NOT created it...

reply to post by OLDMATE


In a free society the only Rights that matter are Inalienable rights, (that means non transferable), and Inalienable Rights belong to everyone. There are no special rights that are extended to groups and other classes of people, and what you are referring to are statutory rights, those rights granted by government, which means that they can be, upon any whim, taken away by government. In the relationship between buyer and seller, a person with Inalienable Rights, (which is everybody), can rely upon those Rights if any harm came to them due to this relationship.

The only possible way a black market can exist is if a government has prohibited products in demand. Thus, if a government prohibits a product or service in demand, a black market will inevitably arise. Wherever you are getting your information, it is propaganda and has nothing to do with the reality of markets.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yes, your argument about black markets now totally destroying the corporate stranglehold?

No one has still broached the argument on THAT yet.

So, who is going to save us from the evil corporations? Their partners in crime, the government?

Oh the madness and humor of the people that think trading one tyrant for another (or the very same one) is a good idea.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


On black markets, what your basically saying is because the government prohibits the market, its actually creating it by necessitating its creation.....circular logic.

And statutory rights cannot just be taken away upon whims, the entire democratic selection process aswell as parliamental debate guarantee this.

reply to post by OLDMATE


Circular logic, or begging the question is a logical fallacy which is always, or at least mostly wrong in its reasoning, due to a flaw in the reasoning that renders the argument invalid. If you are going to declare the obvious truth of what I have explained about black markets as inherently flawed, you are going to have to better than simply throwing out a term you seemingly don't understand.

I don't know, but from what I have read about many parliaments, and indeed, about our Congress here, they can be pretty damned whimsical, regardless of how much debate they put into their whimsy. Let's, for the sake of argument, go ahead and grant you this one, and say your statutory rights can't be taken away on a whim and their are certain controls placed upon legislatures that slows this process of taking rights away. How is that better than Inalienable Rights that can not ever be legally taken away?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I dont think you understand me...A government "creating" a market by prohibiting the creation of such a market, this is just ridiculuos. Using this logic, if a government wants to stop a market being created they should create it....

Also it is possible to have both a parliament and inalienable rights...

Granted if the democratically ellected party has a majority in both houses and decides to take away rights in any form, then the majority of people in the country have voted for the wrong party....the governing system's fault or the people's????

reply to post by OLDMATE


Well of course I am not understanding you, you are using fallacious arguments and then turning around and accusing me of your crimes. What's so easy to understand about that?

Governments don't prohibit black markets, they prohibit products, and the 18th Amendment should serve as a perfect example so that you may better understand. The U.S. government did not prohibit the black market sale of alcohol, the prohibited the sale of alcohol which was sold on the free and open market until the passage of the 18th Amendment. The black market of alcohol sales is what followed. This is what I mean by you using circular logic and then accusing me of doing so. It was not that alcohol was prohibited from being sold on the black market that created that market, the 18th Amendment created that market.

It is more than possible to have a Parliament and Inalienable Rights, as such Rights are self evident and exist with everyone. What is not possible is to have Inalienable Rights be both statutory and Inalienable. Legal rights are those granted by government, Inalienable Rights can not be granted.

As to your last assertion, I understand what you are saying, I think, just because a government will start out by acknowledging Rights as Inalienable, doesn't mean that at some point they won't attempt to take those Rights away, and when they do, the People have no one to blame but themselves.

First of all we're talking about socialism right? so the US 18th amendment and what happened during prohibition has nothing to do with this.

By prohibiting the sale of a product, isnt that the same as the government prohibiting the market for the sale of said product? I do see your point of when the government prohibits something people still do it, but its not the governments doing it is inarguably the doing of the people, hence black markets are created by the people not governments.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What is not possible is to have Inalienable Rights be both statutory and Inalienable. Legal rights are those granted by government, Inalienable Rights can not be granted.

Wrong. If an inalienable right is statutorialised it is still inalienable. You're correct though, they cannot be granted, but they can be put into legislature.

reply to post by OLDMATE

First of all we're talking about socialism right? so the US 18th amendment and what happened during prohibition has nothing to do with this.

This is the game that socialists love to play, and pretend they can define markets however they please, but it matters not what you impose on markets they will always respond to supply and demand no matter what economic system is in place. That is a fact.

By prohibiting the sale of a product, isnt that the same as the government prohibiting the market for the sale of said product?

No. The market is the market; it cares not what laws are put in place, all it cares about is supply and demand, and no matter how many laws the arrogant deign to invent, the actual laws will function as they always do. Try prohibiting gravity and see where that gets you. Try legislating the illegality of breathing and see where that gets you. Oh look! A comet is coming our way and will enter the earths atmosphere in 3 months! I know, let's make a law and prohibit it from doing so. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I do see your point of when the government prohibits something people still do it, but its not the governments doing it is inarguably the doing of the people, hence black markets are created by the people not governments.

There is no difference between the government and the people. People preexist governments, and when a government exists it does so by the consent of the governed, regardless of the form of that government.

Wrong. If an inalienable right is statutorialised it is still inalienable. You're correct though, they cannot be granted, but they can be put into legislature.

It depends on how that statute is written, my friend. If the statutes are written similar to The Bill of Rights as in they prohibit government from trampling over inalienable rights, then you are correct. If those statutes are worded in a way that makes clear rights are being granted, then they are legal rights, as opposed to Natural Rights, and then it gets real problematic. Heck, it gets problematic when they are carefully worded to avoid the appearance of being granted rights.

It is heartening to hear a defender of socialism acknowledge Inalienable Rights though, and such a socialist system has a much stronger chance of surviving. It would be difficult to both acknowledge Inalienable Rights and then impose a national socialist system, however, as that imposition would countermand the Inalienable Rights of those who oppose such an imposition. Even so, someone who recognizes that Inalienable Rights are real and law, is A-Okay in my book. Nice to meet you OLDMATE.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is the game that socialists love to play, and pretend they can define markets however they please, but it matters not what you impose on markets they will always respond to supply and demand no matter what economic system is in place. That is a fact.

I was not trying to define markets, simply saying what happens in America has nothing to do with what we are talking about as it is not a socialist country.

By prohibiting the sale of the product the government is attempting to stop the market for the product. This is also fact.

There is no difference between the government and the people. People preexist governments, and when a government exists it does so by the consent of the governed, regardless of the form of that government.

But there is a difference, the government are the people ruling etc and the people are the people being ruled over. Even you must admit there is more than one class of people in todays western society....

Please don't get me wrong though, i don't pretend to think pure socialism is the right way of government, but it is not anywhere near as bad as what most people who have never lived in some form of socialist country think. Most people see socialism as one and the same as communism.