Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

reply to post by macman


In their natural habitat they don't use them to provide themselves more than they currently need to survive and the Earth can replenish. Humans can make no such claim, we have no predators outside of ourselves and disease to limit the amount of resources we consume. Other animals are incapable of drastically changing the environment in the manner we can.

Everything on this planet has some function outside of can humans do something with it. Not that all resource consumption is a hideous beast that must be abolished. But we can hardly make the claim we are managing what we have extracted responsibly or to the benefit of the many. When you attach dollars to everything in sight and beyond you have created a recipe for disaster and self annihilation.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

So what are they here for then?
To be looked at and never touched?

Lastly...they ARE NOT here because nature or God assumed that human beings would evolve and one day develop an un-natural obsession for shiny yellow rocks

And this can be proven how?
May I offer to tread lightly, as you don't know my religious stance or non-religious stance.

edit on 12-12-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

If I intended to tread lightly I would not be on ATS

It cannot be proven that God or Nature did or did not intend a certain mineral to be used as currency by one of it's creations, it just seems entirely implausable to me.

Originally posted by macman
If these things were placed here not to be used, why give humans the ability to use them?
Animals use the natural resources on Earth.

Humans have the ability to do many things and that argument is beyond a slippery slope...If God did not want us to detonate nuclear bombs, then why did he provide us with Uranium? and the faculties to concieve of a Nuclear weapon?

Obviously we could continue that with a limitless number of examples.

I am not a fan of the specific religious belief that God favors us and the rest of his creation is for our use and disposal. This theorey seems fundementally flawed.

God creates hurricaines, tsunami's, tornado's and earthquakes and I am not one of those evangelicals scrambling to assign blame to the victims of the natural disasters.

Gold? It's a rock. Specifically a rock that is both malleable and resists tarnishing...perfect for coinage and currency and thus it's historical value.

I worry more about arsenic mines and river erosion associated with reckless gold mining than ever depleting the earth of gold, I just don't think a form of currencey was it's devine intention. That seems silly to me.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by macman

 

In their natural habitat they don't use them to provide themselves more than they currently need to survive and the Earth can replenish. Humans can make no such claim, we have no predators outside of ourselves and disease to limit the amount of resources we consume. Other animals are incapable of drastically changing the environment in the manner we can.

Everything on this planet has some function outside of can humans do something with it. Not that all resource consumption is a hideous beast that must be abolished. But we can hardly make the claim we are managing what we have extracted responsibly or to the benefit of the many. When you attach dollars to everything in sight and beyond you have created a recipe for disaster and self annihilation.

So the "Humans are Greedy/Parasite" argument.
I did not know that we could define what was excess for a Lion or Horse.
The idea that we have no predators is not true.
Take away the ability to fashion a weapon, a fight with a tiger will produce a very, very bad outcome for the human.
There are parasites, bacteria and such that feed on us.
The attaching of dollars means that it has value. Big deal.
If not a Paper Note, it would be beads, trinkets or the promise to marry off a daughter to a son.
At the end of the day, that actually means that people would rather pay for someone else to provide the item then retrieve it themselves.

reply to post by Indigo5


Now this is a discussion. Hell Yeah!!!!

So, taking the idea that the Earth and everything here is for us, or not for us does not provide the human want to to classify and organize things.
But, I do see your point.
If the wolf could trade a shiny rock for a meal, would it?
Or would it prefer the hunt and the kill?
If these items, take oil for example, were merely here just to lubricate the earth, why does it burn?

Hey, I gotta run. End of the day and all.
I will be back tomorrow. Don't think I am ignoring your response.

Have a great evening.

Originally posted by macman

But, I do see your point.
If the wolf could trade a shiny rock for a meal, would it?
Or would it prefer the hunt and the kill?

That strikes at the very nature of humans advancing beyond the rest of the animal kingdom. The best arrow-maker absent trade or currencey would spend much of his time hunting for survival....what if he just spent his time perfecting arrows? And he gave them to the best hunters? and everyone else can focus on what they are good at? And...if you are very good and produce many great arrows in a short amount of time, then maybe you have some spare time to ponder your world, maybe invent something? Or create art?

Many different flavors of this moment in human evolution...the first person to gather seeds and plant them near their mud hut to save time foraging for their favorite fruit or vegatable.

The first person who decided not to kill and immediately eat that bison or ox or goat, but maybe capture a few and fence them in nearby the village, maybe they will reproduce? and we won't have to hike through the wilderness for miles to find one.

All of those moments allowed leisure time for actual "thinking" and advancement of humans...and currencey let people do what they do best rather than worry about eating and survival all the time.

I guess what I am saying is...if a wolf ever discovers a way to trade shiny rocks for it's meal...we should all be very, very afraid

If these items, take oil for example, were merely here just to lubricate the earth, why does it burn?

Good question...what happens when we burn oil and what is it?

Oil is crushed dead plants from millions of years ago. Those plants collected Carbon Dioxide and water and released oxygen when they were living...millions of years ago. It is again released into the system via volcanoes, geysers and other natural methods...where it returns that carbon Dioxide into the atomosphere at a slow rate in order to keep the earth cozy and warm. Complete and divine system. When we get impatient and drill down into the depths and burn that oil early we release more Carbon Dioxide than the current plants can deal with in the form of changing it back into oxygen via photosynthesis. So we are just speeding up the process/timeline that the earth has in mind. Absent our interference it is the perfect recycling program spanning millions of years.

reply to post by macman


Haven't I outdebated you on about 100 or so other threads yet you think just because the date has changed that the facts will mysteriously change?

The Founding Fathers wanted a central banking system owned, operated and controlled by The Federal Govt and not one that was privatized. They had enough knowledge and foresight that we'd eventually outgrow slavery and end it hence why The Constitution did not specifically allow for the owning of slaves. Hence the 13th Amendment and The Emanicipation Proclamation of 1865! As to understand slavery and the owning of slaves do not look at it from the viewpoint or with 21st Century mindset, look at it with the eyes and mindset of the era that owning slaves was as common as owning a tv or a computer is today.

The 3/5 of a person clause has nothing to do with State's Rights but was the now defunct and overturned declaration of an African American being 3/5 of a person.

There is no 3/5 Compromise policy but the "2/3 Majority" Rule is what you are referring to!

Again you are wrong!

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

Why would you think I'm talking about someone who makes 80k a year? I wouldn't begrudge them of that. My argument was aimed at the multi-millionaires and billionaires, the new aristocracy, of today.

Of course there is massive exploitation going on, what is everyone protesting about then? CEO's are paid 400 times more than the average worker, do you really believe that they do that much more work?

So you get to define what wealth is for someone else?
Now that is just about as elitists as it gets.

Nice try, but that won't work. What is important is how the person managed to get that wealth.

The "free" market values some paper-pusher running a hedge fund at billions of dollars when his wealth has been expropriated from the poor and middle class, but only a measly thousand for those who do more socially useful work such as teaching.
Yes, it might sound incredible but I question how wealth is earned and how much is actually deserved.

You supposedly value freedom, but support the tyranny of the "free" market.
Classic right Libertarian - calling anyone who questions unearned wealth an elitist.

reply to post by macman



Your entire argument is based on a teleological account of nature. The idea that everything in nature exists for humans is an Aristotelian idea that was incorporated into Christianity as Divine Providence.
Simply put, it's this silly notion that there's a hierarchy in nature with humans at the top.

What are the resources there for? I'm (and a few others are) honest enough to admit that there does not seem to be a purpose for their existence. The resources exist due to the natural forces on earth and humans happened to have found certain uses for them. That does not give anyone the right to immediately (and falsely) assume that they exist only for us.

Originally posted by macman

So the "Humans are Greedy/Parasite" argument.
I did not know that we could define what was excess for a Lion or Horse.
The idea that we have no predators is not true.
Take away the ability to fashion a weapon, a fight with a tiger will produce a very, very bad outcome for the human.
There are parasites, bacteria and such that feed on us.
The attaching of dollars means that it has value. Big deal.
If not a Paper Note, it would be beads, trinkets or the promise to marry off a daughter to a son.
At the end of the day, that actually means that people would rather pay for someone else to provide the item then retrieve it themselves.

No it is not "Humans are Greedy/Parasite" argument. However by our nature we look beyond our current needs and to possible future use.

You do not have to define what is excess for a lion or a horse, they have a full belly and move on.

Technically we can be prey to many creatures yes, you took the intent of the statement and completely turned it around to make yourself the victim. Contrary to be contrary that is all this is and you know it.

You want to use the excuse animals use resources so we should to. Completely and totally ignoring the fact the resources the animals use and the methods in which they use them are efficient and renewable. When was the last time you saw a Lion trying to eat a piece of ore? We are unique on this planet, we are able to decide our species fate all on our own. That fate however is constrained by how we take care of the environment around us. If we poison the water and the air to the point we can't feed ourselves it is game over.

Being shortsighted so someone can make a fast buck by being irresponsible, is not good anyway you frame it. Extracting and using resources responsibly costs more, and requires oversight. Businessmen are just as bad as the poor they decry as being lazy and unmotivated. The path of least resistance is the one they will choose every time because it is more profitable to do so.

We can't go back to being hunter-gatherers, once you have discovered agriculture. Anymore than we can go back to being an agrarian society after having discovered industrialization. But this does not mean that all the resources should be exploited so that the few can live in exorbitant luxury while the many worry about feeding their families.

reply to post by lrak2


Not to mention that we are not the sole apex predator as we once originally thought but share that distinction with the likes of lion, tigers, sharks, vultures, eagles, snakes and many other aquatic and land based animals and to disrupt the ecological balance eventually means the end for us all, humankind, animal kind and plant kind.

For every action that is an equal and opposite reaction which we must firmly embed into our though process and must consider the both short and long range implications for every action we make in order to maintain the mandatory equal yet perpetual balance that exists in nature because if it gets tipped in any direction we are done for. Think of a balanced upside down pyramid, the larger flat side must remain laser smooth and fully upright.

We must live in perpetual harmony with nature as nature can more then provide us with everything we will ever need! Look at the honeybee's Colony Collapse Disorder case, you want to talk about frightening that's it right there, if that ain't enough to force a change in our ways then I do not know what will work!

Look at the ozone, the polar ice caps, the accelerated die offs, proof positive that we are causing unimaginable chaos on a planetary scale.

Very true, an intervention of an active goverment elected by the people for the people is not something that should be shunned as communist. Democracy is about having good goverment, not no goverment. However an goverment up for grabs for the highest bidder is just as bad as a dictatorship in the long run. Under Reagan big goverment was bad. Now that the wealthy financial sector has their people in place, not influencing goverment, but being active members of the administration, big goverment is sold as something good. Right now we have the problem, that goverment enforces the will of those who have the power and money to run it, rather than serving the best interest of the country and its voters and we do not need more of that, but we do not need an do nothing goverment that sits by, while those who have wealth exercise power through other means either. A goverment for the people and the country is needed.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

Haven't I outdebated you on about 100 or so other threads yet you think just because the date has changed that the facts will mysteriously change?

The Founding Fathers wanted a central banking system owned, operated and controlled by The Federal Govt and not one that was privatized. They had enough knowledge and foresight that we'd eventually outgrow slavery and end it hence why The Constitution did not specifically allow for the owning of slaves. Hence the 13th Amendment and The Emanicipation Proclamation of 1865! As to understand slavery and the owning of slaves do not look at it from the viewpoint or with 21st Century mindset, look at it with the eyes and mindset of the era that owning slaves was as common as owning a tv or a computer is today.

The 3/5 of a person clause has nothing to do with State's Rights but was the now defunct and overturned declaration of an African American being 3/5 of a person.

There is no 3/5 Compromise policy but the "2/3 Majority" Rule is what you are referring to!

Again you are wrong!

edit on 12-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Go play with your toy cars and leave this to the grown ups.
You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag.

Originally posted by lrak2

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

Why would you think I'm talking about someone who makes 80k a year? I wouldn't begrudge them of that. My argument was aimed at the multi-millionaires and billionaires, the new aristocracy, of today.

Of course there is massive exploitation going on, what is everyone protesting about then? CEO's are paid 400 times more than the average worker, do you really believe that they do that much more work?

So you get to define what wealth is for someone else?
Now that is just about as elitists as it gets.

Nice try, but that won't work. What is important is how the person managed to get that wealth.

The "free" market values some paper-pusher running a hedge fund at billions of dollars when his wealth has been expropriated from the poor and middle class, but only a measly thousand for those who do more socially useful work such as teaching.
Yes, it might sound incredible but I question how wealth is earned and how much is actually deserved.

You supposedly value freedom, but support the tyranny of the "free" market.
Classic right Libertarian - calling anyone who questions unearned wealth an elitist.

No, the vehicle is not what is at the discussion, as that is a different topic all together.
You don't get to define wealth for others, period.
The Govt doing so is merely control, plain and simple.
Just because you demonize someone who is a "banker" does not then apply to all that have created wealth.
You operate under the thinking that anyone who is wealthy has done so by screwing others. No, that is wrong.
Just as in anything else in life, there are good and bad. You focusing on the bad few jades your perception of the rest.

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by macman

 

Your entire argument is based on a teleological account of nature. The idea that everything in nature exists for humans is an Aristotelian idea that was incorporated into Christianity as Divine Providence.
Simply put, it's this silly notion that there's a hierarchy in nature with humans at the top.

What are the resources there for? I'm (and a few others are) honest enough to admit that there does not seem to be a purpose for their existence. The resources exist due to the natural forces on earth and humans happened to have found certain uses for them. That does not give anyone the right to immediately (and falsely) assume that they exist only for us.

No, as I did not leave out that animals use the resources as well.
I state that of it is here, there must be a reason. If it can be used to better life, then use it.

reply to post by Indigo5


So, I guess from what you state, the natural process for humans is how things are progressing.

I see the double sided sword in the use of Oil.
While it provides the ability to produce flame, heat and such, it also produces a toxic bi-product. Possibly a defense mechanism?
But, the Earth over the Billions of years, has witnessed the use and bi-product of oil, even without Man being involved.
I still view that it is here, there is a use for it, so use it.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Are we sure that there aren't animals to over eat, over use and so on?
I have seen animals eat till they puked. Then eat the puke and search for more.
Oil, is by definition renewable. It is created by carbon life dieing, being compressed in the ground for a time period, and being turned into oil (a fast and loose statement of the process).

As for the prey argument, I stated it that way for a reason. TO show that a human can be prey, and predator.

The resources are here, are useful, so use them.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, I guess from what you state, the natural process for humans is how things are progressing.

Right. Agreed...but in a "natural Process" that doesn't consider humans as special or chosen...it is possible that drilling and prematurely introducing that Carbon Dioxide back into the atomosphere is completely natural...maybe a natural population limiter or defense mechanism. If one species advances to a point where they are able to circumvent typical population limiters...draught, famine, disease...then nature has back up plans...heat the planet to temperature X until that species population decreases appropriately.

I guess what I am saying is I never fear that we are "killing the earth"...the earth has survived much worse than us! It is pure arrogance to think we are able to destroy the earth. I worry simply that we will make the earth uninhabitable for US...our population...and in the short term a pretty crappy to live. I like wilderness and wild places.

I see the double sided sword in the use of Oil.
While it provides the ability to produce flame, heat and such, it also produces a toxic bi-product. Possibly a defense mechanism?

Right.

But, the Earth over the Billions of years, has witnessed the use and bi-product of oil, even without Man being involved.
I still view that it is here, there is a use for it, so use it.

And like I said...I thinik that philosophy falls into the natural order of things. We are clever apes. But what I would suggest is that the "natural order" of things isn't always working in "humans" best interest...hurricaines, earthquakes, disease etc. It is possible that we need to figure out a way to "play nice" with the natural order or it will simply jack up the temperature, or create unpredictable weather and flooding etc until there is far fewer of us around to annoy the natural system.

reply to post by Indigo5


I honestly think I agree with everything you stated.

I am all for tread lightly on the earth. But, there has to be a balance with earth and man creating a better situation for himself.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I honestly think I agree with everything you stated.

I am all for tread lightly on the earth. But, there has to be a balance with earth and man creating a better situation for himself.

And I agree with you. I am not one to "cry for mother earth" yada yada. I have a slight disdain for Whole Foods shoppers who will chatter on about the benefits of Organic, Hormone free, Free range meats...which I strongly agree with and then at the same time weepily deride folks who hunt as gun happy wackos. No one should be allowed to eat organic beef, fowl or fish without having had to actually go out and fish/hunt and kill it themselves sometime in thier life! The natural order of things! You develop a greater respect for your food when you remember it alive once.

As far as fossil fuels, EPA etc. I would argue that humans already have a good system in place to regulate it, it is just not enforced. Free market and cost and expense.

Polluting is only cheaper when you hand the cost of pollution off to other folks. A paper factory pollutes a river and downstream either the state cleans that water or people get sick and pay for their own medical expenses. Those costs have been handed off from the paper manufacturer to other folks...it is an error in the free market.

The paper company should be held accountable to make sure they don't pollute...yes more expensive to them, but less expensive to citizens and government. Costs where they should be. Ditto with energy manufacturers etc. and on a global scale it might seem cheaper to produce energy by method X, but some village that has lived for a thousand years on tiny island Y might wake up to 3 feet of water and ask WTF? It is just costs being passed on in a corrupt way. Capitalism works, it just needs to be equally enforced.

Either the coal plant in the Kentucky mountains spends the extra money to make itself "clean" or the town downwind and downstream will drink toxic water and have kids with asthma and adults with lung disease....costs passed on rather than owned by the producer.

If we just assigned costs where they belong rather than putting those costs on other people - health/medical costs, real estate value dropping etc - or government - efen super-fund sites and river and waterway clean-up projects...capitalism works, we just need to make sure that expense is carried by the same folks making a profit.

It is when we look the other way and let folks pass those pollution costs on instead of owning those costs as capitalism demands that things get screwy. Otherwise, we could protect the envirornment...by simply protecting ourselves in a free market - capitalist way which kind of ties back into my idea that the earth doesn't need saving....we do

reply to post by Indigo5


WOW, YEP yep yep yep and yep.

I agree with the food thing. Organic is great. Saving money in these times is maybe slightly better, I guess.
I think it is a great thing for everyone to learn field dressing and butchering.
Gonna do the Elk Hunt next year. Hopefully I can get one. That will take care of the Organic part, Money part and learning portion.