Rising gas prices are due to free market forces...

reply to post by mastahunta

pure Marxism? Do you know what existed before Kings?

Following the fall of Rome, there was the Dark Ages which eventually transformed into feudalism:

Karl Marx also used the term in political analysis. In the 19th century, Marx described feudalism as the economic situation coming before the rise of capitalism. For Marx, what defined feudalism was that the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom. Marx thus considered feudalism within a purely economic model

Gee, that sounds eerily like your argument.

Originally posted by David9176
A true free market begins as Anarchy for the business man.

The larger the company, the easier it is for them to streamline their operations and cut costs as there would be no unions or minimum wage). This allows them to continue to swallow up other competitors.....therefore ending competition and destroying the free market. It is literally impossible to have a true free market because the end result is destroying itself. A monopolized "free market" is not a free market.

To me, the entire concept of "free markets" is bogus and simply cannot exist in its true form as it's destructive to it's own definition.

edit on 26-2-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)

I think it is the same thing with communism, they are both self destructive.
If you argue with a communist, they will fight just as hard when you tell them
that the politicians will eventually use the system to enrich themselves. In this
case, the free market system will be used to control the freedom of the market
itself. But that is what you get when you believe in something like a religious
person does, you can't deal with the ideas being challenged.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

pure Marxism? Do you know what existed before Kings?

Following the fall of Rome, there was the Dark Ages which eventually transformed into feudalism:

Karl Marx also used the term in political analysis. In the 19th century, Marx described feudalism as the economic situation coming before the rise of capitalism. For Marx, what defined feudalism was that the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom. Marx thus considered feudalism within a purely economic model

Gee, that sounds eerily like your argument.

Gee. it seems to me that the founding fathers were also against monarchy and
total control in the hands of a few rich authoritarian interests... Do you think
the founding fathers were communists too?

the free market that existed with tribalism eventually transformed into direct monarchy.
I don't care if Marx or O.J Simpson observed that, I find it to be true

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It's really that greedy, selfish, and controlling people have been at the helm. Remember Ben Franklin said A republic if we can keep it. Wise words.

I am not clear what your point is here.

I am just saying that people have found a way around the Constitution and the Law. Remember the Federal Reserve Act was not part of the original Constitution and is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. One has to wonder why the Ten Commandments have been under so much attack, as it is the most basic of moral values. It can only be because so many people have become too immoral to appreciate the moral value of the Ten Commandments(not because it's religious).

Precisely the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal" is too moral for some to wish to display it anywhere in public. How ironic those same people are willing to complain that anybody is too selfish to implement socialist health care.
In other words, it's easy to spend someone else's money.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


We er are sort of re-grouping at the moment. We are sort of like tree shepherds, it takes us a while to decide to take action.

But once we finish infighting and make a decision, we have been an unstoppable force, as history has shown.

reply to post by mastahunta


Are you seriously pretending that you haven't made the argument that the rise of kings in Europe came from free markets, or are you pretending that feudalism is just another word for free markets. Dang, you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.

reply to post by mastahunta


No, the Founding Fathers were not communist by any means. That does not mean they didn't appreciate community. Only a normal, decent person can function well in a given community. They were also very religious(thought not necessarily outwardly so, or necessarily orthodox, as many were Freemasons) and not secular. But they understood the danger of State religion.

Oh yes, speaking of Kings, that was the system of Monarchy, which although authoritarian, was not based on free market principles. I'm not too sure where you got that idea. The Monarchy was Patriarchal and based on slavery and indentured servants. Just look at the system of the Pharaohs. Same thing. Authoritarian with slavery and servants.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You guys got a good debate going, although i think you will wind up agreeing with each other in principle eventually.

Time to consume my daily ration of rum. It's been great.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Ah. I got ya. Thanks for clarifying that for me. It is the great tragedy of humanity that so many believe that if they legalize plunder this makes it moral.

reply to post by poet1b


Drink to me, Poet! Drink to my health, and in the morning we'll continue the fight for freedom, all the while bickering over what economic system will best harmonize with freedom. It is always a pleasure.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by hawkiye

 

History have proven free markets work in the few times they have been allowed to work relatively freely.

I am always open to ideas. If you could provide some apt example of this, I would appreciate it.

In a free market lets say anyone can start a bank or any other business without government intervention. Say these federal reserve banks start screwing people like above. Now there's freedom to start up another bank that treats their customers good and is honest and trustworthy so Someone does just that. Which bank do you think people will gravitate to? The Answer is obvious of course. However we do not have the freedom to do that we are forced to use the corrupted Federal reserve agent banks and their worthless currency. Here's the rub with you and me; How the politicians giving the current monopoly or banking cartel more leeway to screw people can be called anything close to free market principles defies any stretch of logic reason or even imagination wouldn't you agree... Does that make more sense to you?

Honestly, I get what you are saying. I understand the concept, and well put. Look at what was going on before the Fed Res act in 1913, and there you will find your answer. The Fed Res act was a compromise of ugly proportions, a choice of lessor evils, and still ugly IMO.

An even bigger problem was created when the U.S. dollar became the world currency. We need our own separate domestic currency.

Sure Most of 19th century America is a good example. With a free market and especially in currency in other words no monopoly enforced on any currency by government and many different currencies were used the economy remained relatively stable and prosperous along with the dollar (silver, which by the way predates the constitution) despite the abuse it took during the civil war and the only time problems arose is when the rules of sound money were violated especially during the war periods and the currency was debased by fiat or otherwise. This continued right up to 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve. See Murry Rothbard's A History of Money and Banking in the United States... mises.org...

The Federal reserve is a big lie the so called boom bust cycles before its creation were paltry regional affairs compared to the depressions and recessions we have had almost every ten years or so since then...

Blame oil speculation by big banks
current.com...
gasda.org...

The big bank are losing money on homes so they are making it up by ripping us off by driving up oil prices

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I think you answered your own question there.

My point being that it took a bloody war, and the establishment of a sound government to establish our freedoms. The founders of the U.S., and J. Locke upon whose ideas our constitution was created, recognized the role of government in establishing our liberties.

No free market system will ever replace our need for good governance.

I respect your desire to defend free market principles, but you will have to marry them to the recognition that an effective government will always be needed to maintain our liberties, and that includes our economic liberties, in order to convince me.

Actually my friend during the revolutionary war and for many years after there was no government, all governance was local as it should be.

reply to post by mastahunta


Gas prices are rising because we hit peak oil, and there is no where left to go but up.

Freedom isn't free

A free market means that each individual understands supply and demand and is vigilant to abuses and consequences.

A respect for the need to learn-- what you can at your own speed and in your own way, is the only job that will keep you free.

Any social system other than a free market puts your life in a stranger's hands, and sooner or later the stranger will lose it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Ah. I got ya. Thanks for clarifying that for me. It is the great tragedy of humanity that so many believe that if they legalize plunder this makes it moral.

I really was referring to our system of governance in tandem with monetary policy. It is clear that our system was meant to work in tandem with free enterprise, not with socialist welfare systems. I believe our Founding Fathers knew that socialism is not the true path to freedom and liberty. I believe they sought a balance, a system not overly authoritarian, and the checks and balances is supposed to keep any one branch of govt from having too much power, but clearly it can still be abused. You have dummies in Congress or men who are compromised, the result is The Federal Reserve.

Originally posted by badconduct
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Gas prices are rising because we hit peak oil, and there is no where left to go but up.

Baloney! A barrel of oil is cheaper now then it was when gas prices were lower. We are simple subject to the whims of the oil cartels monopoly on fuel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I am just saying that people have found a way around the Constitution and the Law. Remember the Federal Reserve Act was not part of the original Constitution and is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. One has to wonder why the Ten Commandments have been under so much attack, as it is the most basic of moral values. It can only be because so many people have become too immoral to appreciate the moral value of the Ten Commandments(not because it's religious).

You seem to think that morality cannot exist without Christianity. The reason many are weary
of any religion becoming a national institution is because people misuse religion. The middle
east has many prime examples of that, how many people were killed in the name of god?

Precisely the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal" is too moral for some to wish to display it anywhere in public. How ironic those same people are willing to complain that anybody is too selfish to implement socialist health care.
In other words, it's easy to spend someone else's money.

It is not that those words are too moral, that is just silly. It is that religion can be perverted when it
becomes a part of the state.

Its funny that moralists want to force impoverished women to have children, yet they are firmly
against the material support welfare provides to support that same life.

reply to post by mastahunta

Its funny that moralists want to force impoverished women to have children, yet they are firmly against the material support welfare provides to support that same life.

Is that right? What do the "moralists" do, take impoverished woman, wait until they're ovulating then force them to have sex with virile men? Wow.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Are you seriously pretending that you haven't made the argument that the rise of kings in Europe came from free markets, or are you pretending that feudalism is just another word for free markets. Dang, you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.

Tribalism proceeded feudalism, in tribalism free trade existed almost exclusively.
Yes, I am saying free trade evolved into monarchy through various forms of conquest.

I think pure free trade here would evolve into feudalism