It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by greencmp
....So, as long as you aren't saying that the state is capable of being dependable and trustworthy, we are all in agreement except for Pejeu who insists that no one but the state can be trusted to control all aspects of society. He just doesn't understand that the state is always composed of the same humans which he does not trust (or he recognizes that fact and fully intends to be one of those untrustworthy humans in control).
The older I get the less I trust the state. Nasty Stuff an individual would not think of doing when it is his bare face in view becomes easy when hiding in a crowd. It is even easier when hiding behind the Color of the Law.
Socialists seem to come in a selection of flavors.
Some genuinely care for people.
Some see it as justification for being lazy and stealing from the 'rich'
Some use it to justify their government/academic jobs
Others see it as a means to power and wealth.
It is the last bunch who are dangerous and use the others to boost themselves into power.
The website Pejue linked to is hilarious.
They try to link Murray Rothbard, of all people as well as Gary North, Mises, Ron Paul and libertarians in general to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers!
On a more interesting note:
A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.
Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of a set of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.
However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said.
Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
“I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,” Kahan wrote.
...The truth never stopped being the truth... has never been under attack or threat from ceasing to be the truth... and over time... asserts itself quite well all on its own. Thus why the statement that the truth doesn't need as much defending as lies is... well... true.
Lies require constant maintenance and always build a structure that ultimately collapses under their own weight. Truth sits around eroding lies without exerting any effort at all...
I disagree. Humans hardly ever know the truth. It is the winners who write history and that is what becomes "Truth"
reply to post by BardingTheBard
The truth is always true and eventually either continues to be true when the lies fade in vapor or shattered in a head on collision with the truth.
So yes, humans can weave stories to blind themselves from the truth, but that never puts the truth under threat or in need of defending. Only humans and those we come into contact with are under threat or need defending when that happens. The truth continues to be true whether it's eventually discovered or the lies are eventually forgotten.
There is an important distinction between "defending the truth" versus eroding lies.edit on 3-11-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)
State ownership of the means of production is by far the most efficient and is inevitably what the future has in store for us, if we survive that long as a species.
When only one or two concerns or conglomerates such as GM or VW are left what is the point of letting them be private any more? So they can organize themselves into a cartel or merge into a single, global car manufacturer?
Or simply nationalize their production facilities (I'm guessing and hoping that, by then, we will have evolved enough to adopt a one world government) and only split up their design and engineering facilities and make them compete with and through their designs?
reply to post by Pejeu
You are all over the place. Besides your misunderstanding, you are cross pollinating your justifications and accusations. This is normal for a dissembling narrative.
100% blather and repetition.
He doesn't even understand how the money supply is created. Banks perform a valuable service in that they provide capital for investment and expansion and a means to transfer and store funds. Without the advent of reliable banking systems, there would have been no economic boom in the renaissance, industrial revolution, nor technological revolution.
I agree with Jefferson that banking and governance should not mix, but to say that banks and banking are inherently evil is stupid and flies in the face of history.
That works in a "perfect world"...What would motivate the "world government" that owned the means of production for cars to give me better cars than the "global car conglomerate" ? (given the track record of unchallenged ruling bodies, it would probably advocate spending on a repressive apparatus, not on R&D in the auto industry).
In either scenario the consumer would lose.
But...like I said, maybe I am missing something. Do tell.
inherently evil is stupid and flies in the face of history.
Even though he words his argument so "masterfully tactful" he is correct...all that banks end up doing through FRB is letting the borrower spend money they do not own at a rate far higher than what the banks have, backed by deposits, in effect adding more currency in circulation against the borrower's future earnings...what if I (the borrower) die ? or default ?
please consider the fact that it's been centuries since we've had economies where money issuance was not entirely or almost entirely privatised. That is to say, since we didn't have any banks. A state central bank is a contradiction in terms. Why would the state need to loan itself money at interest, which it prints with no backing in any corporal asset whatsoever, through the mediation of private banks, no less?
We need a money supply whose resolution (ration between total money supply and its smallest currency subdivision) grows with the economy.
Anyways, the reason I think government made cars would be better is because of the lack of a private motive.
) Large government is always bad news seasoned with a nice repressive apparatus.
one model of digital camera that costs $300 to make, only one model of digital camera that costs $500 to make etc.
Either that or a global reset of all or a sizeable chunk of consumer debt.
If anyone in the private sector ought to be issuing money it ought to be the producers in the economy. The ones that produce the real wealth. Against their unsold production or expected, short term production.
originally posted by: Pejeu
OMG, that one flew right over your head.
I was talking about the dude with the gun in the picture.
What you see there is state capitalism. Not socialism. Though it undoubtedly styles itself as such.
So, if I may paraphrase, you are saying that the longer society fails to agree with you the more likely you will be to kill political adversaries?
Not me in particular, the dissatisfied workers in that society.
You know, the ones who actually produce the actual wealth?
I'm not saying I would kill someone (let alone execute them).
Though you never know until you are put in the situation where you actually are the likeliest you have ever been in your life to kill another person.
Push someone, anyone hard and far enough and there's no telling what they might do or how they might exact revenge.
For example I would, if I had the means, execute the parachuted pilot who just killed my family in a bombing run. And I would do it without the slightest compunction.
I would also most likely kill his wingman even though it's wasn't he who actually did it.
And you can take that one to the bank.
I'm truly sorry if you cannot understand how or why someone might feel or act that way.
Seems like a poor negotiating tactic to achieve your stated goal, especially since that is the very feature of totalitarianism which I find repugnant and completely substantiates my reasons for rejecting socialism.
You seem to know better than I do what my stated goals are.
My ideal (cause for them to be goals it implies I envisage a way for me to personally affect the future towards them) would be a society where banks are outlawed.
And where there is a guaranteed and unconditional basic income.
And there is strongly progressive income tax.
And companies are taxed progressively according to the ratio of profits to expenditures.
And we force industry to protect the environment and be efficient.
And we have a one world government to enforce these rules evenly and uniformly across the entire world.
No more fiscal paradises, no more outsourcing manufacturing to China and leaving in tatters the country and society that made you and lifted you.
I realize that this is a voluminous tome and a substantial investment of intellectual energy and time but, the summary I have provided, the excerpt it is from and the whole text are provided. You may choose any or none of them to peruse.
I'll give it a try then.
I expect copious criticisms regardless of your familiarity with the subject. Proceed...
I already told you, what you call communism (and we called socialism) was actually state capitalism.
And it was bankrupted and sabotaged at every turn by the US and their Bretton Woods world reserve currency, which later became the petrodollar.
That's when you didn't actually invade or outright assassinate democratically elected government officials.
In recent times you, to preserve and prop up the petrodollar, you sabre rattle (Iran, Syria, Venezuela) or outright invade or sponsor mercenary overthrows (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria).
Yet here you are, on your supposed moral high horse.
That's actually a wooden stool.
originally posted by: Pejeu
So you're really not interested in a dialectical discussion but rather in spouting your talking points in a pretence dialogue monologue.
Why do you not answer what I said about insurance and banking?
Because you're not interested in discussion.
You know prolly better than most how bankrupt your ideology is.