To Davekc

[pelicn]

Thank you, I feel flattered by reminding you of your youngest son that for what I hear is pretty smart, and even though he didn't do so well in school he is pursuing a rationalistic view of the world.

Yes, he is extremely intelligent and with that, at times, he is mind numbing. I used to hate road trips with him and my hubby in the car together.

Now to your post, I think that gut feeling has a place in our lives but we have to know when is unwise to guide our decisions based on instinct. If we used just common sense as our primary method for deciphering the world around us we would still believe that the Earth is flat.

s
s
Not necessarily, it's gut instinct or common sense that makes me believe that there are other worlds out there in the universe, even though no little green men have landed and said "Howdy" (except in Roswell)
I do read and listen to various sources (like you for example), but when I mix it all together, shake it well, and pour it out I am still against "spreading the wealth" and big government. As I get older, I find myself turning into my grandparents. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. Those who worked hard got ahead, those who didn't were left behind.

 

[aristotle]

Aristotle: please clarify for me the statement "A malleable mind is a terrible thing to waste."
Virtually every mind is malleable (capable of being changed or molded), so the inclusion of the modifier puzzles me - as does the implication that the mind in my possession has been wasted.
Did I misunderstand your meaning?

My apologies, Cheri. It was a deliberately vague and broad generalization. No offense intended to anyone.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I thought you had talent... but I see you haven't been paying attention so let's make this thing clearer for you:

ANARCHISM IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!

so if you are trying to insult me by calling me a socialist... well go ahead, it won't have much effect.

"However, I assume you're not an independent businessman driving an expedite truck and depending on your own productivity for success"

How is customary, you assume wrong. I am a worker that sells a finish product, not a wage slave.

I don't know where you get your skewed views on anarchy, but it is definitely NOT socialism! Anarchy is without government, or rules (every man for himself); whereas true socialism is ALL government (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need).

Anarchy has always been what lies between a destroyed government, and the government resulting from the anarchy. And more often than not, the one taking over, in the end, is the one who started the anarchy.

Another form of government you forgot to include is a republic, which is a small, efficient government. It's efficient because it only concentrates on a couple areas, and lets the lesser governments (state and local) pick up the slack. Our government was formed to concentrate on defense, foriegn trade, the printing of coin, and the court system. Basically, our government used to be very close to anarchy, except that the rule of law kept it in check.

Then you have democracy. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." We are at that point now. Whereas the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the 49%, we are ignoring it... thus, the 49% succums to the will of the 51%.

When you get a federal government dictating things like banking, market dictations (minimum/maximum wage), education (dictating what is taught), or punishing the market (taxes on fuel or cigarettes) for the good of the people, you get a government geared toward the dependent; so they may take away from those who are independent (51% vs 49%).

Ultimately, ppl in a democracy demand votes for more and more "goodies" from their government. When that government goes broke providing those goodies (sound familiar?), anarchy ensues, resulting in a "savior" taking over as an oligarchy (most likely a communist or fascist dictator).

Be careful what you wish for!

 

[Dog_House2691]

The United Nations,Oh No Coruption there!I say to all these Left Wing Radicals in this Country,follow our Constitution or Leave.Stop trying to take us back to the stone age.Your Policys Dont Work,they have been tried before.The Definition of Stupid,is to keep trying the same things over and over,and expecting a different result.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

The United Nations,Oh No Coruption there!I say to all these Left Wing Radicals in this Country,follow our Constitution or Leave.Stop trying to take us back to the stone age.Your Policys Dont Work,they have been tried before.The Definition of Stupid,is to keep trying the same things over and over,and expecting a different result.

Like voting Democrat?

Sorry... had to say it.

 

[MrGautama]

I don't know where you get your skewed views on anarchy, but it is definitely NOT socialism! Anarchy is without government, or rules (every man for himself); whereas true socialism is ALL government (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need).

Anarchy has always been what lies between a destroyed government, and the government resulting from the anarchy. And more often than not, the one taking over, in the end, is the one who started the anarchy.

So you think what I am advocating is: let's kill the politicians, cops, teachers, burn down the schools and factories; then have a big party pillaging, robing, raping and murdering. Is that a correct depiction of what I want?.

Not to be offensive but you have no Idea what you are talking about, I would suggest you inform yourself before saying crazy things like that. I don't know... start with something simple like Anarchism in Wikipedia, then you might like to read a description of my position as a Libertarian Socialist.

Another form of government you forgot to include is a republic, which is a small, efficient government. It's efficient because it only concentrates on a couple areas, and lets the lesser governments (state and local) pick up the slack. Our government was formed to concentrate on defense, foriegn trade, the printing of coin, and the court system. Basically, our government used to be very close to anarchy, except that the rule of law kept it in check.

Then you have democracy. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." We are at that point now. Whereas the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the 49%, we are ignoring it... thus, the 49% succums to the will of the 51%.

When you get a federal government dictating things like banking, market dictations (minimum/maximum wage), education (dictating what is taught), or punishing the market (taxes on fuel or cigarettes) for the good of the people, you get a government geared toward the dependent; so they may take away from those who are independent (51% vs 49%).

Ultimately, ppl in a democracy demand votes for more and more "goodies" from their government. When that government goes broke providing those goodies (sound familiar?), anarchy ensues, resulting in a "savior" taking over as an oligarchy (most likely a communist or fascist dictator).

Be careful what you wish for!

The word Republic is used in so many contexts nowadays that has lost any real meaning, e.g.Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, People's Republic of China,Republic of Turkey, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.


A Republic can be a Federal, Islamic, Parliamentary, People's, Constitutional, etc. But I think what you are referring to is pretty much to the politic and economic system of the Gilded Age. OK, it's hard to understand why would you like to live in a slum and work 12 or more hour shifts seven days a week for a poverty wage with no overtime, no access to medicine or education. Or for your small children to have to be part of the work force in unsafe and unhealthy conditions instead of going to school. Maybe even reverse the concessions given to those crazy American Suffragettes.


Oh, how foolish of me not to understand... you would have been the hero in the Horatio Alger myth and occupied your rightious place in society!!



And you tell me to be careful what I wish for!!!



It also appears that you have a serious problem with Democracy, or the way you paint it as “The Dictatorship of the Majority”. There are alternatives that may be better suited for your political style, lets say... Fascism!.

 

[MrGautama]

Who's character is being assassinated?

Mine. And as usual with people that resort to that kind of tactics when confronted with superior argument there is acceptable collateral damage, in this case Turtle's character has been compromised also.

That sounds a little paranoid. We don't know who you are. Your bio is empty. What are you afraid of?.

Not afraid, cautious of fundamentalists that may get an interest in me and affect my means of livelihood.

In the command based world you seek, your opinion and you could be silenced, or at least censored. We have the right to say what we want, with reasonable exception, about whatever, and whenever we please.
"Paranoia will destroy ya" D. Davies

Please explain to me (I doubt you'll try):

-How is Libertarian Socialism a "command based world"

-How in a Libertarian Socialist system my opinion could be silenced or censored.

-What is to you a "reasonable exception"

 

[MrGautama]

Exposure?

It is interesting that people say this;

"I work for a company who I won't mention" which makes me wonder of the credibility behind anything they say. Naming their company is not going to get them in trouble unless there is five trucks in it, it is akin to the people who take the numbers, signs and other ID off their vehicles - what was they trying to prove?

So throwing in a carrier's name would make me legit?, c'mon Greg!.


Wouldn't it be better to ask if I know some "inside" information that an expediter would know? Something like:


-Most van drivers fuel at the FJ because they get half a shower for 20 gallons of fuel.

-Sitting in Laredo was pretty crappy in that Pilot that charged for parking but now is a lot better with the TA and FJ that opened across the interstate.

-Detroit has many loads but most of them are short runs or they take you in to Canada.

-The cheapest fuel is at FJ, the best coffee at Pilot, the nicest truck stop are the large Petros, the cleanest restrooms at the TA (well, sometimes), the best restaurants are at... none of the above!!.

-Vans don't have to log, straight trucks and TT have to.

-The Ohio Turnpike has free showers (an can go 65 instead of 55).

-Vans are supposed to stop at Michigan weight stations.

-Recently the Nissan in Canton moved the linker center to the guard shack from that office past the bridge used to take the finished cars to the waiting lot.

-The problem with going to Canada is when coming back one is treated like a criminal by the US customs officers.

-The nastiest dock people can be found at Ford plants.



I don't know, those were the things that came to mind.

 

[MrGautama]

Hey Buddha,
I am wondering are you an open source guy?

Sure, my OS is Linux and I use open source software.

Do you promote open source products with your Hispanic friends?

I'm just a user of open source software and I think rms is doing a great job promoting it on his own.

I was just reading about the push of Internet explorer in Mexico and Brazil, and thinking isn't this what you are driving at - bad US corporations exploiting the poor third world peoples to use their software in order to claim dominance in the web software world?

I have no idea, I know nothing about "Software Imperialism"

 

[MrGautama]

What's with the darn font size that keeps changing... is open source playing tricks on me?...

 

[MrGautama]

I say to all these Left Wing Radicals in this Country,follow our Constitution or Leave.

Why would I leave when you are the problem!.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

So you think what I am advocating is: let's kill the politicians, cops, teachers, burn down the schools and factories; then have a big party pillaging, robing, raping and murdering. Is that a correct depiction of what I want?.

Obviously I didn't know what you want. You claimed to be an anarchist, and I told you what it is in a traditional sense.

Not to be offensive but you have no Idea what you are talking about, I would suggest you inform yourself before saying crazy things like that. I don't know... start with something simple like Anarchism in Wikipedia, then you might like to read a description of my position as a Libertarian Socialist.

Again, you assume I'm talking about the utopia you call Anarchy. Yes, it may be a vogue term meaning utopia on Wikipedia, but in the classical sense, it is as far right as you can possibly get... NO GOVERNMENT. Get it? The scale determining right/left is one of percentages. On the left, you have 100% government; and on the right, you have 0% government.

Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchy is different than anarchism. What you are describing is a far-right form of government, similar to tribalism. You still have rules. You still have rulers coming up with these rules. It sounds like the kind of 'Kumbaya Utopia' described by John Lennon's 'Imagine'. I can point out a few flaws...

1) Those making up the rules will still consider themselves elite, and eventually above the rules.
2) Those who have a harder job than someone else will complain about it. When nothing is done to appease them, they'll become lazy. And it's a catchy disease. Ppl see that some aren't working, yet getting benefits; so they, themselves, stop working.
3) Someone who comes up with an idea, invention, or cure, will expect to get due credit. Scientists are funny ppl... they do it for the glory; which there is no room for in your society. Therefore, innovation will stagnate.
4) Ppl who advocate utopia (or socialism) forget the mind is a complex device, and not just an automaton circuit board. Ppl will think, and talk about their thoughts. If those thoughts are blasphemy to the utopia, they'll be quashed, for fear others will agree with them, rather than with the hive. Books will be burned, deep thinkers imprisoned, religions banned, newspapers censored, etc. Ultimately, there will be a rebellion in utopia, trying to reinstitute those things. Whether you get a republic, democracy, or dictatorship, depends on who leads the rebellion.
The Soviet system was based on this philosophy, and ultimately failed because of the reasons I mentioned, among others.

Utopia only works if everyone is on board, and stagnates their minds to those of the collective. IOW... BORG. LOL

The word Republic is used in so many contexts nowadays that has lost any real meaning, e.g.Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, People's Republic of China,Republic of Turkey, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

North Korea is known as The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. You can call a turd a rose...

A Republic can be a Federal, Islamic, Parliamentary, People's, Constitutional, etc. But I think what you are referring to is pretty much to the politic and economic system of the Gilded Age. OK, it's hard to understand why would you like to live in a slum and work 12 or more hour shifts seven days a week for a poverty wage with no overtime, no access to medicine or education. Or for your small children to have to be part of the work force in unsafe and unhealthy conditions instead of going to school. Maybe even reverse the concessions given to those crazy American Suffragettes.

And the gilded age showed us the importance of regulation. If an abuse doesn't happen, you won't know to regulate it, now would you?

I have a strange idea of who should vote. You couldn't understand it if I told you.

Oh, how foolish of me not to understand... you would have been the hero in the Horatio Alger myth and occupied your rightious place in society!!

Whatever that means. I've never read Alger, so your bloviating is lost on me.

And you tell me to be careful what I wish for!!!

Yep!

It also appears that you have a serious problem with Democracy, or the way you paint it as “The Dictatorship of the Majority”. There are alternatives that may be better suited for your political style, lets say... Fascism!.

Ahh... I was wondering how long it would take for you to call my ideology fascist. Did you know the Nazi party was a National Socialist government? That makes them left-wing, my friend. Just because moveon.org told you to call right-wingers fascist doesn't make them so.

 

[Pilgrim]

The typical response of liberals when struggling for an effective response to conservative arguments is to label them or their political philosophies as "Fascist". The word just sounds evil, and has been used as a derogatory term since Mussolini's rule of Italy. Just a quick look in Wikipedia provides this interesting George Orwell quote:

The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. – George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.

What's most interesting is the last sentence that offers the term "bully" as a synonym for "Fascist". The implication here is that big govt. is the bully and that true democracy is preferable ("power to the people"). But isn't this contradictory to our new antagonist's previously stated position that higher taxes and big govt. are preferable and result in a higher standard of living? This is just another murky political definition that can mean whatever the user wants it to mean depending on the discussion.

Regarding the National Socialist Party of 1930's Germany, I noticed an interesting article by Thomas Sowell that pointed out an errie similarity of the evolution of that party's rise to power and the current situation we have today:

"Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law "to relieve the distress of the German people and nation"? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power."

Thomas Sowell

(The subject of the article is actually about the impending Supreme Court nomination, but the quote really made a good point)

Interesting that our congress recently passed similar legislation to relieve our economic distress and gave unprecedented power to the executive branch and the SecTreas. Now we witness the beginning of the nationalization of the banks and the auto industry with health care and energy next on their target list.

The US voters that are so easily influenced by a biased mainstream media have just elected the most liberal, most inexperienced candidate ever as president of their country. They have indeed gotten "what they wished for", thus true democracy in action. The results of this decision are still pending, and there are a lot of us that aren't optimistic.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

True, Pilgrim. The part that sticks out, to me, is about government promising to grant your wishes. It reminds me of a djinni who grants wishes to the most deformed meaning of the spoken wish. Or, worse yet, signing a deal with the devil, who grants your wish, but neglects to tell you the extent of your part of the bargain.

 

[MrGautama]

Ahh... I was wondering how long it would take for you to call my ideology fascist. Did you know the Nazi party was a National Socialist government? That makes them left-wing, my friend. Just because moveon.org told you to call right-wingers fascist doesn't make them so.

So the Nazis were left wing?. If you had made the least effort to research and had gone to the easiest source of information available you would have found this on the first page:

"Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right".

So you would have been spared the embarrassment of saying something so absurd.

 

[MrGautama]

The typical response of liberals when struggling for an effective response to conservative arguments is to label them or their political philosophies as "Fascist".

The typical response of conservatives when struggling for an effective response to liberal arguments is to label them or their political philosophies as "Marxist".


Please!!!


P.S. I read the rest of your post but is not worth of a comment.

 

[MrGautama]

There is a piece by Laurence Britt after researching 7 fascist regimes (Francisco Franco, Spain; Benito Mussolini, Italy; Adolph Hitler, Germany; Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Portugal; George Papadopoulos, Greece; Augusto Pinochet, Chile; Mohamed Suharto, Indonesia)


Here are the common characteristics he found:

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies / scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. Supremacy of the military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and government intertwined
9. Corporate power protected
10. Labor power suppressed
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections


Sounds familiar...?





And now, as an added bonus to our viewers...

"A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - G.W. Bush, Governing Magazine, 7/98.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - G.W. Bush, CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - G.W. Bush, Business Week, July 30, 2001

 

[Tennesseahawk]

So the Nazis we left wing?. If you had made the least effort to research and had gone to the easiest source of information available you would have found this on the first page:

"Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right".

So you would have been spared the embarrassment of saying something so absurd.

Sorry... can't read your mind to find this "easiest form of information". Fascism is a one-party dictatorship, which is left-wing. I said nothing about being liberal, I said left-wing. Oligarchies are left-wing. Heirarchies are left-wing. Anything where government controls everything is left-wing. If you claim to be a square, that means you're a quadrilateral. But that doesn't mean all quadrilaterals are square, like you (freudian slip not intended).

If you continue to demean those who disagree with you, you'll find yourself debating alone. That's one thing I couldn't stand about Tallcal.

 

[Turtle]

The typical response of conservatives when struggling for an effective response to liberal arguments is to label them or their political philosophies as "Marxist".


Please!!!

Let me ask you this:
Do you believe that (a) private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law, or (b) do you believe that everyone should own and control the means of production?

 

[MrGautama]

Let me ask you this:
Do you believe that (a) private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law, or (b) do you believe that everyone should own and control the means of production?

Very sharp Turtle, wonderfully inconspicuous bait. The fact that some basic parts of Marx's theory are in resonance with my point of view doesn't make me a Marxist in the common usage of the word (as a synonymous of Authoritarian) . Imagine now what would happen if I use the word, as is commonly understood, to describe myself here when your garden variety of liberals are called Communists.

To answer your question, (b) everyone should own and control the means of production.

Now, that for me is just obvious but the argument that differentiate me from the Marxist (specially the Leninists) is when we get to the implementation part, when Marxist start talking about "centralization of the means of production" is when I depart completely from Marx's theory. Personally I think, and history has proved it, that centralization of production is a very bad idea that can only lead to authoritarianism.

So I think I am as much a Marxist because I believe that everyone should own the means of production as you are a Fascist because you believe in protecting the power of corporations. Taking just a piece of of a doctrine and making it your own doesn't force you to identify with it.




P.S. Maybe it would have been better to use the word Communist in the quote you referred to.