Posts
Police officers went into a Fort Worth Gay bar, called the Rainbow lounge, to keep the peace... by kicking some ass! Yes, the Fort Worth Police departments policy on keeping a bar peaceful is by "Going into a bar, and kicking some ass." Sounds too forward to be happening in Texas, where they actually let people have guns and stuff (eww, guns!). I'm glad the police are preventing violence in gay bars, it just really makes me feel safe.
Hopefully it is obvious that is sarcasm. I bet the officers that jumped the young gay man, felt pretty threatened to be around scary homos. "Yuk!" I'm sure the words "Did you just touch my ass?" were uttered a few times.
In other news, a man has been arrested for selling "Fake" Dallas Cowboys Jerseys. Yes apparently the crime was "Making a living during a recession off of a product others have been given exclusive "rights" to." I guess that is something you are forbidden to do. I really don't see what is wrong. Is the Dallas Cowboys corporation hurt? Maybe. Is the consumer? Maybe. Why did the consumer buy the Jersey in the first place? Maybe it was nearly identical? Maybe it was better? Maybe it was $150.00 cheaper? Probably. The point is no one was really hurt. You want to argue for patents and copy rights? Look what they have done to the medical industry.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Farrah Fawcett dies without son; Michael Jackson Death Enrages Kim Jong IL
According to korea.com Kim Jong Il is reportedly angered by the recent death of Michael Jackson. Kim Jong Il, who considered himself Jackson's "biggest most powerful fan", addressed his nation today, saluting the fallen star. Kim threatened to retaliate 3 years ago when James Brown died of congestive heart failure, and says this is the "last straw"; "It's not fair! Why America!? Why? Michael was the only thing keeping me from blowing you up! You ruin everything."
Kim recited a poem he wrote for Jackson,
"Michael, you come and you go, and you take, and you know that you are special. Michael, I come and I go, and I give, and I know you are special. We had so much, yet so little, we gave so much, yet we got so little. We both had power, not so different you and I. Michael, like you I am misunderstood, we are different from the rest, we are the best, not so different you and I. "
Farraw Fawcett died early this morning without her only son by her side.
Some are asking "Is Patrick Swayze next?" Lets hope not.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The idea of consent
I am tired of hearing the idea that people consent to any taxation. It defies all logic. I don't even think the thieves in office deny the fact that taxation is mandatory.
To me the only real way to control a government is to control its funding. From this, I am lead to believe there are two types of people who argue for taxation: Those who know that the state has no power without it, and those who don't realize the state would have no power without it.
People don't need taxes, if there is a function that needs to be met, say building a road, it can be accomplished without government. People don't need taxes, Tyrants do. We pay our dentists, prostitutes, doctors, grocers, etc. Churches collect funds without forcing people to contribute; this is because certain individuals want to do good, they don't need to be forced to contribute to things that are necessary.
So to argue that a government needs to tax to perform a certain "service" (ew)is to argue that a government is not supported by the general population; meaning it has no legitimacy. Not that a state would have any legitimacy if it was supported by the general population, this argument is just to persuade that second group of people mentioned above that taxation isn't necessary.
Now the idea that both groups of people use to argue, poorly, that individuals consent to taxation, has been destroyed by many folks. The "Why don't you go somewhere else. If you choose to stay then you have chosen to consent." argument. I think an analogy is always the best argument against this ridiculous belief.
"A man sails a ship, and crashes on an island. He is the only person there as far as he knows. He hunts and collects fruit. One day the man is surprised to find a group of people surrounding him. They are from a tribe not to far from him, He had never seen them before today. The man says "Hi, may I help You."
The tribe leader says "No we are here to help you."
The Man says "Oh I'm fine. Been doing fine on my own."
The Tribe Leader says "No, we have been helping you, by placing fruit close to you, and releasing wild animals where you would find them."
The Man "I haven't seen you do any of this, and all of my fruit has been picked from trees."
The Tribe leader "We have also been protecting you from an Island Monster."
The Man "I haven't seen any monster."
The Tribe leader "Well from now on we won't be doing this for free, we have voted and from now on you will be giving us half of your fruit, and half of your game."
The Man "No, I won't be giving you anything."
The group Leader "We have also been holding back our urge to eat you."
The man feels a bit threatened now, unsure of what to say.
The tribe leader "Great, well then we will be by tomorrow, to take what is ours. Please feel free to join us the next time we vote on whether or not to take your food."
The man just watches them walk away.
The next month, the man is invited to go and vote to stop the taxing of his food.
He goes and meets the tribe. There are 20 members of the tribe. He goes to a voting booth, and places his vote, against the theft of his food.
Things don't go so well for the Man.
The tribe overwhelmingly votes in their own favor.
The next month he is invited. This time he is determined to sway minds. He says "Look, you are all capable of finding your own food. I have been here for a long time, and I have been able to find enough food for myself. You have all been feeding off of my work. Perhaps you should use your time here to get your own food."
The Tribe leader says "If we do that, we will have to stop protecting you from the island monster, we will have to stop hiding fruit in your favor, and we will have to stop releasing game for you to hunt."
The tribe agrees.
The man says "I never asked you for any of that."
The Tribe leader laughs and says, "You did when you decided to get stuck on our island."
To me the only real way to control a government is to control its funding. From this, I am lead to believe there are two types of people who argue for taxation: Those who know that the state has no power without it, and those who don't realize the state would have no power without it.
People don't need taxes, if there is a function that needs to be met, say building a road, it can be accomplished without government. People don't need taxes, Tyrants do. We pay our dentists, prostitutes, doctors, grocers, etc. Churches collect funds without forcing people to contribute; this is because certain individuals want to do good, they don't need to be forced to contribute to things that are necessary.
So to argue that a government needs to tax to perform a certain "service" (ew)is to argue that a government is not supported by the general population; meaning it has no legitimacy. Not that a state would have any legitimacy if it was supported by the general population, this argument is just to persuade that second group of people mentioned above that taxation isn't necessary.
Now the idea that both groups of people use to argue, poorly, that individuals consent to taxation, has been destroyed by many folks. The "Why don't you go somewhere else. If you choose to stay then you have chosen to consent." argument. I think an analogy is always the best argument against this ridiculous belief.
"A man sails a ship, and crashes on an island. He is the only person there as far as he knows. He hunts and collects fruit. One day the man is surprised to find a group of people surrounding him. They are from a tribe not to far from him, He had never seen them before today. The man says "Hi, may I help You."
The tribe leader says "No we are here to help you."
The Man says "Oh I'm fine. Been doing fine on my own."
The Tribe Leader says "No, we have been helping you, by placing fruit close to you, and releasing wild animals where you would find them."
The Man "I haven't seen you do any of this, and all of my fruit has been picked from trees."
The Tribe leader "We have also been protecting you from an Island Monster."
The Man "I haven't seen any monster."
The Tribe leader "Well from now on we won't be doing this for free, we have voted and from now on you will be giving us half of your fruit, and half of your game."
The Man "No, I won't be giving you anything."
The group Leader "We have also been holding back our urge to eat you."
The man feels a bit threatened now, unsure of what to say.
The tribe leader "Great, well then we will be by tomorrow, to take what is ours. Please feel free to join us the next time we vote on whether or not to take your food."
The man just watches them walk away.
The next month, the man is invited to go and vote to stop the taxing of his food.
He goes and meets the tribe. There are 20 members of the tribe. He goes to a voting booth, and places his vote, against the theft of his food.
Things don't go so well for the Man.
The tribe overwhelmingly votes in their own favor.
The next month he is invited. This time he is determined to sway minds. He says "Look, you are all capable of finding your own food. I have been here for a long time, and I have been able to find enough food for myself. You have all been feeding off of my work. Perhaps you should use your time here to get your own food."
The Tribe leader says "If we do that, we will have to stop protecting you from the island monster, we will have to stop hiding fruit in your favor, and we will have to stop releasing game for you to hunt."
The tribe agrees.
The man says "I never asked you for any of that."
The Tribe leader laughs and says, "You did when you decided to get stuck on our island."
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A time line for Vietnam
1941: Ho Chi Minh (hehe) re-enters Vietnam. The United Stated arms him and his Guerrilla Group known as the Viet Minh to help fight of Japanese and recue downed soldier.
1945: Japanese Get rid of the French Colonial Government in Vientam, and set up their own puppet ruler Bao Dai.
The Allies divide Vietnam at the 16th Parallel. The Japanese are disramed in both south and north Vietnam
Vietnam is givin to the french and Ho Chi Minh not like that so much. Quoting the Declaration of Idependence, he declares Vietnam Independent.
Ho tries to get the US to aknowledge the Countries independance.
Truman Ignores him.
Britain Releases French Sodliers, and the British and the French begin to Massacre inoccent civilians, and Guerillas alike.
Vietn Minh Fight Back, Duh!
French not so happy.
General Jacques Philippe Leclerc Commands a group of 35,000 French Troops in Vietnam, in order to regain French Rule.
The Viet Minh Try to expel the French, it being their country and not the French (Hey weren't the french invaded? I don't think they liked having an occupying force in home town.)
1946: The Frech being the punk ass hypocrites they are, begin to dominate Viet Minh Guerrillas who want independence from imperialist France.
China allows Frace to Take over North Vietnam.
Minh tries to bargain for independeance. The French "Speet on heim" basically.
Violence errupts and the frech force the Viet Minh to withdraw into the Jungle.
First Indochina Struggle for independance last 8 years.
1947:
Operation Lea takes the lives of 9,000 from fighters and countless innocent women and children.
The French instal Bao Dao as the Puppet of North Vietnam and his Dictatorial government.
The United States Recognizes this "Gvoernment"
1950: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin starts accusing people of being communists, much like the accusations made by the Bush administration regarding terrorists.
This causes everybody in US Government to be hard on communism, hoping to avoid any accusations. McCarthyism is rampant and melignant.
June 30, 1950 - President Harry S. Truman orders U.S. ground troops into Korea following Communist North Korea's invasion of the South. In his message to the American people, Truman describes the invasion as a Moscow-backed attack by "monolithic world Communism." This pushed the fear mongering to another level.
July 26 Harry Truman, began funding the terrorist regime of Bao Dao a.k.a the French, 15 million dollars worth the funding.
No need to continue. It is clear why the U.S. entered Vietnam. To protect the French Empire, and it's commodities in Vietnam.
1945: Japanese Get rid of the French Colonial Government in Vientam, and set up their own puppet ruler Bao Dai.
The Allies divide Vietnam at the 16th Parallel. The Japanese are disramed in both south and north Vietnam
Vietnam is givin to the french and Ho Chi Minh not like that so much. Quoting the Declaration of Idependence, he declares Vietnam Independent.
Ho tries to get the US to aknowledge the Countries independance.
Truman Ignores him.
Britain Releases French Sodliers, and the British and the French begin to Massacre inoccent civilians, and Guerillas alike.
Vietn Minh Fight Back, Duh!
French not so happy.
General Jacques Philippe Leclerc Commands a group of 35,000 French Troops in Vietnam, in order to regain French Rule.
The Viet Minh Try to expel the French, it being their country and not the French (Hey weren't the french invaded? I don't think they liked having an occupying force in home town.)
1946: The Frech being the punk ass hypocrites they are, begin to dominate Viet Minh Guerrillas who want independence from imperialist France.
China allows Frace to Take over North Vietnam.
Minh tries to bargain for independeance. The French "Speet on heim" basically.
Violence errupts and the frech force the Viet Minh to withdraw into the Jungle.
First Indochina Struggle for independance last 8 years.
1947:
Operation Lea takes the lives of 9,000 from fighters and countless innocent women and children.
The French instal Bao Dao as the Puppet of North Vietnam and his Dictatorial government.
The United States Recognizes this "Gvoernment"
1950: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin starts accusing people of being communists, much like the accusations made by the Bush administration regarding terrorists.
This causes everybody in US Government to be hard on communism, hoping to avoid any accusations. McCarthyism is rampant and melignant.
June 30, 1950 - President Harry S. Truman orders U.S. ground troops into Korea following Communist North Korea's invasion of the South. In his message to the American people, Truman describes the invasion as a Moscow-backed attack by "monolithic world Communism." This pushed the fear mongering to another level.
July 26 Harry Truman, began funding the terrorist regime of Bao Dao a.k.a the French, 15 million dollars worth the funding.
No need to continue. It is clear why the U.S. entered Vietnam. To protect the French Empire, and it's commodities in Vietnam.
Monday, June 15, 2009
No more
Blog War. Eh, it's pointless. Instead I am going to report on the presidents address of health care. He is right, there is a problem with health care, and the problem is rooted in government.
In an article titled The Price of Progress: The Real Reason for Healthcare Cost Increases Daniel Mead Smith argues
Well there is a point to this. The new technology is more expensive, but the patents on this technology is what keeps it expensive.
Hey, you can't trust big pharma. They are protected by patents. Luckily these patents expire, but that happens over the course of many years. You can't blame them for wanting to make a huge profit after having spent millions on development and testing.I must say I don't like "standard" medicine, I think others refer to it as conventional medicine. Most of the drugs that are developed are developed from natural medicinal sources, and then recreated in a lab. Many Doctors prefer alternative medicine for themselves. Why not for everyone else?
I think the high amount of disease these days is due to poor diet, exercise, lack of essential vitamins and minerals (which some argue the RDV's are in most cases too low), and other things. Being a human, I know the difference between eating right and eating not so great. When I eat crappy I tend to feel sluggish, I get sick easily, and I do tend to loose muscle mass. I go through periods of eating good and eating bad. When I eat healthy I feel great. High amounts of vegetables, nuts, fruits, and grains keep you well nourished. I don't eat meat, I don't think it provides anything that non-meat sources can't.
The idea of the necessity of animal protein is a myth. You don't need it, it sits in your stomach and rots, your body has to break down muscle (when you hit around 40) in order to produce the enzymes needed to break down meat, and it doesn't contain enough potassium to preserve muscle. I read that in a body builder magazine of all places. That isn't vegetarian propaganda.
Anyway back to the original topic.
Anyway from my research:
"Health care is expensive. We should find out why HEALTH CARE, NOT INSURANCE, is so expensive."
Many doctors have brought down their prices by not using third party payers. This leaves more freedom amongst the doctor and patient.
"Maybe it’s because of the insurance company in the first place?"
Again many doctors are dropping insurance companies and this is bringing down the cost of their services.
"The lack of apprenticeships in the medical field?"
Lawyers lobbied the government in Texas to rid the world of the evil plague of apprenticeships in the legal field because it brought prices down too low. These poor lawyers couldn’t afford multiple houses anymore, and yachts, and whatever. The government came to their rescue.
Perhaps this could be a good lesson. That schooling that costs several thousand dollars and takes 8 years might be another reason health care is so expensive. The poor can’t afford to go to medical school, so you can see why apprenticeships would benefit this field.
"Patents on new technology?"
It is pretty obvious that when one company controls the price of one product, the price of that product is going to be artificially high.
"Patents on drugs?"
Same as above.
"Crappy diets and habits?"
Maybe this disease era is related to the fact that the majority of people are obese in the united states. See Michael Moore.
"Ignorance of alternative medicine which many doctors use themselves?"
Many docs use alternative therapies themselves, and most "conventional medicine" comes from natural sources.
"The fact that we barely keep any of our money and inflation brings down the purchasing power of that money we get to keep?"
In an article titled The Price of Progress: The Real Reason for Healthcare Cost Increases Daniel Mead Smith argues
New technology and new treatments are available, new cures are being found, new drugs are being developed - and the resulting improvements raise health care costs.
Well there is a point to this. The new technology is more expensive, but the patents on this technology is what keeps it expensive.
The cost of prescription drugs has come under heavy fire in recent years, particularly from some members of Congress and our state legislature, and some advocacy groups. Much of this criticism apparently has been fueled by the lack of a Medicare prescription drug benefit and by the perception that drug companies were charging high prices for medicine that often cost only pennies to manufacture.
Hey, you can't trust big pharma. They are protected by patents. Luckily these patents expire, but that happens over the course of many years. You can't blame them for wanting to make a huge profit after having spent millions on development and testing.I must say I don't like "standard" medicine, I think others refer to it as conventional medicine. Most of the drugs that are developed are developed from natural medicinal sources, and then recreated in a lab. Many Doctors prefer alternative medicine for themselves. Why not for everyone else?
I think the high amount of disease these days is due to poor diet, exercise, lack of essential vitamins and minerals (which some argue the RDV's are in most cases too low), and other things. Being a human, I know the difference between eating right and eating not so great. When I eat crappy I tend to feel sluggish, I get sick easily, and I do tend to loose muscle mass. I go through periods of eating good and eating bad. When I eat healthy I feel great. High amounts of vegetables, nuts, fruits, and grains keep you well nourished. I don't eat meat, I don't think it provides anything that non-meat sources can't.
The idea of the necessity of animal protein is a myth. You don't need it, it sits in your stomach and rots, your body has to break down muscle (when you hit around 40) in order to produce the enzymes needed to break down meat, and it doesn't contain enough potassium to preserve muscle. I read that in a body builder magazine of all places. That isn't vegetarian propaganda.
Anyway back to the original topic.
Anyway from my research:
"Health care is expensive. We should find out why HEALTH CARE, NOT INSURANCE, is so expensive."
Many doctors have brought down their prices by not using third party payers. This leaves more freedom amongst the doctor and patient.
"Maybe it’s because of the insurance company in the first place?"
Again many doctors are dropping insurance companies and this is bringing down the cost of their services.
"The lack of apprenticeships in the medical field?"
Lawyers lobbied the government in Texas to rid the world of the evil plague of apprenticeships in the legal field because it brought prices down too low. These poor lawyers couldn’t afford multiple houses anymore, and yachts, and whatever. The government came to their rescue.
Perhaps this could be a good lesson. That schooling that costs several thousand dollars and takes 8 years might be another reason health care is so expensive. The poor can’t afford to go to medical school, so you can see why apprenticeships would benefit this field.
"Patents on new technology?"
It is pretty obvious that when one company controls the price of one product, the price of that product is going to be artificially high.
"Patents on drugs?"
Same as above.
"Crappy diets and habits?"
Maybe this disease era is related to the fact that the majority of people are obese in the united states. See Michael Moore.
"Ignorance of alternative medicine which many doctors use themselves?"
Many docs use alternative therapies themselves, and most "conventional medicine" comes from natural sources.
"The fact that we barely keep any of our money and inflation brings down the purchasing power of that money we get to keep?"
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Banned
Banned from a website, for coming up with logical arguments that the "blogger", who happens to be a coward, couldn't dispute. One of the arguments I have already posted under reply to pro tax state-ist. I guess I should post his response to me which led me to put him in his place.
"The “ideal market” does not exist, it’s a ficitonal utopia created by libertarians as an unreachable goal. Much like the “kingdom of god”."
The ideal market does not exist because of the plague of intervention. The only blockade in reaching a free market is intervention, so your argument is incorrect.
Calling someone a moron is not an argument. If you believe you are being opressed and stolen from then you have options. You have chosen to stay and “fight”. By choosing to stay you are willingly allowing the government to control you. You have consented. Consented under protest but consented none the less."
Calling someone a moron, when the person is a moron, is an argument. Yes you have options to leave your home, a place which is controlled by an illegal force exerting power over your home. What is your option by the way? Oh, yeah to go to other governments. How awesome. That way they can steal from me, and claim I agreed to their laws and signed their constitutions. You are very weak in your arguments. You are clearly a person who believes in contradiction, which I get from your statement “Consented under protest but consented none the less.” Idiotic."That reminds m, I have all these links debubnking the “taxes are theft” argument lying around. I’ll have to post them. Thanks for the reminder."
He never posted his "links", and he never responded to my argument.
"To argue that any intervention of any kind must neccesarily leade to “bad things tm” is to argue against the vast bulk of economics and a bit of history to boot."
I would like to know what intervention you are talking about. Maybe you are speaking of the eight hour work day, which led to labor rights activists to calm down a bit. Perhaps, you are referring to patents which increase the price of a good significantly. Perhaps you are speaking of child labor laws, which only re-affirmed a childs right to not work, actually prohibiting children from working, whether they would like to or not. Perhaps you are referring to the monopoly on currency, which creates a wide gap in the standard of living"I pay my stock broker more than I am paid for the same amount of time/effort. I pay my doctor more, my dentist, my mechanic. It’s nonsense to say we wouldn’t pay more for the expertise and resources of government than we ourselves are paid."
Notice how all of these individuals make a living off of you because you voluntarily pay them. You don’t voluntarily pay a president $400,000 a year. See the difference? One is a real business practice while the other is fake, and can only exist with coercion. I know of another organization that stole from people, the Mafia, it was for protection."Government can be manipulated to serve the few and all government do over the course of time. That’s why we need to drastically rearrange society every few centuries.
To say that government can be misused is not an argument against government. It’s an argument against bad government."
Actually it's an argument against government. There will always be those who will misuse government, always, and to think that there is such thing as good government is retarded. There might be "better" government, but any organization that claims power over ones life in exchange for protection is not "good". There might be "better" mafia but there will never be good mafia. So there will always be these people who misuse government. To me the best solution to that is to remove the tool they use to do evil.
"Argument ad hitlerum.
Thrawn is not arguing for direct democracy and nothing thrawn says rules out putting into place limits on power like rights or constitutions.
Even in your anarcho-capitalist utopia there would be tides of cultural oppression. There is no perfect system free from evil (which I hear you don’t believe in, oh the jokes to be made). So saying “it’s not perfect” is not an argument."
Can you deny the facts? The extermination was for the common good, according to Hitler. Rights and constitutions are not enough to protect the individual. You two don’t understand this. The only legitimate use of government is temporary to set up roads, infrastructure, etc, aka voluntary collectivism, and some would argue this isn't necessary.
You can marginalize these ideas, but they have never been tested, at least not that I am aware of. Government has and it has failed miserably. Time for a new hypothesis.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist. You still clearly don’t understand the term “free Market”. Once again, system of trade unregulated.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Mighty Thrawn
A blogger who refers to himself as "Thrawn" believes himself to be the all knowing, debunker of libertarian thought. The might of his garden variety arguments is stunting, I mean stunning. This man is as inflatable as the pope, truly. The force of Thrawns logic impells all libertarian ideology, and all of the thought pours out from the hole created by his spear of logic. He has single handedly brought down an entire movement of philosophy, in a single series of blog posts, and did so single mindedly. I am so glad to be cured of my thinkyness, and from now on I will just be following Thrawn and his mighty posts. Praise be to Thrawn!
I think this should kick off my dumb bloggers of the week.
Thrawn Takes First Place.
From his blog
Apparently he doesn't have a problem with libertarian ideas, unless they oppose government. Of course he completely lacks any understanding of libertarians. Libertarians encompass a large group of thinkers. Anarchists of all sorts, and minarchists of all sorts. The basic idea is, yes Thong, government is bad. That is simplistic. The more complex idea is government is flawed, illogical, violent, the product of bad thinking or even lack of thought, and self-serving. It's like starting a church to gain an income and some power. Fooling a large group of followers into believing they need you to lead them to salvation.
Yes, economic liberties are bad. If a child wants to work, we should go against that childs judgment. If someone wants to work longer hours, he must get approval first. Certain groups should be privileged by the governments when getting hired, patents are great, and lack of a competing currency really finishes it off like an experienced hooker. Oh by the way, manipulation of interest rates has really been great! Banning products that are evil is the best thing anyone can do, like pot which really hurt the californian economy when it was made legal for medical use.
This is simply an argument for libertarianism, and he doesn't seem to realize this. What Thrawn argues for, because soviet Russia is mixed markets. A good combination of both socialist politics in a capitalist market. This however is the current state of things. Thrawn mis-understands the term free market. It simply is a place of trade, unregulated. "Oi Vay! Not unregulated, isn't that how we got into the financial crisis we are today?" The financial crisis we are in right now, is a result of bad business, extremely low manipulated interests rates, which led to faulty investment, and duh the housing bubble was a result of these things. Companies making loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back is only one cause. The investment banks were punished for this by the market, and thanks to government intervention, they were pulled out of their almost certain demise. Their punishment from the market, had been replaced with a reward from government. Almost a trillion in bailout funds. How logical! Add this to Fanny May and Freddy Mac, which were giving loans to just about anyone with at least a penny in their pockets, and artificially low interest rates from the one and only Alan Greenspan, which suckered people into investing in homes in the first place, and you get what we have now.
We should have said "Bye Bye wall street, you brought yourself down, maybe you can dig yourself up." But no We dug them up, under Mr. Wall Street himself, Barrack Obama, and now the National debt is up to almost 12 trillion dollars. I love intervention!
It's called a depression, and it moves liquidity back into the market. When a company practices bad business, or when a company is propped up and given unfair backing by the government, they go under, and we almost saw it happen this past year. The magical fairy did show up however, and protected the bad companies.
This is part one of five rebuttals to Saint Thrawn.
I think this should kick off my dumb bloggers of the week.
Thrawn Takes First Place.
From his blog
"Unfortunately, some [Libertarians] go too far. “Extremist” libertarians, or – anarcho – capitalists as some have taken to calling themselves – claim that government in any form is “evil” or “immoral”. Here, I present responses to some of their most common arguments for this surprisingly popular viewpoint."
Apparently he doesn't have a problem with libertarian ideas, unless they oppose government. Of course he completely lacks any understanding of libertarians. Libertarians encompass a large group of thinkers. Anarchists of all sorts, and minarchists of all sorts. The basic idea is, yes Thong, government is bad. That is simplistic. The more complex idea is government is flawed, illogical, violent, the product of bad thinking or even lack of thought, and self-serving. It's like starting a church to gain an income and some power. Fooling a large group of followers into believing they need you to lead them to salvation.
"Superficially, this looks like a good idea, and I partly agree with it. “Free society”, taken to mean free speech and other similar liberties, is a very good idea. What isn’t a good idea is an unregulated free market. Don’t get me wrong – I like capitalism. I like to own stuff."
Yes, economic liberties are bad. If a child wants to work, we should go against that childs judgment. If someone wants to work longer hours, he must get approval first. Certain groups should be privileged by the governments when getting hired, patents are great, and lack of a competing currency really finishes it off like an experienced hooker. Oh by the way, manipulation of interest rates has really been great! Banning products that are evil is the best thing anyone can do, like pot which really hurt the californian economy when it was made legal for medical use.
"With any absolute economic doctrine (absolute socialism or absolute capitalism), there are inherent flaws. With capitalism, people best able to exploit others succeed the most. Needless to say, exploitation is a bad thing. With socialism, motivation is lacking. There are also issues with resources, but we’ll pretend we actually have enough for now. Soviet Russia, notably, overcame this lack of inherent motivation through widespread use of the AK 47."
This is simply an argument for libertarianism, and he doesn't seem to realize this. What Thrawn argues for, because soviet Russia is mixed markets. A good combination of both socialist politics in a capitalist market. This however is the current state of things. Thrawn mis-understands the term free market. It simply is a place of trade, unregulated. "Oi Vay! Not unregulated, isn't that how we got into the financial crisis we are today?" The financial crisis we are in right now, is a result of bad business, extremely low manipulated interests rates, which led to faulty investment, and duh the housing bubble was a result of these things. Companies making loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back is only one cause. The investment banks were punished for this by the market, and thanks to government intervention, they were pulled out of their almost certain demise. Their punishment from the market, had been replaced with a reward from government. Almost a trillion in bailout funds. How logical! Add this to Fanny May and Freddy Mac, which were giving loans to just about anyone with at least a penny in their pockets, and artificially low interest rates from the one and only Alan Greenspan, which suckered people into investing in homes in the first place, and you get what we have now.
We should have said "Bye Bye wall street, you brought yourself down, maybe you can dig yourself up." But no We dug them up, under Mr. Wall Street himself, Barrack Obama, and now the National debt is up to almost 12 trillion dollars. I love intervention!
"It’s common for libertarians to argue that the “free market will stabilize the economy”. This is a blatant falsehood. There is no magical free market fairy to swish her wand and take back all the money from the naughty corporations, and tiny imbalances in the economy would refill their pockets in short order."
It's called a depression, and it moves liquidity back into the market. When a company practices bad business, or when a company is propped up and given unfair backing by the government, they go under, and we almost saw it happen this past year. The magical fairy did show up however, and protected the bad companies.
This is part one of five rebuttals to Saint Thrawn.
Reply to pro tax state-ist
Taxation is theft. It is the removal of funds from ones paycheck with the use of force. Theft: The crime of taking someone else’s property without consent: larceny, pilferage, steal, thievery. Slang rip-off. See crimes.
From this definition of theft, the removal of ones property without consent is clearly theft. Lets look at the definition of taxation.
A compulsory contribution, usually of money, that is required for the support of a government: assessment, duty, impost, levy, tariff. See money, pay/owe, politics.
Compulsory meaning mandatory.
To support taxation is to support theft. To think of taxation as being not theft is to believe you have given consent to being governed. You, obviously a brainwashed goon, believe it is necessary for a government to tax. You believe a governemnt is consented to. Therefore you believe that individuals have to be stolen from in order to support the government they consent to. If consent is true, then support is implied, and monetary funding does not need to be mandatory.
If consent is a big fat lie, and support is lacking, then monetary funding must be mandatory.
Therefore all governments that require mandatory funding of their functions are null, if they are supposed to exist only by the consent of the governed.
Reply to pro tax state-ist
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Arguements Amongst the Anarchists
I don’t get why we (anarchists) argue anymore. In an anarchist society, a real one, private business would spring up and so would co-ops, and they would be indistinguishable from an outsider. Without government all production and services would more than likely be local.
So in an anarchist society both systems private and communal could co-exist. If one is truly better than the other, well then the system that truly sucks ass will die out due to competition.
Here is the problem though, when you have a business, whether it be cooperatively or privately owned there really isn’t much a difference. Lets say a co-op burger store pops up. The co-op has to allow a minimum of $145,000 a year to acquire food and other costs. Four people operate and manage it. The store has already accounted for set up and all of that. So what ever the gross income of the store is, we have to subtract at least $145,000. Lets say in perfect conditions "not taking in other costs" the store brings in a net (income minus expenses) $160,000. Divide this by 4 and that is what everyone earns working at "Commie Burger". Not bad, $40,000, for flipping burgers, and everyone had equal risk starting the business.
Now lets say a privately owned burger joint operates under the same conditions. It’s the owner, one other manager, and two "general" employees. Lets say all costs are the same, and income is the same. $160,000 minus, lets say $9.50 an hour multiplied by x amount of hours (say, 40 a week) for the general employees, and equals about $20,140 annually for each of the two people in charge of flipping burgers, frying potatoes, etc. The manager has a set salary of $50,000 a year lets say, plus every six months, if the store profits highly she gets a bonus of $2,000, (which is not uncommonly more), so she can receive at best conditions $54,000 a year for taking care of the store, doing basically everything. The business owner, who took all the risk opening the store, helps manage, trains new employees, cooks, serves, etc, is left with a net income of $65,720. Business at “Greed Burger” isn’t doing that bad.
Now lets analyze each.
The co-op was founded as a way for 4 “comrades” to make a living, this will more than likely be it for those friends, or business partners. This is their business; they need $40,000 a year for food, and other things. They devote all of their time to that burger joint, making sure it doesn’t fail.
Now lets analyze “greed burger”. The manager is doing what she is probably always going to do, manage a store, and possible one day start her own. This is the business she/he wants to be in. The owner, well duh, this is also the business she/he wants to be in, and he/she created it.
The two general employees would be stupid to stay in the burger flipping industry. This is probably never the case in reality anyway. They have their own goals, one wants to be a doctor, and one wants to be a pilot. Chances are they still live at home and work for extra money to help out their household. Ones father works at Commie Burger, he only brings in 40 K a year, so the extra money really helps out, and his child can save for training so he/she can become a doctor. Ones mother is the manager at Greed Burger. The kids extra income also helps out the family and he/she is saving up to get his/her own training in flight. Also this family’s income is actually higher than the owner of greed burger.
Once these two employees leave greed burger, and do their own thing, two more people can join greed burger. People would be continuously moving through greed burger, and then moving on to other things, and then eventually starting their own business (co-op or not) or whatever.
Poor individuals would be better off in Co-ops, earning a living equal to everyone else, and possibly having a place to stay at the co-op (This is also possible at a private business, maybe less likely).
This is a highly far-fetched scenario, I do agree, but besides the numbers being highly variable it shows the basic idea of each. There isn’t any evil in either system, mostly because evil doesn’t exist, but secondly because they both meet the needs of certain lifestyles. Some individuals would go to co-ops, some would go to private business.
If one is truly the best then one will eventually die of natural causes.
So in an anarchist society both systems private and communal could co-exist. If one is truly better than the other, well then the system that truly sucks ass will die out due to competition.
Here is the problem though, when you have a business, whether it be cooperatively or privately owned there really isn’t much a difference. Lets say a co-op burger store pops up. The co-op has to allow a minimum of $145,000 a year to acquire food and other costs. Four people operate and manage it. The store has already accounted for set up and all of that. So what ever the gross income of the store is, we have to subtract at least $145,000. Lets say in perfect conditions "not taking in other costs" the store brings in a net (income minus expenses) $160,000. Divide this by 4 and that is what everyone earns working at "Commie Burger". Not bad, $40,000, for flipping burgers, and everyone had equal risk starting the business.
Now lets say a privately owned burger joint operates under the same conditions. It’s the owner, one other manager, and two "general" employees. Lets say all costs are the same, and income is the same. $160,000 minus, lets say $9.50 an hour multiplied by x amount of hours (say, 40 a week) for the general employees, and equals about $20,140 annually for each of the two people in charge of flipping burgers, frying potatoes, etc. The manager has a set salary of $50,000 a year lets say, plus every six months, if the store profits highly she gets a bonus of $2,000, (which is not uncommonly more), so she can receive at best conditions $54,000 a year for taking care of the store, doing basically everything. The business owner, who took all the risk opening the store, helps manage, trains new employees, cooks, serves, etc, is left with a net income of $65,720. Business at “Greed Burger” isn’t doing that bad.
Now lets analyze each.
The co-op was founded as a way for 4 “comrades” to make a living, this will more than likely be it for those friends, or business partners. This is their business; they need $40,000 a year for food, and other things. They devote all of their time to that burger joint, making sure it doesn’t fail.
Now lets analyze “greed burger”. The manager is doing what she is probably always going to do, manage a store, and possible one day start her own. This is the business she/he wants to be in. The owner, well duh, this is also the business she/he wants to be in, and he/she created it.
The two general employees would be stupid to stay in the burger flipping industry. This is probably never the case in reality anyway. They have their own goals, one wants to be a doctor, and one wants to be a pilot. Chances are they still live at home and work for extra money to help out their household. Ones father works at Commie Burger, he only brings in 40 K a year, so the extra money really helps out, and his child can save for training so he/she can become a doctor. Ones mother is the manager at Greed Burger. The kids extra income also helps out the family and he/she is saving up to get his/her own training in flight. Also this family’s income is actually higher than the owner of greed burger.
Once these two employees leave greed burger, and do their own thing, two more people can join greed burger. People would be continuously moving through greed burger, and then moving on to other things, and then eventually starting their own business (co-op or not) or whatever.
Poor individuals would be better off in Co-ops, earning a living equal to everyone else, and possibly having a place to stay at the co-op (This is also possible at a private business, maybe less likely).
This is a highly far-fetched scenario, I do agree, but besides the numbers being highly variable it shows the basic idea of each. There isn’t any evil in either system, mostly because evil doesn’t exist, but secondly because they both meet the needs of certain lifestyles. Some individuals would go to co-ops, some would go to private business.
If one is truly the best then one will eventually die of natural causes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
