NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/av-12.gif

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.
o.9
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

Well, hopes are some of the more elegant posters here (not including myself) have helped show some of the better characteristics of a broader spectrum of political thinking and you really do feel better about the choices you make that affect both yourself and others.
Good luck with that. :)

Easiest conversion evar.

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

And yet, to the Green Party, you are still a no good fascismo. Way to go slick.

Oh, and the Republican party isn't made entirely of right-wing extremists and Neo Cons... we have classical liberals too!

"LOL" is all I can say to that.

Easiest conversion evar.We'll see.
Nothing but sweet, sweet words that turn into bitter orange wax in my ears.

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

Well I'm glad you've made your views broader through here, it did a lot to me in that aspect too. Just a reminder, never trust blindly ANY ideology. Always keep your mind open to ideas from all sides, because you can end up being blindly misguided by both sides too. As long as you keep your open mind to new ideas and concepts, everything should be fine.

We'll see.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Iseewhatyoudidthere.png

Oh, and the Republican party isn't made entirely of right-wing extremists and Neo Cons... we have classical liberals too!

Perhaps. The better question is whether they belong there.

Perhaps. The better question is whether they belong there.

Well, seeing as "classically liberal" more-or-less means little regulation and small government; yes. If you democrats want to take the big-government neo-cons off our hands, we'll give 'em to you, free of charge.

Oh no! My mission to make newcomers Libertarians has failed! (Sob)

Oh no! My mission to make newcomers Libertarians has failed! (Sob)

You only received a 4.5 on your mislead-o-meter this month, try more half-truths next time, or you could just make puppet accounts and pretend you have people on your side.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Iseewhatyoudidthere.png

I like that one.

Well, seeing as "classically liberal" more-or-less means little regulation and small government; yes.

If that's your definition, you certainly shouldn't support the overwhelmingly statist Republican Party.

I like that one.

It seemed fitting, both for the picture and the text.

Well, seeing as "classically liberal" more-or-less means little regulation and small government

ignoring any questions about the accuracy of your definition, have you ever heard the term 'patsy'?

ignoring any questions about the accuracy of your definition, have you ever heard the term 'patsy'?

Elaborate por favor.

You only received a 4.5 on your mislead-o-meter this month, try more half-truths next time, or you could just make puppet accounts and pretend you have people on your side.
See? Everyones aganst me! CONSPIRACY!!

See? Everyones aganst me! CONSPIRACY!!

Everyone being against you doesn't necessarily facilitate a "conspiracy", per se.

If that's your definition, you certainly shouldn't support the overwhelmingly statist Republican Party.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Everyone being against you doesn't necessarily facilitate a "conspiracy", per se.
You're right. They'd have to be aganst me secretly:p, but nooo they have to shove it in my face!:D

not everyone, per se.
Everyone wouldn't HAVE to be aganst me secretly but everyone IS aganst me. But not secretly which makes it not a conspiracy. I think. Err... DANGIT! Thanks a lot! Now I'm confused!:D

You're right. They'd have to be aganst me secretly:p, but nooo they have to shove it in my face!:D

Well, if it were me, i'd prefer they shoved in my face, as compared to just about anywhere else they might consider shoving it.
<.<
>.>
Where do you shove things up a ball?

You're right. They'd have to be aganst me secretly:p, but nooo they have to shove it in my face!:D

not everyone, per se.;)

Everyone wouldn't HAVE to be aganst me secretly but everyone IS aganst me. But not secretly which makes it not a conspiracy. I think. Err... DANGIT! Thanks a lot! Now I'm confused!:D

*seed of doubt*
*watch it grow*

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

No apology necessary, and I applaud you for restraining yourself from overuse of gun smilies. Good to see someone new who realizes that things need not be a slippery slope. Gay marriage does not mean that we'd have to allow pedophilia and bestiality; leagalizing marijuana (although I'm on the fence about that) does not mean we'd have to leagalize ecstacy and cocaine; and to disagree with Bush & Co's foreign policy does not mean that you "hate the troops". Welcome to the brawl-- er, I mean forum.

Ah! Now I have a chance to find out sans flaming and circumventing questions: Why where you
a) Anti-Gay Marriage
b) Anti-Muslim

Maybe now I can find the answer.

*seed of doubt*
*watch it grow*
HA! It's too late for that! I've already had one of those and I know how to kill it... Smear it with my socks!(Sometimes they try to squirm free though!:D)

The farther left you go the better your company. ;)

It's okay, we forgive you.

You weren't wrong, you had your opinions you could have stuck by that. But of course you had a change of heart, which is fine. Be glad you aren't a politician, because people like to call that flip-flopping, oooh! You have nothing to be sorry about.

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.
Nothing to be sorry about! When I first came here I was a Republican and now I'm a Proud Libertarian. It's always good to see different viewpoints, but of all things WHY A DEMOCRAT!

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

Why would you sell your beliefs out like that? Without even debating about them? AND THEN APOLOGIZE TO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE YOU"VE NEVER SPOKEN TOO BEFORE?? I'm glad you see the light of reason, but still...

Why would you sell your beliefs out like that? Without even debating about them? AND THEN APOLOGIZE TO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE YOU"VE NEVER SPOKEN TOO BEFORE?? I'm glad you see the light of reason, but still...

It's the allure of the cookies. *Nods*

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

You can't be serious...

Well, seeing as "classically liberal" more-or-less means little regulation and small government; yes.

Well, I understand that this is what "classical liberals" want. It is however not what the Republican party has wanted (despite saying so) at least since Regan.

No, you have to be a puppet.

No, you have to be a puppet.

He doesn't have to be. He could just be extremely stupid. Nobody gives up their convictions without a fight of some type.

He doesn't have to be. He could just be extremely stupid. Nobody gives up their convictions without a fight of some type.

Yea, it just seems to...easy.

*Your original post*
Hello, and also, don't feel sorry for something you haven't done. I hope you have a good time here, and it's nice to have someone saying 'hello' for once :)

It's always good to see different viewpoints, but of all things WHY A DEMOCRAT!
It's the "illusion of choice" effect. The system presents two ostensibly opposing parties that the people can pick from, and as a result, because a free choice between them exists, many people are quite happy to accept one or the other without suggesting that a third party might be more appropriate.

Oh, and welcome along Conservadise. Enjoy your new-found liberalism! Don't forget, analysis of the issue precedes political leanings, and it's alright to speak out against the party line if there's a serious flaw with it.

Ah YES! A former republican who can explain the mentality behind hating gays. I've never quite gotten that part

It's the "illusion of choice" effect. The system presents two ostensibly opposing parties that the people can pick from, and as a result, because a free choice between them exists, many people are quite happy to accept one or the other without suggesting that a third party might be more appropriate.

Oh, and welcome along Conservadise. Enjoy your new-found liberalism! Don't forget, analysis of the issue precedes political leanings, and it's alright to speak out against the party line if there's a serious flaw with it.

eh thats starting to splinter right about now. Re: Ron Paul (Libertarianism) vs Republicans (splintering coalition) vs Democrats (sligtly brittle, but still incredibley strong coalition)

Oh no! My mission to make newcomers Libertarians has failed! (Sob)

About time we got some intelligent newcomers.

HA! It's too late for that! I've already had one of those and I know how to kill it... Smear it with my socks!(Sometimes they try to squirm free though!:D)
I know that if i smeared any faces with my socks, it would kill (or at least maim) them.
*but*
as far as seeds growing ... and my socks ... there's a lot of potential there. :eek:

eh thats starting to splinter right about now. Re: Ron Paul (Libertarianism) vs Republicans (splintering coalition) vs Democrats (sligtly brittle, but still incredibley strong coalition)
You say splinter - I say expanding. The choice illusion is maintained when the options are widened from two to three; the only difference being that the individual has another alternative, which means they feel "more free" than they did before, even where their course of action is still restricted by what they're presented with.

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

The same sort of thing happened to me. But I did not switch to Democrat. I am a Libertarian now, which means I still support being harsh on criminals, and I am still anti-welfare, and I am still pro-gun, and I am still for more economic freedom.

And yet, to the Green Party, you are still a no good fascismo. Way to go slick.

Oh, and the Republican party isn't made entirely of right-wing extremists and Neo Cons... we have classical liberals too!

And a fair measure of moderates, it's just that the extremists are too damn loud.

The same sort of thing happened to me. But I did not switch to Democrat. I am a Libertarian now, which means I still support being harsh on criminals, and I am still anti-welfare, and I am still pro-gun, and I am still for more economic freedom.

Because that's the big problem with America. Big business is too beholden to the rules of the government - rather than the other way around...

Because that's the big problem with America. Big business is too beholden to the rules of the government - rather than the other way around...
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to god. No, said the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.

Anyone else up for building an underwater capitalist paradise city where the artist need not fear the sensitive, the scientists need not be bound by petty moraility, and the great will not be constrained by the small?

Oh, and the Republican party isn't made entirely of right-wing extremists and Neo Cons... we have classical liberals too!


If they support the party that spawned the George W. Bush Administration, these "classical liberals" are either liars, too few to matter, or figments of someone's imagination. Or some combination thereof.

And a fair measure of moderates, it's just that the extremists are too damn loud.

You really don't need to look a whole lot farther than the late Barry Goldwater. He saw the theocrat clowns for what they were and really fought to keep the Republican Party from sliding in to their grasp. Sadly, there aren't very many people like him on that side anymore.

Honestly, I do share a lot of the same opinions as the Republicans and would register as one the second they drop the intellectually dead stuff that has wormed its way in to the party on the back of the Moral "Majority" and the three-ring circus of the televangelists.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to god. No, said the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.

Anyone else up for building an underwater capitalist paradise city where the artist need not fear the sensitive, the scientists need not be bound by petty moraility, and the weak will not be constrained by the small?

The problem is, big business simply can't be trusted. That simple. And, in America, big business OWNS the government, so there's not even an incentive to pretend.

More Americans are currently going bankrupt than are getting divorces. Small businesses are folding, and big businesses are declaring record windfall profits. The problem with unregulated capitalism is that it is capitalism, but without control - and that makes it completely predatory.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to god. No, said the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.


Yes says the worker, it belongs to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism).

Because that's the big problem with America. Big business is too beholden to the rules of the government - rather than the other way around...

The big problem is that the individual is too beholden to both Big Business and the government. Which kind of sucks any way around.

The big problem is that the individual is too beholden to both Big Business and the government. Which kind of sucks any way around.

We're interdependent, no argument. But, it's a loop that's almost impossible to get out of.

The diea that free market forces will balance themselves out is obviously false to anyone who has ever spent more than the occassional visit in the realms of reality - big bussiness can undercut small business by economy of scale, thus reducing choice. Once you have your choice omnipresent in an environment, free market forces become irrelevent - you have an effective monopoly.

If Wal-Mart is the only place in town where you can buy food, you have to shop there - free market be damned.

At least regulation can help make trade 'fair', which is a lot more use to most of us than making it 'free'.

Honestly, I do share a lot of the same opinions as the Republicans and would register as one the second they drop the intellectually dead stuff that has wormed its way in to the party on the back of the Moral "Majority" and the three-ring circus of the televangelists.

I feel essentially the same way about the Green Party. Their affinity for the capitalists' welfare state is the one big thing keeping me away.

The diea that free market forces will balance themselves out is obviously false to anyone who has ever spent more than the occassional visit in the realms of reality - big bussiness can undercut small business by economy of scale, thus reducing choice. Once you have your choice omnipresent in an environment, free market forces become irrelevent - you have an effective monopoly.


I actually disagree here. The problem is the absence of anything representing a free market. The progressive centralization of economic and political power in monopolistic business forms is not the free market, no matter how much those businesses (and Republicans, Libertarians, and other oligarchic capitalists) insist otherwise.


If Wal-Mart is the only place in town where you can buy food, you have to shop there - free market be damned.


In this situation, the free market has been damned, but by those who seek to destroy it (those of us, like myself, who would defend the free market be damned).


At least regulation can help make trade 'fair', which is a lot more use to most of us than making it 'free'.

When the regulatory agent is largely dominated by those who seek the interests of the oligarchic/monopolistic capitalist, is this still true? I would assert instead that coercive power cannot be tamed or contained, only destroyed. A very different sort of society would result from this, but I don't have the Political Compass scores that I do because I consider myself moderate. :D

I actually disagree here. The problem is the absence of anything representing a free market. The progressive centralization of economic and political power in monopolistic business forms is not the free market, no matter how much those businesses (and Republicans, Libertarians, and other oligarchic capitalists) insist otherwise.


I don't see how you can separate that progressive centralisation from the 'free market'... at least, not without heavy regulation. :D

Those who have the alrgest market share will always have the advantage of disproportionate control of the market, and the greater that disparity, the greater the leverage they can manipulate.


In this situation, the free market has been damned, but by those who seek to destroy it (those of us, like myself, who would defend the free market be damned).


The problem is, the 'free' market let's the big business eat the small. The environment is entirely predatory. I'd join you in defending it, if I didn't know better what happens in 'free' markets.


When the regulatory agent is largely dominated by those who seek the interests of the oligarchic/monopolistic capitalist, is this still true? I would assert instead that coercive power cannot be tamed or contained, only destroyed. A very different sort of society would result from this, but I don't have the Political Compass scores that I do because I consider myself moderate. :D

I also don't consider myself a moderate - I'm as socially permissive as they come (within reason), but heavily authoritarian in certain other areas - like the economy.

You speculate about a situation where "the regulatory agent is largely dominated by those who seek the interests of the oligarchic/monopolistic capitalist".. and that's my problem with the diea of SELF-regulatory bodies... self-regulation is self-defeating before you even start. There is simply no incentive for a business that seeks to create some kind of profit stream, to regulate itself disadvantageously.

Is it possible that regulatory bodies can become corrupted by the agencies they seem to regulate? Absolutely. No system is perfect. But making the regulatory system transparent and accountable reduces the risks and increases the robustness of the system.

A system where an 'industry' as a whole colelctively appoints a regulatory body, is preferable to self-regulation. A system where partisan groups are allowed to create their own regulatory/monitoring bodies in addition, is even better. A system where the 'supreme regulator' (the government) also gets to create a regulatory body, is better yet. And best, is to have all four regulatory/monitoring systems operating in such a way as to be complementary and synergistic.

The problem is, big business simply can't be trusted. That simple. And, in America, big business OWNS the government, so there's not even an incentive to pretend.
How does business in America own the government? I know that they contribute to ther major parties but so do lot's of people, rich and poor. And how is the government any more trustworthy than business? At least with businesses you can threaten not to give them your money, the one and only thing that matters to them and their very lifeblood, if they don't do what you ask. Government just takes money from people and threatens to toss you in jail or worse if you object. Even if you believe that government has an obligation to not piss away money it siphons from everyone what's to stop that from happening? Who will police the police?

More Americans are currently going bankrupt than are getting divorces. Small businesses are folding, and big businesses are declaring record windfall profits. The problem with unregulated capitalism is that it is capitalism, but without control - and that makes it completely predatory.
Ah, so you think everyone needs a full-time babysitter. I didn't fall victim to this predatory lending, I read the terms of the loans offered and decided it wasn't for me. Can you give me one good reason why the idiots who didn't read or think before they signed on the dotted line shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?

Also, one of the biggest reasons for downtowns struggling in America right now has nothing to do with Wal Mart's and Target's, it's about the malls. Conumer's collectively made the choice to go to malls big and small rather than meander along Main St. because they offered the 1-stop-shopping that so many crave and sometimes significantly lower prices. Sometimes the small shops move to the mall and sometimes they try to hold out but only end up holdingtheir breath until they're blue in the face.

Somehow I doubt that there are more people in bankruptcy than are getting divorced but it's late and I'm not going to bother looking it up right now so if I'm wrong about that then I'm wrong but it doesn't seem likely.

I don't see how you can separate that progressive centralisation from the 'free market'... at least, not without heavy regulation. :D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

A people will be free when they decide to stand up and take that freedom for themselves. So long as they are content to surrender their freedom to the landlord or the representative, well, they get what they deserve. Or, at least, they get exactly what they ask for.


Those who have the alrgest market share will always have the advantage of disproportionate control of the market, and the greater that disparity, the greater the leverage they can manipulate.


Of course. This is why it is necessary for society to seek as even a distribution of market share as possible. Something approaching one part per individual ought to do the trick.


The problem is, the 'free' market let's the big business eat the small. The environment is entirely predatory. I'd join you in defending it, if I didn't know better what happens in 'free' markets.


Incorrect. In an oligarchic monstrosity, the big are allowed to eat the small. In a perversion, where the power of the state is invoked in order to create the "legal persons" that can devour the rest, the big eat the small. Where this power is removed, all that is left is the individual peacefully trading with the individual.


You speculate about a situation where "the regulatory agent is largely dominated by those who seek the interests of the oligarchic/monopolistic capitalist".. and that's my problem with the diea of SELF-regulatory bodies... self-regulation is self-defeating before you even start. There is simply no incentive for a business that seeks to create some kind of profit stream, to regulate itself disadvantageously.


You said yourself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13384567&postcount=54) that the government is owned by big business, and yet one expects this government to create "fair" trade.

At any rate, there is no incentive for self-regulation where some few own and control all others. Things are different, however, where each owns and controls himself. Is a worker owned and operated business or cooperative likely to create sweatshop conditions or sub-living wages?


Is it possible that regulatory bodies can become corrupted by the agencies they seem to regulate? Absolutely. No system is perfect. But making the regulatory system transparent and accountable reduces the risks and increases the robustness of the system.


Of course. There is no system more transparent than that of regulation of the self-owners by the same self-owners.

And how is the government any more trustworthy than business? At least with businesses you can threaten not to give them your money, the one and only thing that matters to them and their very lifeblood, if they don't do what you ask.


When corporate welfare, limited liability, eminent domain, and all sorts of other things that business demands of the state at my expense are finally abolished I will at least stop laughing at this sort of "argument." True, none of these things would exist if not for government. Also, none of these things would exist if not for the capitalists who are more than willing and able to demand and pay for them.

When a business doesn't do what I want, it loses a couple dollars. When I don't do what a business wants, it fucking bulldozes the neighborhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_vs._New_London).

Wake me when the capitalists are actually willing to let go of their state.

Oh no! My mission to make newcomers Libertarians has failed! (Sob)
Actually, the OP didn't mention business or economic issues at all. All we see is a social authoritarian turning into a social liberal, which is a good thing regardless which side of liberalism you come from.

Unless you mean them actually signing up for the LP, which would be a bit silly. ;)

The big problem is that the individual is too beholden to both Big Business and the government. Which kind of sucks any way around.
You know what...I think I agree with this statement.

The former is a problem with people's minds and attitudes, the latter is a problem with the way the institution of government has never been used with the discretion it requires.

The former is a problem with people's minds and attitudes, the latter is a problem with the way the institution of government has never been used with the discretion it requires.

The problem in both cases is this popular idea that some are fit to rule, while others are "fit" only to obey. This is certainly the case as concerns the state. It is also the case as concerns Big Business, except that we now say "manage" and "labor/consume" instead of "rule" and "obey." And, of course, as we continue to repeat this nonsense, the prophesy fulfills itself.

Half of society says "turn to your savior, the elected official" and the other half says "turn to your savior, The Management." But then the occasional person happens along who thinks that all this "savior" talk is a bunch of hooey.

How does business in America own the government? I know that they contribute to ther major parties but so do lot's of people, rich and poor. And how is the government any more trustworthy than business? At least with businesses you can threaten not to give them your money, the one and only thing that matters to them and their very lifeblood, if they don't do what you ask.


Business interests in America are pretty transparently in control of government. Microsoft alone could probably kill the US government in one fell swoop, if they decided to use some means to de-activate their software en masse. It's corporate terrorism.

It's not an attack on Americans - it's how you were raised, but I'm afraid you buy into the hype way too much. I heard Bush on the radio, maybe a day ago, talking about how America is on the brink of recession because (apparently) of poor consumer spending in December.

Yes - that's right... America is dying, and it's YOUR fault for not buying enough shiny new shit.

Sci-fi writers have been mocking this dark future for decades.

Which do you identify with? Coke or Pepsi?


Government just takes money from people and threatens to toss you in jail or worse if you object.


And business doesn't?

Let's see you opt out of your prohibitively high cellphone bill when you lose half your source of income...


Even if you believe that government has an obligation to not piss away money it siphons from everyone what's to stop that from happening? Who will police the police?


You should.

Consumers are apathetic. That's the design. That's your crime - and your punishment.


Ah, so you think everyone needs a full-time babysitter. I didn't fall victim to this predatory lending, I read the terms of the loans offered and decided it wasn't for me. Can you give me one good reason why the idiots who didn't read or think before they signed on the dotted line shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?


Why would I do that? That's not something I even discussed.

On the other hand - when the economy is in boom, consumers are encouraged to own their own homes, and when it busts, they are blamed for buying into the hype.

A lot of people got caught this time because we've been pretending for half a decade that we weren't in recession. Again - they bought the hype.


Also, one of the biggest reasons for downtowns struggling in America right now has nothing to do with Wal Mart's and Target's, it's about the malls. Conumer's collectively made the choice to go to malls big and small rather than meander along Main St. because they offered the 1-stop-shopping that so many crave and sometimes significantly lower prices. Sometimes the small shops move to the mall and sometimes they try to hold out but only end up holdingtheir breath until they're blue in the face.


Consumers made the choice to opt for lower prices? No shit, Sherlock!

I think you've basically just repeated back to me the things I said, but somehow suggested they were an argument against it.

Of course - the small shops don't always GET to move into the mall, since the financers and/or owners of the mall tend to get to say who gets in... and they usually pick the 'chain'. And they usually set the ground-rent to an affordable level for the chains, but at a prohibitive level for the sole trader.

If your alternatives are buy into the mall (which you can't, because you can't afford to), or stay where you are and go bankrupt.. well, there are no good choices.


Somehow I doubt that there are more people in bankruptcy than are getting divorced but it's late and I'm not going to bother looking it up right now so if I'm wrong about that then I'm wrong but it doesn't seem likely.

I did a quick yahoo search. The first article that got brought up with my keywords (I searched on bankruptcy and divorce) was the folowing:

"Today's two-income family has 75 percent more earnings, inflation adjusted, than their parents had a generation ago. The reason, of course, is because today's average family has two people in the workforce, instead of one. But this year, more children will live through their parents' bankruptcy than their parents' divorce.

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/10/13/bankrupt_parents/index.html

Half of society says "turn to your savior, the elected official" and the other half says "turn to your savior, The Management." But then the occasional person happens along who thinks that all this "savior" talk is a bunch of hooey.
So where do you think that leaves me?

A people will be free when they decide to stand up and take that freedom for themselves. So long as they are content to surrender their freedom to the landlord or the representative, well, they get what they deserve. Or, at least, they get exactly what they ask for.


The problem here is... that's irrelevent. What you or I might do with OUR business interests is of nothing more than passing amusement to the megacorps. A little footnote. A comment in the margin.

Where there are shareholders to keep satisfied, and a profit margin to maintain, you and I would be exceptions.


Of course. This is why it is necessary for society to seek as even a distribution of market share as possible. Something approaching one part per individual ought to do the trick.


And how do you make that happen? The resources are already claimed, the economies of scale already exist. Even if the playing field were magically levelled tonight, those who grouped together to pool their share would be able to easily beat out those who insisted on trading as individuals.

It's basic economics. Worse, it's basic math.


Incorrect. In an oligarchic monstrosity, the big are allowed to eat the small. In a perversion, where the power of the state is invoked in order to create the "legal persons" that can devour the rest, the big eat the small. Where this power is removed, all that is left is the individual peacefully trading with the individual.


If only it were that simple. You pretend that big business is an artifact of government, or some such. But it's not based in reality - in reality, numbers equates to advantage, and 'legal persons' is irrelevent. Market forces ensure that, with or without your 'legal person' concept, the group that can fford to spend more, will be granted the better price, and will have better access to all the facitlities of trade.

'Legal person' or not, the big group can always consume the small.


You said yourself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13384567&postcount=54) that the government is owned by big business, and yet one expects this government to create "fair" trade.


Not by direct application of the current model, no - ideally, some regulation would be in place that would distance the corporate interest from the political.


At any rate, there is no incentive for self-regulation where some few own and control all others. Things are different, however, where each owns and controls himself. Is a worker owned and operated business or cooperative likely to create sweatshop conditions or sub-living wages?


No. On the other hand, it's also not likely to gain or maintain market share against such conditions.

C'est la vie. That's 'free' trade for you.


Of course. There is no system more transparent than that of regulation of the self-owners by the same self-owners.

It's an improvement over NO regulation. But still not as good as the other and/or collective methods I suggested.

So where do you think that leaves me?

That's not my decision.

Ah! Now I have a chance to find out sans flaming and circumventing questions: Why where you
a) Anti-Gay Marriage
b) Anti-Muslim

Maybe now I can find the answer.

Wow, this grew faster than I thought it would. Sorry, I was at work.

In answer to these particular questions...

A.) It was a combination of parenting, religion, and left over high school testosterone. In the end, I didn't really have a reason that I could apply any sort of logic or rationality to. I was left with the idea that gays were "icky". Which, after doing some acting in a locally produced play (along with a relative "coming out"), I found to be a completely ludicrous reason.

B.) Do I really need to spell it out? Let's just say that it rhymes with the phone number that you dial for emergencies. At the time, I was enough of a cud eating cattle-beast to go along with the Michael Savage point of view.

I was enough of a cud eating cattle-beast to go along with the Michael Savage point of view.
Ouchie.
"Savage" has his own "colourful" history.

Well, congrats to you, it's not easy to admit you were wrong, it requires a lot of honesty and strength. So, congrats !

The problem here is... that's irrelevent. What you or I might do with OUR business interests is of nothing more than passing amusement to the megacorps. A little footnote. A comment in the margin.

Where there are shareholders to keep satisfied, and a profit margin to maintain, you and I would be exceptions.


So much for "fair" regulation.


And how do you make that happen? The resources are already claimed, the economies of scale already exist. Even if the playing field were magically levelled tonight, those who grouped together to pool their share would be able to easily beat out those who insisted on trading as individuals.

It's basic economics. Worse, it's basic math.


How does one go about creating "fair" regulation, which is faced with essentially the same problems? I don't claim that anything I advocate can happen overnight, if it happens at all. Also, I don't mean to make the same assumptions about your proposal.

In both of our cases, it requires enough people who will insist on being people rather than economic equations. Honestly, and sadly, I am without an answer.


If only it were that simple. You pretend that big business is an artifact of government, or some such.


Quite the contrary, they are mutually dependent conspirators.


But it's not based in reality - in reality, numbers equates to advantage, and 'legal persons' is irrelevent.


The norms that determine the legitimacy of actions or resource distributions are certainly not irrelevant. In both of our cases, these norms will have to change if any meaningful result is expected.


Market forces ensure that, with or without your 'legal person' concept, the group that can fford to spend more, will be granted the better price, and will have better access to all the facitlities of trade.


This in itself is not the evil. The evil occurs where the "group" is the minority which controls this trade at the direct expense of the majority who have no say in the process. The solution, then, is to make this "group" as inclusive as possible.


'Legal person' or not, the big group can always consume the small.


The small are only consumable because they are excluded from the decision-making process because they lack the status of owner. Where everyone can be an owner, no one is excluded.


Not by direct application of the current model, no - ideally, some regulation would be in place that would distance the corporate interest from the political.


What you or I might do with OUR political activity is of nothing more than passing amusement to the established interests. A little footnote. A comment in the margin.

Where there are established interests to keep satisfied, and a lobbyist to maintain, you and I would be exceptions.


It's an improvement over NO regulation. But still not as good as the other and/or collective methods I suggested.

I think a strong argument could be made that collectively owned and operated businesses would be far less inclined to engage in predatory activities against each other. At any rate, federalism has a long and well established history among adherents of general anarchist/libertarian socialist ideology. But then, of course, we must accept the danger of recreating the institutional behemoths that are the present problem.

Don't worry you're not the first one. When I cam eon here, I was a born again, conservative, I taught Sunday school, raised funds for the church, organised anti-gay adoption petitions, played keyboard in a christian youth band, attended Bible college, youth group, I spent so much time at Church I would literally have to run from one Church activity to the other.

Now I'm an agnostic progressive liberal who sits somewhere needs to have the line on the political compass extended so his social position can be represented.

NSG will do that to you, get out while you still can... ;)

You pretend that big business is an artifact of government, or some such. But it's not based in reality - in reality, numbers equates to advantage, and 'legal persons' is irrelevent. Market forces ensure that, with or without your 'legal person' concept, the group that can fford to spend more, will be granted the better price, and will have better access to all the facitlities of trade.
You should read up on a fellow called Schumpeter.

That's not my decision.
Well, you split the world neatly into two or three types of people, so you've gotta have some idea where I sit.

And I propose to you that I don't fit into any of your categories. I think we're all the saviour and that you shouldn't look at anyone but yourself for salvation. And because we live together with other people, there will be trading, and there will be companies and there will be managers. But that doesn't make them anybody's saviour but their own.

B.) Do I really need to spell it out? Let's just say that it rhymes with the phone number that you dial for emergencies. At the time, I was enough of a cud eating cattle-beast to go along with the Michael Savage point of view.

Its good to know that you have "seen the light". Its takes a lot of courage to admit mistakes.

As to judging a whole religion on its fanatics, I have only this to say to christians who are ant-muslim. How would you feel if your whole religion was condemmed because of the actions of the member of Westboro Baptist "Church"

The small are only consumable because they are excluded from the decision-making process because they lack the status of owner. Where everyone can be an owner, no one is excluded.
http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=MSFT

Go ahead, you know you want to. And I know you can afford it.

And boom, the manager is responsible to you. And boom, you are involved in the decision-making process. And boom, you profit from it all.

Of course, that's not what you're after. So maybe you shouldn't talk about exclusion from ownership, but rather exclusion from something else which I can't actually figure out.

Well, you split the world neatly into two or three types of people, so you've gotta have some idea where I sit.


Naturally, the problem with models is that they are necessarily simplifications.

I understand the potential problems. I tire of Libertarians and Marxist-Leninists telling me that I want to take away all their stuff, enslave proletariats, steal Christmas, eat babies, and such too. Of course, splitting people into camps isn't really the point.


And I propose to you that I don't fit into any of your categories. I think we're all the saviour and that you shouldn't look at anyone but yourself for salvation. And because we live together with other people, there will be trading, and there will be companies and there will be managers. But that doesn't make them anybody's saviour but their own.

I propose that my decision is not that different from yours.

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=MSFT

Go ahead, you know you want to. And I know you can afford it.

And boom, the manager is responsible to you. And boom, you are involved in the decision-making process. And boom, you profit from it all.

Of course, that's not what you're after. So maybe you shouldn't talk about exclusion from ownership, but rather exclusion from something else which I can't actually figure out.

How are you likely to feel when you go to your voting place, and your ballot is worth only 1/100,000th of the total share of voting power, while the next guy in line gets a ballot worth 99,999/100,000th of the total share of voting power? Where that one guy can essentially override 99,998 yous. "Excluded" is likely to be high on the list of applicable adjectives.

Simply providing "a vote" isn't good enough. That vote has to be effective, or it may as well be non-existent. I can afford a share of Microsoft stock. I cannot afford a meaningful share of control of Microsoft Corporation. (EDIT: Interestingly enough, I face exactly the same problem vis-a-vis the public government. Sure, I am technically guaranteed "a vote." But that vote is one out of millions; essentially meaningless.)

You should read up on a fellow called Schumpeter.


This is actually quite interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_and_capitalism.27s_demise).

However, having recieved training in the foul black arts of social science, I am inclined to wonder why it is people feel it necessary to destroy capitalism by electing social democrats into their respective parliaments. Surely they are not so insane as to destroy a productive society which has very many very real benefits.

The "politicians put microchips in their brains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_and_democratic_theory)" explanation is quite unsatisfactory; at any rate, I see no reason why the market process, based on competition among self-interests, should be any more safe against passionate manipulations. Right now, this little 5 inch glowing tube sitting on my desk is bombarding me with advertisements, all struggling to tell me which consumer decision is in my best interest.

I wonder what it is, then.

This is actually quite interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_and_capitalism.27s_demise).
He is by far the most underrated political economist around. But then, that's what you get for being a contemporary of Dr. Keynes...

I wonder what it is, then.
I have to confess that I've never made it through Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. A great mind he was, but an incredibly bad writer.

I personally think that it's three things: the "intellectuals" described in the wiki play a role. People have opinions on everything and everyone has evermore opinions. Which is fine...but they're not necessarily right.

But they have to be listened to. So there is a combination of politicians with certain goals and which get together with their buddies to get people to vote for them. That much is plainly visible today, and I think both of us agree that what comes out isn't necessarily what people would have decided, had they actually been the sole decision-maker.

And thirdly, it's a problem of creative destruction that in the eyes of many the second word makes more of an impact than the first. As they say: if a factory closes in town it's headline news. The fact that the company moved production to China and everyone can now buy cheaper...shoes doesn't even make Page 33. And even independently of the media - I walked past a closed fruit shop today. I liked that shop, because it was run by a very nice Lebanese family, so I was sad to see it gone. And, surprising as it may be to you, I thought that it was quite cruel. I remembered a second later that without capitalism, that store wouldn't have existed in the first place. The average voter won't.

I personally think that it's three things: the "intellectuals" described in the wiki play a role. People have opinions on everything and everyone has evermore opinions. Which is fine...but they're not necessarily right.


While there is no doubt a lot of junk thought floating around, I think there is also a tendency among some to scapegoat "intellectuals" simply so they can avoid critical thought themselves. Inventing these sorts of bogeymen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeymen) is the favorite pastime of manipulative politicians (left, right, up, and down), even.


So there is a combination of politicians with certain goals and which get together with their buddies to get people to vote for them. That much is plainly visible today, and I think both of us agree that what comes out isn't necessarily what people would have decided, had they actually been the sole decision-maker.


Who are these buddies?


As they say: if a factory closes in town it's headline news. The fact that the company moved production to China and everyone can now buy cheaper...shoes doesn't even make Page 33.


I have little reason to care that shoes are cheaper if, having lost my job, I cannot afford them.


And, surprising as it may be to you, I thought that it was quite cruel.


Why should this be surprising? Or rather, could one point to where I indicated that a business should never be allowed to fail?


The average voter won't.


As long as we keep expecting ignorance, ignorance is what we will get. A basic vicious cycle. One talks of splitting the world into types of people...

Who are these buddies?
You know precisely who I'm talking about. ;)

I don't care if they call themselves princes, bishops, ministers, CEOs or "Head of the Legal Relations Department". They're no more capitalists than Stalin was.

I have little reason to care that shoes are cheaper if, having lost my job, I cannot afford them.
Don't ignore what I'm saying. When they started building cars, entire industries were destroyed, millions of people lost their jobs. That's creative destruction, and even though it hurts a limited group of people for a limited amount of time, looking back we can say that it was a good thing.

But today, instead of industries being destroyed and jobs being lost, you get lobbyists, regulations and televised protests. And that's what Schumpeter reckoned would end creative destruction and therefore capitalism.

As long as we keep expecting ignorance, ignorance is what we will get. A basic vicious cycle. One talks of splitting the world into types of people...
Well, I used to be a lot more optimistic about these things. And occasionally the voters still pick a good one. But just one look at how many of these new "people's parties" are doing well in Europe should illustrate my reservations to you.

They're no more capitalists than Stalin was.


If they claim the label of "capitalist" then so be it. Find me a Stalin, and I will be more than happy to tear apart his "socialism" too.


Don't ignore what I'm saying. When they started building cars, entire industries were destroyed, millions of people lost their jobs. That's creative destruction, and even though it hurts a limited group of people for a limited amount of time, looking back we can say that it was a good thing.


I'm not ignoring you. It's just that one should not be surprised when people place greater emphasis on burdens they face now, rather than turning their attention to long-term outcomes (the benefits of which are by no means guaranteed for a particular individual) that only look so much smaller when one is faced with bills to pay but no paycheck.

At any rate, predictions concerning the "end of capitalism" are extremely overstated. It's something a Ron Paul supporter would say (have been saying).


Well, I used to be a lot more optimistic about these things. And occasionally the voters still pick a good one. But just one look at how many of these new "people's parties" are doing well in Europe should illustrate my reservations to you.

I don't need to be convinced that bad choices are made. What I am not convinced of is that this is some kind of indictment against choice itself.

Snip posts.

Wow. Good for you for evolving like that. :)

And yet, to the Green Party, you are still a no good fascismo. Way to go slick.

Oh, and the Republican party isn't made entirely of right-wing extremists and Neo Cons... we have classical liberals too!

Yes. I've heard there's a few of those around. One came into the Gamepro that my brother works at a few weeks ago. He asked if they sold Corn Flakes.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to god. No, said the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.

Anyone else up for building an underwater capitalist paradise city where the artist need not fear the sensitive, the scientists need not be bound by petty moraility, and the great will not be constrained by the small?
Aye, see how that one turned out.

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

I like you. You subscribe now to a better political ideology. :)

I must admit, though, I don't think much of either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Don't ignore what I'm saying. When they started building cars, entire industries were destroyed, millions of people lost their jobs. That's creative destruction, and even though it hurts a limited group of people for a limited amount of time, looking back we can say that it was a good thing.And what is that limited group of people supposed to do in the meantime?

creative destruction"The storm which brings harm also makes fertile." - Patti Smith

Because that's the big problem with America. Big business is too beholden to the rules of the government - rather than the other way around...

Correct. The government should be beholden to the people and the businesses. The idea that the populace (CEO's included) should be beholden to the government is unthinkable.

Any bets on whose puppet this is? Nobody has a genuine personality that is quite so punchable, pi and milk-soppy.

Any bets on whose puppet this is? Nobody has a genuine personality that is quite so punchable, pi and milk-soppy.

Given your low post count, I could ask the same of you, no?

And yet, to the Green Party, you are still a no good fascismo. Way to go slick.

Oh, and the Republican party isn't made entirely of right-wing extremists and Neo Cons... we have classical liberals too!

Who? I mean as in political candidates, the policy makers.

Given your low post count, I could ask the same of you, no?

You could do, but I am, in fact, The Blessed Chris. Before Jolt somehow destroyed my account, I had enough posts to be able to be snooty to new posters.;)

Hello Conservadise! Pardon me if you've already answered this, but what happened that changed your mind about your politcal orientation?

Any bets on whose puppet this is? Nobody has a genuine personality that is quite so punchable, pi and milk-soppy.I dont know about milk-soppy..

reading the 3 posts so far, I have to say he is not someone to underestimate, he is clever and uses a pretty good IQ.

I like him.

Its good to keep an open mind but don't blindly accept the oppisite of what you thought. Just because you think something is a mountain spring doesn't mean its not the River Styx.

Which reminds me NSG has a sulfury smell.

This thread has reminded me of a Bloom County strip wherein the anxiety in Binkley's closet that night is two economists ("anything but that!"). Binkley makes the mistake of saying "just don't talk about the economy"...which, of course, they do. I can't remember the whole strip, but it ends with one of the two economists saying "the deficit, my fanny".

Its good to keep an open mind but don't blindly accept the oppisite of what you thought. Just because you think something is a mountain spring doesn't mean its not the River Styx.

Which reminds me NSG has a sulfury smell.

Or Yggdrasil, for that matter, 'long as we're talkin' mythos here.

The small are only consumable because they are excluded from the decision-making process because they lack the status of owner. Where everyone can be an owner, no one is excluded.


How is that miracle to be managed? How are you going to democratise the megacorps so we all become owners of them?

Because, if you can't do that, you're wasting your time - because you or I owning our own businesses, being our own bosses, still doesn't give us the capacity to fight the economies of scale.


I think a strong argument could be made that collectively owned and operated businesses would be far less inclined to engage in predatory activities against each other.


You could make that argument, but I see no reason to believe it. If collective group A can gain advantage over collective group B... in a capitalist model, there is just no real incentive not to go for that advantage... except the moral constitution of one or t'other.

This thread has reminded me of a Bloom County strip wherein the anxiety in Binkley's closet that night is two economists ("anything but that!"). Binkley makes the mistake of saying "just don't talk about the economy"...which, of course, they do. I can't remember the whole strip, but it ends with one of the two economists saying "the deficit, my fanny".

Malted battery acid. :D

When corporate welfare, limited liability, eminent domain, and all sorts of other things that business demands of the state at my expense are finally abolished I will at least stop laughing at this sort of "argument." True, none of these things would exist if not for government. Also, none of these things would exist if not for the capitalists who are more than willing and able to demand and pay for them.
Corporate welfare isn't true capitalism. I don't like subsidies, if a business can't make it then what it does is probably outdated, outmoded, inefficient, and wasteful. Corporate welfare is closer to socialism.

When a business doesn't do what I want, it loses a couple dollars. When I don't do what a business wants, it fucking bulldozes the neighborhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_vs._New_London).
That's the government doing it, eminent domain. Something I'm not fond of. If a business wants to have your land then they can offer you money and in an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian/ideal world you'd be free to refuse. Sadly we have to live in the real world where people do stuff we don't like, such as take our money by force and piss it away on stuff we don't like and steal land in the name of some "public/greater good".

Wake me when the capitalists are actually willing to let go of their state.
How much? Anarchy always leads to dictatorship because after a while people will get tired enough of violence, theft, property destruction, and having to drive a tank and haul around an arsenal and body armor everywhere to give up some freedom for safety and follow the leader(s). A minimalist government that doesn't subsidize or confiscate, that only gets involved in the lives of the people when their rights are in danger would probably offer the freedom that we both crave for the longest period. The problem with government is that it attracts power-hungry assholes. The problem with anarchy is that it attracts power-hungry assholes trying to start uop their own government.

I wasn't going to respond to this because by the time I got back to this thread it had progressed beyond this post but I felt it had to get a response.

Loyal Opposition, you shouldn't be so shocked, the modern states of the world are the dictatorship of the bourgeois, they exist solely for the purpose of protecting the interests of the capitalist class, when you look at it from that angle any action they take is not surprising but understandable.

Malted battery acid. :D

With a side of chyme.

And yet, to the Green Party, you are still a no good fascismo.

Fascista. The correct italian word for a supporter of fascism is fascista. Fascismo means fascism. (easy, ain't it)

Fascista: read as fah-SHEE-stah (yes, it's the same both for male and female. plural is fascisti (m), fasisciste (f) ).
Fascismo: read as fah-SHEE-zmow.

Hello forumites. I'm relatively new, though I've been lurking for a while.

I first signed up here because a friend of mine told me that, "a bunch of liberal losers hang out there," and honestly I came with the intention of 'setting you all straight.' But, In the weeks since I signed up a sequence of events has occurred in my life that has caused me to completely reevaluate me stances on just about every issue, in the end resulting in a total one-hundred-eighty-degree turn from my previous positions. I've come to realize that... wait for it... I was wrong. About it ALL. Yes, I voted for Bush... twice. Yes, I was proud of the way DeLay "got things done." Yes, I was a stridently anti-abortion/gay marriage/muslim/democrat. Yes, I even called it the "democrat" party. I want to sincerely apologize for all of it. I was wrong, so so very wrong.

When I stepped back I came crashing to the realization that the things I thought were important simply weren't. I realized that abortion =/= murder, though I would still try to discourage it, I won't be savaging other people for supporting the right to it. I realized that gays aren't actually trying to harm anyone, they're just trying to be truly equal. Most of all, however, I realized that people of my former ilk are, in fact, bullies who are ruled by their fears and anxieties, relying more on their distrusts of anything and everything in order to get through existance, rather than using their built in hope to try and make life better, both for themselves, and the people around them.

Actually, as I write this I'm looking at my new voter registration card, which I got from my county elections office this morning, with the words "Democratic Party" printed on it. And, it feels... good.

Thanks, and again, I'm sorry.

...like throwing gasoline on a flame... Now the libs on here will be completely impossible to live with... ;)

...like throwing gasoline on a flame... Now the libs on here will be completely impossible to live with... ;)

What, we haven't managed that already?

What, we haven't managed that already?

... touche'

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/av-12.gif

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4357/owlcookies1md.jpg

eh thats starting to splinter right about now. Re: Ron Paul (Libertarianism) vs Republicans (splintering coalition) vs Democrats (sligtly brittle, but still incredibley strong coalition)

Paul is as libertarian as my left asscheek.

Paul is as libertarian as my left asscheek.

I was just using him as an instantly recognizable person. Who else is famous and has the title "Libertarian" in (most of) the publics eye?

Who else is famous and has the title "Libertarian" in (most of) the publics eye?

CthulhuFhtagn's left asscheek. Duh.

*snip*
I shall assume the role of doubting Thomas, and claim this user is not a true ex-conservative but a liberal in disguise. Here are my reasons:

The nation name is Conservadise. If you "converted," why would you stick with a conservative name? This particular nation was founded in December, which means you were red a month ago and are blue now. I am dubious. (Or are you dubious? I always forget how that works.)
I agree with most of the people here about most of what is said, and even I don't find it that convincing. (What I say least of all.)
You admitted to being wrong. On the Internet. I am instantly suspicious of anyone who does that.

There are my reasons. However, I am willing to change my opinion. Just show me the stigmata on your hands...