Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they May or May Not Have Access to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..

As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.

You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.

If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.

Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.

By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.

Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.

Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.

He's obviously for sale to the highest bidder; however, corporatization may be a more accurate account of why he was Goldman Sach's pick in 2008:

"Corporatization is the process of transforming state assets, government agencies or municipal organizations into corporations. It refers to a restructuring of government and public organizations into joint-stock, publicly listed companies in order to introduce corporate and business management techniques to their administration.[1]

"The result of corporatization is the creation of state-owned corporations where the government retains a majority ownership of the corporation's stock.

"However, in many cases, corporatization is a precursor to partial or full privatization, which involves a process where formerly public functions and public enterprises are sold to private business entities by listing their shares on publicly traded stock exchanges."

Whatever label we choose to apply to Obama's politics doesn't change the threat he poses to civil rights in this country. Once the 2014 mid-terms are behind him, we may all get a glimpse of just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first.

When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.

Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom. Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.

Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals. Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.

That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.

 

[Contumacious]

Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom. Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.

Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals. Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.

That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.

I agree 1000%

I believe you meant to respond to post 1999.

.

 

[LibertyLemming]

[/SIZE][/B]

That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.

I agree 1000%

I believe you meant to respond to post 1999.

.

Yeah I deleted all your text but forgot the quote brackets lol

 

[georgephillip]

Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded

Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; however, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives.

That is correct.

Reason I believe that Taxpayers and producers will vote using different means:

Da' Mossberg 590

.

Isn't that a fairly expensive ballot?

 

[Contumacious]

Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; however, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives.

That is correct.

Reason I believe that Taxpayers and producers will vote using different means:

Da' Mossberg 590

.

Isn't that a fairly expensive ballot?

So is slavery and tyranny.

.

 

[georgephillip]

As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.

You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.

If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.

Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.

By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.

Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.

Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.

Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist. He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy. At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party. But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.

He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.

And it seems very likely whoever follows him into the Oval Office will continue the US Dual State:

"We live in what the German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel called 'the dual state.'

"Totalitarian states are always dual states.

"In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security.

"The political sphere becomes a vacuum 'as far as the law is concerned,' Fraenkel wrote.

"There is no legal check on power.

"Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law.

"In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts.

"It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner.

"It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives.

"The outward forms of democratic participation—voting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislation—are hollow, political stagecraft.

"Fraenkel called those who wield this unchecked power over the citizenry 'the prerogative state.'”

Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

 

[Erand7899]

Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom. Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.

Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals. Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.

That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.

How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business? How is the free market going to deal with thugs?

Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination. That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government.

 

[Contumacious]

[/SIZE][/B]

That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.

How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business? How is the free market going to deal with thugs?

Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination. That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government.

HUH?

Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?

Buy a Mossberg 590.

.

 

[Erand7899]

That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.

How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business? How is the free market going to deal with thugs?

Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination. That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government.

HUH?

Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?

Buy a Mossberg 590.

.

So, might makes right? Is that your argument? He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?

Try to stay focused. In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced? Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?

 

[Contumacious]

How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business? How is the free market going to deal with thugs?

Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination. That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government.

HUH?

Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?

Buy a Mossberg 590.

.

So, might makes right? Is that your argument? He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?

Try to stay focused. In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced? Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?

Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.

Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.

So quit dreaming.

.

 

[Erand7899]

HUH?

Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?

Buy a Mossberg 590.

.

So, might makes right? Is that your argument? He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?

Try to stay focused. In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced? Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?

Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.

Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.

So quit dreaming.

.

Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.

I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of. However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government. A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.

 

[bripat9643]

Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.

Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist. He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy. At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party. But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.

He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.

And it seems very likely whoever follows him into the Oval Office will continue the US Dual State:

"We live in what the German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel called 'the dual state.'

"Totalitarian states are always dual states.

"In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security.

"The political sphere becomes a vacuum 'as far as the law is concerned,' Fraenkel wrote.

"There is no legal check on power.

"Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law.

"In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts.

"It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner.

"It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives.

"The outward forms of democratic participation—voting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislation—are hollow, political stagecraft.

"Fraenkel called those who wield this unchecked power over the citizenry 'the prerogative state.'”

Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

What makes it a "dual" state? None of the items you listed have any connection with duality.

 

[LibertyLemming]

So, might makes right? Is that your argument? He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?

Try to stay focused. In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced? Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?

Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.

Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.

So quit dreaming.

.

Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.

I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of. However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government. A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.

That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.

Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul

 

[Contumacious]

So, might makes right? Is that your argument? He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?

Try to stay focused. In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced? Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?

Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.

Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.

So quit dreaming.

.

Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.

I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of. However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government. A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Thomas Jefferson

Well history has answered the question. Actually it answered the question while he was still alive.

.

 

[P@triot]

Obama's a drug using, drug dealing, bastard son of a communist anti-colonialist father, raised by communists, who buddies up with convicted domestic terrorists, and convicted felons who took money for the poor to line their own pockets. The guy is really just a piece of shit, and that's being nice.

 

[P@triot]

Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant

I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't?

The difference is the private sector has zero power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.

If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...

 

[P@triot]

Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.

You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency. The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.

I don't think that's true. I could be wrong, of course, but I think Obama is a genuine corporatist, in the mold of FDR. He sees the role of government as the 'manager' of society, treating it as a set of competing interest groups. He's more than eager to cater to business interests as long as the are willing to collude with government in kind.

Which is just a kind way of saying marxist..... If they "collude" then he controls all resources and distributes as he sees fit. He's a marxist. Make no mistake about it. And what's fall-down hilarious is that he's a proud marxist and yet his own base denies it. The man has screamed "I'm a marxist" as loud as he could as many chances as he could.

Remember "Joe the plumber"? What did Barack say to him? "I think the way you do that is to spread the wealth". Verbatim. That's not an accident. He's repeated that theme over and over and over. How dumb does the left have to be to not understand his favorite phrase - "my brothers keeper"? It means, literally, marxism.

 

[bripat9643]

[/SIZE][/B]

That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.

How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business? How is the free market going to deal with thugs?

Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination. That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government.

The free market already provides protection against thugs. Haven't you ever heard of private security? Haven't you every heard of gated communities? The belief that the police protect you from thugs is the ultimate in naiveté. They spend most of their time engaged in activities that generate revenue, like giving people speeding tickets and busting people for consuming substances that those in power don't approve of.

Under what Hans Herman Hoppe calls the "private law society," insurance companies would provide security and arrest thugs. After all, if thugs steal your stuff or break your bones, the insurance company is liable.

BTW, you are aware of the fact that protection rackets only exist in places like New Jersey because the police there are utterly corrupt. You think they don't know where the local Guido lives and what he does for a living? Don't you think there's a reason they don't get him off the streets?

So much for government protecting your property rights.

 

[P@triot]

You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, it is the Federal Reserve. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.

O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the Federal Reserve is "private"...

Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes

a federal government agency, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
12 regional Reserve Banks.

Federal Reserve System