Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.

I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.

First off, people under government are not called consumers, they are people. Reducing the human to a consumer is not a healthy form of governance. Secondly, the responsibility of a functioning government to its people is very tangible. Voting, if the public is well-informed, is a effective way to keep politicians serving the needs of the people. In other words, responsibility.

However, our government is very dysfunctional. I would like to draw a distinction between how our government IS functioning and how it is SUPPOSE to function. I agree the government serves the private interests. If these interests are broadly represented, we have a functioning government.. Unfortunately, our government has gone very foul by allowing narrow interests to vastly outweigh the masses. Would you agree?

In fact, this is precisely why you are upset at government...the corporations have spent trillions of dollars to elect the "right" politicians. The government has become a craps shoot for the wealthy. If the people weren't so full of lying rhetoric from politicians and propaganda from mass media we could vote them out of office. But sadly our citizenry views voting as a waste of time, including myself. But if we all worked to oust propaganda and Public Relations campaigns, we could get something done in gov't. Do I have hope in this approach (i.e. working within the system)? Hell NO! But am I going to try? Yes. Why not? It doesn't hurt my other campaign to work from outside the system to create a more free society.

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.

Without money we have no government (given our modern age relying solely on fiat currency). It's that simple. There were many attempts to prevent a private establishment from controlling the American money supply, but, after 2 unsuccessful attempts, powerful bankers were able to deceive Woodrow Wilson into making the one regret he had in his presidency. Signing into law the central and private Federal Reserve. Before he died, he said "I am a most unhappy man--unwittingly I have ruined my country."

This video is massively entertaining but doubly informative. If you only want the important stuff, skip to 14:30. I recommend watching it all. It's not a bad use of your time if your spending it on USMB.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM[/ame]

They [the people], and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude...
This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Long before we had this gay discussion about governments gone sour, Thomas Jefferson was dutifully aware. He foresaw what private central banking does to the public and the government, as well as leading to extravagance by the gov't and private bankers. At no other time in history have so few men dominated entire continents and resources. Their extravagance will either ruin the world or we will wake up and prohibit such wealth concentration.

To point fingers at the government is a small part of the problem--it is not the source! The real power isn't in Armies, it's in who controls the world and its resources. "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." -Nathan Rothschild to Rockerfeller.

If we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, it is the Federal Reserve. Is that a government agency? No.

Yes, the Fed is part of the government.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered..

Love that fake Jefferson quote.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?

Ayn Rand comes back from the dead and everybody become noble.

Trust but verify... give authority to government, but keep a check on their authority that they don't exceed or abuse the authority provided. This is not hard.

Really? Then why didn't it work when the Founding Fathers tried it?

Here's the bottom line: The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. You can't limit government. Government has unconstrainable compulsion to grow.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash? Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?

Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in your yard, what do you care?

Glad you asked.

One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone. If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed. Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids. Govco limits his use of explosives.

If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.

We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land. Throw out government and all property agreements are moot. There would be no point in buying property. You would just take what you can defend.

Well that's just plain horseshit. Private property existed long before government came into the picture. As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights. If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayn Rand comes back from the dead and everybody become noble.

Trust but verify... give authority to government, but keep a check on their authority that they don't exceed or abuse the authority provided. This is not hard.

Really? Then why didn't it work when the Founding Fathers tried it?

Here's the bottom line: The term "limited government" is an oxymoron. You can't limit government. Government has unconstrainable compulsion to grow.

At different levels it does work today. It works where I live in my local government. It works in my state to a degree sufficient to my liking.

At the federal level.. yeah we need to hang some people, and put the checks and balances back in. Liberty is only good for as long as you are willing to defend it. We lost our liberty to the last two administrations. It's time to take our liberty back.

 

[Indeependent]

Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in your yard, what do you care?

Glad you asked.

One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone. If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed. Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids. Govco limits his use of explosives.

If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.

We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land. Throw out government and all property agreements are moot. There would be no point in buying property. You would just take what you can defend.

Well that's just plain horseshit. Private property existed long before government came into the picture. As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights. If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.

Rodents have also existed for a long time and since they don't come with a built in GPS they will not "Keep off private property".
Are you truly that naive?

 

[RKMBrown]

Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in your yard, what do you care?

Glad you asked.

One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone. If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed. Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids. Govco limits his use of explosives.

If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.

We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land. Throw out government and all property agreements are moot. There would be no point in buying property. You would just take what you can defend.

Well that's just plain horseshit. Private property existed long before government came into the picture. As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights. If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.

Ok shirlock, why don't you tell the class what private property existed prior to government coming into the picture. When did this happen? On what planet was there a place with no means of control of private property whatsoever. No government. ROFL what a dumb ass you are making yourself out to be. Put 10kids in a group and they will come up with their own system of government in a matter of days. Your completely full of shit on this one.

How the eff is binding arbitration between corporations not government owned and run by the corporations? WTF are you talking about? You think changing the title of governing from govco to Apple Computers is gonna make a whoot of a difference? ROFL

 

[Indeependent]

Glad you asked.

One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone. If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed. Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids. Govco limits his use of explosives.

If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.

We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land. Throw out government and all property agreements are moot. There would be no point in buying property. You would just take what you can defend.

Well that's just plain horseshit. Private property existed long before government came into the picture. As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights. If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.

Ok shirlock, why don't you tell the class what private property existed prior to government coming into the picture. When did this happen? On what planet was there a place with no means of control of private property whatsoever. No government. ROFL what a dumb ass you are making yourself out to be. Put 10kids in a group and they will come up with their own system of government in a matter of days. Your completely full of shit on this one.

How the eff is binding arbitration between corporations not government owned and run by the corporations? WTF are you talking about? You think changing the title of governing from govco to Apple Computers is gonna make a whoot of a difference? ROFL

There is no moderation in the mind of an extremist.

 

[Bombur]

What happens without government?

Freedom and prosperity.

Examples?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury. The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency. But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury. Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job. They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.

The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system. Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens. It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.

The fed is a private organization.

Not so much.

They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities

They are audited annually. They turn over an absurd portion of their profit to the Treasury. In 2012 it was about $89 billion out of $91 billion.

 

[Contumacious]

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

The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury. The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency. But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury. Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job. They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.

The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system. Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens. It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.

The fed is a private organization.

Not so much.

They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities

They are audited annually. They turn over an absurd portion of their profit to the Treasury. In 2012 it was about $89 billion out of $91 billion.

They are a private entity. And have never been audited.

Even if true that they "91 billion in taxes all they have to do is print them.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course you can reject those conveniences on principle. Will you ever? The answer is no.
I already responded to this objection (I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to every give up). The fact you just repeat the mantra that most everyone believes means nothing. Unless something radically different happened in global society, you are hooked 100% on those products. GO ahead and repeat it again but ti doesn't change the fact that your truly operational self is not free (although your theoretical self is).

You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.

Were you wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury. The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency. But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury. Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job. They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.

The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system. Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens. It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.

The fed is a private organization.

Not so much.

They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities

They are audited annually. They turn over an absurd portion of their profit to the Treasury. In 2012 it was about $89 billion out of $91 billion.

They are a private entity. And have never been audited.

Even if true that they "91 billion in taxes all they have to do is print them.

.

FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Federal Reserve Bank Ownership

The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Bank’s board of directors.

In 2012, that "ownership dividend" totaled $1.6 billion.
While the US Treasury received $89 billion.

That tells you all you need to know about who really owns the Fed.

 

[gnarlylove]

First of all, I graduated from college junior.

Some relevant degree on social theory, huh? My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.

Second, you continue to display your appalling arrogance. So you paid some institution to hand you a piece of paper. You really believe that makes you authorized to tell the world what it needs and what it doesn't need? Really?

Show me where I said I know what the world needs. I was discussing theories that I specifically said did not apply to our current state of affairs.

I have two BAs (Sociology and Philosophy with a minor in History at OWU). I meant to emphasize the education I received, not the degrees. Pardon my poor language choice, but your unwarranted odium towards me (not my beliefs) incites anger, so I react naturally. I'll remain more calm from here on out when addressing your Alpha Dog Ego. If only you could do the same we might get somewhere. But you can't, it feels to good to your ego to sacrifice name calling for genuine exchange of ideas.

Ah but here lies yet another key difference. You aren't here to discuss ideas, as evinced by your incessant ad hominems. You are here to feel like a big man--what kind of name is Rotw.... if it isn't an attempt to subconsciously assert dominance? Well, don't let my fucking stupid ideas (which is to say they don't appear on TV) prevent you from feeling like the big man you are, Senior Alpha Dog. I don't want to attract your vitriol so let me say plainly, you are better than me. You are smarter than me.

Now that wasn't so hard was it? Do you feel better? Good. Because only inflated egos are receptive to such praise, which proves my point.

Third, I'd be willing to bet I've read significantly more than you have in your life time junior.

I won't dispute you have read more than me. That wasn't my point--of course you took it personally as egos tend to do instead of realizing it as a legitimate question about your background. Having graduate college doesn't tell me you have rigorously studied the relevant concepts.

My point is regarding the topics of liberty, private property, justice, government, the state, etc. etc. I am almost guaranteed to have read more, wrote more essays, anaylzed and took more notes on those subjects than you. End of story. And I'm not talking about some contemporary partisan horse shit. I mean really getting into the nitty gritty of what these terms mean and how they function. SO I'll ask again, have you read Hegel? Marx? Webber? Durkheim? Locke? Bertrand Russell? Hume? (not Brit Hume but David Hume). Those people broke the door of its hinges when it comes to understanding society and the relevant concepts. You probably have never even heard of half of them let alone read their texts like I have.

Fourth, I do enjoy tv. ..tons of very accurate documentaries, new "shows" (like 60 Minutes), and interviews which were chocked full of accurate information.

60 minutes was informative a decade ago until it sold out to sensationalist journalism. Remember their apology for bad reporting over a year ago? IT was due to pathetic superficial journalism that focused on grabbing your attention rather than doing one iota of homework on their own story. Of course there's information on TV, but there's way more shit to shift through than truth. It sounds like you care far more about having men in suits confirm your ideology than report the truth. Am I right? When I was a toddler in HS I also loved Fox and the Mass Media. I know where you are coming from and I have since left that camp.

But hey, you smoked pot on a liberal campus with a bunch of other immature asshats and discussed the two pages you read of Karl Marx, so you are clearly qualified to rule the world....

Actually, I didn't smoke pot until the last 3 months of my senior year. So if you think that somehow affected my education you are mistaken. But pot has nothing to do with this, it's a red herring for you to feel like your ego made a point. "Score another for me" it says even though it has no fucking relevancy.

For some reason you think I'm trying to control the world. Are you that fucking stupid to think I think I have all the answers? "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am merely trying to stimulate discussion to reach better conclusions. You are not here for that. Try toning down your ego and you might see more clearly. I respect you as a person and apologize for clearly hurting your massive ego--of course you won't see it that way. You'll of course conclude you were just "putting me in my place, little fagot junior" (as if your repeated and stupid personal attack posts demonstrate any wisdom on your part). But that's because you don't read your own posts. Your replies are way overkill in trying discredit me instead of my beliefs.

When someone slings personal attacks constantly, it's not because they disagree, you can be sure of that. It's because their ego has been damaged and to restore balance they can't contain their ego from lashing out in all kinds of unwarranted ways. In fact, it felt so good to type your replies you end it with a "bang." Boy you sound like one of the most noble humans ever. This must also mean you have all the bright ideas on liberty and justice.

 

[gnarlylove]

You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.

Were you wrong?

You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.

But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.

Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
Big Pharma spends X on Ads

I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board. I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.

There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.

If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral being—they are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory

That explains why you are often (always?) unemployed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, I graduated from college junior.

Some relevant degree on social theory, huh? My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.

Second, you continue to display your appalling arrogance. So you paid some institution to hand you a piece of paper. You really believe that makes you authorized to tell the world what it needs and what it doesn't need? Really?

Show me where I said I know what the world needs. I was discussing theories that I specifically said did not apply to our current state of affairs.

I have two BAs (Sociology and Philosophy with a minor in History at OWU). I meant to emphasize the education I received, not the degrees. Pardon my poor language choice, but your unwarranted odium towards me (not my beliefs) incites anger, so I react naturally. I'll remain more calm from here on out when addressing your Alpha Dog Ego. If only you could do the same we might get somewhere. But you can't, it feels to good to your ego to sacrifice name calling for genuine exchange of ideas.

Ah but here lies yet another key difference. You aren't here to discuss ideas, as evinced by your incessant ad hominems. You are here to feel like a big man--what kind of name is Rotw.... if it isn't an attempt to subconsciously assert dominance? Well, don't let my fucking stupid ideas (which is to say they don't appear on TV) prevent you from feeling like the big man you are, Senior Alpha Dog. I don't want to attract your vitriol so let me say plainly, you are better than me. You are smarter than me.

Now that wasn't so hard was it? Do you feel better? Good. Because only inflated egos are receptive to such praise, which proves my point.



I won't dispute you have read more than me. That wasn't my point--of course you took it personally as egos tend to do instead of realizing it as a legitimate question about your background. Having graduate college doesn't tell me you have rigorously studied the relevant concepts.

My point is regarding the topics of liberty, private property, justice, government, the state, etc. etc. I am almost guaranteed to have read more, wrote more essays, anaylzed and took more notes on those subjects than you. End of story. And I'm not talking about some contemporary partisan horse shit. I mean really getting into the nitty gritty of what these terms mean and how they function. SO I'll ask again, have you read Hegel? Marx? Webber? Durkheim? Locke? Bertrand Russell? Hume? (not Brit Hume but David Hume). Those people broke the door of its hinges when it comes to understanding society and the relevant concepts. You probably have never even heard of half of them let alone read their texts like I have.

Fourth, I do enjoy tv. ..tons of very accurate documentaries, new "shows" (like 60 Minutes), and interviews which were chocked full of accurate information.

60 minutes was informative a decade ago until it sold out to sensationalist journalism. Remember their apology for bad reporting over a year ago? IT was due to pathetic superficial journalism that focused on grabbing your attention rather than doing one iota of homework on their own story. Of course there's information on TV, but there's way more shit to shift through than truth. It sounds like you care far more about having men in suits confirm your ideology than report the truth. Am I right? When I was a toddler in HS I also loved Fox and the Mass Media. I know where you are coming from and I have since left that camp.

But hey, you smoked pot on a liberal campus with a bunch of other immature asshats and discussed the two pages you read of Karl Marx, so you are clearly qualified to rule the world....

Actually, I didn't smoke pot until the last 3 months of my senior year. So if you think that somehow affected my education you are mistaken. But pot has nothing to do with this, it's a red herring for you to feel like your ego made a point. "Score another for me" it says even though it has no fucking relevancy.

For some reason you think I'm trying to control the world. Are you that fucking stupid to think I think I have all the answers? "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am merely trying to stimulate discussion to reach better conclusions. You are not here for that. Try toning down your ego and you might see more clearly. I respect you as a person and apologize for clearly hurting your massive ego--of course you won't see it that way. You'll of course conclude you were just "putting me in my place, little fagot junior" (as if your repeated and stupid personal attack posts demonstrate any wisdom on your part). But that's because you don't read your own posts. Your replies are way overkill in trying discredit me instead of my beliefs.

When someone slings personal attacks constantly, it's not because they disagree, you can be sure of that. It's because their ego has been damaged and to restore balance they can't contain their ego from lashing out in all kinds of unwarranted ways. In fact, it felt so good to type your replies you end it with a "bang." Boy you sound like one of the most noble humans ever. This must also mean you have all the bright ideas on liberty and justice.

My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.

Two degrees and you don't know what induce means?

 

[P@triot]

If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.

Oh well.... it's not your neighbors job to make sure your property increases in value.

(P.S. - that is a bullshit control-freak fallacy by the way. There is nothing your neighbor can do that will ever effect the price of your property. Your property value is controlled by two things and two things only - the size of the house/land and the location - ie beach front property on the ocean is more in demand than Nebraska farmland).

 

[gnarlylove]

inductive logic means to gather particular examples and make the general conclusion. it's the basis of scientific reasoning like gravity.

 

[KNB]

If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.

Oh well.... it's not your neighbors job to make sure your property increases in value.

(P.S. - that is a bullshit control-freak fallacy by the way. There is nothing your neighbor can do that will ever effect the price of your property. Your property value is controlled by two things and two things only - the size of the house/land and the location - ie beach front property on the ocean is more in demand than Nebraska farmland).

It would be interesting to test that theory by buying a mansion in Beverly Hills and turning it into a homeless shelter.