Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

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.

"du·al·i·ty
d(y)o͞oˈalitē/Submit
noun
1.
the quality or condition of being dual.
'the novel's deep duality about human motive'
2.
an instance of opposition or contrast between two concepts or two aspects of something; a dualism.
'the photographs capitalize on the dualities of light and dark, stillness and movement'"

There's a growing opposition or contrast between civil liberties and national security in the US that reminds many of what occurred in Germany during Hitler's rise.

Ernst Fraenkel was a German Jew who probably saw the dual state more clearly than either you or I do:

"After studying American law Fraenkel lectured at the New School for Social Research. In 1941 he published The Dual State in which he analysed the political system of the Nazi state.

"For Fraenkel it was a 'normative state' (Normenstaat) which secured the continuation of capitalist society for those Germans not threatened by Nazism coexisted alongside a 'prerogative state' (Maßnahmenstaat) that used legal sanctions as well as brutal violence against people considered to be enemies of Nazism and Nazi Germany."

Ernst Fraenkel (political scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Email Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald if you're still in denial about what's coming .

 

[P@triot]

You take the word "mistaken" to mean I know what's needed in this world? That is a stretch if I ever saw one.

Show me where I made an appalling claim. I know when I say "in order to have a 100% free society we must totally eradicate violence" I am making appalling claims. How is that appalling?

It amazes me that you "see" arrogance (which doesn't exist) in others but are completely blind to your own. Furthermore, you keep acting like "violence" is the only thing you said we need to get rid of (probably because you realize now what an ass you sounded like). Because of this, I have put together your "greatest hits" below. Still want to pretend like you didn't say these things and weren't being arrogant that you know what the world needs?

Red = appalling
Dark Red = arrogant

Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist.

The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.

Secondly, we must remove private property in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property at its foundation, you are mistaken.

Arrogant and appalling. "We must remove private property"? Must? Who the fuck are you to make that decision for society. I don't care what you say - that is not an "idea". You did not say "what about this thought". You made an appalling and authoritative (arrogant) statement.

Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict... we will need to openly share without hesitation.

Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted.

We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side.

Telling the world what we must do again.... But hey, you don't have an ego and don't think you know what's best for the world. Everyone else does because you have "analyzed" their avatar....

If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem.

If I own something, I own it. It is not a problem. And the thing you need I cannot own. I cannot own air. I cannot own water. I cannot own animals (like deer) roaming the world which are readily available as your food supply.

Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential?

Ironically enough, posts like yours. There are people I simply must keep away from myself and my family. I need a place I can go to get away from bizarre cultists like you who want to tell me I have no property and my wife is "communal" for your sick enjoyment.

The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF.

You have no idea what I want or why I want it. But you think you do because you're arrogant. Very arrogant. You think reading Marx and Hegel has qualified you to rule the world and decide for the rest of us what we need and don't need.

Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world.

The exact opposite. People like you, Adolf Hitler, etc. not respecting private property and wanting what other people have is what has gotten us into trouble.

To think we actually own something is insane. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best.

The only thing insane is your "thinking" (and I use that term lightly).

 

[freedombecki]

I don't think so, gnarlylove....

I take out the rest because it's really superfluous. You don't know the communication trail of Todders and I. So I'd ask you to step off my toes. Everyone on this message board is about saying to one another, "nope, you are wrong. Turns out, I know reality better and you are a sad excuse for a human being."

Yes, I do know the 'communication trail.'

I use to solely function in that realm and still struggle with it today but recognize its ultimate futility-we are all made of the same material and all die just the same. But you know what....pretending to be the better human being does nothing but causes strife and division among humanity. The reason it's so prevalent is people are so assured of themselves and do not give a shit about other human beings. They want to feel superior and assume anything about some screen name post just to feel better.

Some men are superior to others. They base their activities on fact and not on fiction. They are personally conscientious and generous. They are desirable team players in business and their families and do not depart from the teachings of their youth. They check their numbers twice, and if the numbers don't come out right, they check twice again.

Great job on accomplishing your need to feel superior. Few people come here to discuss genuine matters. I admit I falter at times too but my aim to is create a flowing dialogue of respect. Instead, nearly everyone is out to gain something for themselves at they aren't happy if it isn't at the expense of someone else.

Is there the slightest possibility your deja vu has failed you? Getting to the bottom line of truth is complex. I might have been an astute statistical typist whose services were coveted by CPAs, but I also know what sets them off--great pretenders who do not understand how diabolical it is to break with the facts and go on gut notions that are not in the acceptable realm they know comes up with the truth about a business' viability, which requires checking the facts, and they know just how to do that. I watched the most highly respected CPA in the state I lived in, shout a criminal to the front door and out of his office for suggesting that he put his signature on falsified documentation of the business' viability. You have received far better treatment than that, and I know that for an absolute fact.

maybe instead of acting like we have a clue who each other are, maybe we can re-introduce common decency to debate?

That's up to people who have the illusion that math doesn't work, who may not acknowledge that correct and morally straight decisions based on the bare bones math is factual, or other hopey changey fallacies that endanger the structure of a good and decent society that tries its best to see to it that no one gets left behind, even when they humanly fail, and can encourage others to deal as well as they can with what they have to deal with. Some people confuse a trillion dollars with the value of a billion, a million, or even a hundred dollars. They cannot wrap their minds around numbers that high. Our math scholars here can wrap their minds around a current debt to the penny of $17,258,795,000,703.07, and you can count on it they are not happy nor derelict in their opinion on the issue. You'd be wise to take it slow and easy about telling them to ignore the writing on the wall. I'm not seeing you do that.

Naw. That would mean turning off the ego and treating each other with respect. That was tossed out the window some odd years ago. I'm glad America and indeed the global economy has helped produce such colorful haters. Without any aim for unity or mutual understanding, we lambaste one another like we have some special insight to the eternal secrets of life.

Sorry, respect is earned when the math sends you a message on how to proceed or withhold. Following the correct figures that are above board with the laws on the book leaves no mutual understanding for those who lack respect for the special insight correct figuring does. There's no secrets with correct numbers arrived through sundry accounting practices that arrive at conclusions based on the very numbers some view as 'eternal secrets'. There's no such thing in the accountability world. Some people aren't used to the rigid correction that numbers point toward without those accepted principles that have made America a reliable trust to this world in times of hunger and starvation. Our money men have seen to it to the best of their ability we can be the one who extends a helping hand in times of calamity, and not those of us who think that by some magic out-of-the-blue serendipity is going to help us help others.

News Flash: No one understands this world. What we do understand should not be taken as how reality is. All our sources reveal is a tiny part of reality, and just like the feeling a small section of a gigantic elephant in a dark room, our sources do not reveal the total picture. The only thing we can be sure of about the Big Picture is that we don't know. So why don't we quit our incessant domination of one another and be a bit more respectful? is it that hard? Why yees it is because capitalism has taught us to either eat or be eaten. Maybe that lesson is harmful for communities (and ultimately society) since it leaves us divided without a hope of any reconciliation. If we toss out logic and philosophy as our guides to understanding our the particular details of this world, we are also tossing out the hope of common ground and being able to reach conclusions cooperatively. holding tight to our egos means we push others away, as if our brains have rewired to intentionally distant ourselves from others so that we may feel superior. Our brain rewards us for spiting another human being (not based on calling out ideas but based on hurling insults at one another)

Yes, some people do understand the world.

Count me out. What's the point if no one cares to listen to each other? For the third time I admit I'm not perfect but at least I make an effort, most everyone else is lost in their superiority complex. Good luck creating a society for liberty and justice for all. It isn't possible if we start with our current assumptions of irreconcilable strife. Especially when we feel good when we do it. Never in my decades of living have I noticed such incessant division for the sake of division.

If you want to be heard when you are speaking to men of impeccable math and accounting practices, you'd better learn what that is. Just saying.

Best wishes as you think what I have said through.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.

Who said he was perfectly right about everything?

Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.

The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.

Nah. It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.

Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist. I own my labor. I can choose who to sell my labor to. I can do with my capital, whatever I want.

I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount. Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.

I'm a capitalist. I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.

Yes capitalism favors me. The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.

If you blow all your money, you'll be poor. If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor. If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.

An example of this just happened at my company. It's a small company. We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.

We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations. Double their income. Doubled. But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled. At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.

The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required. But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company. Over six figures.

She decided to come back, and work for less.

Was it capitalism that cut her wage? No it was choice.

That still sounds like a light schedule to me. I easily work 60-70 hours a week, especially when you count all the time I spend educating myself about new technologies and products. This isn't optional. My company requires you to become certified in something every year.

However, the reward is that I make a lot of money, and I have excellent benefits.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"du·al·i·ty
d(y)o͞oˈalitē/Submit
noun
1.
the quality or condition of being dual.
'the novel's deep duality about human motive'
2.
an instance of opposition or contrast between two concepts or two aspects of something; a dualism.
'the photographs capitalize on the dualities of light and dark, stillness and movement'"

There's a growing opposition or contrast between civil liberties and national security in the US that reminds many of what occurred in Germany during Hitler's rise.

Ernst Fraenkel was a German Jew who probably saw the dual state more clearly than either you or I do:

"After studying American law Fraenkel lectured at the New School for Social Research. In 1941 he published The Dual State in which he analysed the political system of the Nazi state.

"For Fraenkel it was a 'normative state' (Normenstaat) which secured the continuation of capitalist society for those Germans not threatened by Nazism coexisted alongside a 'prerogative state' (Maßnahmenstaat) that used legal sanctions as well as brutal violence against people considered to be enemies of Nazism and Nazi Germany."

Ernst Fraenkel (political scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Email Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald if you're still in denial about what's coming .

Apparently this supposed "duality" is based on the theory that a state can't do two things at the same time. In other words, it can't chew gum and walk at the same time. It can't persecute Jews and maintain capitalism at the same time. It can't have social programs and pursue a drug war at the same times.

That's obvious horseshit, but sociology professors make a name for themselves by coming up with new buzzwords, not by getting the facts right.

 

[RKMBrown]

Freedom and prosperity.

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?

Ok Strawman. Let's not be naive.
No one is claiming "no government"...
The focus here is limit government to its essential functions.

Must be a new definition of "without" that I'm not familiar with :-|

 

[Bombur]

Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.

Who said he was perfectly right about everything?

Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.

The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.

Nah. It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.

Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist. I own my labor. I can choose who to sell my labor to. I can do with my capital, whatever I want.

I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount. Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.

I'm a capitalist. I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.

Yes capitalism favors me. The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.

If you blow all your money, you'll be poor. If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor. If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.

An example of this just happened at my company. It's a small company. We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.

We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations. Double their income. Doubled. But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled. At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.

The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required. But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company. Over six figures.

She decided to come back, and work for less.

Was it capitalism that cut her wage? No it was choice.

Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals.

Also...

Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I guess it depends what you mean by own. I pay taxes to the fed.. I suppose you could say that means they own me too.

 

[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.

I guess it depends what you mean by own. I pay taxes to the fed.. I suppose you could say that means they own me too.

Do they get 97% of your earnings?

 

[RKMBrown]

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).

ROFL put down the mug!

If someone builds a nuclear waste facility on their property, their neighbor's property will no longer habitable. If someone turns their home into a crack house, the neighborhood is gonna turn to shit as the folks with families sell out for the lowest bid. If someone diverts a dry creek bed into your garage they will flood your home. If someone sets up a target range aiming at your bedroom, overshots will hit your sleeping wife.

There is a reason we have laws, and property use restrictions.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I guess it depends what you mean by own. I pay taxes to the fed.. I suppose you could say that means they own me too.

Do they get 97% of your earnings?

I figure the federal government is responsible for the taking of about 55% of my earnings at the moment. What is significant about 97%?

 

[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.

Yes, you can limit government. It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again. Just requires people to stop being cowards.

 

[P@triot]

Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.

Who said he was perfectly right about everything?

Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.

The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.

Nah. It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.

Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist. I own my labor. I can choose who to sell my labor to. I can do with my capital, whatever I want.

I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount. Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.

I'm a capitalist. I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.

Yes capitalism favors me. The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.

If you blow all your money, you'll be poor. If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor. If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.

An example of this just happened at my company. It's a small company. We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.

We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations. Double their income. Doubled. But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled. At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.

The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required. But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company. Over six figures.

She decided to come back, and work for less.

Was it capitalism that cut her wage? No it was choice.

Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals.

Also...

Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In other words - he provided real world situations that don't jive with your liberal theories.

Only a liberal could dismiss actual instances as "meaningless and irrelevant" while crowing about "trends" (ie false theories build on false data)

 

[Bombur]

Nah. It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.

Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist. I own my labor. I can choose who to sell my labor to. I can do with my capital, whatever I want.

I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount. Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.

I'm a capitalist. I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.

Yes capitalism favors me. The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.

If you blow all your money, you'll be poor. If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor. If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.

An example of this just happened at my company. It's a small company. We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.

We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations. Double their income. Doubled. But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled. At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.

The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required. But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company. Over six figures.

She decided to come back, and work for less.

Was it capitalism that cut her wage? No it was choice.

Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals.

Also...

Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In other words - he provided real world situations that don't jive with your liberal theories.

Only a liberal could dismiss actual instances as "meaningless and irrelevant" while crowing about "trends" (ie false theories build on false data)

Only liberals consider anecdotal evidence that contradicts national trends to be meaningless?

Tell me more about these liberals you speak of because you seem to be suggesting they are the only ones that are not brain dead.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes, you can limit government. It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again. Just requires people to stop being cowards.

When has it been done?

 

[bripat9643]

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).

ROFL put down the mug!

If someone builds a nuclear waste facility on their property, their neighbor's property will no longer habitable. If someone turns their home into a crack house, the neighborhood is gonna turn to shit as the folks with families sell out for the lowest bid. If someone diverts a dry creek bed into your garage they will flood your home. If someone sets up a target range aiming at your bedroom, overshots will hit your sleeping wife.

There is a reason we have laws, and property use restrictions.

Your belief that only government can handle these situations lacks any visible means of support.

 

[RKMBrown]

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).

ROFL put down the mug!

If someone builds a nuclear waste facility on their property, their neighbor's property will no longer habitable. If someone turns their home into a crack house, the neighborhood is gonna turn to shit as the folks with families sell out for the lowest bid. If someone diverts a dry creek bed into your garage they will flood your home. If someone sets up a target range aiming at your bedroom, overshots will hit your sleeping wife.

There is a reason we have laws, and property use restrictions.

Your belief that only government can handle these situations lacks any visible means of support.

Where did I say "only government can handle these situations?"

My point, which was apparently to subtle, was that (1) the situations do exist; and (2) some means is necessary to civilly resolve disputes. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you said as well.

Thus the issue is one of who does the dispute resolution. Correct?

Removing one government will only result in some other form of governance being used to fill the void. While you may believe change is good, history has shown that change for change sake is not likely to resolve outstanding issues.

The issue we have is "over governance" by our government employees. One solution is to fire them and reset the checks and balances to a level we prefer. Unfortunately for you and me, there are many folks who are quite happy with having no liberty whatsoever.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Yes, you can limit government. It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again. Just requires people to stop being cowards.

When has it been done?

How many examples do you want?

For generations, Texas leaned left in a serious way. Then the state saw the light so to speak under Reagan and never looked back.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Yes, you can limit government. It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again. Just requires people to stop being cowards.

When has it been done?

How many examples do you want?

For generations, Texas leaned left in a serious way. Then the state saw the light so to speak under Reagan and never looked back.

This guy thinks Reagan made government smaller?

 

[P@triot]

Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals.

Also...

Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In other words - he provided real world situations that don't jive with your liberal theories.

Only a liberal could dismiss actual instances as "meaningless and irrelevant" while crowing about "trends" (ie false theories build on false data)

Only liberals consider anecdotal evidence that contradicts national trends to be meaningless?

Tell me more about these liberals you speak of because you seem to be suggesting they are the only ones that are not brain dead.

You mean like the national "trends" Obama provides. Where unemployment magically dips below 8% for the first time in his entire presidency just before the election?

You are the definition of brain dead my friend....