Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Quinnj]

You're forgetting the other "biggest land grab in history:" Russia, and most of the population were serfs - virtual slaves, in other words.

Your theory doesn't hold water.

If you want a clearer example, just consider North Korea and South Korea. How do you explain the difference there? How about East and West Germany?

I explain the difference by pointing to how the United States of America began with an intent to be different from that which we claimed our independence:

"For all (...of Americans'...) differences, they shared that one brave idea (...of the United States as a new world to start again...), and that idea became the point around which they gathered. After two hundred years this is still the glue that keeps the nation together. It’s a fragile construct. And the constant American need for reaffirmation of America’s greatness - their exceptionalism - affirms its fragility."
-from A Look At American Exceptionalism by Martin Sellevold, (2003). Australian Rationalist (Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Rationalist Association of Australia, Ltd.) (65): 46–48.

& to claim that Capitalism is the sole reason for the US being the largest economy in the world is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I just posted the evidence. Explain the difference between North Korea and South Korea if it isn't capitalism.

Whatever the original intent of the Founding Fathers was is irrelevant. Economics doesn't care about intentions. It only cares about how the social order affects output. Socialism produces poverty. Capitalism produces wealth. The evidence is irrefutable.

I would prefer to speak about the United States of America. We have a mixed market economy as do most advanced industrial Countries. We don't have pure Capitalism or pure Socialism here or elsewhere. It's not irrelevant that what we have here is approaching a modern day Feudal System.

 

[Quinnj]

Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.

Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.

It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.

I think it very often comes down to that. Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems. Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government. I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said. The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.

Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."

 

[Jazzper]

Firstly, you talk as if there was some big "pie" that everyone has to share. Wealth is created, by individuals with talent and knowledge-it doesn't just exist, and it's not up to you and your politicians to distribute it "equally". Which leads me to a second point. Capitalism is not just an economic system. It's a social system which promotes and protects individuals and their property. It is a system designed to reward honesty and hard work, not those seeking handouts for some supposed "equality". Your system has been tried countless times, under different guises, and has always led to failure. Often with a bloody ending. See any communist or socialist state in world history for the details.

 

[gnarlylove]

Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.

As you well know the damned socialist nations have citizens with a free education (including Uni), most are healthy with free access to health care and much cheaper prescriptions (no obesity crisis), and are happy workers with mandatory weeks of vacation (unemployment ~3%). Don't forget lower rates of poverty, crime etc. and advancing rapidly (e.g. increasing R&D). In other words, large nanny state programs are working well for the nations that actually aim to take care of ALL their citizens. They were affected less by the recent Great Depression with safety nets that help when people need it.
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/no...ness-washington-world-happiest-countries.html

Herein lies real discussion and progress for humans. Contrast those facts with the USA, which has cut back on R&D by 25% over the last decade and other policies have exacerbated human suffering at home, having been majorly affected by the Great Depression--mostly the vulnerable population.

Good thing "rights" do not pertain to survival (the most essential) but in the secondary qualities of speech, forming a sentence without being beaten. Those "rights" of speech, gun ownership etc. are relatively easy to grant widely and have little cost to the business class and their power. However, providing citizens life through food and shelter is unthinkable. It undermines significant quarterly profits. It undermines the reason for sharp inequality.

Of course most people are willing to work for this food--normally agriculture work was life for most; now a variety of work should be on the table to offer citizens satisfactory opportunity (esp. among the working class) to meet the needs of the society GIVEN THE RESOURCES AMERICA HAS. But alas this is not the case.

Hmm. Rights. Maybe everyone should be allowed to participate in society instead of being dragged along by corporate and business fancies just to survive. Nah, that would mean everyone could choose their own destiny and we wouldn't want that--who would choose to work to pay off debt most of their life? The American worker, that's who (household median debt: $70,000 in 2012).

 

[georgephillip]

Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.

It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.

I think it very often comes down to that. Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems. Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government. I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said. The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.

Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."

The obvious is often a good starting point.
In addition to seeing how our opinions regarding the purpose of government differ, we might also consider the purpose of an economy.
CH Douglas was a British engineer who asked that question during the period between the two Great Wars of the 20th century:

"Douglas claimed there were three possible policy alternatives with respect to the economic system:

1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services"

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.

And then Dumbocrats always wonder why unemployment exists between 8% - 10% when they are in charge.

Furthermore, this kind of ignorant thinking (fuck success - tax the shit out of success) is what drives jobs overseas. Then ignorant Dumbocrats stand around scratching their heads and trying to blame outsourcing on Mitt Romney...

How did unemployment under Truman/Clinton compare to Reagan/BushI?
Mental defectives who imagine there's any difference between Republocrap and Democrap really shouldn't be wasting bandwidth.

 

[bripat9643]

I explain the difference by pointing to how the United States of America began with an intent to be different from that which we claimed our independence:



& to claim that Capitalism is the sole reason for the US being the largest economy in the world is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I just posted the evidence. Explain the difference between North Korea and South Korea if it isn't capitalism.

Whatever the original intent of the Founding Fathers was is irrelevant. Economics doesn't care about intentions. It only cares about how the social order affects output. Socialism produces poverty. Capitalism produces wealth. The evidence is irrefutable.

I would prefer to speak about the United States of America. We have a mixed market economy as do most advanced industrial Countries. We don't have pure Capitalism or pure Socialism here or elsewhere. It's not irrelevant that what we have here is approaching a modern day Feudal System.

Yeah, right, let's not discuss the examples the prove beyond all doubt that your lame theory is wrong. Land doesn't make a country rich. Japan has very little land, but it's very wealthy. Slavery doesn't make a country rich. In the U.S. the North, which didn't have slavery, was far richer than the South, which did.

I've heard the "land and slavery" argument a thousand times. It's easily refuted.

What we have here isn't anything close to Feudalism. You don't even know what Feudalism is. You're just spewing talking points your Marxist professors pumped into you. You don't know jack about history or economics. You've already proven that.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.

I think it very often comes down to that. Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems. Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government. I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said. The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.

Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."

The obvious is often a good starting point.
In addition to seeing how our opinions regarding the purpose of government differ, we might also consider the purpose of an economy.
CH Douglas was a British engineer who asked that question during the period between the two Great Wars of the 20th century:

"Douglas claimed there were three possible policy alternatives with respect to the economic system:

1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services"

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're misusing several terms interchangeably. The term "industrial system" is meaningless. Countries have varying amounts of industry. There is no "system" involved. The term isn't synonymous with "economy." And the economy and the government are two separate things. The economy is the result of government policy. How can the result of government policy be a government? According to the definition of government, there can only be one government. There can only be one monopoly of force. If it's not a monopoly, it's not government.

Talking about the purpose of an "economy" is like talking about the purpose of the color green. The economy is whatever humans do to survive. Lack of one would mean no living humans.

 

[bripat9643]

Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.

And then Dumbocrats always wonder why unemployment exists between 8% - 10% when they are in charge.

Furthermore, this kind of ignorant thinking (fuck success - tax the shit out of success) is what drives jobs overseas. Then ignorant Dumbocrats stand around scratching their heads and trying to blame outsourcing on Mitt Romney...

How did unemployment under Truman/Clinton compare to Reagan/BushI?
Mental defectives who imagine there's any difference between Republocrap and Democrap really shouldn't be wasting bandwidth.

Reagan had to clean up the mess Jimmy Carter made. Bush I was a liberal who foolishly followed Democrat advice and raised taxes thereby causing a recession. He was as big a moron as any Democrat.

 

[dblack]

It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.

I think it very often comes down to that. Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems. Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government. I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said. The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.

Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."

The obvious is often a good starting point.

Is it obvious? What is obvious is that there is widely disparate disagreement on the topic. It's really the core of the political gulf in the US right now. Here, on a political discussion board, it's the unstated premise of every thread, yet we hardly ever talk about it. We end up wasting a lot of time talking past each other because we're each making unstated assumptions that are, all too often, in fundamental conflict. At that point, the rest of the discussion is waste of time.

 

[gnarlylove]

The purpose of government can be understood in two simple forms. The first is our opinion of it. How do we want government to function? Some think this is crucial without which discussion becomes trivial and useless.

The second purpose is the actual purpose to which we are not privy (except through leaks). Sure, we can know "official" stances of our government, but what government does and what they say are often opposed. Thus Bradly Manning is serving time in prison for revealing facts about what our government does.

So certainty regarding the purpose of the gov't is not widely discernible since we lack access to the billions of still classified documents. Throughout history and esp. through wikileaks, we have come to know governments are eager to NOT share their genuine purpose. Why is that? I thought governments were established for the people.

So we can engage in the petty philosophical discussion that government's are established to provide citizens basic rights and try to define them even though governments are not historically known for this (hence rebellion in every era). Or we can take time to research what it is that governments tend to have in common across the globe--with the US at the fore of most international decisions. Why is that? Does this secure rights at home? Clearly not with millions out of work and/or homeless. But it does tend to help a certain group (of elites).

From this approach we can put some pieces of the puzzle together and realize what governments are doing that helps and harm groups, nations and the globe. It's from this vantage point that we can understand how to concretely approach the discussion of what governments purpose is.

 

[gnarlylove]

I think we can all agree if each person has a right to speech, we must also enable each person the ability to survive (through some agricultural work or otherwise). Currently we guarantee speech for all but are horribly lacking in providing a humanitarian means to survival for certain sectors of the population (the poor and provide scant means for most in the working class). This might demonstrate that the purpose of gov't is not so much to give each citizen, regardless of their background, a fair shot as we like to think but to ensure protection of some other population (the business class and elites).

In my research, the US gov't is engaged in most international affairs primarily to keep other governments' policy in line (e.g. keep Venezuela from imposing tariffs on their natural resources making it harder for US--or more accurately US corporations--to acquire them). Some of the world's greatest atrocities in recent decades have happened in the Congo. I thought US and the UN were watchdogs for this kind of stuff and to help countries in such turmoil. Why has nothing much been done while the US bombs Yemen and spent decades in Iraq? The Congo has corrupt leaders that keep the US business happy with cheap diamond industry etc.. The reason we invaded Iraq was not to liberate the people from Saddam, although this was the official memo. Rather, oil was the main concern. That area of the world is crucial for "critical leverage" over rest of the developed nations, Europe and Asia. So the US was against elections since Iraqis might elect an anti-US parliament that would impose tariffs or prevent US from accessing oil. But when the people of Iraq did not give up and continued to push for elections, the US saw they couldn't fight it and so they claimed to have supported elections all along. Thus we remained there "rebuilding" Iraq and making sure they follow US desires, not to own the oil but to control it.

Given these facts, a discussion about what US should provide to it's citizens seems distant from important matters. Matters that clearly show the US is not established to protect its citizens but to keep the business elite happy, including global corporate capitalism. Thus those in the financial sector have boasted record earnings year after year for decades, regardless of a financial collapse.

From this perspective, no matter the rhetoric, the US will continue to tacitly support the business class without much focus on the dire need of millions of its own citizens. How can such obvious disregard for human life (millions unemployed, 1 in 7 children exp. hunger insecurity, health outcomes are the worst among developed nations etc.) be justified under US government unless the US simply is not around "for the people?"

The purpose of government in the US is to protect and enforce the interests of the elite while seeming to care for its citizens through various underfunded programs.

 

[Andylusion]

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?

$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.

Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

There is zero possibility that they could give a 50% raise. Not even close.

If you drastically raised wages on only US employees, first you are being discriminatory to all the other non-US employees. You think the people in Canada or the UK, are going to look at a huge company wide pay hike for US Americans only, and not have a big huge problem with that?

They would. So at the very most, if you confiscated all profits, and divide them up to *ALL* employees (15.7 Billion / 2.2 Million employees) is about $7,000 a year. ($3.35/hr).

However, the guy who wrote that article forgot about taxes. Between benefits, and additional taxes and fees, the wage that a worker is paid, is actually 20% more than what is on his check.

In other words... If they gave all $7,000 to each employee, the company would instantly start going broke.

You make $70k but cost your boss $88k - Feb. 28, 2013

A person making only $30,000 a year, is actually costing the company about $44,000. The other $14,000 is spent on Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation, and of course all the benefits, like health insurance.

So the company can't give the employee $7,000, with incuring $2,000 to $3,000 in additional taxes regulations, and benefits costs, that the now zero profit company, can't pay.

So at the very most, very top possible amount the company could pay to each employee is a whooping $5,000.

Now... when the company needs marketing and advertising to keep customers coming to their stores, where does that money come from? Well it doesn't come ....... so they don't.... then stores close.... employees enjoying their extra $2/hr check, now are unemployed.

Now... when the company needs to update existing stores, resurface the parking lot, re-tile the floor, or do a refurbish on an old store, where does that money come from? Well it doesn't come.... so they don't... so customers stop shopping at the dingy in-need-of-updating store, and it closes, and all those employees enjoying their $2/hr raise are unemployed.

Now... when the company sees another town that could use a new walmart store, where hundreds of people need a steady job with good benefits, where does the money come from to build the store, and hire everyone? Well it doesn't come.... so they don't build it..... so hundreds of people who could have jobs, and thousands of customers who could have a great place to shop, never do.

And there are dozens of other examples. One of the reasons walmart has such quality cheap goods, is because they have invested hundreds of millions into building a distribution system, with regional centers, and low cost suppliers. All of that required having big money to invest into it. And by the way, walmart company truck drivers are some of the highest paid truckers on the roads.

Without that, thousands of jobs would not exist, and the stores would not have access to those goods, which are the very reason people shop at walmart stores. Again, without that money invested in the distribution system, customers stop shopping, the stores close, and all those employees enjoying their $2/hr raise, are now unemployed.

And as a final note.... All of this ignores how all company chains run. All chain companies, run basically the same way. The company HQ, is run separately from the individual stores. Each store, whether it's Subway, or Wendy's, or Walmart.... each individual store is its own business.

Meaning..... Wendy's Corporate could rake in $1295871892 Trillion dollars...... Doesn't matter to the individual store. If *YOUR STORE*, does not have the money to pay you a raise... then you can't get a raise. Doesn't matter how much Corporate has. Each store is its own business.

When I read that "Walmart made $17 Billion profit!"... that has no bearing whatsoever, on my local Walmart store.

This is how you can have a Wendy's down the street close up and shut down, even while Wendy's Corporate is making record profit.

Similarly, your local Walmart has to make or break, on their own, no matter what corporate does. Walmart Corporate doesn't feed dying and failing stores with money to keep them open. If they did that.... they wouldn't have a $17 Billion profit.

This is how the system works. All of that is why the article is completely wrong. No, you can't just take all the profits and give them out to the employees in wage increases. In the short term, they'll enjoy a few bucks more an hour, but in the long term, they'll end up unemployed, earning ZERO. Not a good trade off. This is why you can't have the economically illiterate pundits making policy. You'll ruin this nation, like you ruined Detroit.

 

[dblack]

I think we can all agree if each person has a right to speech, we must also enable each person the ability to survive (through some agricultural work or otherwise).

No, we've been disagreeing on exactly that issue.

How would you characterize a morally defensible justification for government? What justifies a public institution with the power to wield violence against any who oppose it?

 

[gnarlylove]

I don't get what you are arguing. I can only re-phrase and hope you understand. If people have inalienable anything, they must first exist in order to have them. In order to exist one absolutely must have water and food. Without which nothing matters since no human can exist.

I am not saying the state must provide food at the foot of each person every morning. I am saying they must earn it, like all people did before governments--through gathering, hunting and agriculture. In other words, a means to buy the food being sold--i.e. work. Clearly US ignores this urgent issue by dumping trillions elsewhere. I argue for a work program for every citizen that wants to buy their own food or else provide a sensible plot of land on which to raise a family and sustenance. These do not exist at present.

Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time, but talk of rights only make since if a person exists. So before constitutional law, say during the Magna Carta, talk of "rights" simply did not exist. Language is not fixed nor are ideas, though it appears fixed from our short life spans. Either we can update the discussion of rights showing they only make sense if a person is afforded means to exist or we can continue to miss the mark and allow unnecessary real suffering to be institutionalized.

Since we live in a government that talks of rights all the time, I think it's important to identify flaws and point out areas of improvement when human lives are at stake. But I'm assuming government is suppose to serve the people, which is not it's primary function as I tried to show above.

 

[dblack]

I don't get what you are arguing.

I'm not necessarily arguing anything currently. I'm trying to find some common ground so we can have a useful discussion. So much of what you talk about is irrelevant to me because it's entirely outside the bounds of what I consider to be the purpose and scope of government. I don't think we create government to get us food, or otherwise 'take care of us'. We can do that without police and a military.

That's why I'm trying to get you to think about why we need a government and what we want it to be responsible for. If it helps, consider it as a thought experiment. Imagine that a group of us have landed on an uninhabited island with the intent of forging a new civilization. Would you propose the creation of a government? Why? What would it be like? What justification would you use in trying to 'sell' the idea to the other settlers?

Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time ...

Well, no. On the contrary, it doesn't confuse matters; it clarifies them. The monopoly on violence is the core trait of the modern conception of government, and I'm asking you to justify that use of violence. If you contend that it's not, if your proposing a government that doesn't use the threat of violence to achieve its ends, I'm all ears. But that would be a radically different kind of government than the currently accepted definition.

 

[georgephillip]

I think it very often comes down to that. Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems. Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government. I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said. The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.

Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."

The obvious is often a good starting point.

Is it obvious? What is obvious is that there is widely disparate disagreement on the topic. It's really the core of the political gulf in the US right now. Here, on a political discussion board, it's the unstated premise of every thread, yet we hardly ever talk about it. We end up wasting a lot of time talking past each other because we're each making unstated assumptions that are, all too often, in fundamental conflict. At that point, the rest of the discussion is waste of time.

Possibly we should consider a "Purpose of Government" thread in the Clean Debate Forum?

 

[gnarlylove]

Do you really think there will be no government in your lifetime? I'm asking for an honest assessment, not fantasia.

 

[gnarlylove]

Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time ...

Well, no. On the contrary, it doesn't confuse matters; it clarifies them. The monopoly on violence is the core trait of the modern conception of government, and I'm asking you to justify that use of violence. If you contend that it's not, if your proposing a government that doesn't use the threat of violence to achieve its ends, I'm all ears. But that would be a radically different kind of government than the currently accepted definition.

You just oppose to oppose. We both want clear discussion. We can only talk about one thing at a time. We jump back and forth between theoretical discussions and concrete discussions about government. In doing so, we confuse our terms finding ourselves in the mire of equivocation making genuine debate impossible. There is no blaming, but if we aspire to clean, crisp discussion we need to keep our terms and ideas straight. Clearly you won't talk about food coming logically and temporally prior to violence as if violence was more crucial to stamping out that our prime motivation: sustenance. So I will forgo this substantive and concrete discussion in order to address a topic pertinent to your ideology, namely violence.

You talk most often in the theoretical or hypothetical realm and you so strongly connect government with violent force. You are accurate to connect governments to violence in the real world but your insistent connection of violence in theoretical government is just invalid. Naturally you will define governments as the sanctioned force to faciltate mass populations but this is not necessary. It's easy to imagine a hypothetical where government facilitates the lives of its population without waging violent acts against them. Indeed, this would be ideal to me.

A government's supposed function is to facilitate peoples' lifes (or address problems) that arise from mass populations like water, sanitation, transportation, farming, energy. This is government in theory, a bare bones archetype. Violence does not necessarily enter the picture. (Please hold your tongue about how private sanitation works better than government. We can only effectively communicate by talking about the same thing. Let's focus on government first, then we can discuss what a non-government society looks like).

You insist violence is categorically wrong but is it? Is jerking my daughter from running across the street justified? Yes. But anyone using force has a tremendous onus and is in most cases not justifiable.

So you must only be talking about concrete governments then since violence does not apply to theoretical gov'ts per se. So let's remember to keep our discussion with both feet planted firmly in concrete reality. So as I argued, in reality concerns of violence proceed the need of food and water. But since this board is a mix of urgent/present concerns and theoretical discussion I will say violence in our present day should cease immediately until they can be justified, which is unlikely. Would this collapse or devastate the economy? Potentially. So this is a concern, not mine of course and clearly not yours.

If I may ask, do you not read my long posts or do they get skimmed? I don't care either way, I just want to know for future replies.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Purpose of Government" Clean Debate Zone.