Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

[bripat9643]

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

You'll find the answers to all your questions here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

You'll discover that people have thought out theses issues quite thoroughly.

OMG, Kevin rails against my use of the term 'utopia', then turd brain provides an article about how to create a 'garden of Eden'.

It's not the Garden if Eden, asshole, but it's better than the fascist state we all suffer under now.

You claimed no one ever thought out how a society without government would work. I just showed you where someone did.

 

[bripat9643]

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

LOL... you CLAIM to have thought out these questions...HOW do you enforce them Kevin. HOW do you stop your neighbor from polluting?

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

Binding arbitration. Each party is the client of an insurance company that provides him with protection services. These insurance companies resolve disputes among them through the use of arbitration.

I pointed you to an article that explains all this, but you obviously didn't read it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

That neither know what the definition of dogma is – where dogma is defined as that which must be believed, without question.

Clearly this well describes most conservatives and libertarians who adhere blindly to their respective, and errant, dogmas.

 

[Mac1958]

Both ends of the spectrum -- liberals & conservatives -- are forcing their religious dogma on the rest of us daily.

And whether it's God or government, the dogmas are based on their collectivist, authoritarian, submissive utopia.

Each side is a warped reflection of the other, and they'll never admit it, because they refuse to believe that they are what they hate.

 

[Bfgrn]

You stop him from polluting your property the same way you stop him from building a fence 3 feet on your side of the property line: with lawsuits.

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

So if someone robs you and you want your stuff back, why are they going to agree to a mediator? Why would Madoff agree to a mediator? Why would internet scammers agree to a mediator?

Sure, in the general store of the town you live in they might agree to that as they know their other customers are looking at them and they don't want to lose them. But there are a lot of bad guys out there, they aren't going to agree to mediation. That is a legitimate role of government, mediating results.

Then the next problem you have is even if you win, suppose they don't pay? I operate my business with integrity, but I have hundreds of vendors all over the country. Most of them have integrity too. Some don't. Sure, I can not do business with anyone I don't know, but without any repercussions to fraud, I would have to do that and my business would be far smaller if it survived at all.

I like Bob Murphy's answer from his book Chaos Theory. Essentially, if somebody robs you, but then doesn't agree to arbitration over the matter to decide who has the property right in the object stolen, then essentially we have a case where the rest of society will shun that individual. If you know that somebody is accused of theft, and that they refused arbitration, would you be willing to do business with them? Of course not. Their best option in that case is to seek arbitration. Now, naturally each party would seek a private court that they think would favor their argument, so it would naturally balance itself out to a more moderate court. This also ties into Murphy's argument for "prisons" for serial criminals. He doesn't believe that the prison system as it exists today would work without government force, so he puts forth the idea that there would be facilities, prisons for lack of a better term I suppose, where the worst offenders could go and pay, or provide their labor to the facility, to live in an attempt to rehabilitate themselves on the basis that they've destroyed their reputations in the real world and nobody will associate with them at all. They would also work for the facility so that the facility could then start paying off their debts to their victims on their behalf.

What a ridiculous answer. So why doesn't it work now? Why do vendors try to screw me, then stay in business? You still think we live in towns of hundreds of people where everyone knows everyone. Actually, we live in a country of 350 million and a world of billions. You're still living in the old west.

I actually agree with you.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a great 'theory'. But it can only work under ideal conditions. And if those conditions don't exist, laissez-faire fails miserably.

Critical to laissez-faire is that every 'actor' in the economy has to have an equal 'stake'

Living Enterprises with Living Owners. An ideology of market fundamentalism has embedded a belief in the public culture that the sole purpose and responsibility of a business enterprise is to maximize financial returns to its owners. This belief, combined with a system of absentee ownership and instantaneous trading of corporate shares, encourages short-term over long-term thinking and strips corporate decision making of concern for social and environmental consequences.

SOLUTION: Pursue local economic development programs that build diversified, self-reliant, energy efficient, democratically self-organizing local economies comprised of locally owned living enterprises devoted to serving local needs.

Local Living Economies. Fragmented local economies dependent on global corporations for jobs and basic goods and services leave people and nature captive to the financial interests of distant institutions that have no concern for their well-being and no accountability to their interests.

SOLUTION: Recognize that the primary purpose of any enterprise is to serve the needs of a living community. Favor living enterprises with living, locally rooted owners who have a direct stake in the social and environmental consequences of the firm’s management decisions—people who are looking not for maximum financial return, but for a living return that includes a healthy community and a healthy natural environment. This means favoring cooperative, worker- and community-owned enterprises and discouraging the speculative public trading of corporate shares.

more

 

[kaz]

What a ridiculous answer. So why doesn't it work now? Why do vendors try to screw me, then stay in business? You still think we live in towns of hundreds of people where everyone knows everyone. Actually, we live in a country of 350 million and a world of billions. You're still living in the old west.

I actually agree with you.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a great 'theory'. But it can only work under ideal conditions. And if those conditions don't exist, laissez-faire fails miserably.

Critical to laissez-faire is that every 'actor' in the economy has to have an equal 'stake'e

You actually agree with me? When argued against anarchy? That must have been hard to admit. Hmm...

So are you going to retain in long term memory that I'm not an anarchist?

BTW, while Kevin and I disagree on this, he does retain in his long term memory that I'm a minarchist or as I put it a small government libertarian. You have so far not been able to absorb that into long term memory. You think I'm either a Republican or an anarchist. Think you got it finally and you can actually start arguing my own views to me rather than asking me to defend someone else's view?

 

[Bfgrn]

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

You'll find the answers to all your questions here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

You'll discover that people have thought out theses issues quite thoroughly.

OMG, Kevin rails against my use of the term 'utopia', then turd brain provides an article about how to create a 'garden of Eden'.

It's not the Garden if Eden, asshole, but it's better than the fascist state we all suffer under now.

You claimed no one ever thought out how a society without government would work. I just showed you where someone did.

And just how could this possibly work in a global marketplace ASSHOLE? You are a pin head dreamer who has a very tiny dogma infested brain. The only reason your brain rot doesn't kill you is because your brain is such an insignificant percentage of your body.

 

[Bfgrn]

What a ridiculous answer. So why doesn't it work now? Why do vendors try to screw me, then stay in business? You still think we live in towns of hundreds of people where everyone knows everyone. Actually, we live in a country of 350 million and a world of billions. You're still living in the old west.

I actually agree with you.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a great 'theory'. But it can only work under ideal conditions. And if those conditions don't exist, laissez-faire fails miserably.

Critical to laissez-faire is that every 'actor' in the economy has to have an equal 'stake'e

You actually agree with me? When argued against anarchy? That must have been hard to admit. Hmm...

So are you going to retain in long term memory that I'm not an anarchist?

BTW, while Kevin and I disagree on this, he does retain in his long term memory that I'm a minarchist or as I put it a small government libertarian. You have so far not been able to absorb that into long term memory. You think I'm either a Republican or an anarchist. Think you got it finally and you can actually start arguing my own views to me rather than asking me to defend someone else's view?

I also vehemently disagree with you on most topics, especially your dogmatic belief that ending Social Security and Medicare would be beneficial to the elderly.

BTW, as I pointed out before, you seem to have no problem lumping all liberals together. And when I pointed that out, you were totally unaware of that fact.

 

[kaz]

I also vehemently disagree with you on most topics, especially your dogmatic belief that ending Social Security and Medicare would be beneficial to the elderly.

Strawman. And you didn't prove that stopping bank robberies is in the interest of bank robbers.

BTW, as I pointed out before, you seem to have no problem lumping all liberals together. And when I pointed that out, you were totally unaware of that fact.

I didn't know? I agreed with you on that, moron. I am totally lumping liberals together. Actually, you lump yourselves together. Which is why you can't answer my question on what you disagree on or name two liberal politicians who actually materially disagree on any issues. Liberalism is a collectivist ideology.

As you noted in this post, read the nesting, I do not agree with anarchists. I even gave you a link to a thread I started detailing how I'm not an anarchist. I also don't agree with Republicans on military or social issues, only fiscal issues. And I'm not like them on fiscal issues because I mean it and they don't.

 

[orogenicman]

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

Only for those few who still accept the concept that a living breathing human being is property to be bought and sold. The rest of us have risen above that outrageous notion.

Your body is your property. Nothing could be more obvious. That means you have the right to make all decisions of it's use. If your body doesn't belong to you, then who does it belong to? You keep avoiding answering that question.

Human beings are NOT property, bubba. And since that is the case, your question is meaningless. End of story.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

That in your world your body belongs to government neither means that's right or we need to accept it

Since that is not what I said, non-sequitur.

So if your body does not belong to you, who do you think it belongs to?

The problem is that equating human being with the term property is ridiculous and fraught with all sorts of negative connotations and dangerous concepts, such as slavery. A living, breathing human being is NOT property.

Why is that a problem? My body, my stuff, keep your hands off it. What's particularly twisted is you are assigning less value to my ownership of my body than my stuff. You're saying government has to OK my use of my own body. That's sick.

What is particularlyy twisted is you putting words in my mouth. Don't do it. You aren't good at it.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

That neither know what the definition of dogma is – where dogma is defined as that which must be believed, without question.

Clearly this well describes most conservatives and libertarians who adhere blindly to their respective, and errant, dogmas.

Yeah, right. Liberals don't have "dogma." Everything they believe is "rational." Take, for instance, their constant admonishments that "diversity" is something desirable. Never has any liberal explained what the advantage is.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

Only for those few who still accept the concept that a living breathing human being is property to be bought and sold. The rest of us have risen above that outrageous notion.

Your body is your property. Nothing could be more obvious. That means you have the right to make all decisions of it's use. If your body doesn't belong to you, then who does it belong to? You keep avoiding answering that question.

Human beings are NOT property, bubba. And since that is the case, your question is meaningless. End of story.

I said your body is your property. I didn't say humans were property. The former is obviously true.

 

[bripat9643]

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

You'll find the answers to all your questions here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

You'll discover that people have thought out theses issues quite thoroughly.

OMG, Kevin rails against my use of the term 'utopia', then turd brain provides an article about how to create a 'garden of Eden'.

It's not the Garden if Eden, asshole, but it's better than the fascist state we all suffer under now.

You claimed no one ever thought out how a society without government would work. I just showed you where someone did.

And just how could this possibly work in a global marketplace ASSHOLE? You are a pin head dreamer who has a very tiny dogma infested brain. The only reason your brain rot doesn't kill you is because your brain is such an insignificant percentage of your body.

What makes you think such a society couldn't sell it's wares in the global marketplace? I fail to see any obstacles.

 

[bripat9643]

WHO do you submit the 'lawsuit' TO in Kevin's NO GOVERNMENT anarco utopia?

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

So if someone robs you and you want your stuff back, why are they going to agree to a mediator? Why would Madoff agree to a mediator? Why would internet scammers agree to a mediator?

Sure, in the general store of the town you live in they might agree to that as they know their other customers are looking at them and they don't want to lose them. But there are a lot of bad guys out there, they aren't going to agree to mediation. That is a legitimate role of government, mediating results.

Then the next problem you have is even if you win, suppose they don't pay? I operate my business with integrity, but I have hundreds of vendors all over the country. Most of them have integrity too. Some don't. Sure, I can not do business with anyone I don't know, but without any repercussions to fraud, I would have to do that and my business would be far smaller if it survived at all.

I like Bob Murphy's answer from his book Chaos Theory. Essentially, if somebody robs you, but then doesn't agree to arbitration over the matter to decide who has the property right in the object stolen, then essentially we have a case where the rest of society will shun that individual. If you know that somebody is accused of theft, and that they refused arbitration, would you be willing to do business with them? Of course not. Their best option in that case is to seek arbitration. Now, naturally each party would seek a private court that they think would favor their argument, so it would naturally balance itself out to a more moderate court. This also ties into Murphy's argument for "prisons" for serial criminals. He doesn't believe that the prison system as it exists today would work without government force, so he puts forth the idea that there would be facilities, prisons for lack of a better term I suppose, where the worst offenders could go and pay, or provide their labor to the facility, to live in an attempt to rehabilitate themselves on the basis that they've destroyed their reputations in the real world and nobody will associate with them at all. They would also work for the facility so that the facility could then start paying off their debts to their victims on their behalf.

What a ridiculous answer. So why doesn't it work now? Why do vendors try to screw me, then stay in business? You still think we live in towns of hundreds of people where everyone knows everyone. Actually, we live in a country of 350 million and a world of billions. You're still living in the old west.

I actually agree with you.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a great 'theory'. But it can only work under ideal conditions. And if those conditions don't exist, laissez-faire fails miserably.

Critical to laissez-faire is that every 'actor' in the economy has to have an equal 'stake'

Wrong, that isn't the slightest bit "critical."

Living Enterprises with Living Owners

. An ideology of market fundamentalism has embedded a belief in the public culture that the sole purpose and responsibility of a business enterprise is to maximize financial returns to its owners. This belief, combined with a system of absentee ownership and instantaneous trading of corporate shares, encourages short-term over long-term thinking and strips corporate decision making of concern for social and environmental consequences.

ROFL! The planning horizon for the United States Congress is two years. Politicians don't give a crap what happens when they don't get reelected, so their decision making is based entirely on what it takes to get past the next election.

SOLUTION: Pursue local economic development programs that build diversified, self-reliant, energy efficient, democratically self-organizing local economies comprised of locally owned living enterprises devoted to serving local needs.

That's a euphemism meaning "crony capitalism. All businesses server social needs. THey wouldn't exist if they didn't. The idea that government can do a better job has been debunked by the empirical evidence 10,000 times.

Local Living Economies

. Fragmented local economies dependent on global corporations for jobs and basic goods and services leave people and nature captive to the financial interests of distant institutions that have no concern for their well-being and no accountability to their interests.

Mumbo Jumbo. Capitalism has demonstrated for the last 200 years its ability to produce a far higher standard of living than government control of productive enterprises.

SOLUTION: Recognize that the primary purpose of any enterprise is to serve the needs of a living community. Favor living enterprises with living, locally rooted owners who have a direct stake in the social and environmental consequences of the firm’s management decisions—people who are looking not for maximum financial return, but for a living return that includes a healthy community and a healthy natural environment. This means favoring cooperative, worker- and community-owned enterprises and discouraging the speculative public trading of corporate shares.

more

Translation: adopt crony capitalism or fascism.

 

[bripat9643]

Both ends of the spectrum -- liberals & conservatives -- are forcing their religious dogma on the rest of us daily.

And whether it's God or government, the dogmas are based on their collectivist, authoritarian, submissive utopia.

Each side is a warped reflection of the other, and they'll never admit it, because they refuse to believe that they are what they hate.

How are conservatives "forcing their religious dogma on the rest of us?"

 

[kaz]

What is particularlyy twisted is you putting words in my mouth. Don't do it. You aren't good at it.

You aren't good at running away from your words. Read what you wrote that I responded to. It's very clear.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

Only for those few who still accept the concept that a living breathing human being is property to be bought and sold. The rest of us have risen above that outrageous notion.

Your body is your property. Nothing could be more obvious. That means you have the right to make all decisions of it's use. If your body doesn't belong to you, then who does it belong to? You keep avoiding answering that question.

Human beings are NOT property, bubba. And since that is the case, your question is meaningless. End of story.

I said your body is your property. I didn't say humans were property. The former is obviously true.

How can you be human if you don't have a body? A human being is the whole package,. including the body. Look, it is very simple:

human being DNE property.

 

[Bfgrn]

The courts, or a mediator, obviously.

So if someone robs you and you want your stuff back, why are they going to agree to a mediator? Why would Madoff agree to a mediator? Why would internet scammers agree to a mediator?

Sure, in the general store of the town you live in they might agree to that as they know their other customers are looking at them and they don't want to lose them. But there are a lot of bad guys out there, they aren't going to agree to mediation. That is a legitimate role of government, mediating results.

Then the next problem you have is even if you win, suppose they don't pay? I operate my business with integrity, but I have hundreds of vendors all over the country. Most of them have integrity too. Some don't. Sure, I can not do business with anyone I don't know, but without any repercussions to fraud, I would have to do that and my business would be far smaller if it survived at all.

I like Bob Murphy's answer from his book Chaos Theory. Essentially, if somebody robs you, but then doesn't agree to arbitration over the matter to decide who has the property right in the object stolen, then essentially we have a case where the rest of society will shun that individual. If you know that somebody is accused of theft, and that they refused arbitration, would you be willing to do business with them? Of course not. Their best option in that case is to seek arbitration. Now, naturally each party would seek a private court that they think would favor their argument, so it would naturally balance itself out to a more moderate court. This also ties into Murphy's argument for "prisons" for serial criminals. He doesn't believe that the prison system as it exists today would work without government force, so he puts forth the idea that there would be facilities, prisons for lack of a better term I suppose, where the worst offenders could go and pay, or provide their labor to the facility, to live in an attempt to rehabilitate themselves on the basis that they've destroyed their reputations in the real world and nobody will associate with them at all. They would also work for the facility so that the facility could then start paying off their debts to their victims on their behalf.

What a ridiculous answer. So why doesn't it work now? Why do vendors try to screw me, then stay in business? You still think we live in towns of hundreds of people where everyone knows everyone. Actually, we live in a country of 350 million and a world of billions. You're still living in the old west.

I actually agree with you.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a great 'theory'. But it can only work under ideal conditions. And if those conditions don't exist, laissez-faire fails miserably.

Critical to laissez-faire is that every 'actor' in the economy has to have an equal 'stake'

Wrong, that isn't the slightest bit "critical."

Living Enterprises with Living Owners

. An ideology of market fundamentalism has embedded a belief in the public culture that the sole purpose and responsibility of a business enterprise is to maximize financial returns to its owners. This belief, combined with a system of absentee ownership and instantaneous trading of corporate shares, encourages short-term over long-term thinking and strips corporate decision making of concern for social and environmental consequences.

ROFL! The planning horizon for the United States Congress is two years. Politicians don't give a crap what happens when they don't get reelected, so their decision making is based entirely on what it takes to get past the next election.

SOLUTION: Pursue local economic development programs that build diversified, self-reliant, energy efficient, democratically self-organizing local economies comprised of locally owned living enterprises devoted to serving local needs.

That's a euphemism meaning "crony capitalism. All businesses server social needs. THey wouldn't exist if they didn't. The idea that government can do a better job has been debunked by the empirical evidence 10,000 times.

Local Living Economies

. Fragmented local economies dependent on global corporations for jobs and basic goods and services leave people and nature captive to the financial interests of distant institutions that have no concern for their well-being and no accountability to their interests.

Mumbo Jumbo. Capitalism has demonstrated for the last 200 years its ability to produce a far higher standard of living than government control of productive enterprises.

SOLUTION: Recognize that the primary purpose of any enterprise is to serve the needs of a living community. Favor living enterprises with living, locally rooted owners who have a direct stake in the social and environmental consequences of the firm’s management decisions—people who are looking not for maximum financial return, but for a living return that includes a healthy community and a healthy natural environment. This means favoring cooperative, worker- and community-owned enterprises and discouraging the speculative public trading of corporate shares.

more

Translation: adopt crony capitalism or fascism.

Translation, adult concepts are way beyond you...

 

[bripat9643]

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

Only for those few who still accept the concept that a living breathing human being is property to be bought and sold. The rest of us have risen above that outrageous notion.

Your body is your property. Nothing could be more obvious. That means you have the right to make all decisions of it's use. If your body doesn't belong to you, then who does it belong to? You keep avoiding answering that question.

Human beings are NOT property, bubba. And since that is the case, your question is meaningless. End of story.

I said your body is your property. I didn't say humans were property. The former is obviously true.

How can you be human if you don't have a body? A human being is the whole package,. including the body. Look, it is very simple:

human being DNE property.

That doesn't mean you don't have control over your body. If you get a tattoo, you've modified your body. You don't get to modify things you don't own. Plastic surgery? Not if you don't own your body. You couldn't even cut your hair or do your nails if you didn't have ownership of your body.

They claim that you don't own your body couldn't be more idiotic.