What does the "far left" want for America?

[Rikurzhen]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Friends don't let friends post to message boards when they're high.

It's not conservatives who are stripping citizens of their human right to free association, it's liberals who are COMPELLING associations onto people who want to reject those associations. Do you understand how pissed off people become when liberals stomp their jackboots on the throats of people? Stripping people of their human rights tends to upset people.

I am old enough to remember when those liberal policies did work in America. From the New Deal through the Great Society we created the most robust middle class in history. To steal from President Kennedy, America was the "city upon a hill"

And what mechanism was used to do this? Labor scarcity. What did liberals do? They opened the immigration floodgates and flooded the labor market with new workers and put massive downward pressure on wages and thus reduced the earnings and future earnings of the working class. Heck of a job there, Brownie.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began.

Exactly. It was conservatives who pushed for women entering the workforce, it was conservatives who led the rebellions of the 1960s, it was conservatives who injected the cancer of multiculturalism into society, it was conservatives who pushed for racial quotas in all sectors of society, etc.

 

[Bfgrn]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Friends don't let friends post to message boards when they're high.

It's not conservatives who are stripping citizens of their human right to free association, it's liberals who are COMPELLING associations onto people who want to reject those associations. Do you understand how pissed off people become when liberals stomp their jackboots on the throats of people? Stripping people of their human rights tends to upset people.

I am old enough to remember when those liberal policies did work in America. From the New Deal through the Great Society we created the most robust middle class in history. To steal from President Kennedy, America was the "city upon a hill"

And what mechanism was used to do this? Labor scarcity. What did liberals do? They opened the immigration floodgates and flooded the labor market with new workers and put massive downward pressure on wages and thus reduced the earnings and future earnings of the working class. Heck of a job there, Brownie.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began.

Exactly. It was conservatives who pushed for women entering the workforce, it was conservatives who led the rebellions of the 1960s, it was conservatives who injected the cancer of multiculturalism into society, it was conservatives who pushed for racial quotas in all sectors of society, etc.

The history of conservatism can be boiled down to one simple theory. Conservatives have ALWAYS tried to build some form of an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Conservatives have NEVER pushed for ANY minority's right; be it women, blacks or any other group.

The "immigration floodgates" were opened by 'capitalists' who seek cheap labor.

 

[Boss]

"Rent-seekers" is nothing more than socialist hyperbole to describe capitalists.

Nothing wrong with learning new things. You're wrong. The concept of economic rent goes back to Adam Smith and long predates the devilry of Karl Marx:

Rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use) by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth. Rent-seeking implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity. The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The lord has made no improvements to the river and is helping nobody in any way, directly or indirectly, except himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free.​

Nevertheless, the concept is a prevailing element in the Marxist ideology. It doesn't matter that someone came up with it before Marx. Now, I am not certain, but I don't think we actually have "feudal lords" in America. I've been up and down all kinds of rivers across America and I've never encountered a chain or someone seeking to charge me for passage. I don't think this is as big of a problem as you make it out to be.

Now there are all kinds of capitalists. For the past 10 years, in light of the 'no jobs' economy we're in, I have made my living by finding good deals on various things and reselling them at a profit. I'm not making any contribution to the productivity, just capitalizing on a situation... am I a "rent seeker?" I bought some land in Pennsylvania at a very low price because the seller was motivated to sell it quickly... I then sold the timber off the land and recouped most of my investment, still retaining the land itself. Is that wrong? I just bought 10 wedding gowns... I have no need for a wedding gown myself, but I turned around the next day and sold one of the gowns for basically what I paid for the lot... was that wrong? Am I being a "rent seeker?" I think I am being a capitalist, doing what I can to survive this economy.

Wages, in a free market system, are determined (or supposed to be) by supply and demand. A capitalist with a job available is no different than any other capitalist with a commodity available to a consumer, the dynamic is simply reversed and the capitalist is going to give the job to the person best qualified to do the job at the lowest rate. The job seeker is like any other consumer, their dynamic is also reversed, they seek the highest rate of pay for their work. Whatever is ultimately negotiated is (should be) between the two parties and government should not interfere. ALL capitalists are in business as capitalists to make profits. I have never known of a capitalist who didn't care whether he made profit. That said, the Tea Party also opposes amnesty and demands we secure our borders.

I bolded your opening statement because I want to address it separately. That bolded statement describes the rules of the game and the remainder of your statement describes what happens DURING the game.

It is an unfair game when one side gets to load the dice to their favor before you begin the game. That's what corporate America does with its support for open borders and very generous immigration quotas. They flood the labor market with more potential employees, thus depressing the price of labor and commensurately increasing their returns to capital. Once the labor market is flooded with surplus labor, then the game begins and the mechanics of the marketplace kick in.

But "corporate America" is not some monolithic universal entity that always behaves the same in any situation. It's unfair to stereotype ALL corporations this way. Again... I do not support amnesty for illegal aliens or a more relaxed immigration policy, I am fighting vociferously against that. I do not support politicians who advocate this, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. I don't support corporate lobbies and power brokers in DC, which is basically one of the main reasons I support a smaller less powerful federal government.

When a casino loads the dice, or when a card sharp marks the deck, you're not in fair game. Now it becomes kind of crazy for you to be defending the rules of the game as being fair, when unfair actions were taken before the game began, the dice were substituted and the cards were marked.

I am as opposed as anyone to cheating and dishonesty. To me, this falls in the category of illegal corruption, and if you know of a way to implement a law that will render illegal corruption obsolete, I am all ears. The fact is, outside the Utopian Universe, there are people who will cheat and exploit the system through corruption and illegal activity, and we need a strong system of adjudication to deal with that. I'm all for enforcing the laws to the fullest extent.

Wait a minute... Capital gains are monetary gains made by investors using capital. The more you tax that, the less of it you get. If you want less capital to be invested by capitalist investors, raise the capital gains tax rate. I personally want to encourage MORE investment of capital because it has proven to create more jobs and greater tax revenues. We don't tax capital gains like incomes because the money has already been taxed as income when it was earned. There is always a monetary risk involved with capitalist investment, it's not like a typical income situation where you are simply paid an income for work you provide, you can lose every penny of your investment. To incentivize these type of investments, we have a lower capital gains tax rate.

Your telling me things I already know, but that's OK because you don't know me well yet. I have no problem with what you wrote. Now notice the two bolded parts of your statement. That capital gains tax rationale applies to investors. So why are the fund managers getting the benefit? They're not investing, they're managing, in other words they earn their money by supplying their expertise, just like a plumber supplies an expertise. When a fund makes $1 billion, the managers get 20% of that profit. They EARNED that money via labor, not through the investment of capital like their investor did.

They've bent the rules and are ripping everyone off by not paying income tax on their EARNINGS but are pretending that what they've earned is an INVESTMENT GAIN.

Well I don't believe investment brokers are not subject to US tax codes. Capital gains rates are designed to encourage risk-taking investment of capital, and I am okay with that. We also have various measures with respect to what many call "loopholes" in our tax code, but these are all measures that were debated and passed into law by our representatives. Generally speaking, there was some underlying reason behind why they were implemented. They may address a problem that we were having at the time, they may be to encourage some activity we needed more of... they all have some purpose or they wouldn't exist. I'm fine with looking at any of these individual measures and discussing if we need to remove them, but we need to do this in a deliberative manner and consider all the ramifications, as opposed to knee-jerk reactionary emotiveness.

If you are worried about the influence of power in DC, why not reduce the amount of power DC has? Seems like the best and most sensible way to deal with that particular problem.

That's a complicated topic, but let me say that the lower hanging fruit here is to identify and remedy the actions of those who are working against the vision you have. When people "cheat" in order to enrich themselves, I'm in no mood to defend them nor the rules that they take advantage of nor am I willing to defend them as a class of people.

Again... I have no tolerance for cheaters and rule breakers. If it's illegal, I want them punished. But you don't fix illegal activity by implementing more legislation. You will never legislate corruption out of existence. What is currently working against the vision I have is more and more government regulation and burden on free market capitalism and entrepreneurship. The average Joe can't go out there and open up shop anymore, there are dozens and dozens of governmental hoops they must jump through and obstacles to navigate once they do.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The history of conservatism can be boiled down to one simple theory. Conservatives have ALWAYS tried to build some form of an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

So what are you smoking? That's some trip you're on.

Conservatives have NEVER pushed for ANY minority's right; be it women, blacks or any other group.

Well, you did have a sober moment here. You're absolutely right. Conservatives reject the notion of group rights, they fight for human rights. Women's rights are bunk. Minority rights are bunk. Human rights are the only ball game. The problem with these group rights concepts you advance is that they pit groups against each other and they pits groups against individuals. That becomes tyranny under a nice facade.

The "immigration floodgates" were opened by 'capitalists' who seek cheap labor.

Your moment of lucidity has passed. Here's Ted Kennedy arguing in 1965 to open the immigration floodgates and making promises to the critics:

“Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.”​

All those Mexicans coming into the US are rocket scientists.

 

[Bfgrn]

The history of conservatism can be boiled down to one simple theory. Conservatives have ALWAYS tried to build some form of an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

So what are you smoking? That's some trip you're on.

Conservatives have NEVER pushed for ANY minority's right; be it women, blacks or any other group.

Well, you did have a sober moment here. You're absolutely right. Conservatives reject the notion of group rights, they fight for human rights. Women's rights are bunk. Minority rights are bunk. Human rights are the only ball game. The problem with these group rights concepts you advance is that they pit groups against each other and they pits groups against individuals. That becomes tyranny under a nice facade.

The "immigration floodgates" were opened by 'capitalists' who seek cheap labor.

Your moment of lucidity has passed. Here's Ted Kennedy arguing in 1965 to open the immigration floodgates and making promises to the critics:

“Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.”​

All those Mexicans coming into the US are rocket scientists.

Social Darwinism is NOT human rights, it is the law of the jungle.

Conservatives have NEVER fought for human rights. They have fought for a hierarchy to rule over the masses. As far as women go, conservatives have fought to deem a woman's uterus property of the state. Their goal is to keep women subservient to men.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 has NOTHING to do with ILLEGAL immigration. ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.

Very little has changed from 1948 when Harry S. Truman had you right wing regressives pegged.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nevertheless, the concept is a prevailing element in the Marxist ideology. It doesn't matter that someone came up with it before Marx. Now, I am not certain, but I don't think we actually have "feudal lords" in America. I've been up and down all kinds of rivers across America and I've never encountered a chain or someone seeking to charge me for passage. I don't think this is as big of a problem as you make it out to be.

No offense intended, but you really don't know what you're talking about, especially if you're using the river example as your rebuttal. The example illustrates the point, it doesn't describe the totality of the activity.

When a nurse can perform a procedure but she's prohibited by law and a doctor must be called, then that physician is rent-seeking. The AMA has used the legal system to prevent you from receiving a medical service from a nurse. The physician charges you MORE than the nurse and his expertise isn't applied in the transaction, so he gains free money and provides no added value over the nurse.

When you are prohibited from opening a barbershop because you don't have a barber college license, then barbers have used the legal system to cut off competition. Barbers are rentseeking.

When a draftsman is prohibited by law from designing a 4 story apartment building because only architects are permitted by law to design multistory residential units, then architects have used the legal system to enrich themselves at the expense of draftsman and clients.

We're actually seeing this battle play out prominently with the rise of Uber, the ride sharing service. Taxi companies have used the legal system to shut out competitors and thus drive up fares. They're screaming bloody murder that non-licensed people are offering taxi services. The difference in price between what Uber charges and what a Yellow Cab charges is "rent" - there is no value provided which justifies that additional charge.

And so on.

The stakes get much larger the higher up we go.

The entertainment industry keeps pushing efforts to extend copyright terms and then extend them again and again, to the point where we're approaching unlimited terms. Copyright was initially only for 16 years plus a renewal of 16 years. The industry enriches itself every time they manage to extend the term of copyright. They're not producing any value with the extension, they're just sucking wealth from the economy and not returning anything of value.

Now there are all kinds of capitalists. For the past 10 years, in light of the 'no jobs' economy we're in, I have made my living by finding good deals on various things and reselling them at a profit. I'm not making any contribution to the productivity, just capitalizing on a situation... am I a "rent seeker?"

That's not rent-seeking, that's arbitrage, you're buying low in one market and selling high in another market. You provide value by acting as an intermediary. See, the fact that you don't know what rent-seeking is should open your eyes to the fact that you shouldn't be throwing out charges of Marxism. You're not using the law to grant yourself an advantage, am I right?

But "corporate America" is not some monolithic universal entity that always behaves the same in any situation. It's unfair to stereotype ALL corporations this way.

I'm not doing that. You're not talking to some brain-dead lefty here. The fact that I'm not a lefty doesn't mean I have to be a blind cheerleader for those who exploit the system to their advantage and my disadvantage. When people use their influence to rewrite the laws so that the laws benefit them and harm me, and harm society, then they don't get the benefit of being free-riders on the value provided by Capitalists. Buying influence is not part of the rules of the Capitalist Game. When someone buys influence they're in a sense loading the dice and marking the cards. Screw that, they need to be taken down.

I am as opposed as anyone to cheating and dishonesty. To me, this falls in the category of illegal corruption, and if you know of a way to implement a law that will render illegal corruption obsolete, I am all ears. The fact is, outside the Utopian Universe, there are people who will cheat and exploit the system through corruption and illegal activity, and we need a strong system of adjudication to deal with that. I'm all for enforcing the laws to the fullest extent.

Rent-seeking is NOT illegal. That's the whole point. When the AMA influences government to prevent a nurse from treating your cut finger (for example) and requires a physician to do what a nurse is capable of doing, then this is entirely legal. When Disney sues you for copyright infringement for use of a character that Walt Disney drew in 1932 then Disney has proper legal rights to sue you because the copyright on Mickey Mouse is still in effect because Disney helped extend copyrights just before Mickey Mouse would have entered the public domain allowing your to create derivative works without the permission of Disney.

Well I don't believe investment brokers are not subject to US tax codes. Capital gains rates are designed to encourage risk-taking investment of capital, and I am okay with that. We also have various measures with respect to what many call "loopholes" in our tax code, but these are all measures that were debated and passed into law by our representatives.

[MENTION=37315]jasonnfree[/MENTION] gets it. I didn't use the term "carried interest" because not a lot of people understand what it means, but he's talking about the same thing I've explained above. You giving me a civics 101 lesson is not required, trust me. I appreciate it, but I know this stuff already.

Again... I have no tolerance for cheaters and rule breakers. If it's illegal, I want them punished.

There's nothing illegal about carried interest. Now what are you going to do? You're defending this with your broad defense of capitalism. Carried interest is the result of rent-seeking activity and it IS rent-seeking, it exists only because of legislation. The US Treasury forgoes revenue it would have raised from treating that income as earned income instead of capital gains and that shifts the burden onto everyone else. These hedge fund guys get to save money on taxes and we all have to pay marginally more to make up for the forgone revenue. All legal. All economically inefficient as hell.

You'll notice that my entire argument is focused on economic efficiency and not on economic distribution and "fairness" of outcomes.

 

[Boss]

Rikurzhen: When a nurse can perform a procedure but she's prohibited by law and a doctor must be called, then that physician is rent-seeking. The AMA has used the legal system to prevent you from receiving a medical service from a nurse. The physician charges you MORE than the nurse and his expertise isn't applied in the transaction, so he gains free money and provides no added value over the nurse.

When you are prohibited from opening a barbershop because you don't have a barber college license, then barbers have used the legal system to cut off competition. Barbers are rentseeking.

When a draftsman is prohibited by law from designing a 4 story apartment building because only architects are permitted by law to design multistory residential units, then architects have used the legal system to enrich themselves at the expense of draftsman and clients.

We're actually seeing this battle play out prominently with the rise of Uber, the ride sharing service. Taxi companies have used the legal system to shut out competitors and thus drive up fares. They're screaming bloody murder that non-licensed people are offering taxi services. The difference in price between what Uber charges and what a Yellow Cab charges is "rent" - there is no value provided which justifies that additional charge.

And so on.

The stakes get much larger the higher up we go.

The entertainment industry keeps pushing efforts to extend copyright terms and then extend them again and again, to the point where we're approaching unlimited terms. Copyright was initially only for 16 years plus a renewal of 16 years. The industry enriches itself every time they manage to extend the term of copyright. They're not producing any value with the extension, they're just sucking wealth from the economy and not returning anything of value.

When people use their influence to rewrite the laws so that the laws benefit them and harm me, and harm society, then they don't get the benefit of being free-riders on the value provided by Capitalists. Buying influence is not part of the rules of the Capitalist Game. When someone buys influence they're in a sense loading the dice and marking the cards. Screw that, they need to be taken down.

Rent-seeking is NOT illegal. That's the whole point. When the AMA influences government to prevent a nurse from treating your cut finger (for example) and requires a physician to do what a nurse is capable of doing, then this is entirely legal. When Disney sues you for copyright infringement for use of a character that Walt Disney drew in 1932 then Disney has proper legal rights to sue you because the copyright on Mickey Mouse is still in effect because Disney helped extend copyrights just before Mickey Mouse would have entered the public domain allowing your to create derivative works without the permission of Disney.

The "problem" you are describing here is entrenched in how American politics work on both the left AND right. We vote for and elect politicians based on what they promise to use the powers of government to do for us. Groups fund campaigns based on what politicians promise to do for them. In DC, the politicians all look out for each other, they work backroom deals to vote for this or that in return for favors, of give each other political cover if something they're trying to pass is unpopular. There isn't a way to correct this, it's how politics has worked since Thomas Jefferson. As long as WE see politicians as a means to obtain the things we want, to use the power of government to advantage us at the expense of someone else, this will continue to be how politics in America operate.

One way to mitigate this effect is to reel federal government power back in and return more power to states and state legislatures. There may still be the same dynamic, but at the state level, we can better control it and hold our representatives more accountable. They can't pass outrageous stuff and then point to the Senator of another state and pretend they didn't support it.

 

[martybegan]

Do me a favor, please. Name some names. Tell us who wants people to be dependent on the government. Both here and at the "higher levels of government".

Please, demonstrate that what you are saying has even a shred of credibility by using real world examples. Cite someone....anyone......expressing a desire to increase government dependency in exchange for votes.

I submit that your description of what the "far left".......whoever that is....wants is a pile of shit fueled by desperate conservative talking points and is completely without merit.

None of this, is of course, out in the open. But the pattern is pretty easy to spot. In big cities it is the constant stroking of public unions, who's members will support en masse any politician who gives them goodies. In Blue states is the constant increase to the welfare state, either by money increases, or bureaucratic increases (which incidentally creates more people for the first category)

Do you really not see the '"vote for me and my party and you will get this" and "The "Republicans will take away your that" Campaigning democrats do to their traditional voter blocks?

Finally at the federal level we have democrats wanting more and more matters handled at the federal level, removing the states from certain tasks, or bending them to federal will via "take it or leave it" grants.

It is a secret agenda? But....its so obvious that you've got it all figured out.

Stroking of public unions? In what way? Can you be more specific? Please be sure to demonstrate that your example(s) lead to dependency on government. If I'm not mistaken, a prerequisite for union membership is that one have a job. Where is the dependency?

Blue states have increased the "welfare state"? Please demonstrate that and show that dependency on government is the goal of any examples that you provide. Are governors and legislators in blue states all "far left"? Who is and who isn't?

No...I don't see the "vote for my party and you'll get this" promises coming more from one side or the other. Here again, you have hinted that anyone who isn't Republican is far left. I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney told their base that Obama was going to "end Medicare as we know it" about a million times. Did you miss that?

Your last paragraph is just ANOTHER sweeping generalization with no meat. Give some examples. All you are doing is scratching the surface of the discussion. You have supported nothing of what you said.

Public union support by progressives is a means to an end. They give the workers the goodies, the workers vote democratic, and as a bonus any costs get punted down 20-30 years. The problem is we are now 20-30 years later.

Support by progressives of federal level solutions to issues is also an obvious fact. Progressive support at the State level is strongest in the largest cities, and you do see laws there support the progressive cause of perpetual power, but its at the federal level that they really want to gain enough power to never give it up. Increases in the federal bureaucracy creates jobs for progressives, more give outs at the federal level creates the tired "they takes ur stuff" campaigning that progressives love, and more federal laws allow them to bully the states via funding.

Progressives LOVE new laws, they LOVE reducing freedoms for people (unless it involves gay marriage or abortion), and they LOVE doing it at the highest level possible.

By asking for specifics, you are denying the obvious observations.

 

[martybegan]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Friends don't let friends post to message boards when they're high.

It's not conservatives who are stripping citizens of their human right to free association, it's liberals who are COMPELLING associations onto people who want to reject those associations. Do you understand how pissed off people become when liberals stomp their jackboots on the throats of people? Stripping people of their human rights tends to upset people.



And what mechanism was used to do this? Labor scarcity. What did liberals do? They opened the immigration floodgates and flooded the labor market with new workers and put massive downward pressure on wages and thus reduced the earnings and future earnings of the working class. Heck of a job there, Brownie.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began.

Exactly. It was conservatives who pushed for women entering the workforce, it was conservatives who led the rebellions of the 1960s, it was conservatives who injected the cancer of multiculturalism into society, it was conservatives who pushed for racial quotas in all sectors of society, etc.

The history of conservatism can be boiled down to one simple theory. Conservatives have ALWAYS tried to build some form of an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Conservatives have NEVER pushed for ANY minority's right; be it women, blacks or any other group.

The "immigration floodgates" were opened by 'capitalists' who seek cheap labor.

The only aristocracies we see being created are those of people in the government, and people in entertainment. And guess what political philosophy most of those people support?

Leftism forms a ruling class all the time, they are just better at lying to the proles about it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not going to play your game, suffice it to say the greatest threat to capitalism are the capitalists, in my opinion. You may consider that a platitude, history suggests it is a fact. Greed is a deadly sin, but has become a virtue in some sectors of our society.

That said, I have no Utopian Dreams, I don't hate the rich, but I fear the Plutocrats; for they are the capitalists whose greed will lead to civil unrest.

Greed is always going to exist regardless of what type of government or the amount of government you have. Do you believe that government bodies are not greedy? Is every government employee and agency impervious to greed or something? Is there some enlightened way for us to eliminate greed through the legislative process? What about poor people, are they devoid of greed? How about those precious labor unions, are they not capable of greed?

Now it's important to remember, pure greed can't really exist in a vibrant and competitive free market capitalist system. If a capitalist becomes too greedy, there is another capitalist out there who is willing to not be so greedy and he capitalizes. It is the overbearing government apparatus that constantly meddles in free market capitalism, which enables the greed to thrive. People are greedy because they can get away with being greedy. If the government is going to be duplicitous in protecting greed, why not be greedy?

Plutocracy is also going to exist despite any measure you take to mitigate it. Money IS power, always has been and always will be. This is probably the best argument for a smaller more limited government, where there is no 'power' to be bought by the plutocrat. It's also important to note how this 'plutocrat' rhetoric ties in with the failed 19th century Marxist rhetoric espoused by the left. Before there was an America with freedom to compete in a free enterprise, free market capitalist system, the plutocrats were mostly the ruling class elite across Europe. They controlled all the wealth and power, and the people were powerless. Here, we developed a free market of ideas and opportunity, where ANY person can obtain the wealth status they desire. It is a system that has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. If you want to mitigate plutocracy, promote individual wealth and prosperity and discourage more powerful government where plutocrats can influence outcomes.

And I disagree that you're not a Utopian dreamer. Much of what you are saying is absolute Utopianism. You believe it's possible for us to turn more freedom and liberty over to government and government is somehow going to eliminate greed and plutocracy. Miraculously, everyone is going to be paid a better wage, there will be bountiful jobs and economic prosperity, all people will have adequate health care at little or no cost, wealth will be redistributed equally and flowers will shoot out our ass when we fart, while we dance with the unicorns.

Eric Berne developed Transactional Analysis years ago, but it plays well into the type of posts you make. He describes what you do in Games People Play , in at least two of his well known games: "NIGYYSOB" "AIA" are the two prominent examples.

Aside from "Now I Got You, You Son of a Bitch" and Ain't it Awful" you interlace the ubiquitous straw man, red herring and ad hominem, logical fallacies. The tea party is composed mostly of parents and children (in TA parlance), few adults are evident. You I see as characteristic of the "Parent", though the "Child" comes through with your emotional 'adjectives', such as the emoticon you used to punctuate your opinions.

 

[Boss]

Why does it always seem to come down to some fucking book you liberals have read? Is that all you do while sitting around waiting for the disability check, read liberal propaganda books? Just because some idiot writes a book, doesn't mean that it's The Gospel. They are no different than people who post on Internet forums, they've just published their stupidity in the form of a book.

 

[blackhawk]

First does anyone find this thread ironic coming from the party that uses the terms radical right wingers, right wing extremist, Tea Party terrorist on a fairly regular basis? As for what the far left wants in my opinion it wants a country where the government can have as much control as possible without creating an actual police state.

 

[martybegan]

First does anyone find this thread ironic coming from the party that uses the terms radical right wingers, right wing extremist, Tea Party terrorist on a fairly regular basis? As for what the far left wants in my opinion it wants a country where the government can have as much control as possible without creating an actual police state.

I think some of them would be fine with a police state, as long as they control the police.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why does it always seem to come down to some fucking book you liberals have read? Is that all you do while sitting around waiting for the disability check, read liberal propaganda books? Just because some idiot writes a book, doesn't mean that it's The Gospel. They are no different than people who post on Internet forums, they've just published their stupidity in the form of a book.

I don't read pornography, fucking books are for kids or perverts. Maybe you ought to read some nonfiction, you might then have some idea about the real world.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First does anyone find this thread ironic coming from the party that uses the terms radical right wingers, right wing extremist, Tea Party terrorist on a fairly regular basis? As for what the far left wants in my opinion it wants a country where the government can have as much control as possible without creating an actual police state.

I can't recall calling the tea party a terrorist organization (I do believe the NRA is, however). As for my use of "radical" for the right wing, that's true, and a radical is generally an extremist.

Your misuse of the word "ironic" is ironic, since most would agree that the far left includes the set of anarchists, and anarchists are not supportive of a police state.

 

[blackhawk]

First does anyone find this thread ironic coming from the party that uses the terms radical right wingers, right wing extremist, Tea Party terrorist on a fairly regular basis? As for what the far left wants in my opinion it wants a country where the government can have as much control as possible without creating an actual police state.

I can't recall calling the tea party a terrorist organization (I do believe the NRA is, however). As for my use of "radical" for the right wing, that's true, and a radical is generally an extremist.

Your misuse of the word "ironic" is ironic, since most would agree that the far left includes the set of anarchists, and anarchists are not supportive of a police state.

The true irony here is starting a thread to bemoan the language some on the right use to describe the left even as some on the left use the same type of language to describe the right.

 

[bripat9643]

First does anyone find this thread ironic coming from the party that uses the terms radical right wingers, right wing extremist, Tea Party terrorist on a fairly regular basis? As for what the far left wants in my opinion it wants a country where the government can have as much control as possible without creating an actual police state.

I can't recall calling the tea party a terrorist organization (I do believe the NRA is, however). As for my use of "radical" for the right wing, that's true, and a radical is generally an extremist.

Your misuse of the word "ironic" is ironic, since most would agree that the far left includes the set of anarchists, and anarchists are not supportive of a police state.

The NRA is a terrorist organization? And you tried to tell me I was nutz?

Also, the claim that leftwing "anarchists" don't support a police state is a lie. These so-called "anarchists" are only opposed to existing governments. They don't hesitate to set up something even worse to take its place. Every self-style leftwing "anarchist" I ever met was indistinguishable from a Stalinist.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First does anyone find this thread ironic coming from the party that uses the terms radical right wingers, right wing extremist, Tea Party terrorist on a fairly regular basis? As for what the far left wants in my opinion it wants a country where the government can have as much control as possible without creating an actual police state.

I can't recall calling the tea party a terrorist organization (I do believe the NRA is, however). As for my use of "radical" for the right wing, that's true, and a radical is generally an extremist.

Your misuse of the word "ironic" is ironic, since most would agree that the far left includes the set of anarchists, and anarchists are not supportive of a police state.

The true irony here is starting a thread to bemoan the language some on the right use to describe the left even as some on the left use the same type of language to describe the right.

"What does the "far left" want for America?" is a question, one which you and others can't answer. In fact, I proffered a serious and substantive response on how I perceive the far left, something you can't do; thus, you toss out a red herring ( "some on the left use the same type of language to describe the right").

Not only do you try to change the debate, you fail to respond to my assertion that the far left includes the set of anarchists, and anarchists are not known to support a police state, yet you claimed the left wanted a police state.

 

[The Rabbi]

First does anyone find this thread ironic coming from the party that uses the terms radical right wingers, right wing extremist, Tea Party terrorist on a fairly regular basis? As for what the far left wants in my opinion it wants a country where the government can have as much control as possible without creating an actual police state.

I can't recall calling the tea party a terrorist organization (I do believe the NRA is, however). As for my use of "radical" for the right wing, that's true, and a radical is generally an extremist.

Your misuse of the word "ironic" is ironic, since most would agree that the far left includes the set of anarchists, and anarchists are not supportive of a police state.

Only in Commiefornia is personal freedom, lower taxes, lower government spending, and limited government considered "radical."

 

[deltex1]

What does the "far left" want for America?


The same thing Jesus wanted to do to the Dude in the Big Lebowski.