Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Republican Party: An Enemy of Private Capital

Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

19 Jan 2010, 11:06 pm

Sand wrote:
Since I have seen opinions on this site indicating a strong belief in the inferiority of various races your modest proposal was a bit too modest. Swift at least proposed eating babies which is nicely beyond the acceptability of almost everybody.

You're not from the United States, correct? To most Americans, this would be obvious satire because the Republican Party is traditionally the party of capital, of big business, and all Americans learn to idolize Abraham Lincoln since preschool, and he was of course the first Republican president (Republicans even call their conventions "Lincoln Days" as Democrats call theirs "Jefferson-Jackson Days"). Since under the laws of the time, slaves were property and any attempt to regulate private property is considered "socialism" by the right, the satire was straightforward.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Jan 2010, 12:03 am

NeantHumain wrote:
Sand wrote:
Since I have seen opinions on this site indicating a strong belief in the inferiority of various races your modest proposal was a bit too modest. Swift at least proposed eating babies which is nicely beyond the acceptability of almost everybody.

You're not from the United States, correct? To most Americans, this would be obvious satire because the Republican Party is traditionally the party of capital, of big business, and all Americans learn to idolize Abraham Lincoln since preschool, and he was of course the first Republican president (Republicans even call their conventions "Lincoln Days" as Democrats call theirs "Jefferson-Jackson Days"). Since under the laws of the time, slaves were property and any attempt to regulate private property is considered "socialism" by the right, the satire was straightforward.


I was a born and raised New Yorker until my government refused to help me with a medical disaster with my young son (also born in the USA) and I came to live in Finland, my wife's country, which gave me the help I desperately needed. People on this site have repeatedly indicated that dark skinned races are inferior and ownership of inferiors is not out of their minds in that context. Some human venality seems to be acceptable to some people here. I find it intolerable. Considering the despicable treatment of agricultural workers in the USA and my experience in participating in the 1960's protesting the mistreatment of black people in the American south and elsewhere in the country I doubt human slavery is still out of the question in the country.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Jan 2010, 8:44 am

Sand wrote:

I was a born and raised New Yorker until my government refused to help me with a medical disaster with my young son (also born in the USA) and I came to live in Finland, my wife's country, which gave me the help I desperately needed. People on this site have repeatedly indicated that dark skinned races are inferior and ownership of inferiors is not out of their minds in that context. Some human venality seems to be acceptable to some people here. I find it intolerable. Considering the despicable treatment of agricultural workers in the USA and my experience in participating in the 1960's protesting the mistreatment of black people in the American south and elsewhere in the country I doubt human slavery is still out of the question in the country.


American citizens are slaves of the government from January 1 to about May 15. Chattel slavery outright is prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is to our everlasting disgrace that we needed a Constitutional Amendment to do away with chattel slavery.

ruveyn



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

20 Jan 2010, 8:35 pm

Sand wrote:
I was a born and raised New Yorker until my government refused to help me with a medical disaster with my young son (also born in the USA) and I came to live in Finland, my wife's country, which gave me the help I desperately needed. People on this site have repeatedly indicated that dark skinned races are inferior and ownership of inferiors is not out of their minds in that context. Some human venality seems to be acceptable to some people here. I find it intolerable. Considering the despicable treatment of agricultural workers in the USA and my experience in participating in the 1960's protesting the mistreatment of black people in the American south and elsewhere in the country I doubt human slavery is still out of the question in the country.

Okay, I was mistaken; I had thought you were Finnish by birth. Anyway I don't live in the rural South, and I certainly wasn't around during the civil-rights movement, but in my milieu, considering a loss of slavery as a lamentable loss of private capital would be considered absurd.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Jan 2010, 8:52 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Sand wrote:
I was a born and raised New Yorker until my government refused to help me with a medical disaster with my young son (also born in the USA) and I came to live in Finland, my wife's country, which gave me the help I desperately needed. People on this site have repeatedly indicated that dark skinned races are inferior and ownership of inferiors is not out of their minds in that context. Some human venality seems to be acceptable to some people here. I find it intolerable. Considering the despicable treatment of agricultural workers in the USA and my experience in participating in the 1960's protesting the mistreatment of black people in the American south and elsewhere in the country I doubt human slavery is still out of the question in the country.

Okay, I was mistaken; I had thought you were Finnish by birth. Anyway I don't live in the rural South, and I certainly wasn't around during the civil-rights movement, but in my milieu, considering a loss of slavery as a lamentable loss of private capital would be considered absurd.


I appreciate your rather dark sense of humor but there are still severe problems with black people in prisons and poverty in the USA. It doesn't take slavery to screw their lives up but I wouldn't be surprised at a comeback considering the current social and political atmosphere. It probably would be called something else.



ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

20 Jan 2010, 9:37 pm

Tollorin wrote:
We must not confound individual freedom and the corporate interests. The "private" interests of a corporation are not the same as the private interests of a individual. I see nothing wrong to declaring some corporate activities illegal. Right now corporation can d things forbiden to individuals. In fact, right now as the market become more free, the individuals rights lose points.
Some corporates interests had been buddy-buddy with the Nazis. They even tried to install a fascist government in USA! http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/11/08/18628134.php


What do you mean by the market becoming more "free"?



ruennsheng
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,523
Location: Singapore

21 Jan 2010, 1:01 am

Does your definition free market mean 'no governmental intervention'?


_________________
Ex amicitia vita


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 Jan 2010, 1:01 pm

ruennsheng wrote:
Does your definition free market mean 'no governmental intervention'?


As long as governments are expected to intervene in matters of fraud and breach of contract there will never be a free market with no government intervention. During the high Middle Ages when government did not intervene in the doing of merchants (except to collect taxes, of course) each town set up commercial regulatory board to oversee weights and measures (and to run people who deployed false weights out of town) and to resolve disputes between buyers and sellers. Even this private agency was an intervention, therefore a constraint on purely free markets.

In a word there has never existed a purely free market and if we expect some kind of justice to prevail in the market place there never will be.

ruveyn



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

21 Jan 2010, 5:11 pm

Orwell wrote:
Sand wrote:
To propose that humans should be accepted as private property is one of the most offensive statements I have seen on this site.

Now we know you're definitely Aspie, Sand, since you don't get sarcasm.

Having read some of the threads on here, I've come to expect anything, no matter how far-fetched. It falls under Poe's Law.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


WorldsEdge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 458
Location: Massachusetts

21 Jan 2010, 7:08 pm

Tollorin wrote:
We must not confound individual freedom and the corporate interests. The "private" interests of a corporation are not the same as the private interests of a individual. I see nothing wrong to declaring some corporate activities illegal. Right now corporation can d things forbiden to individuals.


Normally I probably not agree with a statement like this, but the extremely bizarre decision the Supreme court made on

Citizens United vs. FEC (link)

has kind of left me scratching my head. I'm still trying to figure out if this means McCain-Feingold applies to individuals and not corporations, or if the law itsefl has been effectively gutted for everyone. The US gov't. brought part of this whole business on themselves, the lead attorney made some very weird statements back in August about the government having virtually unlimited power to ban just about any communication it wanted, stuff like that.


Quote:
In fact, right now as the market become more free, the individuals rights lose points.


Eh? Can you cite a f'rinstance?


Quote:
Some corporates interests had been buddy-buddy with the Nazis. They even tried to install a fascist government in USA! http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/11/08/18628134.php


Actually, FDR was quite a fan of Mussolini for a while, and vice-versa. And that Smedley Butler business just doesn't add up from where I'm sitting. Though I suppose you either believe the committee investigating this supposed coup found nothing or covered the whole thing up, not really sure how you can know for certain at this late date.


_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell


ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

21 Jan 2010, 9:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ruennsheng wrote:
Does your definition free market mean 'no governmental intervention'?


As long as governments are expected to intervene in matters of fraud and breach of contract there will never be a free market with no government intervention. During the high Middle Ages when government did not intervene in the doing of merchants (except to collect taxes, of course) each town set up commercial regulatory board to oversee weights and measures (and to run people who deployed false weights out of town) and to resolve disputes between buyers and sellers. Even this private agency was an intervention, therefore a constraint on purely free markets.

In a word there has never existed a purely free market and if we expect some kind of justice to prevail in the market place there never will be.

ruveyn



The State has to collect taxes to exist.
That right there is market intrusion, making not such a free market.
If you still think that it is "free market" then present a name for the market that lacks any regulation coming from a central agency.

You talked about how people set their own commercial regulatory boards when the State could not regulate for them.
This is an example of private justice. Where a certain region appoints or contracts a firm or group of people to regulate, evaluate, issue verdicts and enforce laws.
This way, having justice being decentralized, it is easier and more efficient to deal with problems as people of different regions have different values and would like to deal with their problems in a different way.



ruennsheng
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,523
Location: Singapore

21 Jan 2010, 10:11 pm

In this case, I will hope to avoid taxes... by looking at the best opportunities around the world... That is, if I am rich.


_________________
Ex amicitia vita