[canadiancapitalist]

Did it? You know that from your long experience in struggling with socialists and anarchists? You know that from some survey of 'leftists' I've never seen before? Honestly, you pull this shit out of your ass.

No sir I do not. Everything I say is well researched and factual. I am not a bullshitter. When I say "used to" I am referring to circa late 1800's early 1900's. Sometime around the 30's this switched, and the left became heavily authoritarian - state socialist loving stalin apologists. The right also used to be heavily anti-authoritarian. This was 'The Old Right'. There are books and stuff on this subject, you should try reading them sometime.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
Governments seeking re-election pursue deficit spending to pass off the problem of today to tomorrow.

Treasury departments with economists from no party pursue deficits in economic hard times and surpluses in economic good times. It's generally accepted policy for applied economists around the world.

It's generally accepted policy by Keynesian economists, who dominate the economic field because their brand of economics has more utility to the affluent political class/big-government-industry.

Unsurprisingly, libertarianism is not only unpopular with normal people but also with policy makers.

And 60% of Americans thought there was a link between Saddam and 911. And at one time the majority of the population thought slavery was a good idea. To appeal to majority opinion is weak. As far as policy makers, it's obvious why they'd support deficit spending: it allows them to defer problems to the future and get re-elected in the present.

Quote:
So people organizing and protesting against what they see as bad policy is "manipulative", while a $1 trillion bailout given to the largest most politically connected banks in America, sold under the banner of protecting the general population, is not.

If people genuinely hated the bailout of banks, then they should have protested when Paulson first put it on the table... as a Bush man.

The first major 'tea party' event was the Ron Paul fundraiser during the Republican primary. He raised a record $6 million that day. It was a protest against big government Republican politics. It was a protest against preemptive wars. That's the event that got the tea party meme really rolling, and it wasn't a 'pro Republican, anti-Democrat' event, it was an anti-big-government event.

Quote:
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was also financed by big banking interests, namely Jacob Schiff, one of the most powerful bankers in the world.

The Russian Revolution wasn't particularly bankrolled at all, although the Bolsheviks obviously had support from a number of key players.

The Russian Revolution was bankrolled by Jacob Schiff. Trotsky got $20 million from him when he visited New York in 1917. That's like giving $2 billion today for a revolution, adjusting for inflation and given the comparatively smaller size of the Russian economy back then.

Similarly, the major parties today are both bankrolled by the biggest banks in the US, who are the ones that are benefiting from the $1 trillion + bailout, the same bailout which you support, and the teapartiers are protesting.

[Maxim Litvinov]

...who dominate the economic field because their brand of economics has more utility to the affluent political class/big-government-industry...

Yes. It's all an evil conspiracy . After all, how else to explain that applied and theoretical economists generally reject libertarianism?

The first major 'tea party' event was the Ron Paul fundraiser

You rather contradict yourself. But I should be forgiven for not knowing that Ron Paul drank tea - no-one else seems to know, including Wikipedia, so we can hardly claim that Ron Paul was instrumental in getting the 'meme rolling' as you do.

The Russian Revolution was bankrolled by Jacob Schiff. Trotsky got $20 million from him when he visited New York in 1917.

That's a rather big claim. Any evidence for it? Many people donated to the Bolsheviks, but (a) $20 million was not decisive in getting people to the streets in the July Days or similar and (b) I can't find on cursory search any reliable record of such a transaction. All Wikipedia notes is that "As a prominent businessman of Jewish origin, Schiff often appeared in various antisemitic conspiracy theories. He was accused, along with other famous Jews of the time, of being one of the key players in a powerful Jewish cabal conspiring to dominate the world.", while the next entry on Google for Schiff is from some anti-Semitic conspiracy website.

..and the teapartiers are protesting...

The same tea-partiers being bankrolled and backed by conservative media groups like Fox?

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
...who dominate the economic field because their brand of economics has more utility to the affluent political class/big-government-industry...

Yes. It's all an evil conspiracy . After all, how else to explain that applied and theoretical economists generally reject libertarianism?

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume economics is heavily influenced by special interests, given its central importance in justifying multi-trillion dollar government policy.

As it says in 'Economics in One Lesson':

Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine-the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

Quote:
The first major 'tea party' event was the Ron Paul fundraiser

You rather contradict yourself. But I should be forgiven for not knowing that Ron Paul drank tea - no-one else seems to know, including Wikipedia, so we can hardly claim that Ron Paul was instrumental in getting the 'meme rolling' as you do.

How do I contradict myself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_p ... oney_bombs

--
A December 16, 2007, money bomb on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party broke the campaign's previous record,[215] raising nearly $2 million more than the November 5 event, bringing in over US$6 million in the largest single day of fund raising, on-line or not, in U.S. presidential campaign history.[216] During the last minutes of the drive, the server refused to accept contributions due to an overload of donations, as about 100 contributors per minute donated to the campaign; more than an additional $100,000 were donated within the hour past midnight.[217][218][219]
--

Quote:
The Russian Revolution was bankrolled by Jacob Schiff. Trotsky got $20 million from him when he visited New York in 1917.

That's a rather big claim. Any evidence for it? Many people donated to the Bolsheviks, but (a) $20 million was not decisive in getting people to the streets in the July Days or similar and (b) I can't find on cursory search any reliable record of such a transaction.

Ah I see, so Jacob Schiff didn't give the Bolsheviks $20 million, and even if he did, it wouldn't have been decisive! You got all the bases covered.

a) how do you know it was not decisive in getting people to the streets? The equivalent of $2 billion can do a lot.

b) Here's a reference to it in the book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy", which includes a reference to a newspaper article from 1949:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297676/consp ... arereactor

According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949:

"Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." (See Chart 6.)

I've tried to find an online record of the February 3, 1949 issue of the 'New York Journal-American', but you can only view their microfilm copy in person by appointment:

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/b ... ings/nyja/

This would fit with the pattern of behavior exhibited by Jacob Schiff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

Jacob Henry Schiff, born Jacob Hirsch Schiff (January 10, 1847 – September 25, 1920) was a German-born New York City banker and philanthropist, who helped finance, among many other things, the Japanese military efforts against Tsarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese War.

From his base on Wall Street, he was the foremost Jewish leader in what became known as the "Schiff era," grappling with all major issues and problems of the day, including the plight of Russian Jews under the tsar, American and international anti-Semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism.

***

During the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904 and 1905, in perhaps his most famous financial action, Schiff, again through Kuhn, Loeb & Co., extended a critical series of loans to Japan, in the amount of $200 million.[15] He was willing to extend this loan due, in part, to his belief that gold is not as important as national effort and desire, in helping win a war, and due to the apparent underdog status of Japan at the time; no European nation had yet been defeated by a non-European nation in a modern, full-scale war. It is quite likely Schiff also saw this loan as a means of avenging, on behalf of the Jewish people, the anti-Semitic actions of the Tsarist regime, specifically the then-recent pogroms in Kishinev.

This loan attracted worldwide attention, and had major consequences. Japan won the war, thanks in large part to the purchase of munitions made possible by Schiff's loan, and elements of its government took this as evidence of the power of Jews all around the world, of their loyalty to one another, and as proof of the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This thinking later led to the failed Fugu Plan, which would have saved many thousands of Jews from the Holocaust, bringing them to Japan-controlled China to work for the benefit of Japan's economy. In 1905, Schiff was awarded the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure;[16] in 1907 he was honored with the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun.[17] Schiff was the first foreigner to have been personally awarded the Order by Emperor Meiji in the Imperial Palace.[18]

***

Over the years, before, during, and after World War I, his firm extended loans to many nations all around the world, but Schiff made sure none of the funds ever went to Russia, which continued to severely oppress the Jewish people. When the Tsar's government fell in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression of Jews would end. He formally repealed the impediments within his firm against lending to Russia.

Quote:
..and the teapartiers are protesting...

The same tea-partiers being bankrolled and backed by conservative media groups like Fox?

So no big organizations are going to see an opportunity in backing a widespread grassroots movement? The participation of a couple big organizations automatically means that all it was all orchestrated by them?

You say big groups are behind the teaparty, but neglect the fact that enormous groups like Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, all the Federal Reserve member banks really, are behind the $1 trillion + bailout. Goldman Sachs gave a lot of money to the Obama campaign, yet you're not willing to question the Obama administration's motives and the impetus behind their bailout the same way you are the teapartiers' motives and the impetus behind their protests.

[grassroots1]

So no big organizations are going to see an opportunity in backing a widespread grassroots movement? The participation of a couple big organizations automatically means that all it was all orchestrated by them?

What it means to me is that you guys should make damn sure it doesn't happen again. Otherwise you serve the despicable purposes of Fox News and the US imperialist machine.

You say big groups are behind the teaparty, but neglect the fact that enormous groups like Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, all the Federal Reserve member banks really, are behind the $1 trillion + bailout. Goldman Sachs gave a lot of money to the Obama campaign, yet you're not willing to question the Obama administration's motives and the impetus behind their bailout the same way you are the teapartiers' motives and the impetus behind their protests.

I am! I'm willing! Now will you separate yourself from the fascists who seem so close to the libertarian movement?

And RPA, the onus is on you to prove your claim that Jacob Schiff bankrolled the Russian revolution. You don't really have any reason to be asking Maxim questions about... his own skepticism. It is nothing more than skepticism, and I'm not quite sure where your ardent faith has come from. Especially since you have very weak sources backing that claim.

[RonPaulalways]

I am! I'm willing! Now will you separate yourself from the fascists who seem so close to the libertarian movement?

If Fox wants to promote the teaparties, then the more power to them.

We need our own big gorillas to counter the weight of the Citibanks, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, etc etc.

And RPA, the onus is on you to prove your claim that Jacob Schiff bankrolled the Russian revolution.

I provided a link to a widely published book which makes that claim, and it includes a reference to a newspaper article. No it's not proof, but I think it's convincing, and it would fit in perfectly with Jacob Schiff's pattern of behavior (prohibiting his firms from investing in Czarist Russia, funding what he viewed as 'pro-Jewish' movements around the world, particularly against the Czar's regime, funding the Japanese against the Russians in 1905, etc).

[grassroots1]

You think FOX is trying to counter Goldman Sachs and Citigroup? If anything they're working for them. That's what I'm trying to tell you, FOX is a tool of the establishment.

1949 wasn't exactly a pro-communist era in the United States, we had our fair share of propaganda.

[RonPaulalways]

Fox's support for the teaparty is diametrically opposed to the interests of the banks.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume economics is heavily influenced by special interests, given its central importance in justifying multi-trillion dollar government policy.

It's unreasonable to assume that there is a big conspiracy like this without the evidence. Your conspiracy is basically that the great majority of the people in treasury departments around the world are deliberately acting against the wishes of the people for the sake of big government and industry. It is an *extraordinary* claim to make and one that cannot be assumed or simply deduced a priori because you have read that economics is dominated by 'special interests'. Your position doesn't even make sense on a basic examination of the facts - why would all those people willingly subvert what they know to be right and in people's interests for the sake of industry or big business when they don't even get anything out of it (they aren't being paid by industry or big business)?

How do I contradict myself?

My reference was to 'major' and 'Ron Paul' in the same sentence. RP doesn't even get a mention in the Wikipedia article on the tea parties (unless this is another of your conspiracies), while your own quote doesn't even talk about RP having a tea party at all.

Ah I see, so Jacob Schiff didn't give the Bolsheviks $20 million, and even if he did, it wouldn't have been decisive! You got all the bases covered.

It's not surprising, because I've read a lot about the Russian Revolution from a lot of perspectives and never heard of Schiff. For my part, I know that rich men like Joffe and Chicherin contributed to the cause voluntarily and other rich people contributed unwillingly (eg. in Georgian bank raids). I also know the the revolution was not a costly one which needed to be bankrolled - industrial action was prominent in Russia across multiple cities, it's not as if there are any accounts of weaponry being bought in October or people being paid to participate and 'media costs' for publicising the event of the October Revolution were non-existent.

Those are all reasons for skepticism. The fact that your 'proof' that the revolution was bankrolled is that someone's grandson said over 30 years later that his grandfather 'sank about $20 million' into the cause would make any other person similarly dubious especially when such 'facts' are seized upon politically by anti-Semitic groups to try to link the revolution with some attempt by Jews to rule the world.

So no big organizations are going to see an opportunity in backing a widespread grassroots movement?

Big organisations might be willing to back anything if it's in their interests. The more you examine social movements though, the more you see that they require leadership and money and organisation. Since we know the tea parties are politically partisan and don't make sense without considering this (see earlier posts), since we know that politically partisan media organisations promoted them heavily and since we know that politically partisan groups promoted and helped organise them, the idea that they were the product of some non-partisan, concerned 'average Americans' should make anyone skeptical.

Goldman Sachs gave a lot of money to the Obama campaign, yet you're not willing to question the Obama administration's motives and the impetus behind their bailout...

But the bailout started before Obama came into power. Don't you remember - it was the (Republican) Bush administration and its former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Treasury Secretary Paulson who pushed through the first bailout? Such an oversight is the sort that leaves telltale marks on the tea parties - they aren't some non-aligned grassroots group at all, but an attempt by media-savvy Republicans to take Obama down a notch.

[grassroots1]

Fox's support for the teaparty is diametrically opposed to the interests of the banks.

Well, no, that's exactly what I'm challenging. I think FOX's support of the tea party generally supports the 'libertarian' movement, which leads to support of the business agenda. Many people who call themselves libertarian, as we have seen on this forum, tend to focus the vast majority of their energy on actual hate for socialism instead of focusing on the real enemy, which are the vested interests that have hijacked our country's decision-making process. By and large, the priorities of the libertarians I have met have been entirely backwards. Instead of fighting the real, strong, influential enemy, they fight 'socialism,' in whatever form it takes. Ridiculous.

[RonPaulalways]

^ Grassroots, as I've already, and as you've seemingly forgotten, my whole point is that you can't have it both ways: you can't say the libertarian agenda promoted by the teaparties is "for big business", while acknowledging that Obama's $1 trillion bank bailout is being backed by the biggest banks in America.

"Big Business" is not a monolithic entity that is always trying to exploit America. I prefer the big business that wants lower taxes, then one which wants to tax Americans to cover its losses to the tune of $1 trillion.

And we libertarians fight the ideology of 'socialism', because it is the banner under which the elitist insiders increase their coercive control over the economy (e.g. the $ trillion bailout). The ideology of socialism removes the protection the people have against exploitation from the elite, and that is the guarantee of individual liberty.

It's unreasonable to assume that there is a big conspiracy like this without the evidence. Your conspiracy is basically that the great majority of the people in treasury departments around the world are deliberately acting against the wishes of the people for the sake of big government and industry.

Why do you assume I'm suggesting a vast conspiracy? I never made any such claim yet you automatically characterize my argument as such.

It could simply be the amalgamation of people reacting to simple systemic incentives.

When economists create papers that contradict economic policies, then the political class and its allies is less likely to cite and employ them. I doubt for example that Obama would appoint and consult with Hayekian economists.

Economic views that contradict government policy may also be less pleasing to the mass audience since they cause cognitive dissonance, rather than creating a coherent reassurance that current policies are the right ones.

Furthermore, there are powerful interests that have a concentrated interest in certain big government policies being pushed through (e.g. the $1 trillion bank bailout). These interests could 'conspire' to promote their views in the media and academic debates, and the end result is not a vast conspiracy to promote Keynesianism statism, but thousands of 'little conspiracies', that together have the effect I describe.

Quote:
How do I contradict myself?

My reference was to 'major' and 'Ron Paul' in the same sentence. RP doesn't even get a mention in the Wikipedia article on the tea parties (unless this is another of your conspiracies), while your own quote doesn't even talk about RP having a tea party at all.

My quote says that Ron Paul had a major teaparty fundraiser. This is in line with what I said.

Those are all reasons for skepticism. The fact that your 'proof' that the revolution was bankrolled is that someone's grandson said over 30 years later that his grandfather 'sank about $20 million' into the cause would make any other person similarly dubious especially when such 'facts' are seized upon politically by anti-Semitic groups to try to link the revolution with some attempt by Jews to rule the world.

It's irrelevant which groups seize upon the theory. The book "And None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" also has other sources that point to Jacob Schiff as a principle financier of the Russian Revolution. The theory makes sense given Jacob Schiff's other measures during his life against Czarist Russia, including loaning Japan $200 million in its war against Russia in 1905.

Quote:
So no big organizations are going to see an opportunity in backing a widespread grassroots movement?

Big organisations might be willing to back anything if it's in their interests. The more you examine social movements though, the more you see that they require leadership and money and organisation.

Not true, the Ron Paul fundraising events for example were largely decentralized efforts not coordinated by campaign headquarters. Campaign headquarters was shocked at how much money was coming in, and couldn't keep track of all the groups involved in raising the money.

The internet allows for collaborative coordination of large popular movements like the Ron Paul movement and the teaparties.

Quote:
Goldman Sachs gave a lot of money to the Obama campaign, yet you're not willing to question the Obama administration's motives and the impetus behind their bailout...

But the bailout started before Obama came into power. Don't you remember - it was the (Republican) Bush administration and its former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Treasury Secretary Paulson who pushed through the first bailout?

There was massive disagreement with the Bush era bailouts by the grassroots. For example, 'the Campaign for Liberty' made lists showing how members of Congress and the Senate voted on Bush's bailouts to help voters decide who to support/vote for/against.

e.g.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=1072

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=1285

But Bush was on his way out. There was no point in organizing large protests against him in 2008. But Obama has at least 4 more years to go, so he has the potential to make much more radical changes to society and the economy than Bush had when the bailouts started. This is why people are protesting now, and not last year.

This conspiracy theory that this teaparty is just a front to attack Obama and the Democrats, rather than what it claims to be- a protest against the biggest spending program in history, is so typical of the knee-jerk defense of the big government Dems and demonization of the Republicans.

[grassroots1]

Grassroots, as I've already, and as you've seemingly forgotten, my whole point is that you can't have it both ways: you can't say the libertarian agenda promoted by the teaparties is "for big business", while acknowledging that Obama's $1 trillion bank bailout is being backed by the biggest banks in America.

What I've said is that the libertarian perspective, which, in itself, is not in support of the business-government alliance, is being exploited for those purposes. FOX news has run with the rhetoric of liberty and freedom, but it doesn't offer nearly a complete analysis of the situation, and you know it.

"Big Business" is not a monolithic entity that is always trying to exploit America. I prefer the big business that wants lower taxes, then one which wants to tax Americans to cover its losses to the tune of $1 trillion.

Then you support a business which does not look out for its own interest, which is a business that will fail. The underlying principle behind capitalism is opportunism, and nothing more.

And we libertarians fight the ideology of 'socialism', because it is the banner under which the elitist insiders increase their coercive control over the economy (e.g. the $ trillion bailout). The ideology of socialism removes the protection the people have against exploitation from the elite, and that is the guarantee of individual liberty.

Only when the ideology of 'socialism' is perverted for some individual's purposes. Will you deny that government programs have led to general alleviation of misery? Every environmental regulation which forced clean water, every labor regulation which prevented a company from mistreating it's workers, they all arose from a public demand. Every ideology has those who claim to be proponents solely for personal gain, but many of us, I hope, are genuine in our beliefs.

[RonPaulalways]

What I've said is that the libertarian perspective, which, in itself, is not in support of the business-government alliance, is being exploited for those purposes. FOX news has run with the rhetoric of liberty and freedom, but it doesn't offer nearly a complete analysis of the situation, and you know it.

I don't see how that's the case. The teaparty is against a business-government alliance. Your argument is completely unsubstantiated in my opinion.

Quote:
"Big Business" is not a monolithic entity that is always trying to exploit America. I prefer the big business that wants lower taxes, then one which wants to tax Americans to cover its losses to the tune of $1 trillion.


Then you support a business which does not look out for its own interest, which is a business that will fail. The underlying principle behind capitalism is opportunism, and nothing more.

I disagree. I think patriotic action by wealthy individuals and large companies is possible and can do much to strengthen a nation.

Dividing the classes is a favorite strategy of the political elite to conquer the masses.

Quote:
And we libertarians fight the ideology of 'socialism', because it is the banner under which the elitist insiders increase their coercive control over the economy (e.g. the $ trillion bailout). The ideology of socialism removes the protection the people have against exploitation from the elite, and that is the guarantee of individual liberty.


Only when the ideology of 'socialism' is perverted for some individual's purposes. Will you deny that government programs have led to general alleviation of misery?

Yes, definitely I deny that, because they require taxation which has reduced the rate of economic development.

Every environmental regulation which forced clean water,

every labor regulation which prevented a company from mistreating it's workers,

You ought to already know where I stand on these issues.

The courts, through the prosecution of fraud, can ensure clean water.

Workers should decide for themselves what work conditions to accept. The government shouldn't limit their choices to those deemed to be acceptable.

they all arose from a public demand.

Public demand that broke down the Constitutional limits on federal power and created conditions that allowed for special interests to create the overly taxed/regulated economy of today, one that is dominated by the commercial-political class that gives itself mind-bogglingly enormous $ trillion+ bailouts.

[grassroots1]

I don't see how that's the case. The teaparty is against a business-government alliance. Your argument is completely unsubstantiated in my opinion.

FOX was fed talking points by the Bush administration. It is the epitome of the business-government alliance. I am only asking you to look at FOX's coverage of the Tea Party in context.

I disagree. I think patriotic action by wealthy individuals and large companies is possible and can do much to strengthen a nation.

If a company diverges from the capitalist maxim of maximizing profits by minimizing losses, they no longer act in their own interest, and they are more likely to fail. That is the fact.

Dividing the classes is a favorite strategy of the political elite to conquer the masses.

What are the classes?

Yes, definitely I deny that, because they require taxation which has reduced the rate of economic development.
You ought to already know where I stand on these issues.

The courts, through the prosecution of fraud, can ensure clean water.

Workers should decide for themselves what work conditions to accept. The government shouldn't limit their choices to those deemed to be acceptable.

Of course people do sometimes use the courts to right wrongs that have been done to them, but the fact is that to go to court requires resources and time, and the situation becomes even more impossible when the courts are corrupt and tend to decide in the interest of companies. Like I keep saying, there is a reason that workers had to rise up and fight for their gains, and it's because there is a significant resistance to the change that they want.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
I don't see how that's the case. The teaparty is against a business-government alliance. Your argument is completely unsubstantiated in my opinion.


FOX was fed talking points by the Bush administration. It is the epitome of the business-government alliance. I am only asking you to look at FOX's coverage of the Tea Party in context.

I don't deny that. I welcome FOX's help in the teaparties while acknowledging the bad they have done previously (e.g. excluding Ron Paul from one of the debates they hosted).

Quote:
I disagree. I think patriotic action by wealthy individuals and large companies is possible and can do much to strengthen a nation.


If a company diverges from the capitalist maxim of maximizing profits by minimizing losses, they no longer act in their own interest, and they are more likely to fail. That is the fact.

Unless patriotic consumers patronize their business. I do agree though, that the burden of maintaining a free society rests too much on voluntary action. I see an argument for socializing the cost of pro-liberty education.

Quote:
Dividing the classes is a favorite strategy of the political elite to conquer the masses.

What are the classes?

Lower, middle, upper.

Quote:
Yes, definitely I deny that, because they require taxation which has reduced the rate of economic development.
You ought to already know where I stand on these issues.

The courts, through the prosecution of fraud, can ensure clean water.

Workers should decide for themselves what work conditions to accept. The government shouldn't limit their choices to those deemed to be acceptable.


Of course people do sometimes use the courts to right wrongs that have been done to them, but the fact is that to go to court requires resources and time, and the situation becomes even more impossible when the courts are corrupt and tend to decide in the interest of companies.

Courts are MUCH MUCH less corrupt and vulnerable to big interests than politicians. They are designed solely to be objective, while politics is purely a big business lobbying game.

[grassroots1]

I don't deny that. I welcome FOX's help in the teaparties while acknowledging the bad they have done previously (e.g. excluding Ron Paul from one of the debates they hosted).

Rupert Murdoch still owns FOX, Bill O hasn't gone anywhere. Karl Rove even has a pretty consistent presence now, from what little I've seen. I haven't seen much of a change in the general rhetoric of the station. Personally, if I was in your position, I can't see how I could 'welcome the help' of such an organization when it is clearly being used for other purposes.

Unless patriotic consumers patronize their business. I do agree though, that the burden of maintaining a free society rests too much on voluntary action. I see an argument for socializing the cost of pro-liberty education.

The one thing you're willing to socialize is pro-liberty education. Amazing.

Lower, middle, upper.

And you see the upper classes being divided much by the 'political elite?' The middle class does not exist, if you look at a wealth distribution curve, there is really no reason for its existence.

Courts are MUCH MUCH less corrupt and vulnerable to big interests than politicians. They are designed solely to be objective, while politics is purely a big business lobbying game.

That may be true, but, first, the laws that courts uphold are designated by politics and, second, you are disregarding my second argument that to bring someone to court requires a significant amount of time and resources that working people may not have. Additionally, a group of workers may not want to take out a class-action lawsuit against their company for fear of losing a steady job. There are significant problems with the court system alone protecting people's interests, which is why other regulations exist.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
I don't deny that. I welcome FOX's help in the teaparties while acknowledging the bad they have done previously (e.g. excluding Ron Paul from one of the debates they hosted).


Rupert Murdoch still owns FOX, Bill O hasn't gone anywhere. Karl Rove even has a pretty consistent presence now, from what little I've seen. I haven't seen much of a change in the general rhetoric of the station. Personally, if I was in your position, I can't see how I could 'welcome the help' of such an organization when it is clearly being used for other purposes.

I agree. I don't love FOX, but I welcome FOX's promotion of the teaparties, because the teaparties are against big government.

Quote:
Unless patriotic consumers patronize their business. I do agree though, that the burden of maintaining a free society rests too much on voluntary action. I see an argument for socializing the cost of pro-liberty education.


The one thing you're willing to socialize is pro-liberty education. Amazing.

Yes, in order to maximize liberty. A population deluded by socialist rhetoric will support regulations and larger government. The cost of pro-liberty education I think would be more than made up for in the way of savings from fewer regulations and government programs and lower taxes.

Quote:
Lower, middle, upper.


And you see the upper classes being divided much by the 'political elite?' The middle class does not exist, if you look at a wealth distrisbution curve, there is really no reason for its existence.

Yes definitely. The political elite tries to pit the lower classes against segments of the upper class (e.g. rich greedy CEOs, evil right wingers at FOX who are promoting the teaparties and pushing for lower taxes for their rich buddies), and in this way distract them from the vast transfers of wealth going on (the $1 trillion+ bailouts for the political class and their banking allies).

Quote:
Courts are MUCH MUCH less corrupt and vulnerable to big interests than politicians. They are designed solely to be objective, while politics is purely a big business lobbying game.


That may be true, but, first, the laws that courts uphold are designated by politics

That's why I advocate less politics, and more reliance on common law. Common law is created by courts.

and, second, you are disregarding my second argument that to bring someone to court requires a significant amount of time and resources that working people may not have. Additionally, a group of workers may not want to take out a class-action lawsuit against their company for fear of losing a steady job. There are significant problems with the court system alone protecting people's interests, which is why other regulations exist.

The problems of the court process pale in comparison to the problem of the political process. The costs of representation are often covered by legal firms if they think their client has a good case. Lawsuits allow the little guy to get the best legal representation in the world, and win if they have a good case.

[grassroots1]

I agree. I don't love FOX, but I welcome FOX's promotion of the teaparties, because the teaparties are against big government.

You 'don't love FOX?' FOX needs to be held accountable for its obvious intentional delusion of the public, and you just... like it, you don't love it.

Yes, in order to maximize liberty. A population deluded by socialist rhetoric will support regulations and larger government. The cost of pro-liberty education I think would be more than made up for in the way of savings from fewer regulations and government programs and lower taxes.

So you'll go against all your principles against socialization just so that you can indoctrinate everyone with the libertarian mindset? That is paternalistic, fascist bullshit.

Yes definitely. The political elite tries to pit the lower classes against segments of the upper class (e.g. rich greedy CEOs, evil right wingers at FOX who are promoting the teaparties and pushing for lower taxes for their rich buddies), and in this way distract them from the vast transfers of wealth going on (the $1 trillion+ bailouts for the political class and their banking allies).

So the only people involved with politics are the politicians themselves and their 'banking allies?' Did you forget about Halliburton, Enron, Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, Cargill, and basically any company with enough disposable income to spend on political lobbyists? And Halliburton, shit, that's about the prime example of what I'm talking about. The Vice President of our country was a former CEO of the company that saw a massive increase in profits during his term. So is it really the 'political elite' that is behind all of this, or are you attributing blame with what you believe to be 'socialism' while trying to remove the role of the private sector entirely? All of a sudden, the rich greedy CEOs and evil right wingers are the victims of oppression by the 'political elite!' HA!

The problems of the court process pale in comparison to the problem of the political process. The costs of representation are often covered by legal firms if they think their client has a good case. Lawsuits allow the little guy to get the best legal representation in the world, and win if they have a good case.

Do you have any numbers about cases being 'often covered?' Also, a worker going up against a corporation isn't exactly a 'good case.'

Many times, I bring up this issue with you guys, and you shoot it back in my face, and try and get into an argument with me about how the political process is flawed. I have an argument against that which I've been through, but that's not what I'm asking you right now. I say again, there are significant, fundamental problems with the court system alone protecting people's interests (and in that I include the environment) which I have outlined, how do you suggest that these problems would be dealt with?

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
I agree. I don't love FOX, but I welcome FOX's promotion of the teaparties, because the teaparties are against big government.


You 'don't love FOX?' FOX needs to be held accountable for its obvious intentional delusion of the public, and you just... like it, you don't love it.

What's the matter with you? Your attacks are socialist bullshit. I never said I like FOX either. I remember very well their behavior before. All I'm saying is that I welcome any help in promoting the teaparty, regardless of who's giving it.

Quote:
Yes, in order to maximize liberty. A population deluded by socialist rhetoric will support regulations and larger government. The cost of pro-liberty education I think would be more than made up for in the way of savings from fewer regulations and government programs and lower taxes.


So you'll go against all your principles against socialization just so that you can indoctrinate everyone with the libertarian mindset? That is paternalistic, fascist bullshit.

Wrong, my principle is to support measures that will minimize overall coercion (maximize liberty), even if they involve coercion. For example coercion to collect funds for a national defense and court system in the long run leads to far lower levels of coercion.

Your arguments show a complete lack of understanding of other people's arguments and tendency to attack people. It's inconsiderate rude socialist bullshit.

Quote:
Yes definitely. The political elite tries to pit the lower classes against segments of the upper class (e.g. rich greedy CEOs, evil right wingers at FOX who are promoting the teaparties and pushing for lower taxes for their rich buddies), and in this way distract them from the vast transfers of wealth going on (the $1 trillion+ bailouts for the political class and their banking allies).


So the only people involved with politics are the politicians themselves and their 'banking allies?' Did you forget about Halliburton, Enron, Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, Cargill, and basically any company with enough disposable income to spend on political lobbyists?

You're again refusing to look at my argument and going into your automatic "attack the right" mode. I'm not criticizing Halliburton now because this topic has nothing to do with Halliburton. Your accusations of me supporting Halliburton, Enron, Exxon etc are more socialist bullshit that doesn't have an ounce of logic or intelligence.

Quote:
The problems of the court process pale in comparison to the problem of the political process. The costs of representation are often covered by legal firms if they think their client has a good case. Lawsuits allow the little guy to get the best legal representation in the world, and win if they have a good case.


Do you have any numbers about cases being 'often covered?' Also, a worker going up against a corporation isn't exactly a 'good case.'

The socialist bullshit just doesn't stop.

Workers can get the best legal representation in the world if they have a good case. This means their odds improve dramatically. The determining factor thus becomes the underlying facts of the case, not how much money each side has to fund a legal defense.

In fact, big corporations are even more vulnerable to lawsuits because they can be sued for greater amounts.

I say again, there are significant, fundamental problems with the court system alone protecting people's interests (and in that I include the environment) which I have outlined, how do you suggest that these problems would be dealt with?

Before we determine how to deal with those problems that exist in the court system, we should decide which is better at the moment, the political process or the court process. It's clear that the court process gives the little guy a much better chance of having a fair hearing than the political process that's dominated by massive corporations, wealthy special interests, and political insiders who rule the airways (and thus public opinion and election results).

[grassroots1]

Wrong, my principle is to support measures that will minimize overall coercion (maximize liberty), even if they involve coercion. For example coercion to collect funds for a national defense and court system in the long run leads to far lower levels of coercion.

Your arguments show a complete lack of understanding of other people's arguments and tendency to attack people. It's inconsiderate rude socialist bullshit.

I understand that you're well-intentioned and you think society as a whole would be better off if people believed in 'liberty,' but look at what you're proposing. 'Socialized education' that specifically 'educates on liberty,' which sounds exactly to me like an indoctrination campaign. And you think you're doing the right thing because you think you know better than everyone else. The paternalism comes from you thinking you're better, and the fascism comes from the indoctrination campaign.

You're again refusing to look at my argument and going into your automatic "attack the right" mode. I'm not criticizing Halliburton now because this topic has nothing to do with Halliburton. Your accusations of me supporting Halliburton, Enron, Exxon etc are more socialist bullshit that doesn't have an ounce of logic or intelligence.

No one's attacking the 'right.' I'm not claiming you're supporting Halliburton, you just totally oversimplified the business-government problem into 'political elites and their banking allies,' which is clearly only part of the problem. That was the point I was making to you, if you go back and read what I said.

Workers can get the best legal representation in the world if they have a good case. This means their odds improve dramatically. The determining factor thus becomes the underlying facts of the case, not how much money each side has to fund a legal defense.

So you're dismissing me as socialist bullshit, and giving me more unsubstantiated claims. Sweet, this should be fun.

In fact, big corporations are even more vulnerable to lawsuits because they can be sued for greater amounts.

The amount that someone is sued for is determined by the damage that was done, not by the amount that the defendant has. AND WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?!

Before we determine how to deal with those problems that exist in the court system, we should decide which is better at the moment, the political process or the court process. It's clear that the court process gives the little guy a much better chance of having a fair hearing than the political process that's dominated by massive corporations, wealthy special interests, and political insiders who rule the airways (and thus public opinion).

What I'm proposing is that we, as a people, demand what we need from this elite class of business and political interests: that is food, water, education, health care, etc. And I'm proposing that we embrace the democratic process and use it to govern our society. There is no democracy without democratic control of industry.