Ahoy Crewmembers,

Haloo to one and all. I feel a bit slimy and in need of a shower right now. Hmm.... Maybe I should back up a hair and ‘splain myself. Let’s start here:

Fabianism: 2 [the Fabian Society; from the members’ belief in slow rather than revolutionary change in government] : of, relating to, or being a society of socialists organized in England in 1884 to spread socialist principles gradually (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

K. Fabianism in a nutshell occurs when those that believe in socialist principles slowly invade a free or capitalist society acting as a freedom loving citizen in an organized, quiet effort to spread Socialist principles. It is often referred to with the frog in the pot metaphor. It’s easier to cook frogs in a pot, to keep them from jumping out, by slowly increasing the heat so that they don’t notice. I have done a good bit of reading on the subject and the best description of it I have found is that of a boa constrictor. Boa’s victims usually die of toxicity from fear before they get crushed, and the boa slowly, slowly constricts its victim. There is a shrew in South America that fakes its death as it is being crushed, waits to be swallowed and chews its way out.

To that avail, as Dave and I both thoroughly believe that America is becoming Amerika under a Fabian system that has slowly evolved since Wilson (the choice of a lesser of two evils is not a choice at all, and allows for the government, the fabians and those in power to consume more of our freedoms, properties and monies), we have actively and vocally informed as many people as we possibly can about the practice of Fabianism.

That has brought us the most presumptuous, leftist government ever that is printing fiat currency to erase debt (????eating yourself thin????) and which is A. going to tax us to hell and B. take more power and Liberty than Great Britain did when it made its own colonies liberate themselves. So we decided to start crawling into the belly of the beast like that shrew. Hence the disgusting feeling and the need for a shower.

Recently we attended a lobbyist arranged government purchasing convention, wherein Federal and State Representatives met contractors who paid to meet them, and who contributed to political campaigns, in an effort to solicit government business. The funny thing is this was an entirely “green” convention, to fit the new administration’s green fetish, and these businesses were large, and unlike past trade shows, each sector was represented by one business that could afford to be there, like Alcoa or Hurst Boilers, the largest Boiler Maker on the planet. The government doesn’t care about getting the best value anymore, there’s not a shopping process. They meet the business that helps them maintain power and then spend tax dollars with these companies. As the undersecretary of the Navy, Howard Snow, told me when I interviewed him at this convention, “We want these businesses to know the Navy is a buyer. These businesses are looking to deal with each other and they see us and say, ‘wait a minute,’ because we’re the Navy. We’re a good customer. We pay our bills on time and help businesses grow.”

He was a nice man who I felt believes in what he’s doing but the principles behind this thought process frighten me. The government was not formed to stimulate business, to take money via taxation to spend in the economy on friendly companies. In fact, it was formed for the opposite reason. Further, he explained how in FY ‘09 the Navy was on a lead silver mandate, all buildings and facilities built had to utilize X amount of silver. He had no idea why, but he was purchasing X amount of silver.

The whole thing smelled of excess. The rooms provided to us were expensive as hell, and when I added Dave after I made the deal to cover this, they offered the room gratis because cash means nothing to these people, even as my children go trillions into debt to pay for such silliness. There will be more belly searching in the future, but our initial findings were much as expected.

In other news, Prometheus has been fired from his job in Peshawar, Pakistan and is being persecuted by the law for trying to tell the truth. I will be writing a book about his story and the overall corruption in that part of the world. it affects us all folks. Hang in there Prometheus.

Litmock Member Dean Drinkel is off to Cannes. Break a leg brother!

And until next time,

May life treat you well!

Don

“most presumptuous, leftist government ever”

Well, seen from overseas, the USA is certainly more appreciated now than it was during the “reign” of the most presumptuous, rightist government ever, anyway. Look where that rightist government brought you to? To the greatest crisis of the century! To useless expensive wars that brought only hate, never “democracy”.  Democracy can never be delivered to another country with bombs, didn’t the Bush government know that? 

The whole capitalistic system, rotten from the inside, needs to be changed.  Not only in the US, but in European countries and other places as well. It’s time to put humans before profits.  Time to change our consumerism habits too, or our planet will not resist.

I hated Bush. Hence my whole point about the lesser of two evils being no choice at all. What did the reign of the most presumptuous, rightist government ever get us? The most presumptuous, leftist government ever, thanks for reiterating my point. The War is the catalyst of the problem. All war is hideous and it’s cost us almost exactly what the debt is, not to mention the disturbing loss of human life itself. Hmm… and has the popular Obama stopped the war? No, he’s increased the amount of troops we’ve sent overseas by 37,000 so far, and the region is more volatile now than it was 6 months ago. The fact that we are more popular in overtly socialist countries doesn’t quite ease my dismay with the fact that our children will have less of an opportunity to succeed thanks to the debt we are leaving them. Hitler was popular. Popularity is overrated. Problem solving, innovation and incentive are not. These are things that make capitalism work and socialism and communism fail time and time again. These are the things being stripped away by the most presumptuous, leftist government ever. What we need is INCENTIVE to produce, not to be penalized for creativity and production, which is what this tax happy, wealth redistributing administration is doing. And printing hollow currency, and the historically proven inflation that will follow, are barely even a stop gap solution to the deep rooted fundamental problems we face because of an over regimented, over manipulated, over regulated business place.

Are we talking about capitalism or about corporatism?  When Blur says the system is rotten from the inside, I think that refers to the government-corporate partnership.  Capitalism is just a fancy name for respecting individual ownership of things and unfortunately that includes “individual corporations” = groups of people made into single legal persons which therefore allow the members of the group to limit their liability.  So we get, correctly deemed “rotten from the inside”, sociopathic organizations that wreak havoc on the world and shareholders pay the price in those few instances (PG&E;) when they get caught.

I wonder if you are not confounding (french word=confondre, sorry… I’m in France) socialism with communism… here in Europe, there is a huge difference between the two - socialism is (roughly) a controlled capitalism.  Americans tend to think that socialists are communists, but that is very far from being the case.  Socialists more or less try to lessen the gap between the “too rich” and the “too poor”.  When the gap gets too great, history has ALWAYS taught us that bloody revolutions are bound to occur. Nobody wants that, eh? 

The crisis we are going through will most probably last for years, with millions more of people jobless, homeless, hungry.  Obama has no other choice, or the country could very well turn into some kind of bloody hell, much like the French Revolution in 1789.  Sure, capitalism with the “incentive to produce” was fantastic, but more so in the sixties - afterwards, it began, little by little, to go wild. Out of control.  Profits are now NEVER big enough. Greed will be the grave-digger of the whole system.  Our planet will not survive if we continue to consume products as we did in the past anyway, and capitalistic system is based on creating the need for a maximum of consumer goods, since the whole idea is to produce more and sell more to make more profit.  If only for that reason, it was bound to fail, exactly like communism has failed.  What will come next, probably only our children will see. For now, I suppose we can all only try to mend things up until we find another system.  Who knows, maybe it will be better.

No, you should not say there is no other choice.  It is not because we have not found it yet that it does not exist.

“deep rooted fundamental problems we face because of an over regimented, over manipulated, over regulated business place”

You are in contradiction with yourself, here.  To my knowledge, the US was NOT an “an over regimented, over manipulated, over regulated business place”, but more the contrary, and nonetheless this brought you to the crisis you are going through.  Obama is not responsible for the present crisis, but he must cope with it. Seen from here anyway, looks like he is going in the right direction to avoid total chaos.

From the center for Socialism: Socialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods.

From the dictionary:
1.  a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.  procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.  (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism is not (roughly) a controlled capitalism.

From the capitalism center: Capitalism, economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor.

From the dictionary:
1. an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

One is for state run ownership, akin to communism but different only in its redistribution and power structure. The other, capitalism, is for private ownership and incentive to produce based on the ability to gain from production. THE most productive periods in history have been arrived at when individuals profit from bettering society. Now that BIG government thrives and taxes us to hell while at the same time growing with no production (the government “produces” nothing of tangible worth, except for its “ability” to “defend” and wage war), we are stuck in a growing cesspool that, yes, likely will get much, much worse before it gets better. Oh, and as for Obama ending the “Bush” war, he simply wishes to shift it from one front to another (here) for warfare is how the powerful maintain power and justify theft via taxation.

There is a better solution but it is not attained with bigger, more powerful and political government.

Blur, (Oh I see now you were talking to Deminizer ... DOH!)

I never used the word socialism.  It is, as you point out, widely misused.  I suggested that the word capitalism is being used to refer to the stranglehold that the business-government partnership has on things.  I view control as a direct opposite of freedom.  That’s because control is usually not “self-control” - the only kind of control that is not in direct opposition to freedom.  So when you write that socialism is a “controlled capitalism” and that capitalism is “rotten from the inside,” I see a suggestion that “controlling something rotten from the inside” is maybe not such a good idea.  But is that thing really capitalism?  I think not.  I think it is corporatism.

I have not used coercion or force or government regulations in my own business dealings.  I have not experienced “not big enough profits” or greed.  I think those things come from limiting the choices of those doing business, and from taxing them with regulation and… taxes.

My efforts to mend things up consist of turning people against authorities that have no business trying to control our lives.  Primarily, from your point of view, I think the worst thing they do is limit the liability of individuals through the personhood of corporations.  From the sociopathic behavior that such limited liability produces springs your disgust with what you term “capitalism.” But if you had a business that you ran well, and you recognized that the respect others have for your property (your business) was a strong foundation of your success, and that such respect for property is the essence of “capitalism,” you would call the thing you hate something other than “capitalism.”

In Lincoln’s first State of the Union speech* in December, 1861, he pointed out that wage laborers most often served as a temporary condition leading to small proprietorship.  It was around 40 years later that compulsive public schooling started to make such wage labor more prevalent, as schooled people entered the workforce, more suited to following directions than in running their own lives.  If you read through the Gatto book referenced in the newsletter, you’ll see some of what I’m talking about.  Capitalism was kind of stolen from the people and hidden away among the wealthy, and that’s where it fermented and putrefied into the greed-driven sociopathic thing we see today.  But that isn’t really capitalism any more.

*(see the last two paragraphs of his speech after following the link)

Your definition of socialism corresponds to what it effectively WAS, but a few centuries ago.  It has evolved greatly since then. European socialism today has absolutely nothing to do with marxism, you know. European socialists are FOR capitalism, but a reformed capitalism. Private production and ownership IS encouraged, on the contrary.  In a socialist government today, only public education, health care, retirement funds and such are controlled to ensure that each and every citizen can benefit from these.  If private education or private investment are NOT discouraged, at least the minimum is garanteed for all (health care, retirement...).  That’s where the tax money goes.  Not in “wars”, as you say… ;-D.  Wars are just a business… and one of the most lucrative ones at that!  Sure they cost a lot for the taxpayers, but the Armement Companies thrive on it.  Lobbies (many of them) are very powerful.  They are the REAL ones who run a country, not our “democratically elected” presidents who are too often only their puppets. 

In a “libéral” country (like the US), each individual will pay private health care systems, private retirement funds.  The problem comes when the individual falls sick, loses his job, can’t pay for the health care anymore or save for retirement, or if the private company he had to do with has made bad investments for example and goes bankrupt, the whole “castle” of this liberalism collaspses - like a sand castle under a big wave.  That’s what we are seeing today: people are losing their jobs, losing their homes, big companies are either going bankrupt because of toxic investments or at best (if we can say that! :-D) delocating to emerging countries where labor is still cheap, where they can make even bigger, better profits.

I think you are absolutely right, “bigger, more powerful and political government” is not a long term solution.  But at times, it IS a short term one, especially in these very particular circumstances. Well, at least if we want to avoid that very ugly, very bloody revolution, don’t you think?  When the gap between the rich and the poor gets too great, and especially if the percentage of the poor in our population gets a little too high, then we are all just sitting on a bomb that could explode at any minute.  I’m sure that if Obama is appreciated in Europe, it is not only because he wants to end the war in Irak, or end torture in Guantanamo (which gave a rather poor image of “the Axis of Good”, eh?) for example.  It is also because he was able to see the bomb americans (and it’s the exact same bomb in Europe) are now sitting on.  There are times when there is absolutely no other choice than to take a few steps backwards, or else you are sure to end up walking on a landmine and you just blow up.  Perhaps to save our system, we need to take a few steps back, see what needs to be corrected, maybe controlled, and go forward from there?  I feel confident that our children, if not us, will find what must come next.  Nothing (except our souls, or love, maybe? ) lasts forever, eh?

Hi Dave!

When I wrote “rotten from the inside”, I meant that some of these huge capitalist companies today have lost their “common sense” of values.  Profit became their UNIQUE value, and today profit is placed high above the human value, or even high above the simple respect of the planet we must all live on.  Here where I live, big companies (the international type, I am not talking at all about little companies, like the one you probably own) who already make substantial profit on this land, suddenly decide to delocate their businesses to countries where they can get labor for nealy nothing (far east, north Africa...) simply in order to pay shareholders even MORE. Greed has taken over all other considerations.  And it sure looks like slavery is not banned, yet! 

Now what happens to a guy like you or me who may own a small business and are doing just fine with it?  Sooner or later, if your idea is a really good one, a much bigger company will walk into your office and buy you out. Oh, you’ll still be fine, you’ll probably have enough money to live forever, after all!  But the people who had worked for you and helped you make your business a success end up on the street.  The bigger, international company will probably want to delocate - it’s cheaper to have Tunisian workers, or Chinese ones, eh? For a time, anyway. 

Capitalism is not only based on respect of private property – hey, that would be too cool!  It is based on consumerism (la société de consommation).  You must produce more and sell more and make more profits, and if ever the product you are selling is not an essential one, you must create a need for it. That’s what all the advertising is about, eh?  If you make something useful like dishwashers for example, you must make sure the dishwasher will not last too long so the person will need to buy another one in a year or two, and so on.  Meanwhile, we are suffocating under our garbage, our pollution, but what the heck, eh?  We’re making profits! And we are free to do as we wish!  But how long can our planet last if we go on like that? 
No, I have no disgust AT ALL for capitalism, I think it is (or at least it WAS) a great system, perhaps even the best one so far!  But unfortunately it all went haywire. Probably because of excessive greed, irrespect for humans and irrespect for our planet.  Hey, maybe it’s all about human nature and NO system will ever be perfect, I dunno. True that ultraliberalism (capitalism when there is no government control at all - the kind you like!) did seem fantastic for a while, but it is showing it’s flaws today, unfortunately.  Either we try to control it more, see where we went wrong, or else we are driving 100 miles an hour straight into a stone wall.

Blur - 05 May 2009 05:42 AM

Either we try to control it more, see where we went wrong, or else we are driving straight into a wall.

How did you become convinced that less control wouldn’t be the solution?  Have you studied early America?  The problems have grown in proportion to the control the government has exercised over its citizens.  What is the mechanism?  People are taught (here’s your public school) that they are immature fools and need to be controlled.  They are taught this because it makes the job of the corporations (creating a need/desire for their product) easier, and because support for public education comes from government (which is a tool of corporations).

Or look at it from another angle:  Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.  When you control a thing, it no longer behaves as it would behave when it is free.  Thus, how can we see where it goes wrong if we control it?

In any case, your faith in rulers seems unjustifiably strong.  They take credit for great things that people do, and you believe them.  If there were any evil powerful people, where do you think they would go?  What would they do?  How would they look to the great majority of people?  Believe in yourself and your fellow citizens.  Look a little more closely at the incentives that are natural (trading with people you know, you do them good and they do you good) as compared with those that are unnatural (tax breaks, regulations, etc.), and you’ll begin to see that it isn’t “Either we try to control it more or else we are driving straight into a wall” but rather “IF we try to control it more, we’ll be driving straight into a wall.”

Okay, so please convince me.  With the Bush Administration, I don’t think anyone over there could have ever complained about a “leftist” government, right?  And where did this ultraliberal government lead you to?  What brought the actual crisis? Was it not total lack of control? (When I say control I mean control by the people, not by the lobbies) How do you feel when you see people losing their jobs, their homes?  How do you feel when you see people in your city die because they can no longer afford a medical insurance?  And last but not least, what is more important to you: that your children be judged and appreciated for what they OWN or for what they ARE?

Thanks!

“How did you become convinced that less control wouldn’t be the solution?  Have you studied early America?  The problems have grown in proportion to the control the government has exercised over its citizens.  What is the mechanism?”

60 years ago, the planet was still a big one.  Today, it’s tiny. That makes the whole difference. 100 years ago, only the First Nations people worried about pollution.  Today, we all do.  Well, at least I HOPE so…

“your faith in rulers seems unjustifiably strong”

Oh no! I have very little faith in rulers, but I have faith in people.  Only THE PEOPLE can see to it that the rulers do as THE PEOPLE wish. Democracy is letting the people chose, not letting the lobbies or the powerful make the choice for you.  When a President does what the people want, I find that great.  When he does what the “happy few, very powerful” want, he is therefore simply their puppet and I don’t like that.  What about you?  Would you say that the people today (generally speaking) really have their say?  Sure, they vote, but who makes the rules, if not the powerful?  Who pays for the campaigns to start off with? Are we not all living in an illusion?

Oh, and you said : “kids in public schools are taught that they are fools that need to be controlled”. I have only been in public (and private) schools, in Canada and in France, so I don’t know about how things are where you live, but this does surprise me a lot.  Have you experienced this yourself? Certainly an interesting topic too.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

Okay, so please convince me.  With the Bush Administration, I don’t think anyone over there could have ever complained about a “leftist” government, right?

Right.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

And where did this ultraliberal government lead you to?

“Ultraliberal”?  You must be using an odd meaning for “liberal”.  Whatever it was, that government led to big deficits, lots of fear and loathing, and less freedom in general all around.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

What brought the actual crisis?

Depends what crisis you mean.  The 1913 coup that was the creation of a central bank is a good start.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

Was it not total lack of control?

No, actually the total lack of control that existed in the last part of the 1700s is what allowed the USA to get off to a good start.  As the government took more and more control, things kept getting worse and the rulers kept trying to control things more, which produced the vicious cycle of more government power leading to more problems.  A good example is the number of people who can’t afford to buy a home actually buying one currently (and about to lose it too), as a result of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac legislation and the coercion the government used against lenders many decades ago to lend money to higher credit-risk people.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

How do you feel when you see people losing their jobs, their homes?

I get very angry that they have been taught to find a job, rather than run a business, that they have been taught to lean on society rather than contributing to it, and that people think the government can fix their problems rather than just making them worse by reducing people’s freedom.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

How do you feel when you see people in your city die because they can no longer afford a medical insurance?

I haven’t seen that.  Imagining myself in a situation where my value to others was too little to justify their helping me with medical bills that I have to pay to stay alive, I wish I knew Dr. Kevorkian and that people didn’t hold suicide in such disdain.  However, most medical providers will provide the care to keep you alive and then leave you in heavy debt, rather than let you die.  I believe they are required to do this by law.  I wish they had a choice about it.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

And last but not least, what is more important to you: that your children be judged and appreciated for what they own or for what they are?

For what they are.

Blur - 05 May 2009 09:38 AM

“your faith in rulers seems unjustifiably strong”

Oh no! I have very little faith in rulers, but I have faith in people.  Only THE PEOPLE can see to it that the rulers do as THE PEOPLE wish. Democracy is letting the people chose, not the lobbies or the powerful.  Would you say that the people today really have their say?  Sure, they vote, but who makes the rules, if not the powerful?  Who pays for the campaigns to start off with? Are we not all living in an illusion?

People don’t need to see to it that rulers do as the people wish.  That is the problem.  You think people can see to this, and the rulers want us to think they can see to it, but they can’t.  Rulers are impervious to the oversight of their charges because they RULE.  They do not obey.  Certainly, they pretend to, but they don’t.  They maintain their ruling position by all manner of deceit and corruption.  Chief among such corruption is the strong bond between government and corporations.  Lobbying, you called it - though lobbying is just one piece of that horrible machine.

The faith I refer to is the essence of your implication in “Only THE PEOPLE can see to it that the rulers do as THE PEOPLE wish.” You want someone to occupy a position where others see to it that the someone do as those others wish.  There is no good outcome to that.  Every person has their own life to take care of, and the more power you give them, the more successful they will be.  A ruler, by definition, has too much power, because he rules others.

If you have faith in people, why do you want them to be ruled?

“Ultraliberal”?  You must be using an odd meaning for “liberal”.
Sorry, “ultra-libéralisme” is a term used here in France.  It refers to capitalism with no government control at all – the kind you want, eh? In France, the term “liberal” does not = “leftist”, like in Canada for example – on the contrary, it = rightist, or “free capitalism” if you prefer.

“I get very angry that they have been taught to find a job, rather than run a business, that they have been taught to lean on society rather than contributing to it, and that people think the government can fix their problems rather than just making them worse by reducing people’s freedom.”

A quick arithmetic and imagine that each and every individual in the USA and elsewhere (the whole globe, while we’re at it!) had their own personal business… hihi!  How could that ever work out?  Too many chiefs and not enough indians, eh?  You’d have to do every single thing yourself, from boss to secretary to errand-boy to janitor… fun times ahead! :-D And what happens when your business does well and you want to expand? You multiply yourself by “clonage”??? (french word again, sorry!) And by gosh, how the heck could you ever sell your stuff to anyone to start off with, since there would inevitably be millions of people with exactly the same stuff to sell as you do, no? 

And no, I do not think that people with “jobs” instead of “companies” do not contribute to society.  Not only do they contribute, they are an essential part of it!
Do you know of one single large capitalist company that would not need employees?  I don’t!

Now if governements are not there to try to fix things, then what are they there for anyway? To start wars?  To organize fancy dinners? hihi! 

“People don’t need to see to it that rulers do as the people wish.  That is the problem.  You think people can see to this, and the rulers want us to think they can see to it, but they can’t.”

Well, maybe you just put your finger on something that could be changed, then. 

“Rulers are impervious to the oversight of their charges because they RULE.  They do not obey.  Certainly, they pretend to, but they don’t.  They maintain their ruling position by all manner of deceit and corruption.  Chief among such corruption is the strong bond between government and corporations.  Lobbying, you called it - though lobbying is just one piece of that horrible machine.”

Hmm… seems to me you just put your finger on another thing that could be changed. 
.

“If you have faith in people, why do you want them to be ruled”

Do you consider that having a government, republican or democrat = having rulers?  Are you an anarchist?  Lots of those around here too, but generally they are 20 years old.

Nice chatting with you - I’m stuck at home with a virus. (Hope it’s not the pig one… hihi!)

Blur - 05 May 2009 12:50 PM

“Ultraliberal”?  You must be using an odd meaning for “liberal”.
Sorry, “ultra-libéralisme” is a term used here in France.  It refers to capitalism with no government control at all – the kind you want, eh? In France, the term “liberal” does not = “leftist”, like in Canada for example – on the contrary, it = rightist, or “free capitalism” if you prefer.

LOL I see.  Well, no, associating the Bush administration with “free markets” is like associating Hitler with “German excellence”.  I guess their propaganda works well over there.

Blur - 05 May 2009 12:50 PM

A quick arithmetic and imagine that each and every individual in the USA and elsewhere (the whole globe, while we’re at it!) had their own personal business… hihi!  How could that ever work out?  Too many chiefs and not enough indians, eh?  You’d have to do every single thing yourself, from boss to secretary to errand-boy to janitor… fun times ahead! :-D And what happens when your business does well and you want to expand? You multiply yourself by “clonage”??? (french word again, sorry!) And by gosh, how the heck could you ever sell your stuff to anyone to start off with, since there would inevitably be millions of people with exactly the same stuff to sell as you do, no? 

You are funny.  You can poke lots of holes in your own argument by reading the last two paragraphs of Lincoln’s speech that I linked to.  People create their own businesses after working for someone else to learn the trade.  And millions of people with exactly the same stuff?  I have “purchased” and “sold” labor and goods and services to and from many people and it is always different, at least slightly.  The freer the market in which I make these transactions, the more variety there is.

Blur - 05 May 2009 12:50 PM

Do you know of one single large capitalist company that would not need employees?  I don’t!

No, but you seem to be making a point that I don’t see.

Blur - 05 May 2009 12:50 PM

Now if governements are not there to try to fix things, then what are they there for anyway? To start wars?  To organize fancy dinners? hihi! 

Now you are beginning to see.  Though I think you fool yourself into thinking that your answer is silly.

Blur - 05 May 2009 12:50 PM

“People don’t need to see to it that rulers do as the people wish.  That is the problem.  You think people can see to this, and the rulers want us to think they can see to it, but they can’t.”

Well, maybe you just put your finger on something that could be changed, then. 

“Rulers are impervious to the oversight of their charges because they RULE.  They do not obey.  Certainly, they pretend to, but they don’t.  They maintain their ruling position by all manner of deceit and corruption.  Chief among such corruption is the strong bond between government and corporations.  Lobbying, you called it - though lobbying is just one piece of that horrible machine.”

Hmm… seems to me you just put your finger on another thing that could be changed. 

Thanks!

Blur - 05 May 2009 12:50 PM

“If you have faith in people, why do you want them to be ruled”

Do you consider that having a government, republican or democrat = having rulers?  Are you an anarchist?  Lots of those around here too, but generally they are 20 years old.

“Anarchy"is a severely abused term too.  Having a government doesn’t have to mean having rulers.  The question is this:  Do the people fear the government, or the other way around?  I’m certainly afraid of mine, and that makes my government(s) rulers, whether Democratic or Republican.  What happens to you if you don’t pay your taxes there in France?  Cessation of tax payments is the best method of cleaning up government, but, alas, it is illegal.  See?  Corruption and deceit.  In no other case is it illegal to refuse to trade with a provider of goods and services.  Our governments force us to be their customers.  Blech.

Don’t be too concerned about the swine flu.  The trick is that if you have a fever (during or after the flu) then see a doctor to make sure you don’t have pneumonia.  The flu itself is pretty harmless, except that it makes you susceptible to pneumonia, and if you ignore it, it can kill you quickly even if you have a strong immune system.

“The question is this:  Do the people fear the government, or the other way around?”

I really think it should be “the other way around"… See? Another thing to change… Hihi!

“What happens to you if you don’t pay your taxes there in France? “

Holy cow, I wouldn’t try that one!  If I simply don’t pay right smack on time, I get an increase… :-(
If I refuse to pay, the government blocks all of my bank accounts and throws me straight into jail.  Yikes!

“Don’t be too concerned about the swine flu"…

Thanks. But I’m not worried though.  Starting to feel better already -no more fever.  If ever it was the swine flu, (I doubt it!) it was just a cute little Piggy one anyway. Only two three days with fever. 

YES!  It should absolutely be the other way around.  Until it is, I am against all manner of control unless it is self control.  oink oink.