 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Paul Jay,
I am going to comment on the above Real News commentary report. My inspiration to address Paul Jay, specifically, is derived from the following challenge spoken by Pal Jay during the report:
For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective?
The short answer is "maybe" - because the question is loaded.
First off, I ran for congress in 1996 registered as a libertarian. I do not speak for anyone other than me; which means that I take full responsibility for what I say, and I do not blame anyone else for what I say, and therefore I represent only me, and anyone who may agree with what I say is someone who would have to volunteer to do so, and therefore any thing that I say that is wrong, or inaccurate, is fully my responsibility, and is not the responsibility of any registered libertarian, or anyone at all, unless they volunteer to take on any responsibility whatsoever.
Secondly, a libertarian, such as myself, is not a capitalist, many are not, and therefore a question about capitalism may be better answered by a capitalist, and therefore a question asked about capitalism may be better addressed to capitalists and not libertarians.
Thirdly, the phrase "the survival of the fittest" is misinterpreted from Darwin's work by some people, including capitalists, so as to apologize for legal crime, cover-up legal crime, perpetuate legal crime, and the false interpretation is nearly opposite in meaning from Darwin's work.
Darwinism measures a phenomenon by which organisms that are capable of reproducing, and adapting, will survive while organisms that are incapable of reproducing and incapable of adapting will not survive; hence the phrase "survival of the fittest".
If an organism is fit, in the sense that the organism can reproduce, the organism will survive past one generation.
Is that not easy to measure scientifically?
The false interpretation, done on purpose, or the misinterpretation, done by way of regurgitation (someone merely repeats the false interpretation without thinking about it, without questioning it), is an interpretation that suggests, or even confesses precisely, that might makes right.
Survival of the fittest:
A. Reproduction and adaptation survive, failure is extinction
B. Might makes right, or kill or be killed, or do unto others before they can do unto you, etc.
If someone is employing the second version, the false version, my guess is that someone is planning on injuring some poor innocent victim, and they will execute that plan, or perpetuate an ongoing crime, and the false version is used to "justify" such acts, driven by such motivations, such as crime driven by avarice.
Criminals, especially the legal ones, are very good at adapting to the changes in their environment, as their victims learn to avoid the latest method by which the criminals commit crimes, and the victims are often very slow at discovering, and then avoiding, the latest crimes, and the victims tend to forget, from generation to generation, and the criminals tend to pass on, and inherit, the tricks of the trade.
The victims tend to number 90% of the human population, and are much more able to reproduced, if for no other reason than their numbers are larger, and therefore their gene pool is much larger. The criminals tend to number 10%, less reproductive and less adaptive by sheer numbers, if for no other reason.
The false interpretation of Darwinism's survival of the fittest slogan is not reasonable. It cannot be reasoned out logically, as it applies to one species, on purpose, and it does not apply to the adaptability all species must have to the entire universe known as "nature" or "the physical world". The false adaptation is meant to justify the thoughts and actions of human beings in reference to what is done, or not done, to other human beings as in: a more powerful human being will kill a less powerful human being and therefore it is OK for me to kill this guy or steal from this woman, or torture, or rape this child while eating him, or her, or whatever crime is on the table, not limited to putting on the table the threat of destroying the entire human species by starting WWIII. Criminals will find whichever words work to facilitate and perpetuate their crimes - especially the legal ones.
That is the unfortunate falsehood produced and disseminated by legal criminals as Darwinism is discredited, misunderstood, and legal crime is credited, and empowered, by that smoke screen, with or without the mirrors, that confidence scheme, that bait and switch, that lie.
If someone, libertarian or otherwise, is using the Darwinist based phrase (survival of the fittest), then they would have to explain what they mean, why they say what they say, and if there is truth to what they say, then they can explain the truth of what they say. My guess is that the reference by Paul Jay is in response to something said by someone who either does not understand what they are saying, or someone who does understand what they are saying and they are lying.
Here is the Paul Jay reference again (for those who may be reading this who are not Paul Jay, as I address my response to Paul Jay, and anyone else):
For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective?
If someone has become a millionaire, from my viewpoint, as a libertarian who signed the pledge, a libertarian who ran for congress, and a libertarian who re-registered as an independent, so as to run for congress a second time, then someone who has become a millionaire is more than likely someone who has a political advantage over the competition. A political advantage over the competition isn't, per se, a reproductive and/or adaptive genetic capability.
How did said millionaire, or billionaire (adjusted for inflation) managed to accumulate that much power? Not knowing anything specific is not having the necessary data required to answer the question.
If the billionaire could not have accumulated billions of surplus wealth into one fund, his fund, or her fund, without political subsidy of some kind, which could include a law that somehow made the competition less competitive, then those billions flowing into that fund are, by that measure, forms of government charity, or subsidy, or whatever word best, and most accurately, identifies the flow of surplus wealth from those who create surplus wealth, to the government fund, and then from the government fund to the people who are given that power to purchase.
In a word: welfare
A clear example would be a land purchase whereby the government owned the land and two bidders, both competitors for the same market, are seeking control over that land, and one bidder is given the land, and the price of the land is lower for the winning bidder, and the losing bidder bid a higher price, a political deal, a behind closed doors deal, a "subsidy", and a gift from whomever controls the flow of government land titles to whomever wants control of that land.
A.
The higher bidder, but the person who lost the bid, because he didn't "know" the government agent who awarded bids on government land, is no longer competitive.
B. Lower bidder but winning bidder, because he cut the government worker "in" on the deal, is by this measure running a monopoly power.
Now, at the very start of the potential billionaires accumulation of surplus wealth, is a start of surplus wealth flowing from those who create it, to him, or her, and there is a measurable destruction of competition, and a measurable flow of surplus wealth from the government fund to the "welfare recipient", the one who was awarded the bid below cost, or at least awarded the bid at a price that was less than the market price.
That is a precise, and not ambiguous at all, measure of government welfare passing from the tax payers (the only ones who can create wealth, the "government" doesn't tax criminals in prison, unless they are made to work at producing wealth, and "government" doesn't "tax" soldiers, since soldiers only job is to kill or be killed, and government doesn't tax anyone who cannot add to the total supply of surplus wealth, it isn't possible, to say that government taxes people who steal, is to fail to understand actual reality), passing from the taxpayer to the person who receives that tax money.
If the billionaire in question received welfare, a lower price on the land, to start his business then the obvious conclusion is that the billionaire is a government employee, a member of the social organization that can best be described as fascist. A private business that gains a competitive advantage over other private businesses by way of government welfare, tax money sent to that private business in any form whatsoever, not limited to actual money, in the form of land titles, in the form of any competitive advantage whatsoever, given by the power of government to one private business, and not the competitor, is fascism, or the combination of business and government into one cabal.
Example 2:
A corporation, a fictitious legal entity, and one of limited liability no less, is another example of fascism, and another example of government welfare passing from those who create surplus wealth, to the government fund, and then to one competitive business operator, or group of operators, and not all competitive business operators in each case where one person, or one group, is awarded something that a potential competitor cannot get, and therefore competition is destroyed, and the tax payers (the one's who create wealth) supply the means by which they suffer, as their power to protect themselves from harm, is sent to someone who uses that power to harm them.
The destruction of competition destroys the force that forces quality up and price, or cost, down. How can it be any other way? Without the force of competition working there will be higher costs of living as the creators of wealth send their power to the people who destroy competition.
Score board to date:
This is what you get when competition is destroyed
Again:
For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective?
Take anyone of those names on those lists and find out how those Billionaires managed to move all that surplus wealth from the people who create wealth and to them, exclusively them, and my guess is that there will be many, many, many instances of government subsidy, or "corporate welfare", or fascism, occurring on paper, precisely, and those will be the cases that are right out in the clear light of day, and easy to find, and there will most likely be many hidden deals, secret deals, behind closed door deals, under the table deals, whereby a government agent of some kind, a government "worker" or "representative", is dealing with someone employed by that billionaire, or the billionaire himself, or the billionaire's grandma, and if such a secret deal is discovered, then, again, there is a measurable amount of surplus wealth flowing from the government fund into the billionaires fund.
Welfare
All of which is denominated in dollars, and to ignore that fact, is to remain ignorant of the most significant factor causing the flow of surplus wealth from those who create wealth to those who steal it.
For the libertarians in the audience consider this: if you believe that capitalism works when it's truly the survival of the fittest, doesn't such concentrated wealth handed down from generation to generation defeat that objective?
If the interpretation of "survival of the fittest" is not "kill or be killed" or "do unto others before they can do onto you" and if the interpretation of "survival of the fittest" is "the highest quality at the lowest cost will gain market share in competition with lower quality at a higher price" then someone, perhaps only me, is failing to make a reasonable connection.
Darwin is connected, reasonably, to the slogan "survival of the fittest" even if Darwin didn't say that slogan.
Capitalists, some of them, are connected, reasonably, to the slogan "survival of the fittest" as they apologize, or rationalize, their might makes right dogma, as did Machiavelli in his book: The Prince.
Libertarians, me being one, employ words that intend to convey how competition works and I for one have no intention of connecting how competition works in political economy with Darwinism, unless someone wants to make that connection, and then I can work on making that connection, otherwise there isn't one - not made by this libertarian, me.
Competition simply works. That is what it does. Competition works. Competition works, as a force, by which, the quality of things produced increase, and the cost, or price, of things produced go down.
That is what competition does, and it doesn't matter if I say so. It does.
It doesn't matter if you see it. It still does.
Competition is not one thing, it is not the word, it is the process, it is a phenomenon, it is what it is, and it does what it does, and it does what it does even if the people involved ignore, or fail to recognize, what it does, while it does what it does.
There is no need, from my seat, to connect competition working in political economy to Darwinism, or, to connect competition with the slogan "survival of the fittest", so why would someone do that, I don't know. Someone who does that would have to confess why they do that, not me.
The obvious other objection to my plan is that these billionaires will take flight to parts unknown to avoid the tax, somewhat the way they threaten to pull their companies out of Wisconsin...
Many libertarians, certainly not all, consider "absentee ownership" as a form of government subsidy.
Here is how that works:
If the workers at the factory are threatened with the threat to "pull their companies out of Wisconsin" why does that work as a threat? Why don't the workers say: "Don't let the door slam you in the rear end on the way out" and why don't the workers simply run the factory competitively against the owner of the company who pulls out of Wisconsin?
Who owns the land on which the factory is built?
Who owns the factory building?
Does the person, or persons, making the threat to move still own the land, and still own the building, and still own the tools, once he moves out, and even if he, or they, move to Mexico, or China, they still get to exclude anyone else from every using that land, or that factory, until the end of time?
Seriously? Is that the argument? What happens if U.S.A. Inc. LLC starts a war with Mexico, or China, by way of executive order, or by way of Mexico or China invading Wisconsin, while the President is asleep at the wheel, or while Congress is on the take, or any number of possible scenarios that might alter this supposed legal right to own something while you are not in any way connected to the thing you own, other than by way of some nebulous, or fictitious, or transitory legal power?
This questioning returns right back to the very beginning when a government employee may have given the Billionaire the title to the land, and not given the title to the land to the competitor.
Now, just suppose, that absentee ownership is enforced (forget about workers merely taking ownership of the abandoned land and building), and The People, or the voluntary government, or even the involuntary government doesn't regain control over the land, and/or the building, and/or whatever is left behind after the Billionaire packs up and leaves, and the workers are left with nothing but their collective power of knowledge, skill, and labor.
What is in place to forbid them from borrowing the money needed to start a new factory in the same neighborhood, an upgraded one, a competitive one, and make the same things the Billionaire intends to make in Mexico, or China, and what stops those workers from making higher quality stuff, at lower costs, and thereby gain market share by that force?
Who tells who, who can borrow money from who?
What happens if the workers, unionized well, send a good representative to the Bank. What does the Bank say to the worker? You don't have any credit?
Worker:
"Here are all the numbers, down to the penny, we can offer a better product for less, and here are the numbers of all the buyers we have ready to buy, at our price, when we can deliver, on this date, all we need is the start up money. Give us a head-start and we will have our products delivered to our customers before the Billionaire can corner the market from his new factory, in China, or Mexico, or wherever he went. We have to start from the ground up, since the Billionaire knows better than to sell his old factory to us, and he won't sell, his price is priced higher than cost, higher than it would cost us to build a brand new, better, upgraded, factory according to how we know things will work best, not him."
How much do the workers pay the representative? Minimum wage?
How much do the workers pay the one worker who best manages to secure the highest quality and lowest cost money so as to start a new factory and be competitive in the face of a Billionaire moving to a land where the workers are slave laborers, for whatever reason the workers there are slave laborers?
Who is supplying the legal criminals with the most productive slaves, at the lowest cost?
Who is supplying the world with the highest quality workers who charge the least, or minimum, wage?
I'm not speaking about fantasy stuff. Look into the company called Tesla Motors.
During the Boom years Tesla Motors began building a factory to make a competitive electric car and then The Federal Reserve cabal, Wall Street, whomever, the actual people who have the legal license to cause a Boom and cause a Bust, on schedule, after they caused the Bust we are bottoming out in now, Tesla began to run out of money.
The billionaire owner of Tesla was famous for having the ability to get money, having already been involved in Pay-Pal, Solar City, and Space-X, but, for some reason, money was tough to get, and the new Sedan made by Tesla, would be delayed in reaching the market.
Meanwhile Toyota is shipping, and paying all the costs of shipping, new electric cars to the same place where Tesla cars will be made, once the money, some of which is from Toyota, some of which is from Germany, flows into the Tesla circuit, and begins Booming that economy.
Will the Chinese corner the electric car market, and if not, why not?
Where did all the bail out money go?
Where did all the money from The Fed, when The Fed doubled the U.S.A. dollar currency supply in 2008, go?
Did that money go to the workers at the factories so as to Boom their economy once the owner of the factory packed up and moved to China?
Are there an dots that need to be connected in this game, ones that you may not be seeing yet?
I am going to restart and finish viewing the, very much appreciated, Real News report. I have not donated money. I don't have any surplus wealth to donate, and I am not wondering where all the surplus wealth went, and I am not wondering who has it, and I am not wondering what all that surplus wealth will buy, because I already know. It is all tied up in The Dollar Hegemony, the poorest quality, and the highest price money on the planet earth. I can report with confidence that the surplus wealth will be spent on everything, without moral limit, without any limit whatsoever, everything necessary in the work of maintaining the power to steal surplus wealth from those who make it.
Paul Jay:
But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires.
If someone has a point of view, then someone can express that point of view, and then someone else can inspect that point of view for validity, and if there is cause for a new point of view to emerge, as a result of problems, inaccuracies, or other deficiencies exposed during the inspection, then a better, more competitive point of view is discovered, invented, or realized.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to speak for someone else, and then assume to know the viewpoint that is to be inspected for validity.
If a government is strictly voluntary, then who can question the validity of what the volunteers do with their time, energy, and power?
If the government is involuntary, then how is that arrangement any different than any other crime?
If a criminal plans on injuring an innocent victim, and follows through with that plan, how can the victim, or any potential victim, defend against further crime?
If potential victims pool their resources, voluntarily, and employ that pool of resources toward the effective avoidance of any crime, anywhere, anytime, or at least move in that direction one step at a time, and at least learn from mistakes done, whereby steps are taken in the opposite direction, and at least avoid repeating those mistakes over and over again, at least learn at some point, at least learn at some time, not to repeat mistakes whereby the power to defend against crime actually is crime, then what name is placed on that phenomenon?
How about voluntary government.
Potential victims pool their resources voluntarily and they manage to take effective steps toward the avoidance of innocent victims being willfully injured by criminals.
If the viewpoint to be inspected for validity is one that is based upon involuntary government, then it may be a good idea to know what that viewpoint is based upon.
When people pool their resources so as to employ that power in the work of taking power from a targeted population without agreement given by the target population what is the word that best identifies that phenomenon.
How about crime, or organized crime, or legal crime, or involuntary government?
A. Voluntary government
B. Crime
If the viewpoint in question, to be inspected for validity, is B and not A, then it makes no sense to inspect A so as to find fault with B, unless the idea is to discredit B by false association with A.
If the viewpoint in question, to be inspected for validity, is A and not B, then it makes no sense to inspect B, so as to find value in A, since the value of A is in A, not B.
The faults of B are in B, not A.
I would very much like to discuss the validity of any viewpoint, so long as the discussion doesn't willfully proceed by way of willfully falsifying the information so as to hide the truth, on purpose, for profit.
But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires.
A. Free Market: People are free from any power employed in the defense of innocent people against crime by criminals, with badges, or criminals without badges.
B. free market: Competition exists because no power is stolen from anyone and then that stolen power flows to one former competitor making the one former competitor more powerful than all the other former competitors, thereby making competition powerless.
If the term Free Market is defined as A, then the viewpoint to be inspected for validity is one thing, and if the term free market is defined as B, then the viewpoint to be inspected is the opposite thing.
In context the viewpoint to be inspected for validity is Free Market A, whereby power flows to people who use that power to eliminate competition.
People who empower that Free Market are, in a word, criminals.
They steal surplus wealth from the people who create surplus wealth and then they spend that stolen surplus wealth toward the necessary work required to maintain the power to steal that surplus wealth from the people who create that surplus wealth, and they lie about it, with false names like Free Market, stolen from people who employ the same term, having an opposite meaning, and thereby gaining the power of a half/truth, a believable lie, making their crimes appear to be good, and at the same time, making what is good appear to be bad.
How convenient can lies be for criminals?
How destructive can lies be for victims?
But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires.
Crime is based upon the amoral base justification, rationalization, or false advertisement campaign known as "Might make Right".
The truth, the fundamental base, the core, the actual message from the criminal is one word:
Obey
There are no options, there is no fight, there is no power struggle, there is only one thing the victim is allowed to do once the criminal seizes more power, more might, over the targeted victim.
Obey
All other words falsify the fact, hide the truth, and cover up the crime, and render the victim powerless to defend against victimization.
Might does not make right. A criminal reaching a state of greater power over the victim will injure the victim, the victim is injured, end of story.
If one victim, or one potential victim, is to avoid victimization, it stands to reason, by way of moral understanding, that one victim agrees to combine power with another victim, or potential victim, and thereby reach a level of power that is sufficient to overpower the criminal, and thereby avoid the crime in progress, and avoid any potential crime.
People do that most of the time and that is why the human species is gaining power over the forces of nature reaching an ability to create vast supplies of surplus wealth.
That phenomenon, by which innocent people agree to combine power, can be called the free market, or voluntary government.
A rose by any other name...
A lie by any other name...
But why is it that the free market demands that rights of private wealth and corporations must be protected but it's O.K. for the government to dictate to workers telling them they're not free to refuse to sell their labor even if they don't agree with the price or the conditions of their employment. The point is: when something has to give, weather it's the public debt, or problems at Koeler [spelling?], Mercury and Marine, and Harley Davidson, why is it acceptable that workers sacrifice and sacrilegious to suggest it should be the Billionaires.
I have a very hard time responding directly to that statement, as that statement is so filled with indirect references to falsehoods, confidence schemes, political fraud, economic fraud, and involuntary associations - crime and legal crime.
I don't read from the script.
Is that a weakness of mine?