 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Number 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer.
Well, even if you accept their theory, who says the capital has to be private capital? Who says it can't be public capital that creates the jobs
Anyone,
Discussion can be a process by which ideas, persepctives, plans, and actions, compete, whereby the purpose of the competition is to lay bare, before all eyes having an interest in seeing, and all minds having an interest in knowing, which idea, which perspective, which plan, and which action is better, and which one is not as good.
What is the higher quality one?
How can you answer that question without knowing which is the higher cost one?
How can you answer that question without knowing who pays the cost and who receives the benefit?
Discussion can be a process by which one person, or one representative of one group, intends to misinform a targeted victim, or misinform a group of targeted victims, and the idea can be known as a one way communication, a dictatorship, a subject who is subjected to the false information, and a dictator who dictates the false information; thereby subjecting the subject to the one way, dictatorial, communication.
Why does my above viewpoint work to explain the "us" versus "them" argument?
Is my viewpoint competitive? Does my viewpoint offer a higher quality viewpoint, at a lower cost to you?
Well, again, do you earn your living at the expense of someone else?
Do you depend upon lies to keep your victims unaware of their condition of victimization?
If so then my viewpoint does not represent a high quality, low cost, viewpoint to you, because it is true, and truth sets your victims free from your victimization, and that may never do, that may be a very low quality, and high cost, perspective to you, you may have to actually produce something that someone else wants, something higher in quality, and lower in cost to them.
Involuntary socialists steal surplus wealth from stupified victims, and the victims are made up of all the people who produce surplus wealth, the only place surplus wealth comes from, originally, and fraudulent acquisition of surplus wealth from those who create it, can only come from those among that group of surplus wealth creators who are stupified into a belief, and a condition, that they are powerless to avoid being, or even knowing that they are, victims.
Take that paragraph above and take out the words involuntary socialist, and place in the words involuntary capitalist, and you have the same social arrangement.
Involuntary socialists and involuntary capitalists fight each other to gain the larger share of surplus wealth that is stolen, by way of fraud, extortion, lies, threats of violence, and demonstrations, got thet, DEMON-strations, of inhuman, immoral, violence, against the innocent victims they target and subject to involuntary association, also known as, with the moral sense added: slavery.
If these guys in the REAL NEWS Report are arguing against involuntary capitalism while they are supporting involuntary socialism, you may well have guessed it by now, they represent half of the two heads of the same coin, and it matters little which lies are used to subject their victims to victimization, the transfer of earnings, from those who produce earnings, goes to either one of the victimizing groups. The masters share the rewards gained by deceit, threats of violence, and demonstrations of violence. Who really cares if your hard earned earnings go to legal criminals who call themselves socialists or legal criminals who call themselves capitalists?
If, on the other hand, these people are discussing voluntary socialism, and how voluntary socialism compares, competitively, along side of voluntary capitalism, then the idea can be to see which good qualities ( and for who) exist in the practice of voluntary socialism, and which bad qualities (and for who) exist in the practice of voluntary socialism, and the same accurate power of judgment, discernment, and discrimination, can be focused on that which is good (and for who) and that which is bad (and for who) within the practice of voluntary capitalism, which is all a moot point, for anyone who cares not to volunteer to do one of the other, as they alone see fit, without suffering from victimization at the hands of those who willfully deceive, and those who willfully threaten violence, to get what they want, power don't you know, and without subjection to demonstrations of violence, even when those demonstrations are claimed, by the criminals, legal or otherwise, to be "for your own good", take your punishment, and shut up - an offer you can't refuse.
I can offer a very good example of what happens when a person does accomplish the work required to know the differences between capitalism and socialism, the voluntary processes, and the involuntary processes, and you can understand those things too, if you do your homework, otherwise you may be stuck listening to those who may not have your best interests in mind. I'm not saying that I have your best interest in mind, either, you have to figure that out yourself.
Capitalism first, with a relevant quote:
Karl Menger
...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
That is the basis behind capitalism, and to understand how that could work, if it ever does exist, there would only be capitalists, there would be no one who ever expended a moment in the service of someone else, no charity, no transfers of power willingly from the giver to the receiver, none whatsoever, and therefore all the capitalists would be attempting to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
When I read that, I thought, "really", and what does he think I'm smoking?
What becomes of the people who are fully capable of producing surplus wealth, good working people, good honest people, people who consume less than they produce, and then they give away some, or even all, of their surplus wealth, to someone else, not excluding others, in fact, that is what they volunteer to do, what happens to them, in this thing called capitalism; are they magically disappeared from view, fro some reason?
Well, they don't exist, generous people don't exist in capitalism, there is no such thing as a generous person in capitalism.
Either you are a capitalist, in capitalism, or you don't exist.
Does that sound too convenient? I didn't write the capitalist manifesto, so don't blame me, read the whole thing, see what you think. The idea may become even more convoluted as you read further on, and to me, it is all a justification, an apology for that single quote above, and as far as I am concerned, a capitalist is nothing more, and nothing less, than someone you need to avoid, because their purpose is to connect to you, and then their purpose is to get from you whatever they can get from you, and the methods by which they will invent, to get things from you, are secret, on purpose, because if you knew how they get power from you, you would, more than likely, avoid that loss of power that you once had, and that now flows to that capitalist, the one you didn't avoid connecting to, or the capitalists as a collective group such all your power out of you, because you have failed to avoid connecting to the lot of them.
If the capitalists are telling you something along the lines of, this is for your own good, such as the whole "trickle down theory", then you may want to avoid that, like you may want to avoid someone showing symptoms of the plague, who is spitting as they speak, at you, selling you something you must have, according to them, and you may not want to get too close, for fear of getting some of that on you.
That is my viewpoint, my words, my opinion of capitalism, and I hope that you judge
I can't speak for the capitalists, but they, more than likely, think the same thing, about each other, since they are privy to the game, so they know better than to be victims at that hands of a fellow capitalist who will, as they themselves confess, in the fine print, "attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others".
That is not to say that a capitalist isn't an example of a very powerful force that can employ scarce resources efficiently in the process of producing more, and more, and more, surplus wealth, and if they produce vast quantities of surplus wealth, by hook or by crook, there can be a whole lot of economic activity for those who have little, or no, interest in inventing new ways to use scarce power in the work of creating more, and more, and more power. They have more power, isn't that nice.
Whatever trickles down, could be better invested by those who earn their share, in charitable investments, or not.
Perhaps the problem with capitalism is such that everyone isn't a capitalist, and therefore the non-capitalists among the social structures that combine capitalists and non-capitalists, give up, voluntarily, more of what they earn, charitably, to the capitalists, without a fight, without resorting to secret deals, without resorting to exclusionary tactics, without excluding all others.
A. Capitalists excluding all others
B. Non-capitalists including all others
C. The legal criminals
When the capitalists and the non-capitalists exclude the legal criminals, then the non-capitalists become, by that measure, capitalists, yes or no?
How does one go about excluding all others?
Where are the capitalists who are willing to divulge their secrets?
They are as scarce as the socialists who are willing to divulge their secrets.
No one is confessing, unless a curious individual sets about to uncover the fine print.
Moving on to socialism, from a self confessed socialist, a person that wrote a history of socialism, a book I have yet to find, and avoiding a definition of socialism that is written by a confessed opponent of socialism, which would likely include some errors, I offer, straight from the horses mouth:
Stephen Pearl Andrews
What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all.
Stephen Pearl Andrews was an abolitionist before the not so civil war of aggression for profit, by greedy capitalists, or greedy socialists, depending upon which cover story works best at the time. The cover for the war, after it started, was "anti-slavery", and those who have a special place in their hearts for Abraham Lincoln may want to know that he suggested shipping all the "Negroes", his words, back to Africa, presumably, not asking for permission, don't you know how that works, it is called deportation, you are not welcome, get out, now, not to be questioned, just get out, and what method do you think will be used to ship those "Negroes" Mr. Lincoln, the same luxury liners used to ship them from Africa to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)? Not likely, Lincoln was bought and paid for by the Rail Road "interests", and the newly forming military industrial complex, soon to be redirected solving the Indian Problem, with the all to familiar Final Solution.
So, if you can, think, and come up with a few ideas on your own, using your own sovereign power, your individual power, and think, which methods work best for you, which methods of social structure are more likely to allow you to keep the power you were born with, and which social structures may work against you as you may want to keep the power you earn?
Which social structure is most likely going to result in the most surplus wealth that can be produced, and who will get control of it, in that social structure?
Which social structure is most likely going to result in the equitable distribution of the most surplus wealth that can possibly be produced?
Are you out of ideas, wanting someone to hand the best idea to you on a silver platter?
Which social structure liberates each individual so as to avoid power wasted in the process of defending against those who authorize themselves to gain at the expense of others?
Does that make any sense, or did I jump to far in one leap?
I will listen to the rest of the Real News Report, then I have a few chores to complete, efficiently.
Number 14: US managers are overpriced, you say.
Look, people, they are caught up in the quagmire.
If socialism is supposed to be this "public" ownership concept, then how is that any different from corporate share holders?
Many people send their power to a central collective point, place, fund, thing, where then that central power is controlled by a few people.
Why mince words?
Why make that which is obvious, measurable, into something covered with smoke and mirrors? Who benefits by covering up the facts?
If socialism is a concept whereby no one owns the air, then that is what socialism is, a concept whereby no one owns the air. Air, or oxygen to be more specific, is not owned by anyone, do you understand this factual measure of reality?
That is what is meant by the concept of pubic ownership, or collective ownership, or that which is not owned, controlled, and used to gain profit, by a division of the whole human species less than the whole.
What happens if a division of less than the whole of the human species gains control, or ownership, or private ownership, of the stuff called air, or more specifically the stuff called oxygen?
Do you want to know the concept of "public" ownership, or do you prefer to be stupified by the lies produced by the people who profit from lies, at your expense?
A. Knowledge
B. Ignorance
Which do you prefer?
Which is more powerful, to who, at the expense of who?
When you give up your power to veto any law, then your masters can tax you for your use of oxygen. They own you. Learn the facts, or suffer the consequences.
I have to get to work, but I do want to listen, and then comment on, the rest of this Real News report.