  (Click photo to enlarge.) |
You’ve got to give them credit. They’re consistent in their protection of greed.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced on Monday a crackdown on offshore tax havens that could produce $210 billion in new tax revenue over the next decade.
The White House will face opposition to the proposal from the business community and Congress. Before the announcement, a Republican leadership staffer circulated an email citing a Bloomberg report saying the proposal “would be the biggest tax increase on U.S. corporations since 1986.” And Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ken.) said later on Monday that he could not endorse Obama’s plan since it “gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies.”
#79,
WalMart tells it suppliers, “Give me this at that price or else”. The business can’t afford to supply at that price and loses the business to WalMart sourcing from China. And you think that is fair that WalMart not support domestic suppliers that contribute to the same society?
Do you really think this is WalMart’s fault or the economic environment created by the lawyers trying to be economists? Or the Fed inflating the dollar to the point where you have to make $X/hr and thus the manufacturer you work for has to charge more for the final product? Or lobbyists pushing for laws that favor their clients instead of being equal for all?
You can blame the businesses all you want, but the problem is Congress passing laws that favor these kinds of problems.
Because WalMart refuses to pay its suppliers or even their own employees a fair wage, the cost of their medical benefits fall upon all taxpayers. But you think that is fair.
No, it’s not fair. But what can you do? Nationalize WalMart and fix prices? That didn’t work out too well for the Soviets.
No, you remove the trade barriers, you remove minimum wages, you use anti-trust regulation to break up unions into state entities instead of national entities.
The US still won’t allow Canadian lumber into the country because of the damage (ya right) to American producers. But Canadian lumber producers pay less for their trees than American producers. Is that free trade?
Now, you are making sense. I am very anti-protectionist.
Nope, commerce is the rightful property of all of society.
Commerce, yes. The infrastructure, no.
That is why trademarks, copyrights, and patents all have expiry dates. If you want to do business in our society, you play by our rules.
Does that include increasing the copyright time limit?
#80,
Tell that to the ancient Athenians and Spartans. I think they might disagree with you. But then most right wing nuts like to invent their own version of history.
Sparta had kings. And a VERY large slave contingent as all male had to be soldiers first.
Athens was mob ruled. They were subservient to society.
Next?
#76 – LibertyLover,
#74, Morals are indeed a human construct because we have a choice. Animals do not unless you consider animals to be sentient.
I do. I also believe sentience to be based on a number of factors. I also believe it to be a sliding scale. You seem to believe it to be a binary on/off switch. What do you have to support such a claim? Do you not see that it denies evolution by being far more sudden a step in evolution than even punctuated equilibrium would allow?
Animals are motivated by a survival instinct, just as humans are. The difference is we can choose to be brutes and take what we want from our fellow man or we can choose to work with our fellow man, exchanging the goods each of us has produced.
As can non-human animals to varying degrees, just as one might expect if one believes in evolution.
In fact, one can even view the studies showing fMRI scans that show not only that animals perform similarly on certain tests in exchanging goods and moral behavior but that the same exact structures in the brains of animals light up when performing the task as do in humans.
Why is it that Objectivists, who IME claim to be atheists, tend to believe in behaviorist psychology … and why only for non-humans?
The behaviorist view is flat dead wrong on so many counts, first and foremost being that if it were true, behaviorist psychologists could not have thought of behaviorist psychology in the first place.
But, to apply it only to non-human animals and deny such obvious facts as chimps having the same facial expressions and emotions as humans or sperm whales having 20 lb brains or all of the tremendous number of studies on animal intelligence is just plain silly.
And, it flies in the face of evolution by making the claim that intelligence/morality/ethics and the rest all evolved in single step evolution with the human species.
This makes no sense.
#75 – LibertyLoser,
#72, I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the American concept of Freedom wasn’t born with the American Revolution?
What a stupid and loaded question! You try to veil your assertion that the American Freedom is the only freedom that exists and that it, of course, was born with the American Revolution.
This is stupid. No. I’m saying that the concept of Freedom (scratch the word American) did not start in America.
And, since you argued that slavery made Iceland not free, clearly the concept of freedom that you consider to be freedom did not start in this country until after the Civil War.
Boy you make strange assumptions, assertions, and self-contradictory statements!
#78 – LibertyLoser,
Perhaps not in the way you envision it, but the US was the first to codify it into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
I must have missed when that happened. I thought some states still had vastly better education systems than others, especially the states with higher per capita income. Ditto and even more so when looking at local school districts where some districts outspend other nearby districts by over 2.5 times the amount spent per pupil.
So, when exactly did we all become equal?
I still work toward that goal and hope that one day we can achieve it. Do you?
Liberty Loser,
When the federal government sticks its nose in the business dealings of companies and interferes with free trade, you are no longer free, I don’t care how you try to spin it.
Wow you’ve really drunk the corporate Kool-Aid!! Here’s a tip, when it smells like almonds, don’t drink it.
Here’s the problem with your
incredibly stupidstatement.[b]Corporations are not life forms.[/b]
Corporations are tools created by human beings, like hammers and screwdrivers. The purpose of a corporation is to limit one’s liability to only what s/he has invested in a business.
It is not to protect one from prosecution for crimes.
It is not to allow one to evade taxes.
It is not to allow one to shirk responsibility for one’s actions.
That it has been used for all of the above is a crime. Corporations have whatever rights we choose to give them. They do not have any inalienable rights. They do not even have the right to exist if we decide against them.
I would personally choose to allow them to exist for only their original purpose.
To say that real live human beings with real rights can only be free when MalFart, Home Despot, Blood Bath and Beyond, and all the rest are free to trample us to death and not pay any taxes is ludicrous in the extreme.
If you were really for liberty, you would support liberty for individuals and strict regulation of corporations. But alas, you have drunk the Kool-Aid and are willing to give up your own right to live and be healthy so that corporations may rob you blind.
#81 – Liberty Loser,
Do you really think this is WalMart’s fault or the economic environment created by the lawyers trying to be economists?
Follow the money. MallFart’s executives bought the politician and paid to make the law what it is. I think we can hold the executives responsible for their actions.
Corporations do not do anything. They are a legal fiction, not a life form.
You can blame the businesses all you want, but the problem is Congress passing laws that favor these kinds of problems.
When business buys congress, how do you separate the two?
No, it’s not fair. But what can you do? Nationalize WalMart and fix prices? That didn’t work out too well for the Soviets.
You can regulate them within an inch of their non-lives and require them to play by the rules if they want access to the number one consumerist market in the world.
No, you remove the trade barriers, you remove minimum wages, you use anti-trust regulation to break up unions into state entities instead of national entities.
All to make MallFart executives happy at the expense of the rest of us? Why?
The US still won’t allow Canadian lumber into the country because of the damage (ya right) to American producers. But Canadian lumber producers pay less for their trees than American producers. Is that free trade?
No. It means both Canada and the U.S. subsidize and industry ridiculously, which is most definitely not free trade by either of us.
How much is an 800 year old tree worth?
How much would it cost to grow one?
But, here in the U.S., we sell it for a dollar to a timber company and then get nearly zero job creation from it because … WE SELL THE UNPROCESSED TIMBER OVERSEAS!! Oh yeah, and the government will pay to cut the roads to the tree so that you don’t have to do much work to get it out of there.
We are idiots.
#76, Sentience
I don’t claim any special knowledge on whether animals are on any evolutionary track. I don’t make any claims as to when we became sentient*. I do know when the US codified true morality is when they codified freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
I will say that animals have not constructed any recognizable civilizations.
Based on that, I have to worry about getting along in the world I know, exchanging goods I produce with goods other people produce.
#84, No, I wasn’t trying to assert anything. That’s just what it read like.
What I am saying is the US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
#85, I never said we were all equal. I said, again, the US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
Where in that quote did I state that all men were equal or not equal? But since you brought up the subject of equality, I want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
#86 That it has been used for all of the above is a crime. Opinion, but still law.
I also feel because we have to pay federal income taxes, it’s a crime. Opinion, but still law.
YMMV.
I would personally choose to allow them to exist for only their original purpose.
I agree. So, you have to ask yourself who gave these powers to corporations? Who stuck their noses in free trade and twisted it so? Perhaps we should regulate Congress, too . . . oh, wait, the Constitution is supposed to do that. Why hasn’t it?
#87, You can regulate them within an inch of their non-lives and require them to play by the rules if they want access to the number one consumerist market in the world.
What rules? It’s the rules that got us in the mess we’re in now!
I know what you are saying and I really do agree to a certain extent but applying MORE regulations is not the answer because you are not going to be the one writing the regs. The corps are though their lobbyists.
The only workable solution is to remove all regulations AND protections from corporations. If they have to compete on equal footing AND be liable for their own mistakes (violation of property rights), then there will be no choice but to clean up their act. Otherwise, they will be sued out of existence.
*However, I did read a book a few years back that discussed this very subject, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.” It’s not the definitive answer but it did cause me to re-evaluate my own dogs
http://tinyurl.com/o49t8m
#88, Liberty Liar,
The point you miss is that every argument you have made is hollow, a distortion, or just plain wrong. You will continue to believe you are correct and I don’t have a problem with that. My issue concerns your insistence on stupid claims such as Congress doesn’t have the authority to cap CEO’s salaries or that Federal Income tax is illegal.
Calling you disillusioned is an understatement. If you need to depend upon others’ writings to form your own opinions then you don’t have much of a critical thinking capacity.
Understand, this is the clue that you are a poser. You get your ideas from others. A mature person might be shaped and influenced by others, but will rely upon his own thinking process to come to a conclusion. A mature person will use quotes to bolster his argument, not to make it.
Suggesting I (we) read a specified text won’t work. I am quite sure Scott and I can understand propaganda when we see it. We know better than to fall under its seductiveness. We also know how to decipher the bull shit from the facts as has been done here.
You made unsubstantiated claims by quoting someone else. When shown those claims were distorted or false you tried to twist them into some minutia of veracity. It didn’t work. An example of “drinking the Kool-Aid” (a term I hate) formed your opinions because you weren’t critical.
Many years ago I had a friendly argument with someone about selling aspirin. He extolled the benefits of capitalism and free markets that allowed all these different companies to get in the game. Competition is good; it gives us better products at a good price. Plus he had just finished reading Ayn Rand.
Only, there were a total of three plants that manufactured aspirin under license for all the retailers. And there was one supplier of the precursors or raw materials. The formula for aspirin hadn’t changed since 1896. Yup, a lot of competition there.
There is no free market. Those in it don’t want a free market, they want to dominate and control the market to the exclusion of competitors. They want immunity from torts and paying for their share of society. Although the quote “What is good for GM is good for America” is actually a misquote, the substance is the mindset of capitalism.
Well, I have to go. Have a good day.
#88 – LibertyLover,
I do know when the US codified true morality is when they codified freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
When was this? Certainly not in the constitution that counted slaves as 1/3 of a human and “indians” meaning native americans who didn’t count at all.
Today we have a system where 47 million people have no health care. Some schools are dramatically underfunded. Some states set reading proficiency dramatically higher than others. Racial profiling still exists to some degree and has officially existed within this decade.
So, when did this mythical equality begin?
Better yet, how do we get there from here?
From your post:
Quote 1: I never said we were all equal.
Quote 2: No man is above another man in social status.
These two statements are contradictory.
What rules? It’s the rules that got us in the mess we’re in now!
Actually, it’s the systematic removal for the last 28 years through all administrations of the rules that used to be in place prior to Ronald Reagan that got us where we are.
This country thrived when corporations had strict regulation and has been going downhill as a direct result of deregulation.
http://tinyurl.com/dxzanh
The only workable solution is to remove all regulations AND protections from corporations. If they have to compete on equal footing AND be liable for their own mistakes (violation of property rights), then there will be no choice but to clean up their act. Otherwise, they will be sued out of existence.
I don’t agree that one can remove the protections without creating regulations. One of the regulations we need is for deep accounting principles. We simply can’t survive as long as the corporations are privatizing profits while socializing costs and risks. This is today’s problem.
As for stopping the corps from lobbying, that should be job 1. We must stop all lobbying, especially by foreign corporations, but even by domestic ones.
#89, If you need to depend upon others’ writings to form your own opinions then you don’t have much of a critical thinking capacity.
Again, you are wrong. How does it feel to be wrong so much?
I quote from other people’s writing when they say more eloquently what I believe. I found the theories. I didn’t have to be convinced of them.
Well, I have to go. Have a good day.
You always seem to run off when confronted with a lucid argument. Why is that?
#90,
When was this? Certainly not in the constitution that counted slaves as 1/3 of a human and “indians” meaning native americans who didn’t count at all.
Already answered. The culture at the time only counted White Men as “men.”
But to state because of that, the idea that no man is beholden to no one thing or person is not revolutionary, is missing the entire point of the Constitution.
The culture has evolved to include women, indians, blacks, asians, etc into the definition of “men.” The idea of freedom in that regard has not changed.
How all men end up after taking or not taking advantage of their freedom is irrelevant. They are free.
Quote 1: I never said we were all equal.
Quote 2: No man is above another man in social status.
Equality and freedom are not the same thing.
Soviet surfs were all equal. They were not free. They were beholden to someone. Equality of outcome.
Bill Gates wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth but he became the richest man in the world. In America, you have (in theory) equality of opportunity.
Don’t confuse equality with freedom. They are two different things.
We simply can’t survive as long as the corporations are privatizing profits while socializing costs and risks. This is today’s problem.
Agreed. These bailouts are horrendous miscarriages of justice.
As for stopping the corps from lobbying, that should be job 1.
I am not sure how you can do that unless you wish to stop “freedom of association.” It’s a slippery slope when you start that.
#92 – LibertyLoser,
When was this? Certainly not in the constitution that counted slaves as 1/3 of a human and “indians” meaning native americans who didn’t count at all.
Already answered. The culture at the time only counted White Men as “men.”
But to state because of that, the idea that no man is beholden to no one thing or person is not revolutionary, is missing the entire point of the Constitution.
Incorrect again. At the time, only white men counted as men and women presumably didn’t count at all. However, by today’s standards, men were indeed beholden to others, as were women. So, your point is flat dead wrong. In fact, I think you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
Quote 1: I never said we were all equal.
Quote 2: No man is above another man in social status.
Equality and freedom are not the same thing.
However, freedom is not in either of the statements I claim are contradictory. So your answer is neither an answer nor a correction. The statements are still contradictory.
Bill Gates wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth
Not gold perhaps, but definitely silver, yes.
From wikipedia:
I am not sure how you can do that unless you wish to stop “freedom of association.” It’s a slippery slope when you start that.
Actually, I just plan to take human rights away from non-human corporations. In practice, this will indeed be difficult precisely because we live in a corporatocracy. However, we cannot be free when corporations, mere legal fictions, have more freedoms and liberties than live flesh and blood human beings.
#93, However, by today’s standards, men were indeed beholden to others, as were women.
Who were they beholden to? And I do believe I included women in my statement as not being “men.”
Quote 2 . . .
However, freedom is not in either of the statements I claim are contradictory. So your answer is neither an answer nor a correction. The statements are still contradictory.
Ah, I see your confusion. You only took the one sentence out of my statement and tried to fit all the others into it. If you read it in the context it was supposed to be read in, I think you’ll see I was talking about freedom:
The US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
If you are subservient to someone/thing, you are not free. Do you agree with that?
Where in the Constitution does it say that men were subservient to someone/thing? It doesn’t nor is it implied. In fact, the BOR specifically states that government is subservient to men. It’s gotten twisted.
Re:Gates
Without getting in a subjective opinion argument on what constitutes a silver spoon, do you think it was his parent’s wealth that made him the richest man in the world or his business sense?
#94 – LibertyLoser,
#93, However, by today’s standards, men were indeed beholden to others, as were women.
Who were they beholden to? And I do believe I included women in my statement as not being “men.”
The men (black men) were slaves to other men (white men). The women were chattels and had no vote. Is that not beholden? Slaves are explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
I was incorrect. Apparently a slave counted as 3/5ths of a human being. So, were the slaves free? Were the slaves men? Do you claim that because they were not considered men at the time of the framing of the constitution that they still may not be considered men?
Ah, I see your confusion. You only took the one sentence out of my statement and tried to fit all the others into it. If you read it in the context it was supposed to be read in, I think you’ll see I was talking about freedom:
The US was the first to codify freedom into society. No man is above another man in social status. All other systems still relied on being subservient to something or someone. The US system eliminated all of that.
Yes, but two of the sentences in your paragraph are still contradictory to each other.
If you are subservient to someone/thing, you are not free. Do you agree with that?
Of course!! Do you agree that if one was a man by today’s standards but not by 1792 standards and was a slave, that one was still an enslaved man?
Where in the Constitution does it say that men were subservient to someone/thing? It doesn’t nor is it implied. In fact, the BOR specifically states that government is subservient to men. It’s gotten twisted.
Quoted above, note the bit about free men, Indians, or “other persons”. Other persons were slaves.
Re:Gates
Without getting in a subjective opinion argument on what constitutes a silver spoon, do you think it was his parent’s wealth that made him the richest man in the world or his business sense?
I think he had an advantage not available to many in the nation that gave him the ability to become the richest man in the world. Some who may be just as smart do not have the opportunity he had. So, I don’t see it as either or. I see it as a combination of factors. One contributing factor in his wealth was his business sense. Another was the advantage of his birth.
#95,
The men (black men) were slaves to other men (white men). The women were chattels and had no vote. Is that not beholden? Slaves are explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
Scott,
There comes a point where I have to ask if you are even reading the posts or just picking out what you want to see.
Did you not see this in the numerous posts, in numerous different formats?
Already answered. The culture at the time only counted White Men as “men.” [...] The culture has evolved to include women, indians, blacks, asians, etc into the definition of “men.” The idea of freedom in that regard has not changed.
I believe that answers your questions.
Another was the advantage of his birth.
How did his birth help him?
#97 – Liberty Bullshit Artist,
It is you who are not reading posts. By today’s standards, many human beings were not free. You refuse to answer this crucial issue.
Do you believe black men are the equal of white men? I do.
Do you believe black men deserve freedom? I do.
Do you believe black men were free when the constitution was written? I don’t.
You sir, are completely and utterly full of shit.
As for Gates, being born in a privileged family as opposed to in the slums with access to good schools as opposed to completely and utterly insufficient schools is a huge advantage.
Granted, it is an advantage that both of us likely had. However, it is an advantage that a great many people are lacking.
Those born into slums are far less likely to become the next Bill Gates, no?
#91, Liberty Liar,
#89, If you need to depend upon others’ writings to form your own opinions then you don’t have much of a critical thinking capacity.
Again, you are wrong. How does it feel to be wrong so much?
I quote from other people’s writing when they say more eloquently what I believe. I found the theories. I didn’t have to be convinced of them.
It is called “parroting”. Several time you have referred others to read sites or books and articles espousing your point of view. You didn’t take short passages to back up a fact, but opinion as if some Liebertarian is a smarter person or has some authority. Some High School drop out’s diatribe about how income tax is illegal is not an expert opinion.
Others, such as Misanthropic Scott (as do I) also often cites articles and books. The difference there is he is backing up an argument already made with a source of factual information. Again, the difference is an extinction of a species is factual, who is the worse politician is opinion.
Telling us we don’t know or understand an argument because we didn’t read a specific opinion article is farcical. That is the same argument Alfred1 constantly makes in regards to his bible.
Well, I have to go. Have a good day.
You always seem to run off when confronted with a lucid argument. Why is that?
Nope. I stick around much longer than others to answer your silly points. Some of us however, do have things to do other than sit in mommy’s basement typing on a computer.
The silly thing is I gave you notice that I had other obligations. I extended a courtesy that I was not slighting you by not answering. Instead you accuse me of running off as if you frighten me.
Posers don’t frighten me.
#97, Do you believe black men are the equal of white men? I do.
Do you believe black men deserve freedom? I do.
Do you believe black men were free when the constitution was written? I don’t.
I agree.
This doesn’t negate the fact that the idea of freedom, of a people not subservient to any one thing or person, was truly born.
If aliens were to land today and be granted full citizenship, would that negate the fact that because they weren’t considered in the original definition of men, make the definition of freedom any less accurate? No.
You sir, are completely and utterly full of shit.
Ah, the response of those who can’t seem to justify their responses.
I already know you are not a fan of the republican ideal (not the party, but the structure). I didn’t realize you also weren’t a fan of the idea of freedom from tyranny.
#98,
I gonna play you for a minute:
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are wrong. I don’t need to show you are wrong because other people agree with me. I can post links because they mean something but all of your links are shit because they come from someone who doesn’t believe in the Obamessiah. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
There. Now we’re even.
The silly thing is I gave you notice that I had other obligations. I extended a courtesy that I was not slighting you by not answering.
Says you. If that had been the only thing you wrote, I would have accepted that. Telling me I am full of shit and THEN saying good bye is akin to screaming, “I’m taking my bat and ball and going home.”