Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Libertarians and Ron Paulers, you've been DUPED!

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 8, 2012, 5:37 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This so-called libertarian ideology is not advocating freedom, but tyranny! It advocates handing the power over to to the financial elite and the huge corporations, giving them even more control and power over our lives - private tyranny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8rSQ4e596A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp

168 Comments

168 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Chris Hedges is awesome

some other good videos

How Corporations Destroyed American Democracy - Chris Hedges. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQjF1IPgKQ&feature=related

Hedges protests the current wars under Obama - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMNqziwbyWU

Chris Hedges: Fight GOP Fascism - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUKn19Sg0vo

Hedges - No way to vote against Banks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5RxhahHK0&feature=fvwrel

[-] 2 points by gsw (2692) 2 years ago

Hedges is great! I wish he would run for office. He speaks from the heart the truth, and he has lived for social justice. His books are very informative . Every american should be aware of his work and service to humanity. And he serves it to dems, repubs, libs alike. Great links, thanks .

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Yeah, Chris is awsome. There are lots of awsome people, though. Naomi Klein, Richard Wolff, Noam Chomsky etc etc.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

The Tea Party people are entitled to those opinions. The problem is that they're in many ways pissed off at the wrong people. It's not the government that has made many of their lives miserable, it's private enterprise - who, to a large extent, have the government in their back pocket.

[-] -3 points by ivian (-60) 2 years ago

how many tea party people have you spoken with?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Not many. A couple on the net. Why?

[-] 0 points by ivian (-60) 2 years ago

you made a stament about them without having much direct interaction with them.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

So I can't have opinons about something without directly interacting with it? What kind of logic is that?

I know what many of them advocate. I have read about the movement; I've heard about it; I've seen reports about it - and based on that I express what I think about it.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

if I based my opinion on tea party people on the people that i've met

my opinion of the tea party would be dramatically worse than what I've seen on the internet.

I met these assholes that protested out protest once. They just called everyone hippies and said "the only way to solve the problems we see in government is with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other"

Yeah so i give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not all fuckin' loons like the people I met lol

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

There are a lot of awful attitudes and opinions, but what we should do is not to ridicule and make fun of them, but try to convince them using good solid arguments.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I talked with the guy for about 10 minutes or so. I did an interview with him. I documented the protests in my city.

I was surprisingly polite with him. Interview isn't included but this is a video where you can see and hear a different guy in their group yelling at occupy protesters.

The guy in the background toward the end yelling "soviet union" is a 'tea partier' who was there to protest our protest. The guy yelling at everyone was really pissing me off though. Kept saying shit like go get jobs... Real Rush Limbaugh kind of guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNt-jJZvVpA&feature=plcp

Second video if you're interested - this video is better and has a couple good interviews from local protesters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuN-UXPB3g0&feature=plcp

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Thanks for the links.

Some TP'ers and ultra right-wingers will never be convinced I guess, but we must always try our best when we meet them.

[-] -2 points by ivian (-60) 2 years ago

of course you can have opinions. you've heard about the " movement" ?, you've read about it? what site, what article, what sources? try talking with the members.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

To DE-program them? Always worth a shot I suppose. Help em to climb out of the pitcher plant. Let them become free to become independents.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

There arn't any TPpeople where I live.

[-] -2 points by ivian (-60) 2 years ago

have you done a computer search to find out if there are any tp groups where you live?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, and since I live in Norway I think the results would be pretty much 0.

But I'm now repectfully asking you to focus on the political issues,not on me.

[-] -2 points by ivian (-60) 2 years ago

what freedoms are you lacking in norway?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

We have achieved many freedoms:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/welfare-and-workers-rights-in-norway/

But Norway is not a libertarian socialist society so there are some freedoms that have not been achieved yet.

[-] -3 points by ivian (-60) 2 years ago

socialism destroys freedom. it destroys ambition.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Absolutely not. Libertarian socialism is about real freedom - the freedom to be in control of your own life, workplace and community:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20853) 2 years ago

Truth. Well said!

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Many have bought into this awful ideology. It's very destructive. This stuff needs to be adressed.

[-] -2 points by beautifulworld (20853) 2 years ago

I agree totally. Most people who buy into libertarian ideology like the social policies aspect of it, but fail to understand the economic aspects.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

The economic aspects are exactly why i buy into it.

[-] 2 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

and burying money in bottles

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20853) 2 years ago

No! Think harder about that. Austrian economics is a return to feudalism. Those with capital would be at a huge advantage. Ask your libertarian leaders if they'd be willing to divide up the capital evenly per person before implementing a true free market economy. They'll never go for that. Go ahead and ask them. They like Austrian economics because it is so advantageous for those who already have capital.

[-] 2 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

did i send you this already? from paul krugman - President Obama hails the fact that stimulus projects are coming in “ahead of schedule and under budget.” Yay — but boo.

Ahead of schedule is good. Under budget — well, ordinarily that’s a good thing. But the point of the stimulus is to increase spending! So if we don’t spend as much as expected, that’s less stimulus.

Paging Keynes, who pointed out the problem with projects that are of some use besides their role as stimulus. Such projects

because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict “business” principles.

He then went on to propose an alternative:

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

Seriously: if the projects really are coming in cheaper than expected, that doesn’t mean we should bank the savings; it means that we need more projects.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I've heard this many times....and it's a ridiculous statement. It assumes Austrians believe that somehow the gold standard is useful for unemployment because of mining operations that would sprout up because of it. That's ridiculous and has nothing to do with why Austrians like the gold standard.....and a false assumption as today gold is readily convertible into dollars and there really wouldn't be any more incentive under a gold standard to dig up gold...as gold is already money...you just can't use it as a currency as it must be exchanged first.

I wouldn't listen to anything Krugman says....he was one of the one's advocating the very policies that led into the housing crisis....while the Austrians were screaming "you're creating a housing bubble....this is crazy".

http://archive.mises.org/10153/krugman-did-cause-the-housing-bubble/

[-] 3 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

once again you do not understand what he is saying - according to the austrians - what would happen if we discovered a huge stash of gold underground - what would happen - we would be richer - and how is that different than money in bottles. you have missed the whole point! what a surprise. it puts the lie to the whole line of economic thinking - sorry you cannot see it - i can help if you like but i think you do not like!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

you're missing my point....gold is readily convertible into cash right now....if you found a huge stash of gold underground right now...we would be richer because it would be sold and converted into dollars....i don't like to use the term richer though....we would have a more diluted currency and goods would increase in price. But who benefits the most here? The people who found the gold first...because they can buy stuff for the current price of goods on the market....now what happens after they inject the gold in the market? Everyone elses prices rise, yet they haven't seen an increase in their savings like the people who found the gold did. So they get cheated out of money and screwed by inflation because they were far form the newly injected gold. This is what happens every day with government printing of money.....and guess who benefits....the big banks and gov cronies who are cozied up to them that receive the money first. Incremental transfers of wealth every time a newly created dollar is injected.

[-] 2 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

wow - either you cannot read or you cannot think - i wonder which it is. there is a zen expression from Master Hsüeh-tou, he said: "The wise boldly pick up a truth as soon as they hear it. Don't hesitate for a moment or you'll lose your head". your head is long gone - too bad they can be useful. i will try one last time but i am sure it is pointless - you cling to your austrian religion like a priest in black robes - and i know something about those guys! you will be the guy holding on to your dollars as the titanic goes down - thinking you are rich! your thinking is exactly backwards - dirt poor farmers understood that - why can't you - probably because of an elite education! where is the inflation sparky - with all the money printing, where is it? read secrets of the tremple and educate yourself! here is bill greider - he is trying to get you to understand that inflation redistributes wealth - downward which is why bankers and bondholders don't like it! you never quite explained the infaltion of the last 200 yrs or more and how we are so much richer today - remember i can help if you like.

"To illustrate these points, Mr. Greider - who is a political reporter for Rolling Stone, a former assistant managing editor for national affairs at The Washington Post, and the author of ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans'' -traces exhaustively the history of the Fed since it was formed in 1913. He begins in 1979 with President Carter's appointment of the powerful Paul Volcker to the chairmanship of the Fed, and Mr. Volcker's subsequent efforts to put an end to the economy's double-digit rate of inflation.

He next takes a series of backward leaps through American history. First he explores the recent past and analyzes how we came to have that double-digit inflation. Then he goes back to the 19th century, to a time when certain Texas farmers who understood the effect of monetary policy on their lives formed the Populist Movement, whose demands for ''easier'' credit and a new national currency system led eventually to the compromise with Wall Street that produced the Federal Reserve System.

Then he works his way forward examining the conduct of the Fed during the booming 20's, the Wall Street crash of 1929, the Great Depression, the New Deal and the postwar era of prosperity. Finally, he returns to Paul Volcker and shows how almost singlehandedly he not only effected a redistribution of American wealth but also did so in a way that was diametrically opposed to the Populist dream.

Such a back-and-forth approach necessarily involves some repetition, and the panoramic sweep of Mr. Greider's prose is not conducive to brevity. So his book is perhaps somewhat longer than it need have been. But many of the points he makes bear repeating, particularly those having to do with why the end of inflation in the 1980's served to redistribute the nation's wealth and concentrate it counterproductively, or why the high interest rates that followed may have had little to do with the size of the Federal budget deficit, or why world economic conditions today bear a disturbing resemblance to those in the 1920's.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"where is the inflation sparky - with all the money printing, where is it?"

Right here: http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

Plain enough for you? Government has changed the way it calculates inflation many times over the last few decades...if you calculate it the way it used to be done (the accurate way)...inflation has reached over 10% in recent years. Is your paycheck going up by 10% every year?? I bet the 99% would say no. This is easy to see in everyday life....my grandfather worked in retail and could support his wife and 5 kids on that salary.....no can do these days. Not unless you want to live in a tent....and use an outhouse.

You used to be able to buy 4 gallons of gas with an ounce of silver....guess what you can buy today with an ounce? 11 gallons. If you'd had your money in dollars...well, just check out the first graph in the link i sent you. So if you'd had your money in silver you wouldn't have had to invest in anything...your money is actually worth more in some aspects of the economy...and you didn't even have to risk it in the stock market where the day traders are doing their pump and dump schemes and screwing you over. Amazing!

""The wise boldly pick up a truth as soon as they hear it. Don't hesitate for a moment or you'll lose your head""

I have looked at the other side of the argument...your side..perhaps it is time for you to do the same. Your arguments have no basis of fact in history....check out the income inequality under the gold standard in this country (and that wasn't even a true gold standard...fractional reserves were very much in effect).

" Mr. Greider - who is a political reporter for Rolling Stone"

Yeah...probably wouldn't take the teachings of a political reporter on the economy as concrete evidence and base my whole theory on his ideas.

If you want to read a book that is the shortest possible one out there going over our view of things (i've read your views....i know what they are) check out "Meltdown" by Tom Woods. If you want to get in to the nitty gritty of it you really need to sit down and read through whole books on the great depression and the other boom bust cycles in history to really understand this stuff. It's tedious and lengthy to do...but worth it in the end.

[-] 2 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

oh god are you a sad sack - commodity inflation - have you heard of resource depletion or peak oil. read jeremy grantham if you want an investor point of view or bucky fuller if you want a scientist view from 1969. wage inflation anywhere? we agree that the working man had it much better in 1970 but that is a result of reagan and the policies of rollback - you really do not understand what is happening in the world. sounds like you would like to but you missed someting somewhere. this might interest you - "The anti-labor campaign is a component of the broader strategy by the Republican Party and frenetic conservative commentators to paint a picture in which Obama appears to be leading the country down the road to socialism, tyranny, and financial ruin—just like FDR. To counter this, it helps to know some history of labor legislation, especially the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act.

Right-wing ideologues view the Administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a failed experiment in socialism. Some assert that it was a form of National Socialism, aka Fascism. Ultra-conservative institutions portray the National Labor Relations Act passed in 1935 as a wholesale attack on the free enterprise system. They spent the next ten years mobilizing support to gut portions of the protections granted to workers and unions; and they succeeded in this by passing the Taft-Hartley legislation in 1947.

Wagner Act of 1935

The National Labor Relations Act, (often called the Wagner Act to honor Senator Robert R. Wagner of New York), sought to ensure that working people had the right "to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection."

As one government summary explains, "In order to enforce and maintain those rights, the act included provision for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to arbitrate deadlocked labor-management disputes, guarantee democratic union elections, and penalize unfair labor practices by employers."

Immediately upon passage of the National Labor Relations Act, business and political conservatives sought legislation to undercut union organizing, especially in the period 1938-1941. According to labor historian Gilbert J. Gall, "Lobbyists of the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued that Congress should change the law to prohibit 'coercion from any source.'" They obviously hoped that such a clause would function as a mandatory open ship provision under statutory interpretation, making it impossible for unions to obtain union security through bargaining." At the time, opposition to these proposed employer-friendly laws aimed at weakening unions and worker's rights came from both Republicans and Democrats.

Anti-union cartoon from the National Association of Manufacturers Collection, Hagley Museum & Library

Ultraconservatives remained undaunted. On Labor Day 1941, with the U.S. entry into World War II seemingly inevitable and just weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor, an editorial appeared in the Dallas Morning News: "[T]he greatest crisis that confronts the nation today," wrote editor William B. Ruggles, "is the domestic issue of the right to work as a member of a labor union, if the individual wishes, or without membership in a union if he elects." This editorial, titled "Magna Carta," coined the term "right to work."

During the war years, right-to-work legislation went nowhere on the federal level and the focus shifted to the state level where a variety of legislative battles were waged. In the "period from 1938 to 1944 numerous states passed harsh and sometimes punitive laws restricting union behavior" and "some of the laws simply aimed to harass unions," observes Gall. There was a major emphasis on restricting union security arrangements and regulations concerning picketing or strikes, although "much of this state anti-union legislation proved unconstitutional."

After World War II and the death of President Roosevelt, however, ultraconservatives developed plans to "roll back" the economic fairness and social justice policies of the Roosevelt administration. Along with a strategy to unweave the government social safety net were parallel plans to discourage workers from joining labor unions. "Right-to-Work" legislation returned on the federal level and headed to Congress

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947

Rollback of the New Deal was the specific aim of ultraconservatives, but they pursued a broader agenda as they fanned fears of a domestic communist threat to justify not only crushing the labor movement, but pushing back the alleged socialist social engineering and big government created by FDR's New Deal. They also launched a public campaign to expose socialist and communist subversives in Hollywood, the State Department, and U.S. universities.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Dude are you serious??? " resource depletion or peak oil"....you're really throwing that out there? Wow. We've had a surplus, not a shortage of oil in the US over the last year. Really? Relatives of mine have been involved in oil exploration for over 30 years....we have not, and are not going to reach peak oil any time soon. New technologies in the last year or two have opened reserves we never thought possible (fracking....reaching deeper reserves, reaching more complicated reserve formations etc.)....and conservative estimates put peak oil out 50 years beyond what was originally thought. I'm not a big fan of this as i went to school for green design....but those are the facts. I love how you try to explain this using resource shortages.....suddenly right at 1971 every resource we have including oil peaked and we had a shortage of everything simultaneously....really? I mean, if you want to make shit up that's great...but make it somewhat believable. There is no question commodity prices increasing is due to the printing of money. For instance if there was a true shortage of oil these days....the price purchasable in gold would have gone up as well..it has gone down in gold. Your claim is ridiculous. Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8WReKlUFP4

I don't have time to respond to the rest of your stuff....but i had to get that off my chest...will respond later.

[-] 1 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

sorry - we are done - you have your ideas and they do not match up with reality - what you say has nothing to do with what i pointed out - good night

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's what u usually get when someone has no way to argue against what is said. Use a vague phrase like "they do not match up with reality"...but give no facts as to what is wrong and why...and the resources to back up what they're saying. Like a little kid when he knows he's lost the argument. The crazy thing is the exact things i'm talking about that "don't match up with reality" were used close to a decade ago to predict the housing crisis years before it occurred We do agree on one thing...we definitely disagree.

[-] 1 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

ron named his kid after ayn

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

No...he didn't name him after ayn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU

[-] 1 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

i have read more than you can imagine but that is neither here nor there - this is what the wsj wrote - "Congressmen are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in stock in companies over which they have oversight. And it’s perfectly legal." as to your agruments about gold and fiat currency the farmers of texas in 1890 understood it - why do you seem to have so much trouble? you make assertions but little else. i also notice you do not like to answer pointed questions - well i guess that is smart of you since there are no good answers to granthams analysis. go on - hold on to your little theories and vote for ronnie - or more likely hope for his dopey son - rand - wow - name your kid after the fascist ayn rand. the world is running out of oil etc - hold on to your gold - it will be worth something one day - at least you got one thing right!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

The farmers in the 1890's? Were they aware that they were living under a fraudulent system back then? Are you talking about the panic of 1893? Again, you need to look at the details...i'm well aware of the panics prior to the fed...the same foundations were set in place as today however....credit expansion...artificial stimulus...fractional reserves...these were not true gold standards (which will always cause panics because the people learn the truth that their money isn't really at the bank) and i wouldn't expect farmers back then to understand the intricacies of these topics when information was so scarce...especially when people still don't understand it today with the wealth of resources around to figure it out.

golds been worth something for thousands of years. You could dig up a ship wreck and be able to use it in the market today. hold on to your paper....it won't be worth anything in 100 years...although it could go far as toilet paper.

I know about congressional investing....and their insider trading....its stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. These are the noble people everyone here seems to trust so much.

What question did you ask me that i didn't answer?

Why you gotta get douchy? Name my kid after the fascist ayn rand?

[-] 1 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

ron paul's investment gains are evidence of the insider trading congress is allowed to do - who cares! gold was $800 in 1982 - if you bought it then you have not made your money back. we own gold and silver (and have for the past 10 yrs) so i know the story very well - that is not the issue. the world is running out of all the resources we need to fuel our society - that is the main reason prices are higher not money printing. if you look carefully at the numbers for world oil production you will find that the old stable fields are running out - maybe even the saudis (it is a state secret). new sources are deep under water or in expensive shale etc. the same is true with coal and copper etc. this is why even with europe and the united states in recession oil is so high (well china and india factor in here). your austrians would have predicted - and did - that our cost of borrowing would be very high - and they were incorrect. so here is the story - ww2 got us out of the depression - government spending - building tanks and blowing them up in france - then building more - great economic program. what keynes was pointing out in his money in the bottle story is just that. he was advocating putting people to work through deficit spending on productive projects - not digging holes in the ground. the same thing we should today. we need to create renewable energy for our future and we should be spending dollars like crazy to do it - print more money. i don't care to go on with this - hang on to your ideas if you like - as irrational as they might be. here is some info that might interest you - "In this case, when it comes to commodities perhaps the most puzzling and anomalous piece of data that we’ve seen has been the rate at which China has been mining gold.

It has already been widely reported that China is importing vast amounts of gold. But we’re not talking about their imports here (which have jumped many-fold over the past year); we’re talking about their own internal production. Historically, it is unusual to see countries producing on an annual basis much more than several percentage points of their proved resources in any particular commodity.

Yet China has been producing about 20 percent of its proved resources in gold. To say the least, this is an extraordinary number. The baseball metaphor would be hitting over 100 home runs in a season. With or without the aid of steroids, it would be highly unusual. And indeed, China’s production of gold is equivalent to playing a sport on dangerous drugs. (Recently that country announced an aggressive campaign to shut down a large number of small mines where little attention was being paid to safety).

The question then becomes, why such desperation for gold on the part of the Asian powerhouse?

For a partial answer we turn to another anomaly.

A former recommendation of ours, Continental Resources (CLR), is probably the most successful producer of non-conventional oil in the United States. And it has started behaving in a very strange way.

We have two charts for your perusal here. The first one shows the long-term picture of Continental’s performance relative to the price of oil. (And we’re talking U.S. oil; though West Texas Intermediate may no longer be the world’s benchmark, it is still more relevant to Continental’s bottom line than the Brent price). As you can see, from a longer-term perspective, starting at the end of 2008, thanks to rapidly increasing production from its reserves in the Bakken Shale, Continental dramatically outperformed the price of oil by almost 100 percentage points.

Now let’s look at the shorter-term perspective: Since April of 2012, despite dramatic and in fact accelerating increases in production by Continental, the stock has underperformed oil by nearly 13 percentage points.

We’re not going to go into detail, but suffice it to say the major reason for this shift (at least from the data available to us) appears to come from Continental’s sharply increased capital expenditures on the one hand, and increasingly negative free cash flow on the other.

In other words, this is strong evidence that shale, at least when it comes to oil (and probably gas as well) is proving to be a Ponzi scheme, in that production can only increase by adding ever more rigs, where rigs turn out to be more expensive than the increased production.

So how do we tie these two big anomalies together? For help we turn to Jeremy Grantham, noted British investor and co-founder and Chief Investment Strategist of Boston-based asset management firm Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo.

You could say that Grantham, who found religion (or at least, commodity religion) a year or two ago, continues to espouse ever more aggressively the concept of increasing resource scarcity.

Grantham is not some wild-eyed fanatic in the investment world, but one of the most respected analysts around, with an exceptional record in managing hundreds of billions of dollars.

What appears to alarm him right now, and in this we agree, is record high corn prices along with a general spike in food prices. Two commodities that Grantham tends to single out are water and energy, to which we’ll add that you can’t have one without the other. We’ll add further that it’s hard to manufacture virtually any commodity without sufficient water or energy.

Grantham identifies fertilizers as necessary long-term winners as a result of this situation, and again we wholly agree. We won’t be heroic here but instead draw your attention to the largest plays, Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan (POT) and Mosaic (MOS). Both have been dismal performers lately, but this is not a game you’re going to win in nanoseconds, but rather over a period of a few years.

The broader point, and the point we believe that China sees, is that if resources are scarce across the board there is no way you’re going to be able to ration that scarcity with paper currencies. Or as we’ve pointed out many times before, in a world of scarce resources, you are not going to bet on the most efficient printing presses. Is it becoming clear now how these two anomalies so closely fit together and define our world?

Evidently our recommendations would be, beyond a general preference for commodities, investments in gold and in particular the junior gold miners. For another meaning of China’s desperate mining and importation efforts is that there’s precious little of this precious stuff left in the ground." and now this - "

“The government, when it issues its own currency, and goes into debt in that currency can always pay its debt, can never go broke, can never run out of money. It can afford anything that is for sale in that currency. It doesn’t need to borrow its own currency. And it can set its own interest rate. It does not have to pay what markets want. It does not become a victim to speculation, to bond vigilantes. It has additional policy space. It can do things for its economy and for its people that a government that does not have a sovereign currency cannot do.

(c. 12:18) “Think about what the hierarchy would look like under a gold standard. Many governments operated under gold or silver or both for some period of time in our world history. Under a gold standard, the government promises to convert its currency into gold. In that situation, what sits at the top of the pyramid is not the state’s currency, but the gold reserves. This means that the government must be careful about how much it spends. If it spends too much of its own currency, it can jeopardise the entire system because it may not be able to convert currency into gold as promised. You have to limit your spending and limit what you do with your policies. Governments operating under a gold standard do not have sovereign currency.

(c. 13:24) “In a similar way, a country that fixes its exchange rate to another country’s currency the way Argentina and Russia and others have done do not issue a sovereign currency. They must be careful about how much they spend. They must defend the reserves. If you promise to convert your currency into another country’s currency, you might go broke. You can run out. How do you get the other country’s currency? It requires trade surpluses to earn the other country’s currency. You become dependent on the rest of the world and their economic wellbeing to sustain your own wellbeing. The hierarchy in a country that operates fixed exchange rates places someone else’s currency at the top. You also lose control of your interest rate—something that’s crucial to retain control of—if a country is going to have a sustainable debt and full employment.”

(c. 14:49) “The euro is not a fixed exchange rate system, but it’s not a sovereign currency either. It’s an exceptional case, an unprecedented experiment where the currency is divorced from the individual nations themselves. The euro is effectively a foreign currency to you. All 17 governments that use the euro are not issuers of the currency, but users of the currency. They lack the powers that a sovereign issuer has. Japan, the United States, the U.K., Canada, Australia, these are sovereign issuers. The euro is not a sovereign currency. Governments that adopted the euro must borrow the currency. They must pay whatever the bond markets require. They can run out of money. And they lack the policy space of a sovereign issuer.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is not an insider trader.....nope, nicht, nada....he's had his money in the same stuff for decades. Don't try to pull that crap. If you want to make those assertions, provide some evidence to back it up. Tired of people just making stuff up. I know congress can insider trade...and it's disgusting...but don't claim someone is on that bandwagon when you don't know.

You're way off topic now of what we were talking about. Now your into the logic of gold vs. fiat currencies...instead of price of oil and how the only reason it's high is because of the fiat currency you're trying to defend now.

If you really understand and have studied what the Austrians teach, like really understand...you've sat and read through the books on the great depression....the new deal...you've looked at the specific data of it through all these different cases I think you would change your tune. If you really understood the insidious process of theft through inflation (money printing) i think you would also change your tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16a72j__8&feature=player_embedded

If you really sat down and understood how manipulation of interest rates (via pumping of money into the system...the only way to lower them) then you would understand that this process creates the booms/bust cycles. There is so much evidence to back it up i don't even know why people try to refute it anymore (actually i do...it's politically benefiicial for re-election)...going all the way back to industrial revolution...great depression....housing crisis....all have the same general foundational problem....the printing and expansion of money. The problem is it isn't immediate, and even more of a problem there is a temporary boom associated with it...a boom created through a foundation weakness that comes tumbling down screwing the middle and lower class out of their jobs because of it....then they must deal with the inflation once more as government injects more money like a drug addict to prop up the system once more. Peter Bernholz puts it best:

"“In a democracy parties compete to gain and maintain government power. As a consequency the party or parties in power have to try to gain as many votes as possible in the next election to secure at least a majority in parliament. However, voters are rationally uninformed about matters which are not very important to them, since the negligible chance that their individual vote would make a difference to the outcome of the election does not warrant more than very little effort and quences. It follows that they are only reasonably well informed about what is important to them, usually their and their relatives’ job security, their wages and incomes, and the availability of not too expensive housing. They are thus usually ignorant about monetary policies and their future consequences. Moreover, these matters are complex and not easily understood without specific education. On top of this, the positive though usually short-lived consequences of an expansionary monetary policy (aka increasing the money supply), namely an upturn of the economy and a decrease in unemployment, follow more quickly than its negative consequences in the form of higher prices (and unemployment). As a consequence, because of the complexity of the problems and of their rational ignorance voters will judge the performance of the government mostly by the results of former policies and even events which have not been caused by measures of the government."

Seriously, sit down and read a few of the books...meltdown is the shortest and covers the broadest areas. I know your arguments that you were just making...i've read the before "governments hands are tied with the gold standard"..."printing money causes an economic boom"..."gold causes deflation"..."there isn't enough gold to allow it to be a stable currency"...."there were booms and busts when we were on the gold standard"..."printing of money pulled us out of the great depression"....and on and on. I've read those books, i know the logic on your side....read our side of it. Get into the specifics of it though...like the nitty gritty numbers of the great depression..the new deal...the industrial revolution...the housing crisis. I think you'll be very surprised. If those quotes i just listed are things in your head...you should definitely sit down and do it....anyone who has doesn't ask those types of questions...because the answers have all been dealt with.

Here's a great question for you. If fiat currencies are so wonderful and obviously (according to you) so beneficial for the average person...why does government make the holding of gold and its use as a medium of exchange illegal? They have to....they know every half intelligent person would run like crazy to get out of it....because of their consistent devaluation of it. I want a currency i can save for my children...that i can build a retirement nest egg off of....not some depreciating paper currency who's value is stolen every day through the printing presses. Not a currency that can be used to bail out the banks and the wallstreet insiders because of their faulty doings and dump the inflationary tax on the american people screwing me out of my retirement because of wallstreet greed. The option for that under a commodity standard would be to tax the people...and government knows that wouldn't work because people would go crazy...so they tax them the sneaky way by depreciating the currency and stealing money that way...the way most americans don't understand.. and the way the negative consequences are delayed. The only way they are able to accomplish this...forcing a paper standard on the people.

[-] 1 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

i know all too well about gold - don't try to confuse the issue - we are talking about resource scarcity. if prices are going up because the world is running out of copper etc then that is not inflation due to money printing. here i jeremy grantham - you can get the whole thing by going to google and looking up "time to wake up investors" - "The purpose of this, my second (and much longer) piece on resource limitations, is to persuade investors with an interest in the long term to change their whole frame of reference: to recognize that we now live in a different, more constrained, world in which prices of raw materials will rise and shortages will be common. (Previously, I had promised to update you when we had new data. Well, after a lot of grinding, this is our first comprehensive look at some of this data.)

Accelerated demand from developing countries, especially China, has caused an unprecedented shift in the price structure of resources: after 100 hundred years or more of price declines, they are now rising, and in the last 8 years have undone, remarkably, the effects of the last 100-year decline! Statistically, also, the level of price rises makes it extremely unlikely that the old trend is still in place. If I am right, we are now entering a period in which, like it or not, we must finally follow President Carter’s advice to develop a thoughtful energy policy and give up our carefree and careless ways with resources. The quicker we do this, the lower the cost will be. Any improvement at all in lifestyle for our grandchildren will take much more thoughtful behavior from political leaders and more restraint from everyone. Rapid growth is not ours by divine right; it is not even mathematically possible over a sustained period. Our goal should be to get everyone out of abject poverty, even if it necessitates some income redistribution. Because we have way overstepped sustainable levels, the greatest challenge will be in redesigning lifestyles to emphasize quality of life while quantitatively reducing our demand levels. A lower population would help. Just to start you off, I offer Exhibit 1: the world’s population growth. X marks the spot where Malthus wrote his defining work. Y marks my entry into the world. What a surge in population has occurred since then! Such compound growth cannot continue with finite resources. Along the way, you are certain to have a paradigm shift. And, increasingly, it looks like this is it!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"we are talking about resource scarcity. if prices are going up because the world is running out of copper etc then that is not inflation due to money printing"

No you're the one confusing the issue. What i'm saying is if prices are going up because of a scarcity of a resource you would also see a rise in the price of oil in GOLD. There is no way around this. Golds supply has been constant...and can't be manipulated and hence oils price in gold is a million times more valid that dollars and it is the only true way to judge the actual price. The dollars value has been manipulated by crazy printing of money...you cannot determine the true price of oil using dollars....it's bogus economics. You are wrong.

Another thing you just wrote is that resources had a 100 years of price declines and only over the last 8 years have been undone. Well that doesn't match up anywhere near to 1971 which is what all of my graphs showed you of the resource price increases....exactly at 1971 you see the shift to price increases (right when we got off the gold standard and started printing money like crazy). So even your own books don't match up...at all.

[-] 1 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

you are misinformed - do your own research - look up north sea oil production or mexican cantrell oil field. then look up the rig count for saudi. here is some info on bakken oil - these wells are producing 500 to 1000 bpd with steep depletion rates (they drop from 100 bpd to 200 in a yr or so)- saudis produce 10.000 bpd when very slow depletion rates. off shore fields produce 20k+ - here is some info on eagle ford and bakken shale oil. - These small increases, ascribed primarily to shale oil production, are claimed to herald further increases that will push U.S. production above the 1970 peak by 2020.14 Such claims by Citigroup and a Harvard University report are predicated on assumptions that, among other problems, ignore the very low flow rates of oil in shale deposits and propose well decline rates far lower than reported (see Figure 6, Part II).15 The Harvard report assumes a 15% decline in well production over the first 5 years followed by 7% decline, grossly misrepresenting actual experience. With decline rates averaging on the order of 50% or more and ranging to 90% in the first year, U.S. shale oil wells are quickly reduced to production levels far below those needed to support the report’s conclusion. It took more than 6,500 wells to give us a tiny tick upward in Bakken field production, and many more to add a tidbit from the Eagle Ford field. To drill out the shale oil deposits will take tens of thousands of more wells, the Bakken alone is considered to require 33,000 more wells to fill that field.16 According to one operator,“To put the 33,000 new Bakken wells into perspective: at current costs it will take almost $200 billion for leases and drilling capital expense. The Current rig count is around 80 – 90. Expand that to 120 rigs in the future (this will take a lot of new rig construction). At an average of 4 wells per year per rig it will take about 70 years to drill all the wells. I am not saying it won’t be done–just putting it in terms more easily appreciated.” If this were not bad enough, sustaining production over 30 years would require more than 200,000 wells.17 But, “bear in mind that, after a while, it becomes harder to find a spot where no-one has already been. Also bear in mind that at $8.5 million per well and sweet spots receding ever farther toward the horizon, such a drilling program might be a hard sell.18

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'll respond w/ a longer explanation of why you're very wrong....basically it's going to be that you take 4 areas around the world and assume that these are the critical areas for the future. Another failure is looking at historical shale information (6500 wells to give us a trickle). Once again, your assumption is the use of old technologies. So to get to your conclusions your using old data and very limited areas for drilling around the globe (4 areas to be specific). I'll reply with specifics though.

But regardless of the specifics....there is one thing that just proves you completely wrong straight off the bat. The price of oil in gold. We could sit here and argue all day about the price of oil in dollars....because it isn't a constant...its been devalued and it's anyones guess as to what oil should cost in dollars. But in gold it's very easy....because it has been a constant and will remain a constant because it can't be manipulated. If there was really a true shortage of oil ever since 1971 (your argument...and very convenient timing i might add..right when we got off the gold standard), the price of oil denominated in gold would have gone up....it hasn't...not at all...if you watched my video you'll see that it's actually below it's average right now....showing the oil is actually under priced in dollars...showing that your theory of peak oil is nowhere near true....not yet....and that's nowhere close the reason to explaining those graphs i showed you. The only valid economic reason is price inflation via printing of money.

A washington times reporter was so disturbed when he heard Ben Swann's report about the price of oil in gold (the one i posted above) that he did a fact check on it to make sure it was correct:

http://www.fox19.com/story/19070039/washington-times-columnist-gives-ben-swann-a-reality-check

Summary:

Fact 1) No shortage of oil supply in the US

Fact 2) No disruptions in oil production over the last year

Fact 3) More oil is being drilled domestically than there has been in 10 years.

[-] 0 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

i was referring to the populists - they understood money very well - and starvation while j p morgan decided if he would lend them the money they needed to plant. read about it - then read mmt - then read grantham and try to understand resource depletion. don't send me long winded crap - explain the depression and ww2. i am tired of you telling me to read more - i have read both sides - you have not. read michael hudson and understand him then let me know what you think. i have to go and hit tennis balls - i will take out my frustration on them so next time i am nicer to you!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I understand resource depletion....resources do not deplete simultaneously across the board right at 1971....even your boy grantham s writings don't support that time frame. You can not claim resource depletion is what caused the graphs that you're trying to argue for resource depletion to explain. Especially when you factor in gold prices with these resources.....prices would go up in gold under resource depletion...there is no way around it. They haven't...they've gone down (oil)....and we actually have a surplus of oil right now (and when you think about that it makes sense that priced in gold it would be cheap right now..which it is).

http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

What book on the Austrian theory of the business cycle have you read? Does it go into specific panics and their causes? Careful...don't lie...i'll quiz you.

great depression - roaring 20's roared because of artificial stimulus due to lowering of fractional reserve requirements and other time deposit requirements....created a major expansionary phase...only to suffer the inevitable correction via the great depression. Read about it for free (if you just want to dig into the numbers for the artificial expansion read Part II in the table of contents "The Inflationary Boom of 1921-1929):

http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Americas%20Great%20Depression.pdf

WW2- Cut spending by about 60% and slashed taxes...programs during the war pushed savings up for individuals, something that Austrian theory has argued for for decades (artificial low interest rates lead to less savings)....when troops came home savings were aloud to explode as taxes were slashed. This is incredibly condensed and you really need to read about it from the source:

https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae2_1_14.pdf

Read about the great depression of 1921...you won't find it. Why? Because government got out of the way and it was over in about 9 months (although it never needed to exist at all..it was created by artificial market forces once again).

If you really want to understand Austrian without buying anything (if that's what is stopping you)...you have to understand the logic of it when dealing with interest rates...this is the key to the theory and you have to understand this...if you're a little confused about it watch this coming video again...you have to understand it in detail. The best place to do this is tom woods talking about it in this video...it should start at 14:30. This is where the boom/bust cycles come from....and can be fed by artificial stimulus, fractional reserves, stimulus in certain areas (housing as an example etc.)...but this is the foundation of the theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlUwkC_B2p8&t=14m30s

You can track this cycle through all the panicks prior to the fed.....the boom bust cycles post fed etc.

[-] 0 points by flip (6819) 2 years ago

there are none so blind as those who will not see. gold is constant - chart the price of gold since 1971 - did you buy in 82 - too bad for you. you and ron paul have missed the boat - see if you can find a train

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"chart the price of gold since 1971"....you're not understanding the economics of this. Of course the price of gold in dollars has gone up like crazy....paper has been inflated like crazy...that's not what i'm measuring here. It doesn't matter what the price of gold is in dollars. We're not talking about that. What i'm saying:

Take two currencies:

Currency A - Is inflated like crazy over a 50 yr period (paper dollars)

Currency B - Remains incredibly stable with no increases in its supply

Problem -

You want to determine if there is a shortage of oil causing price increases....which currency do you use to plot supply vs price to see if this is accurate? Currency B...why? Because it was stable and wasn't manipulated which makes it an accurate indication of the price over many years...what is currency B? It is gold. Current facts....price of oil denominated in gold is below its 50 year average...hence oil is under priced using the only stable currency we have today which destroys shortage argument...as price would have to be high to back up a shortage issue.

Check out Ron Pauls portfolio.....he didn't miss the boat....making 10x what prof money managers have.

"Amazingly, the average 10 year return of the 8 stocks listed in his top 10 holdings (that have 10 year track records - the two other positions have not been around that long) came in at more than 600%! During that time frame the S&P 500 was down 3%. Is there any stock mutual fund that can even touch that performance over a decade? Not likely."

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20853) 2 years ago

No, you didn't send it to me, but very very interesting. Thanks, flip.

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

They'll never go for that. yeah! and lets do we all support one of the dem puppets on the elections. we must follow the right voices. Let them be heard!

[+] -4 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

It's actually advantageous to everyone....and they like it because it puts an end to boom/bust cycles and depressions which destroy the average person. It also stops the ability to steal your money.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"It also stops the ability to steal your money."

What do you mean?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Theft through inflation. Printing of money steals the value of your money....hence you have no safe store of value....no place that your earnings are safe from confiscation through inflation.

For a great visual of this and why it hurts middle/lower class:

http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Oh, ok. But controlling inflation can be done with other models than the one you're suggesting. A system that doesn't let inflation run wild and at the same time doesn't hand the power in society over to tyrannical institutions would be much better.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, you're right....if you can control the people injecting the money.

“Monetary Regimes and Inflation” by Peter Bernholz goes into this theory. He's a professor of economics and has looked at inflation going back as far as the Roman currency debasement. It’s interesting that Peter notes that no administrative efforts to stop the expansion of the money supply worked when someone was given the opportunity to expand it; even if the violation was threatened with death. The temptation to debase a currency through money creation is too great when given the power that no punishment deters this crime. That is why Austrians are gold bugs.....because it's physically impossible to break the rules....which history shows governments do over and over and over again when given the opportunity with a fiat currency.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Inflation is an important topic, but what I think should be our main focus is working for a more democratic society; a soceity where people are in control of their own workplaces and communities - and here these ultra right-wing libertarian philosopies fail.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I disagree..i think this is where they thrive. I'll make a post on it to explain. Although it's probably gooing to max out my negative rating here.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I disagree..i think this is where they thrive."

No they don't. Right wing Libertarianism means undemocratic concentration of power.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

What if the majority of people think that blonde haired blue eyed people should be thrown in jail? What if the majority of people think that murder isn't a crime? What if the majority of people think it's ok to steal your property and put a huge highway through the middle of your land? What if the majority of people think that because you practice witchcraft we should hang you on the local town lawn? What if the majority of people think it's ok that muslims are stripped of their rights completely in this country or in their workplace?

Democracy is dangerous.....very dangerous. That last one isn't so far from what could happen in this country because of fear mongering. Group think like democracy can easily be manipulated.

The alternative doesn't have to be tyrannical rule...what about individual rights and liberty?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"What if the majority of people think that blonde haired blue eyed people should be thrown in jail?"

And what if the constitution said that blonde haired blue eyed people should be thrown in jail..?

In a real civilized participatory democracy this wouldn't happen. A society must have some kind of laws, and these laws must be decided by the people living in it, not a minority. One more time: On some issues the majority agrees with you, on others they don't. That's how it is to live in a society.

"What if the majority of people think that murder isn't a crime?"

What if the minority were in charge and decided murder isn't a crime?

"Democracy is dangerous.....very dangerous."

At least you're honest. What's dangerous is societies with undemocratic regimes; dictatorships, tyranny - minority rule

"what about individual rights and liberty?"

Sounds fantastic! And who should decide which rights and liberties that were to apply.......?

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

democracies result in stripping of rights by the 51%. Slavery wouldn't have been possible with a libertarian philosophy in place.

I'll make a post on it to prove my point.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

AGAIN Democracy means everyone having a say in the things that affect their lives. On some issues the majority agrees with you, on others they don't - that's how it is to live in a society with other people.

A real democracy is built and controlled from below so that right to democratic participation is proportional to how much you're affected.

The alternative to democracy is minorty rule - that's tyrannical rule.

Libertarianism means freedom for private enterprise to control the economy and our lives, stripping the workers and have-nots for their freedom. Intolerable!

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Yeah,they hear a lot about freedom to do this and that, but don't stop to think about the fact that it also includes freedom for private enterprise to control the economy and our lives, stripping the workers and have-nots for their freedom.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (20853) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2692) 2 years ago

Correct:
Libertarianism was formerly ok (now edited to "the accepted way, but not ok by today's standards) in the past, in the 1700s and 1800s, (maybe, ideally, there was church and community and family that could help out in times of difficulty) but in the current age, with modern technology, medicine, and wealth, we believe in caring for all, weak and strong.

Government needs to serve the people, provide to educate the people in all fields of knowledge.

If governments do not do this, and protect the weak, then they are useless.

Ben Franklin said after signing the constitution, "congratulations, you have a republic, if you can keep it".

Government also protects our rights, and is protects the common good,

Government should fight for the rights of people and protect them from powerful individuals, and also from corporations, which are now viewed as "people" without morality, and as we have seen, can leverage great power for individuals against the common good, for profit and greed, which can not be questioned, because it is seen as a divine right established by nature and god.

That christian right whose leader supposedly told the believers to care for the sick, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, but who now claim, welcome to the game of monopoly. Good Luck. Capitalism will allow all to prosper who put their mind to it.

Well welcome to the tyranny of the incoherent right: who only serve now to protect their own personal interests and those of their leaders, the powerful wealthy often unprincipled elite.

Release all your tax documents Romney, if you wish to lead by example. These will reveal it you walk the talk.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Libertarianism was ok in the past, in the 1700s and 1800s"

I absolutely disagree. That more or less L-faire capitalism that existed back then was awful for the workers and the poor who had to live and work under extremely awful conditions. L-f is and has always been awful.

"but in the current age, with modern technology, medicine, and wealth, we believe in caring for all, weak and strong."

Absolutley. We're wealthier than ever. We live in a free ride society.

"Government needs to serve the people, provide to educate the people in all fields of knowledge."

Sure, but things can also be organized in a more decentralized way. If we established a free, just and direct democratic society, government wouldn't be necessary.

"Government should fight for the rights of people and protect them from powerful individuals"

As long as the corporations and the financial elite are powerful we need government for self defense, yes.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2692) 2 years ago

You are right in the first instance, I was going to edit it to something like that's how it was in the 1700s, 1800s. Sweatshops, child labor, coal miners being swindled or working for peanuts, many examples how libertarianism was a crappy way to eek a living, working 80 hours a week in complete servitude and virtual slavery, in many instances.

I would much prefer a decentralized just society, and democratic society.

Some people have argued against direct democracy, because minority rights can get trampled, and to guard against "mob rule", whatever that could be.

I like what I've seen on the direct democracy and individual empowerment in the workplace. I like democratic socialism of human necessities: health care, and wherever feasible, the individual should be empowered in their life and community, so they are not a cog in a machine.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I would much prefer a decentralized just society, and democratic society."

Yes. In my opinion this is real freedom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c Libertarian Socialism.

"Some people have argued against direct democracy, because minority rights can get trampled, and to guard against "mob rule", whatever that could be."

That's just BS. In a libertarian socialist society democracy would be controlled from below, making people in charge of their own lives.

"I like democratic socialism of human necessities: health care, and wherever feasible, the individual should be empowered in their life and community, so they are not a cog in a machine."

It seems that we agree on a lot of things :)

[-] 1 points by gsw (2692) 2 years ago

Great video on direct democracy. I think I saw it a couple days ago and I was impressed. Thank you for sharing it.

We have tyranny in the job market, and degradation of labor unions, outright lying by corporations.

My cousin works for a jail, which is privatized. The bosses were saying you have to work extra hours for free, plus freeze your wages, and pensions were getting cut-we have no money to pay you more. Meanwhile, the bosses created 5 fictitious workers, we're billing the county for fictitious workers, and leaning on the employees to not blow the whistle.

I think yesterday 8/6 or 8/7 on the daily show w Jon Stewart this guy worked for CIA and wanted to share with a reporter he found a computer app for 3 million while we had one costin 4 billion. He was called a spy, fired, charged initially with treason.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Thanks. Glad you liked it. Also check out these two videos I put togheter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

Yeah, I've heard about these privatized jails. It's just awful. People profitting on other people's misery. Horrific.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Well, they did coer-------er-------talk you into signing that contract................:)

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Haha. Yeah, these "voluntary agreements" only exist inside the heads of these ultra right-wingers. In reality we'd be slaves to the rule of private enterprise.

I think it's really awful that so many have bought into this ultra right-wing ideolgy, especially in the states. Even the evilest of the evil, Ayn Rand has had a relatively big - and destructive - influence in american society http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7zwO88nRH8

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Most refuse to believe that influence even exists.

Nice to know there's at least a few of us that understand that it does, and it's a damn strong influence at that.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Well, as the clip I provided shows many often influential figures are great admirers of Rand. I've also heard stories about students in US schools being served Rand-litterature. There's no doubt that she's had an influence.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The truth is, most of the CEOs of the 1% are dyed in the wool libe(R)tarians.

It's not just the Kochs.

And they ARE the ones purchasing our government.

CU was written by them, for them. It is pure neolibe(R)tarianism.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Yeah. Government is bought and paied for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVPWNo4rcM&feature=plcp

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

For some reason, some people refuse to admit that there is even a slight possibility that the CEOs could be behind this.

I find that highly suspect.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Atlas Shrugged in the evenings, buying politicians and recieving government bailouts in the morning...real existing capitalism.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Worldwide my friend, Worldwide.

I find it most curious that so many are in denial of so much as the possibility that this philosophy is at the heart of our problems.

That words of an author are benign, unable to affect the World.

Like "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me".

Wanna make a bet?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Agreed:)

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

All we can do is continue to spread the truth.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Spreading awareness is one of the most important things in this growing stage.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Bernie was kind enough to point out 26 of the most egregious.

http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-exposes-26-billionaires-buying-2012-election.html

Libe(R)tarians, one and all.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Bernie Sanders is one of the few honest and decent politicians left.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Who do you think founded ALEC?

Andy Taylor?

Can you say baaa?

Of course you can...............:)

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You didn't answer the question.

Who founded ALEC?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Then you don't understand that the same folks who founded and funded ALEC are the ones who do the same for CATO and the libe(R)tarian party itself.

That they also found and fund all kinds of think tanks and marketing/PR firms, astro turf organizations, etc.

And they are one and all 100% libe(R)tarian.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stephinrazin (-1) 2 years ago

I have been active in the Ron Paul movement for some time. I have a huge amount of respect for the man, and for those working within the movement. Many young people I know share much with Occupy activists. They just chose a different path. Attacking someone's belief system, even if true, is a poor way to begin a dialogue.

After reading Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, and Noam Chomsky I realized that unbridled capitalism is a danger. It is the other side of the all encompassing statism that Libertarians fear.

The all powerful state is just as dangerous as the weak state divorced regulating markets. The idea that the all powerful state will rein in rogue capitalism to form some utopia is a myth. The idea that total free markets will rise the whole of humanity is also a myth. As in all things, the best course is somewhere in the middle. That is in today's circumstances.

I have shifted to a more anarcho-syndicalism view point. The idea of a bottom down community organization which will divorce us from the corporate states. I think that many in the Occupy movement would support this school of thought.

The commonalities with the Ron Paul movements are clear to me. Tea Party members, who I have actively worked with, want government out of their lives. They want to return to small scale community based government. Occupiers are in the process of building bottom up community networks. If we can organize the two groups toward a mutual goal we can unite active individuals outside of the controlled political paradigm.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"They just chose a different path."

I know. They blame the government, when in reality it is the financial elite that are the main problem.

"Attacking someone's belief system, even if true, is a poor way to begin a dialogue."

It is a fact that Ron Paul 's policies mean huge tax cuts for the 1%, and privatizing, giving all the power to the corporations. This fact must be addressed.

"It is the other side of the all encompassing statism that Libertarians fear."

Sure. The problem is that most of them are, in reality, advocating increased concentration of private power, which is just as bad as a tyrannical state.

"The all powerful state is just as dangerous.."

I agree. But we should oppose all kinds of concentration of power - including private power.

"As in all things, the best course is somewhere in the middle. That is in today's circumstances."

I think we should dismantle capitalism, and replace it with a decentralized society with direct participatory democracy: Libertarian Socialism.

"I have shifted to a more anarcho-syndicalism view point."

Good! :)

"Tea Party members, who I have actively worked with, want government out of their lives."

I know. The problem is that they don't want the tyranny of private enterprise out of their lives - which is much worse.

"If we can organize the two groups toward a mutual goal we can unite active individuals outside of the controlled political paradigm."

But first the Tea party people must be convinced to abandon this no-taxes-mentality and start embracing ideas of the Occupy Movement: Equality, solidarity and more direct participatory democracy.

[-] -1 points by stephinrazin (-1) 2 years ago

I believe we need to reach out to those in the Ron Paul/Anti-Statist/Liberty movement.

Many in this movement are extremely critical of private Central Banking, bail outs, and financial tyranny. They fail to see that these are symptoms of a capitalistic system revolutionary in nature when left to its own devices.

We must encourage a dialogue with this movement. I believe that many will change perspective if given the right push. This push must be an intellectual discussion where reason dictates the case against both political and economic tyranny. You cannot shout slogans, or aggressively blurt out the entire hypocrisy of a system people believe in. Self-worth is a touchy thing which is often intertwined with beliefs. You must gradually deprogram someone. Otherwise they shut down and put their fingers in their ears.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The best way for you to do that, would be to place a call to the Koch brothers.

I ain't goin' there, so that one's up to you.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nope not gonna do it.

Koch = pure poison.

Kids the more you know.

This has been a public service announcement.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Kochs=pure 100% neolibe(R)tarians.

Just out there to confuse issues for their own fun and profit.

Buying governments the World over.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

See I agree with your comment but the label is confusing to most of the population. Such terms when used should carry a detailed definition to educate as to what it means.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I have provided exactly that in other threads, but will do again.

The neolibe(R)tarians are those corporatists that actually founded the modern libertarian party.

They have bastardized the original meaning of libertarian, and incorporated the writings of Ayn Rand into their philosophy.

They have exported it all over the world.

They will stop at nothing to further the promotion of this "philosophy" of life and business.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Better - brief but also gives people follow-up references to look into.

Can you edit your comment above to include the definition? {:-])

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

At the moment? No.

But I will become relentless in showing it and defining it wherever I can.

It's important to identify the true opposition to progress, in order to confront it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

All you would need do is copy and paste to the bottom of your comment. But that is your call - keep up with the education of the population.

Keep-on Keeping-on. {:-])

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In the process of deduction, it is the only thing left that fits all the evidence.

Care for a free copy of "Atlas Shrugged"?

It's their bible and they export it to corporatists World wide.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sure why not? I can always use a few laughs.

Or is it more of a horror story?

[-] 1 points by stephinrazin (-1) 2 years ago

I'm not sure I follow you. I am talking about a dialogue with the active members on the community level. What does that have to do with the Kock brothers?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Follow the money.

It goes directly to the Kochs and their fellow libe(R)tarians.

The ones that backed and still back the teabagge(R)s.

Stop pretending it's anything different. It isn't.

[-] -1 points by stephinrazin (-1) 2 years ago

There is large money behind the Tea Party through organizations like Americans for Prosperity.

In general, most fundraising is done locally. I know because I was active in such organizations.

Blanket criticism is the wrong path. You must approach those you feel are mistaken with the humility to aid in their development. Denigrating someone who believes other than you is egotism, and intellectually immature.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There is not legislation that they have enacted that goes in the correct direction.

Forcing teachers to teach creationism is enforced stupidity at best.

Raising my taxes for another corporate tax break is cruel and evil.

Wasting time effort and money on legislation stating holding hands is a gateway to sex, is an idiotic waste of time and effort..

Their staunch anti-union BS, is just that........BS

There is nothing in what they actually do that I want done. Quite the opposite.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Look at it this way - the tea party is like a pitcher plant.

From : Pitcher plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foraging, flying or crawling insects such as flies are attracted to the cavity formed by the cupped leaf, often by visual lures such as anthocyanin pigments, and nectar bribes. The sides of the pitcher are slippery and may be grooved in such a way so as to ensure that the insects cannot climb out.


In this case the Tea Party has been set loose to trap the unwary republican that is disgusted with the republicans in office - an attempt to keep them tied to the falsity that is happening to the republican party by the corpoRATist's - and to keep them from going to the independents.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

It would be beneficial to have these people realize what's really the major problems in society, and we should try our best to convince them. How this can be done most effectively I don't pretend to know all the answers to.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What a completely screwed-up individual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

What a wasted opportunity to slap an idiot on public TV.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

It's unfortunate that you won't take the time to sit down and go through the years and years of study done to culminate in these decisions he made. No doubt, it's counter-intuitive....we can agree on that.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

He completely fails as an open minded individual when he ignores the countries that have reigned in capitalism and made good lives for their whole population.

And before you go there - look at some of the Norse countries - hell look at Japan. Only when capitalism is left unchecked unrestrained corrupted does it fuck-up every one but the few who are satisfying their greed.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Human nature is another key reason I believe in the libertarian society. Psychologically speaking.....i think democratic societies are some of the most dangerous out there. Like i said before...it turns into group think...mob rule. Slavery, salem witch trials, nazi's etc occurred because it was believed by a majority of the population it was ok to strip the rights of individuals. There are many books that go into great detail about the disgustingness that comes out of group think..and how intelligent people make irrational decisions. The Asch experiment is a great example of how this process occurs...because of our human nature to conform...even if what we're conforming to doesn't make any rational sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw&playnext=1&list=PL15F807237ACB6E85&feature=results_main

That's why libertarianism believes in rights as individuals...not rights as a group.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The real lesson - is - evil prospers while good people stand by and do nothing.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Interestingly you didn't counter anything I mentioned in the two articles.

Don't try this "mob rule"-nonsense on me.

Democracy, John, is everyone having a say in the things taht affect their lives. On some issues the majority agrees with you, on others they don't - that's how it is to live in a society with other people.

A real democracy is built and controlled from below so that right to democratic participation is proportional to how much you're affected.

The alternative to democracy is minorty rule - that's tyrannical rule.

Libertarianism means freedom for private enterprise to control the economy and our lives, stripping the workers and have-nots for their freedom. Awful!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Direct Democracy "with a properly educated - critically thinking and aware population" - is definitely a good way to go.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BTW - a very viral worthy video - I am gonna copy the link and tweet it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp

You should make it an automatic attachment to your comments on direct democracy. {:-])

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Thanks. Glad to hear you liked my OYW video - and thanks for spreading it :)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Gotsta share good stuff. {;-])

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Thanks again, buddy. Appreciate it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No - I appreciate you and everyone else who is working towards a better world for ALL.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!"

-Peter Kropotkin

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I second that !!!!!

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL - I didn't think that you would argue with me. I am waiting for the attackers of humanity to sound off. {:-])

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"critically thinking and aware population"

doesn't exist.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

An issue which can be addressed. An issue which is being addressed by all of the Occupy movements - an education someday to be seen in every school.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

My whole comment dealt with a counter.....in a democracy human nature can breed despicable things. I don't necessarily disagree that we as humans don't want to work together and help each other out. I agree with that premise....to me that's just another argument in favor of lib society. You assume that in a libertarian society everyone would be out to screw each other over....but your article claims the exact opposite.

"On some issues the majority agrees with you, on others they don't "

Tell that to the slaves....or the jews.

The alternative to democracy is not minority rule....not in a libertarian society. How does the minority have any power over you in a libertarian society? Or in a lib society how does private enterprise have any control over you at all? They don't. You have control over them via your purchases every day. You hold them accountable every time you make a transaction.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"in a democracy human nature can breed despicable things."

The real dangerous situations occure in systems with tyranny and minority rule.

"Tell that to the slaves....or the jews."

Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, and there was not democracy under slavery.

But there has been idotic and sometimes even cruel laws passed in societies we could call democratic; but that's why it's important to build civilized soceity based on democracy from below - direct control. That way powerhungry people and cynics wouldn't stand a chance.

"The alternative to democracy is not minority rule"

Oh really. What's the alternative to democracy then?

"How does the minority have any power over you in a libertarian society?"

The small minority of people who own and control your workplace, the minority of people who have more wealth than the avarage population.

"how does private enterprise have any control over you at all?"

We've been thru this before. They rich have much more say at the stock marked, they can purchase more goods, they have control over how your workplace is run - in short they have much more power in the economy that affects us all.

"You have control over them via your purchases every day."

The less money you have, the less power you have - making the ones with the most money more powerful.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I think anyone who thinks we've been duped hasn't really studied it enough. It's like what the first video was saying "monopolies would take over the world". It's very hard to find monopolies that have been formed without government help....like the monsanto's or haliburtons....or goldman sachs etc. You look at the major evil corps all of us can't stand...and they are largely there because of government incentives/handouts. You can track this all the way back to the railroads etc.

People who think government takes care of things like this are really mistaken. They create huge bureaucracies that end up protecting the major businesses that are already formed against competition in the market place. Here's a great example of lack of government efficiency from Jon Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-6-2012/a-leak-of-their-own---license-to-spill

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I think anyone who thinks we've been duped hasn't really studied it enough"

Oh, I am very aware of what (the right-wing version of) libertarianism advocates.

Interestingly you didn't counter much of what I wrote in the post. Do you disagree that Ron Paul in reality wants to hand power over to private enterprise? Do you disagree that corporations and the finacial elite would receive HUGE tax cuts if RP had it his way? I'm afraid you have been duped. Libertarianism is in reality advocating total private tyranny.

"It's very hard to find monopolies that have been formed without government help"

There was very little regulation of private enterprise in the beginning of the industrial revolution, and very soon huge powerful businesses developed. You're wrong. In a capitalist economy wealth accumulates because the successful actors will get more power.

"People who think government takes care of things like this are really mistaken. They create huge bureaucracies that end up protecting the major businesses that are already formed against competition in the market place"

I totally agree with you that politicians are in the pockets of corporations. Private tyranny is not the answer, however.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I'd say Ron Paul wants to hand over the power to the people....not major private corps. For you control business by every purchase you make."

Sounds nice, right? But let's take a closer look: What happenes if we all got tax cuts and we privatized all goods and services. Well that would mean that the major corporations and the financial elite would be the ones who'd gain most. They'd be getting enormous tax cuts in terms of actual cash, and they'd be taking over the privatized institutions. The more successful corporations and businessmen in this Ron Paul-dystopia would of course get enormous wealth giving them enormous power over the economy and our lives. It's called private tyranny. It's undemocratic when the ones who have the most cash have the most power.

"there were incentives put in place that can explain the monopolies you talk about such as the artificial incentives for railroads via land grants and low interest loans etc."

You can't talk your way out of this one dude. The main reason why businesses became so powerful was that there were very little regulations making the more sucessful businessmen become more and more powerful. Unregulated capitalism will naturally create accumulation of wealth.

But you're missing the point a little. Corporations themselves are illegitimate. It doesn't matter how they gain/gained power, hierarchical institutions with a tyrannical model are illegitimate.

"But guess what regulations do? They squeeze out competition."

If you like the idea of democracy - people having the right to a say in the things that affect them - you'd me more concerned with creating a society where people are more in control of the economic institutions, instead of worring about millionaires being regulated.

"There are all kinds of examples of the evil corps everyone hates here lobbying to keep certain regulations in place to protect their business from competition."

This is fantasy. The vast majority of corporate lobbyists have lobbied for tax cuts and less regulation. And all thru especially Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes their wishes came more and more true.

"Or I could point to the example of healthcare and how many people would like to see nationalized healthcare which reeks with foundations for monopolistic takeover of health."

I live in Norway. We have nationalized healthcare for all which is more or less free when you need it - and it's one of the best in the world. Again, you should be more concerned with democracy - people having a say in how their communities are run, not that we should hand health care over to non-elected millionaires.

"People are quick to judge the libertarians saying we are “survival of the fittest”, or that we are in bed with the corps."

I'm not saying you're in bed with corporations. Your intentions might be good, but what's going to happen in reality if you guys got your will, was the creation of a total dystopia with corporate dominance and tyranny.

"Or that we are naïve"

If you believe that private enterprise would not become enormously more powerful if they got huge tax cuts etc, then, I'm sorry to say, yes that's naive.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ummm.....sorry stupid, we're already there.

Duh...

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Private enterprise has enormous power today, absolutley. My point is that libertarians are in reality advocating an even worse society ,with even more dominant private tyranny.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No. Like I said, they have an overwhelming power now, but would be even more powerful in RonPaul's ideal society.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No. They already have 100% control. Same banks in power, insurance companies just got a mandated purchase backed by the gov, we still only have one power choice in every city, the food sucks, the cars still only get 25-35 ppg, etc....

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

That's not true. In Ron Pauls utopia (or should I say dystopia) there'd be no SS, the now public schools would be privatized etc etc. The Corporations would be even more in control.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ok, so I guess they are 99% in control.

I personally would like to opt out of gov controlled retirement all together, and do my own thing.

And the best thing we could do for education is get the gov out of it all together with their bullshit tests and just let the freakin teachers teach.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I personally would like to opt out of gov controlled retirement all together, and do my own thing."

And what would that "thing" be? Contributing with cash to some insurance company's huge profits?

"And the best thing we could do for education is get the gov out of it all together with their bullshit tests and just let the freakin teachers teach."

Leaving the power over education to corporate tyranny is immoral and undemocratic.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Who said anything about corporate tyranny? I know a few teachers, they all say the tests are bullshit. Totally fucks up the whole thing. I would rather just let them do their own thing.

And seems how the gov just lowered inflation adjustments for SS again, yes, I would rather be in charge of my own retirement than them. At least have a choice. That would be freedom.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Who said anything about corporate tyranny?"

That would be me. That's what private enterprise is. From the top-down hierarchies with non-elected powerful people running things - tyranny.

"I would rather be in charge of my own retirement than them. At least have a choice. That would be freedom."

The alternative to a public retirement is private solutions in which you have to pay profits.

What we should do is to share the wealth and take care of the ones who need it. That's how you build a good society

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Who the hell said anyting about corporations running education?

How about we just let the people put their own plans together? You know, the whole main thing we are trying to accomplish? Decentralized power to the people? Jeez.

So you are for the gov taking 7% of my paycheck for a retirement that isnt keeping up with inflation? You are for forcing me into things that I dont want to do? Hmmm....

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

You're against Social Security like the republicans! What a surprise. You republican asshole!

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Im for choices. If you want them to do your SS, then by all means go for it. If you dont, then dont.

Why do you want to force everyone into giving up 7% of their paycheck to a criminal operation that is only going to be used for more wars?

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

Yeah I got the letter. Just stop trying to justify your greedy republican talking points. You cannot. Keep it to yourself. You are a republican asstroll who is against SS. I support SS because it is right to share with all my fellow citizens. That is what it means to be progressive. Greedy piece of shit

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Your "sharing" is not being used in the proper way because you are relying on criminals to divide up the funds.

Give people choices and watch how quick they shape up.

They are already cutting it, you just dont hear about it. Two years of no cola increase, then when they do its only 3% and its subsidized through higher drug costs for seniors....

They are going to screw you. The money is running out, and they serve the corps, not you. I dont want my family dragged into the abyss because you refuse to wake the fuck up. Start reading more.

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/10/12/medicare-will-cut-social-securitys-raise-in-2012/

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

Because otherwise the elderly poor will starve in poverty you selfish bastard.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The elderly poor are collecting the money they paid into it, right? I mean, havent you ever gotten the letter showing how much you have contributed to it?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

The money is not running out. That is more selfish republican nonsense. We tried no Social Security for centuries before we started it you moron! The elderly poor died alone in the street. That is why we started it. Greedy, selfish, lying piece of right wing shit.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Who the hell said anyting about corporations running education?"

You said you wanted government out of education. Who should control education, in your opinion.

"How about we just let the people put their own plans together?"

That's to vague. How should the people organize it then?

"You know, the whole main thing we are trying to accomplish? Decentralized power to the people?"

Yeah, that sounds good to me. Now, in earlier debates you've told me that you prefer private enterprise over government, so I know you're not an anarchist etc; and therfore I have to ask: What exactly do you mean by decentralized power?

"You are for forcing me into things that I dont want to do?"

There's force in any kind of society. We are forced to follow the laws. Some of the laws we like, some of them we don't like.

What we should focus on is how to make the best society for everyone. In my opinion that is done by creating a real democracy where we share the wealth and take care of the ones who need it.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I consider the people having their own power to make choices on the community level as much more private than gov. The more power communities have to the states, the better.

The more power the states have towards the Feds, the better. Bit gigantic oversweeping rules by beauracrats who are funded by corporations is not in anyones best interest.

Hillsborough county, where I live, collects property taxes, that are used for education. Let the country, with the help of the people, decide the school agenda. Keep the criminals in DC out of it.

Every teacher in FL hates the FCATs, and NCLB tests. Its not teaching, its creating robots.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"The main key I think is that you have to give the people a choice as to how they want to structure the socialism part."

Well, remember that the economy is all-encompassing, so a couple of anarchist communes here and there f.ex. is not good enough. But the point is that people should have a democratic say in the things they're a part of and affected by, and that's a very reasonable principle, if you ask me.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Yes, I agree with some of it. I agree with parts of just about any system. Its teh levels of corruption in any system that MUST be dealt with quickly and meaningfully."

Ok. But just so it's clear, libertarian socialism is very different than this so called libertarian ideology, advocated by R.Paul etc. Like my original post pointed out the Ron Paul-policies will just create private tyranny and domination. I hope you lean more toward the LS ideas.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The main key I think is that you have to give the people a choice as to how they want to structure the socialism part.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Ya, keep the power out of beuracrats hands, and dont let the corporations run the show."

So you found what I suggested reasonable? Good to hear. These ideas I just presented are some of the core principles in anarchism/libertarian socialism. Have you studied these philosophies?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Yes, I agree with some of it. I agree with parts of just about any system. Its teh levels of corruption in any system that MUST be dealt with quickly and meaningfully.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Well, as long as there are huge powerful corporations, we need government etc for self defense.

What we should strive for however, is to organize society from below with strong community control, but it should be based on democracy and solidarity.The institutions in society, and the communities in which they exist, must be controlled democratically by the participants.

Are these reasonable suggestions, in your opinion?

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ya, keep the power out of beuracrats hands, and dont let the corporations run the show.

[-] -3 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

I'd rather be duped by Ron Paul than be a sheep for Hussein. Just my 2cents.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You don't have to choose between those two alternatives; you can reject both.

So by "Hussein" you mean Obama? Why did you use that name?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Thereaper88 (-30) 2 years ago

Oh for fuck sake will you STOP?

[-] -1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

I choose libertarian over the other two because they at least aren't owned by the media. I really hate the media. It takes tidbits of info and spins it so that the masses of idiots think a certain way. This is the case for both republican/democrat cheerleaders. People blindly follow what they "think" is truth when really it's the truth according to Rush, and Hannity, and Mahr, and... Oh what's the ugly lesbos name on MSNBC... I forget.

Anyway, the media is making this country stupid. And they're using the two prominent parties to do it. Makes me sick.

I used Hussein because I'm sick of the name Obama. I'm sick of his face, and I'm sick of the lies that come out of his face. I'm sick of them all actually... Every elected official should be jobless and homeless. But that'll never happen as long as the media can spin the bullshit lies they say and as long as stupid sheep believe it, we'll never recover from this "recession".

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

" I really hate the media."

Including Fox News?

"It takes tidbits of info and spins it so that the masses of idiots think a certain way."

I agree. The media has served alot of propaganda to the people.

"Oh what's the ugly lesbos name on MSNBC"

That's it, I'm done with you.

[Removed]