Free Market v.s. "Socialism"

[Boreas]

There has been some discussion in another thread about the virtues of "The Free Market". Some would say that putting things out into the free market is the best way to manage certain things, incliding health care. Others would say that governments must somehow provide certain aspects of the social safety net including health care.

Here is an article about the relationship between the free market and addictions. http://www.cfdp.ca/roots.pdf

What is your opinion?

[Boreas]

Sometimes we get stuck in extremes. Some want to worship at the altar of "The Free Market" and others want to government to provide all.

I don't happen to believe in extremes and I think there is something in the middle.

Is there really such a thing as a free market?

[Pete Knight]

Sometimes we get stuck in extremes. Some want to worship at the altar of "The Free Market" and others want to government to provide all.

I don't happen to believe in extremes and I think there is something in the middle.

Is there really such a thing as a free market?

A free market is fine if it really is a free market, but when governments prop up a failure the market it is no more free than it is under soviet socialism, setting restraints is one thing but manipulation is quite another, which is what appears to be happening under Dubya, he has to look after his old mates after all.


Pete Knight

[usmc1]

Sometimes we get stuck in extremes. Some want to worship at the altar of "The Free Market" and others want to government to provide all.

I don't happen to believe in extremes and I think there is something in the middle.

Is there really such a thing as a free market?

Sorry, I haven't read the piece yet and am not certain I would entirely agree that addiction is "the" result of dislocation brought about by the Free Market. I'd read the piece and comment on the specifics later.

But, the question remains about "free market" versus regulated and "cost-based" markets. I was thinking about this driving into the office this morning.

The underlying problem, which no one cares to acknowledge or address is capitalism. When one challenges some of the precepts or results of capitalism, one immediately is castigated as a communist, lefty radical or some other pejorative. Maybe that's because those sorts of people are lacking or deprived in the ability to engage in abstract thinking, self-analyis, or self-criticism.

So, let's not worry about them, and proceed.

Capitalism is a very pernicious and competitive economic system. If left unregulated or unrestrained its logical "end-game" is where one uber-strong and powerful individual (or corporation) acquires all the world's wealth and rations that wealth to others in order to build and acquire more wealth.

Thus, I contend, capitalism, if it is to serve all humanity, must be regulated and restrained, in order that some form of wealth redistribution takes place. Some forms of that regulation and restraint are taxes, anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, price-controls, rate-caps and various government enforced "entitlement" programs which serve to "redistibute" the wealth.

Obviously there is no such thing as a "free" market. Without regulation and restraint, the "market" is controlled by fewer and fewer vested interests, but is hardly free, as it is controlled from the top. Those at the top will not effectively self-regulate and will only operate in what they see as their own best interests, which is to eliminate competition and acquire more wealth.

I would then say that it is the best interests of the majority, whose work creates the wealth that they find is "rationed" back to them in the form of wages and so forth, to join together in collective bargaining to achieve a larger share of the wealth they produce, and to vote for those policy makers who will implement policies, regulations and restrictions that will insure the fair redistribution of wealth.

My commute is short, so that's about how far I got with it, before being confronted with the day's ration of brushfires requiring my urination.

I do like the topic though, and I will read the piece. It is an intriguing notion. Because, I think, one of the most lamentable results of our socio-economic system over the past fifty years or so has been the dislocation of families.

As to socialism, it, if one could figure out a way to administer it without the burden of bureaucracies, would be much more moral and fair economic system. But, it inevitably fails because of the weight of the bureaucracy, leaving us with a very distant next best system of "regulated" and "restrained" capitalism.

[Skinview]

Here is an article about the relationship between the free market and addictions. http://www.cfdp.ca/roots.pdf

What is your opinion?

I can't connect to the link, sorry.

[Skinview]

Capitalism is a very pernicious and competitive economic system...
As to socialism, it, if one could figure out a way to administer it without the burden of bureaucracies, would be much more moral and fair economic system. But, it inevitably fails because of the weight of the bureaucracy, leaving us with a very distant next best system of "regulated" and "restrained" capitalism.The free market is the only moral economic system. It is based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services when each party decides that he benifits by the exchange. People are able to enjoy the fruits of their talents and hard work. No one takes anything from anyone, no one is forced to do anything. While this is sufficient justification for preserving it, the fact is that the free market is far more effective at generating wealth than any system imposed upon people by government, as has been demonstrated time and again.


If left unregulated or unrestrained its logical "end-game" is where one uber-strong and powerful individual (or corporation) acquires all the world's wealth and rations that wealth to others in order to build and acquire more wealth.There have been instances where a company has so effectively satisfied the needs of its customers by providing better and/or less expensive goods, that it created a local monopoly. Monopolies lack the benifits of competition, so they are undesirable. It has been argued that this is enevitably a temporary situation, because the price rises that the monopoly allows will bring in new competition from outside the region. Government intervention to break up a monopoly is a regretable use of force, but may facilitate natural competative forces without
an excessive loss of freedom.


Thus, I contend, capitalism, if it is to serve all humanity, must be regulated and restrained, in order that some form of wealth redistribution takes place. Some forms of that regulation and restraint are taxes, anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, price-controls, rate-caps and various government enforced "entitlement" programs which serve to "redistibute" the wealth.Wealth "redistribution" is immoral. It is theft. When the fruit of someone's talant and hard work are taken from him through force by others, that person has become a slave to them. He is forced to work for their benifit, not his own. This is wrong. Government is a useful tool to protect the life, liberty, and property of people from the depradation of theives, other criminals, and other governments. Government needs to be paid for, and so we must endure the necessary evil of taxation. It only becomes legitimate when a majority of the people approve of the taxes upon them. But the fact that there are those who disapprove and are still taxed is to be regarded as an unavoidable tragedy. In a free market, only those who do so voluntarily give up their money to another. Government must be made as small as possible to avoid the evils that inherently accompany it.


Obviously there is no such thing as a "free" market. Without regulation and restraint, the "market" is controlled by fewer and fewer vested interests, but is hardly free, as it is controlled from the top. Those at the top will not effectively self-regulate and will only operate in what they see as their own best interests, which is to eliminate competition and acquire more wealth.The beauty of a free market is that no one is in control of anyone else, and all work in harmony without a grand plan imposed upon them. Each individual, working for his own interest, provides for his fellow man. Like a school of fish, each only aware of the few fish next to it, and none in charge, moves in a vast school that shifts and moves together for the benifit for all. Both are examples of emergent order, and are things of beauty. There is no "top".


I would then say that it is the best interests of the majority, whose work creates the wealth that they find is "rationed" back to them in the form of wages and so forth, to join together in collective bargaining to achieve a larger share of the wealth they produce, and to vote for those policy makers who will implement policies, regulations and restrictions that will insure the fair redistribution of wealth.Collective bargaining is a form of blackmail. If I offer to pay someone to do work for me, both parties agree voluntarily and no one is forced to work, and no money is stolen. They may negotiate a wage that one is willing to pay, and the other believes is both worth his time, and a better deal than anyone else is offering. But when people collude to threaten to deprive someone else of their livelyhood so that they may take money by coercion, it is immoral. If the workers do not like what they are being paid, they are each free to leave and make their livelihood elsewhere. No one is forcing them to work for anyone. They have no right to take from another.

[Sanslines]

Wealth "redistribution" is immoral. It is theft. When the fruit of someone's talant and hard work are taken from him through force by others, that person has become a slave to them. He is forced to work for their benifit, not his own. This is wrong. Government is a useful tool to protect the life, liberty, and property of people from the depradation of theives, other criminals, and other governments. Government needs to be paid for, and so we must endure the necessary evil of taxation. It only becomes legitimate when a majority of the people approve of the taxes upon them. But the fact that there are those who disapprove and are still taxed is to be regarded as an unavoidable tragedy. In a free market, only those who do so voluntarily give up their money to another. Government must be made as small as possible to avoid the evils that inherently accompany it.

The beauty of a free market is that no one is in control of anyone else, and all work in harmony without a grand plan imposed upon them. Each individual, working for his own interest, provides for his fellow man. Like a school of fish, each only aware of the few fish next to it, and none in charge, moves in a vast school that shifts and moves together for the benifit for all. Both are examples of emergent order, and are things of beauty. There is no "top".

Collective bargaining is a form of blackmail. If I offer to pay someone to do work for me, both parties agree voluntarily and no one is forced to work, and no money is stolen. They may negotiate a wage that one is willing to pay, and the other believes is both worth his time, and a better deal than anyone else is offering. But when people collude to threaten to deprive someone else of their livelyhood so that they may take money by coercion, it is immoral. If the workers do not like what they are being paid, they are each free to leave and make their livelihood elsewhere. No one is forcing them to work for anyone. They have no right to take from another.

No one is technically being forced to work but for most people, if they don't work then they freeze, starve, and become homeless. Try living on your property without paying your property taxes and see how far you get before the government evicts you and auctions off your property for failure to pay your taxes. Money is a basic necessity of life today.

As for weath redistribution, you might be interested in researching the history of the late 19th and early 20th century robber barrons.

Here is a brief exerpt from Wiki:

Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) as a pejorative reference to businessmen and bankers who dominated their respective industries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry) and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various anti-competitive or unfair business practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_business_practices). The term may now be used in relation to any businessman or banker who is perceived to have used questionable business practices or scams in order to become powerful or wealthy.
The term derives from the medieval German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) lords who illegally charged exorbitant tolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll) against ships traversing the Rhine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine) river (see robber baron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron)). There has been some dispute over the term's origin and use. It was popularized by U.S. political and economic commentator Matthew Josephson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Josephson) during The Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Depression) in a 1934 book. He attributed its first use to an 1880 anti-monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) pamphlet in which Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas) farmers applied the term to railroad magnates. The informal term captains of industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_of_industry) may sometimes be used to avoid the negative connotations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation) of "robber baron".


Businessmen considered Robber Barons

John Jacob Astor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor) (real estate, fur) – New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)
John Jacob Astor III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor_III) (real estate) - New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)
William Backhouse Astor Sr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Backhouse_Astor_Sr) (real estate) - New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)
Andrew Carnegie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie) (railroads, steel) – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh%2C_Pennsylvania)
Thomas L. Chadbourne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Chadbourne) (law, finance) - New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)
Jay Cooke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Cooke) (finance) – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia%2C_Pennsylvania)
Charles Crocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Crocker) (railroads) - Sacramento, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento%2C_California)
Daniel Drew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Drew) (finance) – New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York) state
James Buchanan Duke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan_Duke) (tobacco) – near Durham, North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham%2C_North_Carolina)
James Fisk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fisk_%28financier%29) (finance) – New York state
Henry Flagler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Flagler) (railroads, oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil), the Standard Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil) company) – New York City and Palm Beach, Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Beach%2C_Florida)
Henry Clay Frick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay_Frick) (steel) – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and New York City
John Warne Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warne_Gates) (steel, oil) – Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago) and Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)
Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould) (finance, railroads) – New York (both state and city)
Daniel Guggenheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Guggenheim) (copper) - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia%2C_Pennsylvania)
Edward Henry Harriman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Henry_Harriman) (railroads) – New York state
Henry O. Havemeyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_O._Havemeyer) (sugar) - New York City
George Hearst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hearst) (gold) - Coloma, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloma%2C_California)
William Randolph Hearst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst) (newspaper) - San Francisco, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%2C_California) and New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)
James J. Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Hill) (railroads) - St. Paul, Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%2C_Minnesota)
Mark Hopkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hopkins_%28railroad%29) (railroads) - Sacramento, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento%2C_California)
Collis P. Huntington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collis_P._Huntington) (railroads) – California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California), Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), and New York
Andrew Mellon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon) (finance) - Pennsylvania
J. P. Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) (finance) - New York
George Mortimer Pullman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mortimer_Pullman) (railroads) - Pullman, Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman%2C_Chicago)
John D. Rockefeller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller), Sr. (oil) - Cleveland, Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland%2C_Ohio)
John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller%2C_Jr.) - (finance, oil) New York City, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City%2C_New_York)
William Rockefeller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rockefeller) (oil) - New York City, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City%2C_New_York)
Leland Stanford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford) (railroads) – Sacramento, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento%2C_California) and San Francisco, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%2C_California)
Moses Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Taylor) (finance, railroads) - New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York)
Cornelius Vanderbilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt) (railroads, shipping) - New York City, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City%2C_New_York)
William H. Vanderbilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Vanderbilt) (railroads) - New York City, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City%2C_New_York)
Charles Yerkes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Yerkes) (finance,railroads/subways) - Chicago, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago%2C_Illinois) and London, England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London%2C_England)
As the more informed will recall, most robber barrons became fantastically wealthy off the backs of those that they employed. Workers were abused, mistreated, and fully exploited so the rich could get richer. If people today think that their working conditions are horrible, they need to remind themselves about the conditions of what many experienced in the early part of the 20th century.

[Qikdraw]

The free market is the only moral economic system. It is based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services when each party decides that he benifits by the exchange. People are able to enjoy the fruits of their talents and hard work. No one takes anything from anyone, no one is forced to do anything.

I don't disagree that this sounds great. A utopia really. In much the same way a 'communist' system sounds. People working together to provide things for everyone, nobody wanting for anything as everything is provided. The problem with both ideals is it does not take into account greedy people, or people who want power. In the end that is what kills both ideals.

We've seen attempts at communism and how those have worked out. We supposedly live in a 'free market' society, but considering how many times the government has propped up failing companies, and the massive tax breaks given, we don't live in that either. We've also seen the greed in companies and how that effects things as well.

People being people we will never see either excellent theories work in truth. Which is too bad because both have excellent ideals.

Skinview

The link Boreas put up is a .pdf file, you need to check and see if you have Adobe Acrobat in your system as that is the program you need to use to read it.

Have you ever read Freehold (http://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Michael-Z-Williamson/dp/0743471792/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218650494&sr=1-1) by Michael Z. Williamson? Its a sci fi book based on what you talk about. I think you'd like it because its about the evil UN trying to take over a free market world because they can't stand to see a free market system work. Its actually a really good book. Have I mentioned to you this book before, cause I'm feeling a bit of deja vu as I type this. :D

[jon71]

Let's be honest here. Complete govt. control is communism and I doubt any of us want that. A complete lack of govt. control is medieval feudalism. Does anyone want that either? The answer is capitalism with appropriate govt. oversight and regulation. I doubt we'll ever find unanimous agreement on the level of regulation but that's o.k.

[Qikdraw]

Sanlines

Nice post! But its making me want to play Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Tycoon_Deluxe#Railroad_Tycoon_Deluxe) again. :D

[Sanslines]

Sanlines

Nice post! But its making me want to play Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Tycoon_Deluxe#Railroad_Tycoon_Deluxe) again. :D


lol........lol..........can you hum a few bars???

[usmc1]

The free market is the only moral economic system. It is based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services when each party decides that he benifits by the exchange. People are able to enjoy the fruits of their talents and hard work. No one takes anything from anyone, no one is forced to do anything. While this is sufficient justification for preserving it, the fact is that the free market is far more effective at generating wealth than any system imposed upon people by government, as has been demonstrated time and again.

No, as I wrote, a market without controls, regulations, and restraints is always controlled from the top, by those who acquire the most wealth and amass the most goods to sell at the price they set. Your version of a free market eventually destroys choice and competition, because there winds up being only one powerful winner.

That is why there are anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.


There have been instances where a company has so effectively satisfied the needs of its customers by providing better and/or less expensive goods, that it created a local monopoly. Monopolies lack the benifits of competition, so they are undesirable. It has been argued that this is enevitably a temporary situation, because the price rises that the monopoly allows will bring in new competition from outside the region. Government intervention to break up a monopoly is a regretable use of force, but may facilitate natural competative forces without
an excessive loss of freedom.

See, you agree, but don't realize it. Just consider that monopolies don't self regulate, and since they are undersirable, it falls upon government to break them up, or prevent their creeation through regulation.


Wealth "redistribution" is immoral. It is theft. When the fruit of someone's talant and hard work are taken from him through force by others, that person has become a slave to them. He is forced to work for their benifit, not his own. This is wrong. Government is a useful tool to protect the life, liberty, and property of people from the depradation of theives, other criminals, and other governments. Government needs to be paid for, and so we must endure the necessary evil of taxation. It only becomes legitimate when a majority of the people approve of the taxes upon them. But the fact that there are those who disapprove and are still taxed is to be regarded as an unavoidable tragedy. In a free market, only those who do so voluntarily give up their money to another. Government must be made as small as possible to avoid the evils that inherently accompany it.

Sort of hard to filter through all the typical right-wing cant. But, your premise that wealth redistribution is immoral is inherently wrong.

Are wages wrong? Is paying for a service rendered wrong? Is paying for someone's expertise, advise, assistance, or counsel wrong? These are all forms of wealth redistribution. It is shifting wealth from the purchaser to the seller of labor, skill, service or expertise.

In your version of a unrestrained and unregulated "free-market" the wealthy purchaser would have all the power, and say, do the work and be damned, I'm setting the price. This is actually how the world operated during the period of serfs and land slaves. This is how things were in this country until men and women gathered together in collective bargaining for a fairshare of the wealth their labor created and a piece of the dignity, leisure and comfort that wealth provided.

When labor and captial were joined together in partnership, America exceeded the rest of the world in production, our economy was the envy of the world, our public schools flourished, post 12 education was an achievable goal, health care and medicines were affordable, home ownership was within reach for more people than at any point in our history, and a safe, secure, dignified retirement was a dream that could be recognized.

One could graph our decline and show a relationship between the growth of deregulation and union busting and dismantling of the New Deal wrought by your conservative and Republican fellow-travelers. I think you'd find several parallels; an increase in the concentration of wealth in fewer hands, the amount of wealth expanding in those fewer hands in relation to the total available wealth, a reduction in the our standard of living, increased numbers of people sliding into poverty, and the destruction of unions.


The beauty of a free market is that no one is in control of anyone else, and all work in harmony without a grand plan imposed upon them. Each individual, working for his own interest, provides for his fellow man. Like a school of fish, each only aware of the few fish next to it, and none in charge, moves in a vast school that shifts and moves together for the benifit for all. Both are examples of emergent order, and are things of beauty. There is no "top".

This is so incredibly naive and uninformed a statement as to be utterly unworthy of response. Humans aren't fish and there is no acceptable or moral analogy that makes them so.


Collective bargaining is a form of blackmail. If I offer to pay someone to do work for me, both parties agree voluntarily and no one is forced to work, and no money is stolen. They may negotiate a wage that one is willing to pay, and the other believes is both worth his time, and a better deal than anyone else is offering. But when people collude to threaten to deprive someone else of their livelyhood so that they may take money by coercion, it is immoral. If the workers do not like what they are being paid, they are each free to leave and make their livelihood elsewhere. No one is forcing them to work for anyone. They have no right to take from another.

You refute yourself in the first sentence, bargaining, collective or otherwise, is not blackmail by any definition. Bargaining is just that, bargaining and negotiation and give and take; and, blackmail is blackmail, as in a crimianl act demanding payment of some sort for not releasing information the other person wants kept secret.

You probably meant extortion. But, still would have been grieviously wrong.

The fact that worker's pensions, company paid healthcare, 40-hour workweeks, paid vacations, safe, secure and dignified retirements all arose from collecting bargaining prove my points. Left to their own, those at the top, who control the wealth, in order to build more wealth, would have relinquished nothing of the like to workers, except for colective bargaining and the elction of policy makers who would establish the laws, rules and regulations to enforce thsoe agreements.

Your argument that someone is free to take it or leave it as regards wages is a non-sequitor, and entirely misses the point. A working man or woman has every bit a right to set a price for his/her labor as does a consulting geologist, doctor or lawyer--or your friends in big oil.

Labor helps create wealth and as such is entitled to a fair share of the results of its efforts. Wealth holders have the power when dealing with individuals tosay take it or leave it, I'll just replace you with someone who is more hungry or desperate. But, when labor (workers) join together and collectively say to the wealth holder we're not getting a fair share of the wealth we're helping create, you need us for our labor, and we need you for your expertise and capital, so let's set down and negotiate soemthing that is fair for all of us--that is negotiating from equal strength. It is fair!

Skinview, you really dog yourself into some really self-contradictory positions because you continue to argue from a rigid point-of-view rehashing and rephrasing that same old right-wing can't.

Thanks, this time though for not calling me a commie or socialist because I think regulations and wealth redistribution works well for both capital and labor.

I jsut hink you never thought it through to the point of realizing that wages, salaries, and fees are income redistribution.

And, I think if you gave it some serious thought, and put aside the phrases and prejudices, that you really don't think that only one side in a transaction should have all the power in determining the conditions of that transaction...and if someone is making money off your hard earned knowledge, skill, and work, don't you think you're entitled to sharing in that money?

[Skinview]

No one is technically being forced to work but for most people, if they don't work then they freeze, starve, and become homeless.Of course, but my point was that no one has to work for a particular employer. If self employment isn't a viable option, there are a great many other employers to work for.


Try living on your property without paying your property taxes and see how far you get before the government evicts you and auctions off your property for failure to pay your taxes.Yes, and I have posted elsewhere that property taxes are a pernicious evil that should be ended. Its a form of serfdom. Income or sales taxes are far better.


As the more informed will recall, most robber barrons became fantastically wealthy off the backs of those that they employed. Workers were abused, mistreated, and fully exploited so the rich could get richer. If people today think that their working conditions are horrible, they need to remind themselves about the conditions of what many experienced in the early part of the 20th century.I am well aware of the robber barons. Their parctices are why I am not opposed to antitrust laws. But some of them, like Carnegie, were also philanthropists who did an enourmous amout of good with their wealth, aside from providing the nation with goods, like steel, that this country was literally built with. Most of them were not evil people.
Of course they all profited from the work or their employees. Of course they got richer. But so what? There is nothing wrong with being rich. It was the opportunity to get rich that allowed this country to become a wealthy, economic giant. No doubt employees could have been treated better than they were, but never forget that they voluntarily continued to work for these men. The were not slaves. Whatever their situation, they were offered a better deal than they could get anywhere else. Don't forget, people were vastly poorer then than they are today. Life was hard all around.

[Skinview]

I don't disagree that this sounds great. A utopia really. In much the same way a 'communist' system sounds. People working together to provide things for everyone, nobody wanting for anything as everything is provided. The problem with both ideals is it does not take into account greedy people,On the contrary, the free market depends on people being motivated to act in their own self interest, with a healthy desire to profit and even get rich. Now it does happen that people do attempt to defraud or steal from others out of greed, and thats where government rightly steps in. Thats why we have laws against that.


or people who want power. In the end that is what kills both ideals.Now that is very true. When people want the power to take from others, or force them to bend to their will, that is wrong. It is also what socialism is based on. Here in the US, corporations attempt, and get away with, using the government to force taxpayers to give them money for nothing. Amtrack, mohair subsidies, farm price supports, sports stadiums and other such things. They also get the government to impose protectionist tarrifs to reduce competition. Government is the conduit of evil, and must be watched closely.


We've seen attempts at communism and how those have worked out. We supposedly live in a 'free market' society, but considering how many times the government has propped up failing companies, and the massive tax breaks given, we don't live in that either.So true. But I don't think any company should be paying taxes.


Have you ever read Freehold (http://www.amazon.com/Freehold-Michael-Z-Williamson/dp/0743471792/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218650494&sr=1-1) by Michael Z. Williamson?... Have I mentioned to you this book before, cause I'm feeling a bit of deja vu as I type this. :DI don't recall it. Sounds interesting.

[Skinview]

Let's be honest here. Complete govt. control is communism and I doubt any of us want that. A complete lack of govt. control is medieval feudalism. Does anyone want that either? The answer is capitalism with appropriate govt. oversight and regulation. I doubt we'll ever find unanimous agreement on the level of regulation but that's o.k.I don't think feuldalism is a lack of government control. A king is a lot of government. Hong Kong has been cited as the place that had to most economic freedom. I don't know what the case is since the PRC took over.

[Sanslines]

Of course, but my point was that no one has to work for a particular employer. If self employment isn't a viable option, there are a great many other employers to work for.

In large cities, this may be the case. In rural areas this is generally not the case. This is not the 1950's when jobs went begging for applicants who had a high school degree that was worth something.

{I am well aware of the robber barons. Their parctices are why I am not opposed to antitrust laws. But some of them, like Carnegie, were also philanthropists who did an enourmous amout of good with their wealth, aside from providing the nation with goods, like steel, that this country was literally built with. Most of them were not evil people. [/quote]

Some ignored the plights of their employees and worked them literally to death. Why do you think child labor laws were passed? Those, such as Carnegie, were indeed philanthropists but perhaps they had a guilty conscious and decided that philanthropy was one way to ease their guilt conscious for all of the needless suffering they inflicted upon others.

[Skinview]

...That is why there are anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.

See, you agree, but don't realize it. Just consider that monopolies don't self regulate, and since they are undersirable, it falls upon government to break them up, or prevent their creeation through regulation.Yes, we do agree (maybe miracles do happen), and I do realize it.


...your premise that wealth redistribution is immoral is inherently wrong.

Are wages wrong? Is paying for a service rendered wrong? Is paying for someone's expertise, advise, assistance, or counsel wrong? These are all forms of wealth redistribution. It is shifting wealth from the purchaser to the seller of labor, skill, service or expertise.That is not what people mean when they write of "wealth redistribution". Wages and payment for goods and services are voluntary exchanges. "Wealth redistribution", as the term is commonly used, involves involuntary confiscation of wealth and the transfer of it to those who are not as wealthy. This would be to a degree beyond simply providing for those who are so poor that they lack basic needs, like enough money to buy food. Wealth redistribution is an attempt, to at least some degree, to realize the marxist cant, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and equalize the income of all people. The main instrument of wealth redistribution is the "progressive" income tax.

One might feel that it would be fair if every one should pay the same amount of tax to the government. (Imagine buying a toaster, and having the clerk tell you that you have to pay a higher price because you make more money than the last customer!) Others think that it would be fair if everyone paid taxes at the same proportion of their income. If person x makes ten times as much as person y, then x pays ten times as much in taxes. Thats a flat rate income tax. But some people are not satisfied with that, and want person x to pay taxes at a higher rate, so they think x should pay twenty or thirty or a hundred times as much tax, even to the where he pays more than half of his income, or the great majority of his income, in taxes. This is wealth redistribution, where people who can generate a lot of income have a greater proportion of their income taken from them. This is wrong. It used to be that some had 90 percent of their income taken from them. Today, in the US, it is not as bad, but we still have a "progressive" income tax.
That is one side of wealth redistribution. The receivers of the wealth of others typically get it in the form of subsidies for goods and services. They get education for free, or a reduced price, or grants. They get free entertainment on PBS. They get to play in national parks that are maintained by the government. They get train rides at below cost. And they get most of the cost of all the normal functions of government paid for them. You got an "economic stimulus check."? That money was taken from somebody. That was wealth redistribution in its purest form. A lot of government money is borrowed. The high income earners are going to pay most of the interest on that for you, but not voluntarily. The money is taken from them, much like a mob of looters empty a store. If there are enough of them, we call it a government and vote the stuff out of the store. Thats wealth redistribution. Damn wealthy, lets take their stuff...


In your version of a unrestrained and unregulated "free-market" the wealthy purchaser would have all the power, and say, do the work and be damned, I'm setting the price.I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean wealthy manufacturer/seller?

A seller can, of course, ask any price for their products. If its above the market value, the consumer is going to say "Screw you, I'm doing buisness with the guy down the street." If the seller wants to make the most money, he can't sell his product too far above cost, unless his products are a lot better than the other guy's.


When labor and captial were joined together in partnership, America exceeded the rest of the world in production, our economy was the envy of the world, our public schools flourished, post 12 education was an achievable goal,If I recall correctly, a greater proportion of people go to college now than ever before.


health care and medicines were affordable,Yeah, an MRI, CAT scan, and heart transplant cost a bit more than they did fifty years ago. I wonder whats with that...


and a safe, secure, dignified retirement was a dream that could be recognized.Yeah, back in the good old days, you didn't retire, you DIED.


One could graph our decline and show a relationship between the growth of deregulation and union busting and dismantling of the New Deal wrought by your conservative and Republican fellow-travelers.What? Social Security has been bulked up since then by a lot. The government dispenses money like it was water.


I think you'd find several parallels; an increase in the concentration of wealth in fewer hands, the amount of wealth expanding in those fewer hands in relation to the total available wealth, a reduction in the our standard of living,The standard of living is waaay up. This past year wasn't as good as the one before, but overall its very good.


increased numbers of people sliding into poverty,Its a bigger population. I'd be interested in some numbers.


and the destruction of unions.Workers don't want them. They are magnets for organized crime too.


This is so incredibly naive and uninformed a statement as to be utterly unworthy of response. Humans aren't fish and there is no acceptable or moral analogy that makes them so.???? I didn't say humans are fish. You are missing something.


You refute yourself in the first sentence, bargaining, collective or otherwise, is not blackmail by any definition. Bargaining is just that, bargaining and negotiation and give and takeBargaining is not by itself extortion. But when workers collude to shut down a buisness if they don't get the money they want, its extortion. What would you think if all buisnesses got together and agreed not to pay anyone more than $8 an hour? Or set prices where they want? They could all get together and "bargain" with a worker.


The fact that worker's pensions, company paid healthcare, 40-hour workweeks, paid vacations, safe, secure and dignified retirements all arose from collecting bargaining prove my points. Left to their own, those at the top, who control the wealth, in order to build more wealth, would have relinquished nothing of the like to workers, except for colective bargaining and the elction of policy makers who would establish the laws, rules and regulations to enforce thsoe agreements.These benifits continue to exist in non union companies, which are most companies, because the value of labor has risen. And if unions were smarter, they wouldn't ask for company paid healthcare. Thats like chains on the employees with preexisting conditions. They should ask for the money so the workers could buy their own insurance.


Your argument that someone is free to take it or leave it as regards wages is a non-sequitor, and entirely misses the point. A working man or woman has every bit a right to set a price for his/her labor as does a consulting geologist, doctor or lawyer--or your friends in big oil.Sure they do. That is often the case. Often its not, depending on the position. If its a cashier position, the company is going to offer minimum wage, or something near it, and they will laugh at you if you ask for more. The job requires no skill, and nearly anyone can do it. The labor of a cashier has little value. Now if you are a skilled specialist, then you are valuable and have real bargaining power.


Labor helps create wealth and as such is entitled to a fair share of the results of its efforts.
Wealth holders have the power when dealing with individuals tosay take it or leave it, I'll just replace you with someone who is more hungry or desperate. But, when labor (workers) join together and collectively say to the wealth holder we're not getting a fair share of the wealth we're helping create, you need us for our labor, and we need you for your expertise and capital, so let's set down and negotiate soemthing that is fair for all of us--that is negotiating from equal strength. It is fair! "Fair"? "Entitled"? Life is not fair. Tom cruise is better looking than I am. Thats not fair. Does that mean I am entitled to his movie money? Labor gets paid for its work. Getting paid for more than the market value of the labor is more than they are entitled to. If they want to get paid more, they should do something to increase the value of their labor, like learning a valuable skill. Go to medical school. Go to plumbing school. Get an MBA. If cashiers got paid as much as plumbers, there wouldn't be any plumbers. It costs money to go to plumbing school. They work with sewage. When your pipes burst in January (if you lived where Boreas does), try getting a cashier to fix them. Prices for goods, and labor, convey important information in a free market. A high price makes it worthwhile to make or do something in high demand. Low prices say "thats enough". If you muck around with natural wages and prices, bad things happen.


Skinview, you really dog yourself into some really self-contradictory positions because you continue to argue from a rigid point-of-view rehashing and rephrasing that same old right-wing can't.Thats "cant". A typo, perhaps. Anyway, I don't agree.


Thanks, this time though for not calling me a commie or socialist because I think regulations and wealth redistribution works well for both capital and labor.I have never called you either, and it appears that you are neither, although you do have many socialist positions.


And, I think if you gave it some serious thought, and put aside the phrases and prejudices, that you really don't think that only one side in a transaction should have all the power in determining the conditions of that transactionThey don't. I didn't say that. Negotiation between individuals often happens. Other times, either side might lay down take-it-or-leave-it offers. But ultimately, the market is going to set the price or wage, and neither can stray far from that. And its best that way.


..and if someone is making money off your hard earned knowledge, skill, and work, don't you think you're entitled to sharing in that money?Yup. Everyone gets paid.
The market decides how much.

[jon71]

Part of that decision on wages comes from the employees negotiating for themselves either individually or collectively. I know you missed that one sooner.

[Skinview]

Part of that decision on wages comes from the employees negotiating for themselves either individually or collectively. I know you missed that one sooner."sooner"?
When you buy a car, the salesman and the buyer dicker for the price. Of course their negotiations affect the price, but to a much greater degree, the cost of manufacturing the car and the price of other, similar cars is going to determine the price. The price of the car is going to be in a narrow range above the cost of making it and near the market price for cars like it. Otherwise, its a bad deal for the buyer or the seller. Wages are going to be near the market value of the labor. But "collective" negotiations force the cost of labor above the market value.

[Sanslines]

But "collective" negotiations force the cost of labor above the market value.

"Collective' negotiations that force up the price of labor have the effect of speeding up the process of sending jobs to lower labor cost countries. What worked in the 1950's concerning unions and union negotiations will no longer work today. We live in a global economy now.

[usmc1]

Yes, we do agree (maybe miracles do happen), and I do realize it.

That is not what people mean when they write of "wealth redistribution". Wages and payment for goods and services are voluntary exchanges. "Wealth redistribution", as the term is commonly used, involves involuntary confiscation of wealth and the transfer of it to those who are not as wealthy. This would be to a degree beyond simply providing for those who are so poor that they lack basic needs, like enough money to buy food. Wealth redistribution is an attempt, to at least some degree, to realize the marxist cant, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and equalize the income of all people. The main instrument of wealth redistribution is the "progressive" income tax.

One might feel that it would be fair if every one should pay the same amount of tax to the government. (Imagine buying a toaster, and having the clerk tell you that you have to pay a higher price because you make more money than the last customer!) Others think that it would be fair if everyone paid taxes at the same proportion of their income. If person x makes ten times as much as person y, then x pays ten times as much in taxes. Thats a flat rate income tax. But some people are not satisfied with that, and want person x to pay taxes at a higher rate, so they think x should pay twenty or thirty or a hundred times as much tax, even to the where he pays more than half of his income, or the great majority of his income, in taxes. This is wealth redistribution, where people who can generate a lot of income have a greater proportion of their income taken from them. This is wrong. It used to be that some had 90 percent of their income taken from them. Today, in the US, it is not as bad, but we still have a "progressive" income tax.
That is one side of wealth redistribution. The receivers of the wealth of others typically get it in the form of subsidies for goods and services. They get education for free, or a reduced price, or grants. They get free entertainment on PBS. They get to play in national parks that are maintained by the government. They get train rides at below cost. And they get most of the cost of all the normal functions of government paid for them. You got an "economic stimulus check."? That money was taken from somebody. That was wealth redistribution in its purest form. A lot of government money is borrowed. The high income earners are going to pay most of the interest on that for you, but not voluntarily. The money is taken from them, much like a mob of looters empty a store. If there are enough of them, we call it a government and vote the stuff out of the store. Thats wealth redistribution. Damn wealthy, lets take their stuff...

Saying it does not make it so. The facts are quite clear, as to taxation which you allege is a process of confiscation from the wealthy, that the wealthy and corporations have juiced and juried the system in such a way that it operates to their advantage. Often to the extent that they pay no taxes or few taxes in comparison to their wealth.

And, try to put on your "abstract thinking cap" to understand that wages, salaries, fees paid, are indeed transfers of wealth. If you can't grasp that, you completely miss the macro and focus only on one facet of the micro, that of taxation.

In capitalism,wealth accrues and builds greater wealth acquiring ever growing percentages of the total available wealth. In order that there be equity in the system, collective bargaining, rules, restrictions, taxes, laws, programs and policies are required to insure fair competition, fair wages and benefits, fair protections for those needing it, and equitable redistribution of the wealth. Volunteerism doesn't do it, nor does individualism. Only government is large and strong enough to stand up to the Exxons and Halliburtons fo the world.

I do thank you though for displaying the characteristic of conservatives which, I think, drives so many people, through simplistic thinking, to argue and vote against their own best interests.

You really do, (don't you?) see wealth redistribution in one-dimensional single-issue terms and apply it to taxation (which is never all that popular--sort of like medicine--gotta take it, but don't have to like it) and slap on modifiers such as confiscatory to change the value from merely onerous to onerous and threatening.

That is how the Republicans and conservatives operate in order to get people to work against their own best interests. Guys, like you never come to realize how badly you're being tooled and played.

Call me an Economic Determinist, well you have actually, but all of commerce, all of policy, and all of politics in a capitalist system such as ours ultimately becomes about redistribution of wealth. As your big-eared boy Perot used to simplistically sum it, "It really is that simple!

[Qikdraw]

So true. But I don't think any company should be paying taxes.


Think of it as 'service fees' then. For both federal and state services. Mantaining roads for workers to get to and from work and for trucks to haul their goods around, for police and firemen to help protect their property, for the military to help protect their freedom. There are many other uses for 'service fees' that directly help corporations as well, those are just ones that immediately come to my still sleepy mind. :)


So remember, its not taxes, but 'service fees'. :D

[brazhunter]

In order that there be equity in the system, collective bargaining, rules, restrictions, taxes, laws, programs and policies are required to insure fair competition, fair wages and benefits, fair protections for those needing it, and equitable redistribution of the wealth.

Yet somehow this still boils down to the government taking from targeted groups and individuals and giving to groups and individuals in its favor.

What part of tyranny don't you understand?

(check with your fellow Obama campaign workers for some good cut & paste content to repost here)

[Skinview]

Saying it does not make it so. The facts are quite clear, as to taxation which you allege is a process of confiscation from the wealthy, that the wealthy and corporations have juiced and juried the system in such a way that it operates to their advantage. Often to the extent that they pay no taxes or few taxes in comparison to their wealth.I've posted information on the alternative minimum tax before. You seem to have forgotten it.


And, try to put on your "abstract thinking cap" to understand that wages, salaries, fees paid, are indeed transfers of wealth. If you can't grasp that, you completely miss the macro and focus only on one facet of the micro, that of taxation.
I'm not taking about any transfer of money, I am talking about "wealth redistribution", which has a specific meaning. I explained that thoroughly above. Feel free to reread my post. But you can try this, from wikipedia:

Redistribution of wealth

Methods of transferring wealth
The transfer of wealth can occur in various ways. Some methods for transferring wealth are voluntary transfers from those who have it to those who do not. Other methods involve forcibly removing the wealth from those who have it and redistributing it to those who do not.

Several political systems are designed to redistribute wealth including Communism, Socialism, and Welfare Capitalism.

Voluntary transfer of wealth
Charity is a common method of shifting wealth from those who have it to those who do not.

Forced transfer of wealth
Some methods for this are: warfare, slavery, taxation, inflation, devaluation, government policies, or theft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

[usmc1]

Yet somehow this still boils down to the government taking from targeted groups and individuals and giving to groups and individuals in its favor.

What part of tyranny don't you understand?

(check with your fellow Obama campaign workers for some good cut & paste content to repost here)
And what part of parroting right-wing shibboliths, canards, stock phrases, cant, and flap-doodle and yammer-yammer escapes you. Tyranny?

And to what cut and paste do your refer?

[usmc1]

I've posted information on the alternative minimum tax before. You seem to have forgotten it.


I'm not taking about any transfer of wealth, I am talking about "wealth redistribution", which has a specific meaning. I explained that thoroughly above. Feel free to reread my post. But you can try this, from wikipedia:

Redistribution of wealth

Methods of transferring wealth
The transfer of wealth can occur in various ways. Some methods for transferring wealth are voluntary transfers from those who have it to those who do not. Other methods involve forcibly removing the wealth from those who have it and redistributing it to those who do not.

Several political systems are designed to redistribute wealth including Communism, Socialism, and Welfare Capitalism.

Voluntary transfer of wealth
Charity is a common method of shifting wealth from those who have it to those who do not.

Forced transfer of wealth
Some methods for this are: warfare, slavery, taxation, inflation, devaluation, government policies, or theft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

All are forms of redistributing the wealth, I said that. I do not accept your rigidly narrow defination allowing you to frame the disagreement in your terms. It ain't gonna happen!

Actually, you've amanged to once again engage in self-contradiction, no wonder you're a McCain guy!

Huff and puff, throw out all those same tired old shibboliths, canards, cant, flap-doodle and yammer-yammer upon which conservatives and Republicans so rely to cause guys like you to, in effect, whizz on your own boots, but that doesn't change.

Too bad, so sad, truth and reality have a liberal bias!

[Skinview]

All are forms of redistributing the wealth, I said that. I do not accept your rigidly narrow defination allowing you to frame the disagreement in your terms. It ain't gonna happen!The point that you are not grasping is that I am not framing this. Its an issue framed by a great many people a long time ago. Its not about buying things at the store. Its not about somebody's paycheck for labor. Its about moving a large amount of money from one set of people to another. There is no exchange involved. "Wealth redistribution" is an issue that you seem never to have heard of before. Its like I am taking about gun control and you think shooting spitballs at teachers is a part of it. It ain't, and I'm not the one who framed it that way.

[jon71]

Collective bargaining is part of the free market system as it should be. Employess can stand up for themselves and ensure that they are paid a fair and reasonable price. Ultimately management will pay what that labor is worth. Labor will push for more, management will push for less, and ultimately there will be an agreement that both sides can accept. Ranting and raving about this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how capitalism works, which is just what I would expect from a conservative.

[jon71]

The term "wealth redistribution" is politically imflamatory and being so is it's primary, if not exclusive, purpose. There are those who want us to believe that a progressive tax rate is some form of theft. It's clear that the right is determined to throw around bombastic rhetoric and avoid any reasonable discussion of this issue. Actually that's fine because there's no reason to make radical changes in our current tax code. I'd love to see some streamlining and I don't doubt that out of the thousands of lines of code in it there's plenty of things for all of us to disagree with but I won't support any radical day and night kind of change.

[Boreas]

Collective bargaining is part of the free market system as it should be. Employess can stand up for themselves and ensure that they are paid a fair and reasonable price. Ultimately management will pay what that labor is worth. Labor will push for more, management will push for less, and ultimately there will be an agreement that both sides can accept.

Good point! :applause:

I have been really busy the past few days. I have been lurking and following this excellent discussion. I am keenly aware that I started this discussion and then ducked out. :o It is good to see that you guys have continued on in such a fashion.

Carry on. As you were. :)

[usmc1]

The point that you are not grasping is that I am not framing this. Its an issue framed by a great many people a long time ago. Its not about buying things at the store. Its not about somebody's paycheck for labor. Its about moving a large amount of money from one set of people to another. There is no exchange involved. "Wealth redistribution" is an issue that you seem never to have heard of before. Its like I am taking about gun control and you think shooting spitballs at teachers is a part of it. It ain't, and I'm not the one who framed it that way.
No, you're not getting it. You are attempting to limit (frame) this discussion in terms of wealth redistribution being only one, highly emotionally charged, process. Redistribution of wealth takes many forms, and to single out only one of those forms as representing the entire process completely misses the point, narrows the discussion and indeed is precisely what framing is.

And yes there is an exchange in any part of the process. Taxation, for example, is an exchange. One exchanges wealth for security, safety, a stable society, and so forth. The fact that there are some selfish hard-heads that don't want to pony up their fair share, but still want the benefits, doesn't mitigate that at tall.

[ki4kxq]

And what part of parroting right-wing shibboliths, canards, stock phrases, cant, and flap-doodle and yammer-yammer escapes you. Tyranny?

And to what cut and paste do your refer?

I see USMC-1 that you couldn't answer the question about tyranny, so you just reverted to childish gibberish. That seems to be what most folks do when they run out of the prescribed party talking points. Guess we'll have to wait till tomorrow for an answer out of you, after you get your daily fax from the DNC and Obama campaign.

[usmc1]

I see USMC-1 that you couldn't answer the question about tyranny, so you just reverted to childish gibberish. That seems to be what most folks do when they run out of the prescribed party talking points. Guess we'll have to wait till tomorrow for an answer out of you, after you get your daily fax from the DNC and Obama campaign.

You accuse me of things that I do not do. You know nothing of me, my current role or past experience, and yet you presume to accuse me of things. That is the traditional conservative way of operating, erect a straw man and attack it.

For your edification here is the quote that prompted my asking what tyranny and what cut-and-paste...neither of those questions have been answered by you, or your fellow-traveler.

Gee, "childish gibberish". To think Nacktman, Nudebushwalker and others were banned for such, but the conservatives continue unabated.

And so, I ask, for the second time, what tyranny? And for the third, to what cut-and-paste do your refer?


Originally Posted by brazhunter http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=205677#post205677)
Yet somehow this still boils down to the government taking from targeted groups and individuals and giving to groups and individuals in its favor.

What part of tyranny don't you understand?

(check with your fellow Obama campaign workers for some good cut & paste content to repost here)