DISQUS

At one time in my life I considered joining the Air Force. I decided not to, not because I don't like the idea of fighting for the military, but I had just decided to pursue an education first. Recently however, I have made the decision that if the draft were ever reinstated I would choose not fight, unless of course I felt that my safety, the safety of my family, or our liberty was truly threatened. Never would I fight for some trumped up cause disguised as "bringing democracy to the rest of the world."
Laying your life on the line is the last resort in protection of your liberties and I would not hesitate even a second if I felt it was necessary to do so. But a draft in a so-called "free country" flies in the face of liberty and should never be tolerated. If fighting were truly necessary for the preservation of our liberties we would have no problem recruiting people to fight, there would be no need to draft people they would be begging to fight.
I mainly owe my new thinking on what is and isn't worth fighting for to Ron Paul and Aimee Allen. I suggest everyone listen to her sing Universal Soldier. And listen to Ron Paul's speech at the Rally for the Republic.

This just proves that idiots can be of any religion, nationality or... screen name.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
-Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

Abe Lincoln was once my favorite president. Then I read Empire of Debt, then The Revolution: A Manifesto, then the Creature from Jekyll Island. He gets more credit in the history books then he deserves. Was preserving the Union really worth all those lives? Wasn't the purpose of the Union only to facilitate the Republic? By pushing the Union to supremacy over the Republic he damned the Republic.

Don't be so pessimistic. I think it's exciting.

Agreed. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. It is already illegal for a 14 year old to have a hand gun and to shoot a police officer. Yet somehow despite the fact that it was illegal he was able to not only have the gun but to shoot a police officer as well. No laws will ever prevent this type of thing from happening.

Restricting business tax breaks is exactly the wrong policy if your stated goal is to promote economic growth. The whole idea of economic stimulus is to keep people working, right? But the thing the politicians, and Obama included, do not want to admit, is that it is business that keeps people employed and not politicians. If we hope to achieve any success at all from economic stimulus packages the one thing that could and should be done is to limit the burdens placed on businesses by government policies and taxes. It is the only way to encourage businesses to grow and keep people employed while keeping people free. Of course, this is under the presumption that economic growth is something to be desired for it's own sake, an idea that I do not agree with. Economic growth is only a good thing when it is a direct effect of the growth of real wealth, otherwise inflation is to be expected, but I will gladly side with anyone that wants to limit government interference into private business and private life rather than to increase it. What we need to do is restrict business taxes not business tax breaks.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. If nothing else it makes me wonder what that dot and the unmanned plane are all about and why they government can't just tell us what it is doing. Why keep it all a secret?

By returning to a sustainable society. What we have become is unsustainable. How can people continue to spend more money than they make? We must return to saving and investing in the future instead of spending away our future. We will have to live with less, in fact, we will have no choice. It is only a matter of time before the rest of the world gives up on supporting the US, at that point our survival will be in our own hands.

You are apparently starting with the premise that wealth in the hands of its creator or in those the creator of the wealth chooses is dangerous. That couldn't be any more presumptive. There has been much good done with inherited fortunes.

If you are suggesting that I have no right to what is done with my wealth after my death, they what right do any of us have to our wealth while we are alive. Shouldn't I, if I have the power to, do whatever I can to provide the best life for my children? Should I be allowed to buy things for my children or give them gifts? How can I choose to send my children to a private school or home school them if I do not have the right to provide any better than the lowest quality affordable by all others? Why bother working hard if you can nothing from it or cannot provide something for those you care about? You seem to think that the money that someone earns it not rightfully theirs. Well then, whose is it?

Are you suggesting that a person should only spend money on individuals or groups that they are not related to? Are you suggesting that a person does not have the right to provide a quality life for their children just because others are not capable of provide that same quality? Are you suggesting that the state should determine where we spend our money?

The end result of your idea would be total state control. Why are they more knowledgeable about how best to spend the money? Are they not men and women themselves? Are they not able to make mistakes? Are they omnipotent?

If you earned the money or were gifted the money it is your choice what you wish to do with it? I do not personally feel it a good thing for the character of a person to be given great wealth not having done anything to earn it, but I cannot deny another's right to disagree with me and act in that manner.

If you think about it, if a person is gifted a large sum of money and not having earned it in some way, they would not have the knowledge of how it was obtained nor the knowledge to keep it. the fortune would quickly revert to the society at large through the efforts of those able to part the inheritor from his money. If they are smart they will put the money to good use and employ others in a productive enterprise. There is no need for the state to step in.

you are fearful of an aristocracy, however, your plan would simply create an aristocracy of government officials stealing money from possibly productive means, eventually bankrupting the society at large.

Ron Paul is the only Republican in my book.

It is a sad day when a citizen of Poland has to come to America to teach us about freedom. We should all be listening.

I completely agree.

Oops my bad. I'm not sure why i thought it was you.

Good work Champthom.

All that we could hope for at this point is that the populace finally realizes this and demands that the politicians stop spending other people's money on other people... yeah right.

Very powerful Andrew.

On the war front my favorite song is Universal Soldier as sung by Aimee Allen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgNe9QZpjzI

As far as Christmas songs go I have always liked this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87wGHfAi17Q

My words exactly Alicia

What Constitutional right does the EPA have to tax anyone anyway? Isn't that taxation without representation, isn't that why the revolutionary war was fought, among other reasons?

Also, what if this was really all a plan by the democrats to create heros? They introduce the plan through the EPA and then have heros like Schumer and others beat it down so that they look good. Just something that I was thinking.

I actually know Don Butler. My father has a farm not far away from his. Wyoming County is the largest dairy county in the state and the State of NY is the third largest dairy producing state. A tax like this would cripple the economy of NY. We already have the highest taxes in the nation, this would just add to our misery.

The sad thing is, that many a bleeding heart would rather not have these people work than to have them work at a low wage.

"E: In a free market society there would be nothing to stop workers from associating (e.g. unions)

D:You're kidding me right? In a free market economy, unions are busted in no time. Employees who start them are fired and people who talk about them are punished. Jeebus man, look at the 19th century."

So why can't those unions just go start their own shops? My neighbor is in a union and it hasn't been busted up.

"E: And there would being nothing stopping them from living life the way they see fit.

D: Except having no money becuse they get only enough to live from and no time because they have to work 16 hours a day."

You completely misunderstand the role of money. Money is a medium of exchange. Money could be cows, chicken, wheat, gold, anything that is in demand. If they don't want to exchange their labor for the money that they receive in return why don't they just form a collective and work for themselves, or not form a collective and work for themselves? Many of the richest Americans came out of poverty so don't try to use not having money as an excuse.

"E: So if you have proven to me that collectivism can exist under a somewhat free market, then why force people into something that they don't want? Why? That is what I really want to know.

D:I'm not forcing anyone. Communism can be achieved only because the majority of humans wants it. Because it's a much better system than Capitalism."

So if the majority wants it then you are saying they must force the minority into. Isn't that force? In a free market everyone is free to choose their own path.

"E: But you want to take the economic system of America and say "see, it doesn't work."

D:So where do you base your impression that free market works better? There has never been one and I've already explained why there can never be one."

Based on the fact that the countries that have had mostly free markets have produced a higher standard of living for all of their citizens than any communist country ever has. And there have been some free markets in the past but after time people become complacent and governments start to intervene. Communism on the other hand has been tried and is based on total government intervention and it has been a complete failure. So where to you base your assumption that communism would actually work if tried again?

"E: Can you tell me how you could have a collectivist society in anything other than a free market economy, without the use of coercive force? No you can't.

D:Answering for me? That's not really an argument.
You can have Communism when the majority of people decide they do not want to play the Capitalist game, seize the means of production and start it. There is always coercive force. Now we simply have economic coercion from Capitalists which is backed by force coercion by the state."

I answered for you because I knew you couldn't. You proved it too. "Seizing the means of production" is that not force? You still fail to understand free markets. I do not support coercion by force of the state, that is not a free market and it is not capitalism. On the other hand you support the idea of force, workers forcefully taking over the means of production from the owners of that production.


"E: Why don't you just agree that if people were free from government interference that they would be able to organize in any manner that they choose, both economic system, capitalism and communism would be able to exist side by side

D:Because they wouldn't. As is the nature of Capitalism, the Capital would be concentrated in the hands of the few and everyone else would be turned into a wage slave. Communism and Capitalism cannot exist side-by-side because they are incompatible."

I disagree, if you were correct than you need to explain the existence of unions and cooperatives within the somewhat free market that we have. You will probably say something about the laws protecting them but I will beat you to it. Laws protecting people's right to organize and associate are a legitimate use of government in a free society. The governments role after all, is to protect the peoples rights. Laws forcing union membership onto individuals choosing to work somewhere, however, are not a legitimate use and violate that individuals rights. So given freedom of choice and protection of that choice by law, can you explain how unions and coops can exist within the free market even though you have stated that they cannot?


"E: Unless of course you think that capitalism would have an unfair advantage over communism in a free market. What would create that unfair advantage? If people CHOSE to be capitalist instead of communist, maybe, but I don't think that is unfair.

"D:The only reason Communism cannot exist with Capitalism is because a small communist community cannot cooperate with a Capitalist community. They have no money. Thus a small Communist community surrounded by Capitalism cannot import anything that is missing.
On the other hand, A Capitalist society surrounded by Communist, cannot survive either, for their money are worthless and they cannot import anything with it."

Isn't a coop a small communist community. I don't think it would be any problem for me, a capitalist, to have an exchange with a coop.
Again you misunderstand money. If the communist community produced anything of value they could exchange that for the other things they need. Lets say the communists had a vegetable garden and they could then trade their excess vegetables for the clothes made by the capitalist down the street. Or they could exchange their excess food for the dreaded capitalists money and use that money to purchase anything they wanted. Money is just a medium of exchange and there is no reason in fact no way that the communists could exist without exchange even if the entire world was communist. Otherwise how would the garden people ever get anything else they need.


"E: Or perhaps you might think the a capitalist would be able to suppress the communists. Why? Why wouldn't the combined force of the collective be stronger than the capitalists? Why wouldn't their factory produce more and provide more for it's workers?

D:Capitalist have been attempting to suppress anyone through imperialism for hundreds of years. It does not matter if they are communists or fellow capitalists. As long as there's money to be made...
And the collective force of Communists can be proven stronger, as is what has happened in the past many times. However this Imperialist force allows the Communist to be defeated from within when their army is weakened, as is what happened when Stalin took over."

So you agree that the collective force could be stronger. Then you must ask yourself how can they be defeated? The answer lies in the administration of communism. How do you organize it. If everyone is equal then how do you organize trade and exchange. How do you determine what needs to get done. You would agree that everyone in the communist society has their own need, desires and wants, but then how do you make sure that everyone's needs and wants get fulfilled if they are all different? The only answer is to let them figure that out on their own, i.e. free markets.

"E: I know why. Maybe it's because not everyone in the collective would be truly equal.

D:Then it's not Communism."

If that is not communism then how do you make everyone equal. Who enforces the laws when someone steals from someone else? Wouldn't the police be more equal than the rest of society? Who writes the laws? Wouldn't the lawmakers be more equal than the people forced to obey them? In the factory, who sews the clothes, who designs the clothes, who determines what designs to make, who determines how many to make, who manages the workers, who sweeps the floor, who distributes the goods, who repairs the machines... Can they all be equals? By definition they cannot be equal no matter how much you try. Each job requires certain expertise and different levels of manual labor. There must always be someone leading and someone else following. Who gets to be the leader?

"E: Maybe... I could go on and on.

D:Maybe, but you'd be fighting strawmen."

Yes, the strawmen that you create while simultaneously refusing to answer the burning question of Who organizes it all and how can they be equal? I think the Soviet system proved that someone must call the shots, and they certainly were not equal.

"E: But what it boils down to is that you think that under a free-market system of economics that more people would choose to become capitalist, providing for themselves and being entrepreneurs and being willing to take risks with their own money and lives than would choose to be communists for you to live off of and risk their investments instead of yours. You are afraid to be your own man, you want to blame successful people for your failures, and you want to steal the work of others for your own benefit.

D:You think that I am going to start it? You give me much more credit that I'm worth. If Communism comes it will be because the 90% of the humans who are sick and tired of being exploited so that people like you can be "man of their own life" by abusing everyone else, will rise up and claim ownership of the things that they've paid many times over already with their labour."

So again, you do not care what the other 10% want, you will forcefully take from them what they have earned for yourself. You are blaming them for your own failures. I have no desire or need to exploit anyone else in order to get what I want out of life. I wish to treat everyone as equals while knowing full well that we are not all equal. Some people have more desire, more ambition, more knowledge, more energy, more perseverance, and more skill than others. I know where my faults lie and I know what I am capable of doing and I know that I am not equal to everyone else and not better than them either. I am my own man, with my own desires, and I want to fulfill those desires without the need to force other people to shares them with me.

"E: I am not exploited and I work for multi-national corporation. In fact I make more now than I did when I worked for my own father. Did my father exploit me or am I being exploited now? No, and if I felt that I was I would be FREE to leave and go somewhere else.

D:That is simply because you are lucky and privileged. Not everyone is born in the US or other imperialists countries who can float to the top while exploiting everyone living in China, India, Africa etc. Second, there's simply not enough room at the top. Not everyone can be a CEO. Someone must gather the shit from the sewer, and even if everyone had the perfect education, someone would still have to gather the shit from the sewer."

Of course I was so lucking and privileged to get up in the morning and shovel cow crap all day. Lucky me. Your right not everyone can be a CEO but not because there isn't room at the top but because not everyone has the ability necessary to be a CEO. If you have the desire to be a CEO you could be one as long as you also possessed the ability. Is Oprah lucky that she was abused as a child? How about Jim Carrey? The majority of billionaires made their wealth from scratch: Rags To Riches Billionaires
Maybe it has nothing to do with luck. Maybe it has more to do with realizing opportunity and having a desire.

I think it is hilarious that you bring up China and India. I went to RIT (on an academic scholarship, mommy and daddy did not pay for the whole thing because, guess what, they couldn't afford to) and had classes filled with foreigners. I had had Indian, Iranian, Korean, and Russian lab partners. I even had Chinese and Ukrainian roommates. Why do you think they came to the US to study? Because the opportunity exists here. Why does it exist? Because of the some what free-market that we enjoy. Whether you want to believe it or not a free society provides much more opportunity for advancement than any type of closed society including communism.


"E: Why can’t you understand that in a free market you can be a capitalist, you can be a communist, you can be a collectivist, you can be an individualist, you can be a farmer, you can be a businessman, you can be a leader, you can be a follower, you can be a philanthropist, or you can be a beggar. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO BE WHATEVER YOU WANT.

D:Not really, Once the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the 10%, only those 10% can be whatever they want. The 90% of the rest can only be exploited workers."

If you relegate yourself to that then it is all you can be. Maybe you should look at it differently. Instead of seeing exploited workers, I see people being given opportunities to improve their lives. The people who have the most desire and the best ability will improve their lives greatly. No one is holding them down. I've already given examples of that. What wealth and privilege did my great grandfather have when he came to America with nothing?


"E: I think your utopia would suck because I would have to do what you or the guy in charge tells me I have to do. Who put him in charge anyway?

D:There is not guy in charge in my Utopia."

Back to an earlier point. If that is the case then who makes the decisions? Would we all get to make our own decisions? Well then, even you admit that someone has to clean the sewer. It sure as hell isn't going to be me. So why don't you do it? I bet you don't want to either. Why would we if we will all be treated the same no matter what job we do? So if you won't do it and I won't do it then who will? I think someone is going to have to be told to do it or else all of our toilets will get backed up. So who is it that is telling other people to clean sewers?

You want to know something funny. In a free market no one has to be told to clean the sewer. Someone chooses to do it, not because they want to, well maybe someone wants to, but because it needs to be done and they are going to be compensated fairly for it. If you were paid the same for cleaning a sewer as you were for working at McDonald's, you'd better believe that your toilet would not be working.

"E: I want to be in charge of myself, and have only myself to blame for my failures and success, that is it. Why would I ever want you to dictate to me what is in my best interest?

D:I wouldn't. Communism attempt to provide you with exactly that. To allow you to be in charge of yourself, your successes and failures. The only difference is that you would be certain not to die (or have other life-ending consequences) if you fail in exchange with you not ever being able to be more powerful than anyone else."

I've already refuted everything said here but lets think about this. So if I will not be left to die why would I bother to work?

I know that your cognitive dissonance must be quite painful right now but please try to examine my arguments with a degree of openness. I have certainly conceded to you that communist societies can exist without the use of force and yet you still wish that it be forced upon all people without their choosing, this is just the beginning of inequality within your so-called equal society and is very hypocritical. Please consider the ramifications of the tyranny of the majority that you would be creating. Consider the socialization that is currently taking place in America and the effects it will have on our freedoms. Please consider the historical examples of communist societies and how their implementation was a failure. Also, please consider the following from a man much smarter than I:

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray N. Rothbard

Maybe former President Clinton is in the running.

The fact of the matter is, if you have a free market society where everyone is free to trade in any manner they see fit, free to associate, free to work for anyone they choose, free to work for themselves, free to sell and buy what they want then your system of collectivism would work just fine.

In a free market society there would be nothing to stop workers from associating (e.g. unions), there would be nothing stopping workers from creating a joint business venture and sharing in the profits (e.g. cooperatives). And there would being nothing stopping them from living life the way they see fit.

You cannot disprove that, it is a fact. You even agree with me...
"Under Capitalism, there's the cooperatives already. Under communism, it's the standard way."
So if you have proven to me that collectivism can exist under a somewhat free market, then why force people into something that they don't want? Why? That is what I really want to know.

But you want to take the economic system of America and say "see, it doesn't work." Then you are not truly examining a free-market. Our government has it's hands in everywhere you look. You cannot call America a free-market economy, anymore at least.

So I have shown how you can have a collective society within a free market economy for all of those who CHOOSE to participate in it. Can you tell me how you could have a collectivist society in anything other than a free market economy, without the use of coercive force? No you can't.

Why don't you just agree that if people were free from government interference that they would be able to organize in any manner that they choose, both economic system, capitalism and communism would be able to exist side by side. Unless of course you think that capitalism would have an unfair advantage over communism in a free market. What would create that unfair advantage? If people CHOSE to be capitalist instead of communist, maybe, but I don't think that is unfair. What would be unfair is not giving them the choice in the first place. Or perhaps you might think the a capitalist would be able to suppress the communists. Why? Why wouldn't the combined force of the collective be stronger than the capitalists? Why wouldn't their factory produce more and provide more for it's workers? I know why. Maybe it's because not everyone in the collective would be truly equal. Maybe it's because some of them would actually be doing more work than others and feel slighted that they weren't getting more of their share. Maybe they would have no clear direction since they would all want to be making decisions. Maybe... I could go on and on.

But what it boils down to is that you think that under a free-market system of economics that more people would choose to become capitalist, providing for themselves and being entrepreneurs and being willing to take risks with their own money and lives than would choose to be communists for you to live off of and risk their investments instead of yours. You are afraid to be your own man, you want to blame successful people for your failures, and you want to steal the work of others for your own benefit.

“Of course. Capitalism without exploitation is impossible”

Guess what. A family farm is capitalist, a small business is capitalist, a man making chairs in his garage is capitalist. If you are exploited and not paid what you are worth it is your own fault. I am not exploited and I work for multi-national corporation. In fact I make more now than I did when I worked for my own father. Did my father exploit me or am I being exploited now? No, and if I felt that I was I would be FREE to leave and go somewhere else.

Why can’t you understand that in a free market you can be a capitalist, you can be a communist, you can be a collectivist, you can be anindividualist, you can be a farmer, you can be a businessman, you can be a leader, you can be a follower, you can be a philanthropist, or you can be a beggar. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO BE WHATEVER YOU WANT.

I think your utopia would suck because I would have to do what you or the guy in charge tells me I have to do. Who put him in charge anyway?

I want to be in charge of myself, and have only myself to blaim for my failures and success, that is it. Why would I ever want you to dictate to me what is in my best interest?

I know what has happened. The people have become complacent, more eager to find out what Britney Spears is doing to mess up her kids than to know what their government is doing to mess up their country.

"But of course not, then why would a Capitalist create new business if he's not going to be richer (as if living without working at all is not good enough). "

So in your view it is ok for the communist to live without working but not ok for the capitalist.

The fact of the matter is, if you have a free market society where everyone is free to trade in any manner they see fit, free to associate, free to work for anyone they choose, free to work for themselves, free to sell and buy what they want then your system of collectivism would work just fine.

In a free market society there would be nothing to stop workers from associating (e.g. unions), there would be nothing stopping workers from creating a joint business venture and sharing in the profits (e.g. cooperatives). And there would being nothing stopping them from living life the way they see fit.

You cannot disprove that, it is a fact. You even agree with me...
"Under Capitalism, there's the cooperatives already. Under communism, it's the standard way."
So if you have proven to me that collectivism can exist under a somewhat free market, then why force people into something that they don't want? Why? That is what I really want to know.

But you want to take the economic system of America and say "see, it doesn't work." Then you are not truly examining a free-market. Our government has it's hands in everywhere you look. You cannot call America a free-market economy, anymore.

So I have shown how you can have a collective society within a free market society for all of those who CHOOSE to participate in it. Can you tell me how you could have a collectivist society in anything other than a free market economy, without the use of coercive force? No you can't.

Why don't you just agree that if people were free from government interference that they would be able to organize in any manner that they choose, both economic system, capitalism and communism would be able to exist side by side. Unless of course you think that capitalism would have an unfair advantage over collectivism in a free market. What would create that unfair advantage? If people CHOSE to be capitalist instead of communist, maybe, but I don't think that is unfair. What would be unfair is not giving them the choice in the first place. Or perhaps you might think the a capitalist would be able to suppress the communists. Why? Why wouldn't the combined force of the collective be stronger than the capitalists? Why wouldn't their factory produce more and provide more for it's workers? I know why. Maybe it's because not everyone in the collective would be truly equal. Maybe it's because some of them would actually be doing more work than others and feel slighted that they weren't getting more of their share. Maybe they would have no clear direction since they would all want to be making decisions. Maybe... I could go on and on.

But what it boils down to is that you think that under a free-market system of economics that more people would choose to become capitalist, providing for themselves and being entrepreneurs and being willing to take risks with their own money and lives than would choose to be communists for you to live off of and risk their investments instead of yours. You are afraid to be your own man, you want to blame successful people for your failures, and you want to steal the work of others for your own benefit.

“Of course. Capitalism without exploitation is impossible”

Guess what. A family farm is capitalist, a small business is capitalist, a man making chairs in his garage is capitalist. If you are exploited and not paid what you are worth it is your own fault. I am not exploited and I work for multi-national corporation. In fact I make more now than I did when I worked for my own father.

Why can’t you understand that in a free market you can be a capitalist, you can be a communist, you can be a collectivist, you can be a leader, you can be a follower, you can be a philanthropist, or you can be a beggar. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO BE WHATEVER YOU WANT. Your utopia sucks because I have to do what you or the guy in charge tells me I have to do. I want to be in charge of myself, that is it.