Iraq Situation is Bullshit
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:11
VIEWED: 28270
PAGE 13 of 17
Any comments?
U.S. Uses Terror Law to Pursue Crimes From Drugs to Swindling
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: September 28, 2003
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism.
The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/politics/28LEGA.html?hp
Of course, they will not openly admit that they're using the Patriot Act to investigate activtists and political opponents.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon, we've have a wonderful discussion but it has not reached any conclusions. I'd like to try and bring this to some sort of closure. I think I know what you believe in, but I want to make sure that we're both clear, so I'm going to ask you a bunch of questions. However, after my post, should we start up a new thread? Just a thought.
Ground rules- First of all, let's not get into the discussion whether capitalism exists or not. If you decide that it's a figment of imagination, there's nothing to discuss, is there? Let's hypothesize that capitalism exists and can be inferred from sensory data (like electrons).
Second, since we are testing a hypothesis that we agree should be rooted in the physcial world we should be able to refer to, explain and predict events. Since we can't test our hypotheses in the laboratory, then it must have superior explanatory and/ or predictive power in real life.
Third, we must adequately define or paramterize what we're testing, so starting with the usual questions-
When did capitalism start? Ballpark answer only.
Where does capitalism exist today?
What is capitalism, as distinguished from other systems?
How is it maintained?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your first question shows something that is probably the most confusing thing about one of the cnetral issues of philosophy. Which is the real world, the world outside, or inside one's skull?
Things are real if and only if they can affect objects in their environment. By that test, both physical objects, and ideas are real,a s both can affect changes in other objects in their environment.
The difference between a rock and our ideas of a rock, are that while real physical rocks can afect and be affected by other forces and actions, ideas require a mind in order to exert or generate any changes. The idea has to affect behavior of the individual holding it.
To put another way, while a rock may be, and for all appearances is, independent of a mind in order to influence other physical objects, ideas are dependent on a mind in order to exert any influence. Remove the mind, and the idea affects nothing.
So while capitalism, or any economic system, like religions and governments and rights and such, are merely ideas, they do have a reality, they have effects. Granted its only possible as long as folks believe and act as if they are real, but it does have affects and in this sense, are real.
Just because something is imaginary, does not mean it has no reality, that it has no effect on other objects. It has a very different reality from a rock, and it is dependent on a mind, but it still causes effects.
Take a look at Serenity. It does not exist in reality, yet here we are, spending all our time discussing, when we could be doing other things. Fighting for its return to the airwaves, even though it is a figment of the imagination.
Okay on to your questions.
When did it start? Unknown. Its birth is shrouded in pre-history, and goes back to the first person to declare that some object was "his", the first time someone declared personal ownership.
The concept of ownership means that in regards to a particular object (or concept) you get to decide what is done with it. Your money, your land, your car, your computer, in all cases you get to decide what is done with that object. And more importantly, no one can simply assume ownership or control without persuading you to relinquish that control.
[This can get fuzzy as we often will talk about "my God" or "my group". And anyone who thinks that they can control "my wife" probably don't have one. 
]
Capitalism exists throughout the US, a lot of Europe, Hong Kong probably had the pureset form of capitalism before Chinese takeover. In most places there is this bastardized hybred capitalism/socialism system in place.
The distinguishing characteristic, and difference between capitalism and its competing system, (regardless of what it is called, communism, socialism, etc.) is who really owns their stuff. Do you own you, and what you produce, or does someone else. Do you make the decisions, or does someone else.
Nazism maintained the name of ownership, but regulated private industries to such a degree that ownership was essentially just a fiction. And in a lot of Europe today, employers cannot freely choose how to run their businesses, which is causing problems. Because businesses are not free to fire people when things get bad, they are far more reluctant to hire people in good times. Which slows the growth rate and play havoc with their unemployment rates.
How capitalism is maintained is an interesting question. As long as one is free to dispose of his own property as that person sees fit, and the less he has to ask the permission of others, capitalism is maintained. As long as folks have this idea in their mind that they own themselves, they own what they create, and are able to act on that idea, you have capitalism.
Fundamental to the idea of capitalism, the root of it, is the concept of freedom. Freedom to think and act as one sees fit, rather than allowing some outside actor veto. You want to start a business, hire folks to make a product, its your money, and your decision. I can't stop you unless I can prove your actions are a clear danger
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
We need to get the hell out of Iraq and bring our soldiers home. I have many friends without Dad's and little babies being born without parents and this is bullshit, no one is protecting me from Freedom, this is just meddling bullshit in other countries and inspiring more terrorism and world wide hatred against the United States FOR NO GOD DAMN GOOD REASON.
Pulling out now would abandon the Iraqi people to the Saddamites and terrorists while they are too weak to defend themselves. And it is easy to see the outcome of doing what you want, Saddam shooting his way back to power, and a return of his defiance of the UN.
It would weaken the efforts of pro-democracy dissidents in Iran and Syria, and pro-western sympathizers in Saudia Arabia, as well as the rest of the world. We would prove Usama right that were were a paper tiger, and instead of reducing terrorism, your proposal would simply increase the likelyhood of terrorist attacks.
The reason why Usama attacked us was because he thought he could and our reaction would be at worst, few cruise missiles into empty tents. Such ineffective actions just emboldens those who want to kill you. A withdrawal now would have the same effect, would be considered a win by the bad guys.
War sucks, but if you think that sucks, think through the consequences of your actions.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Grannysteel
I really do try to keep these posts short. Which is why I try to stay with the arguments and the abstract for the most part.
I disagree strongly with your perception of the S&L mess. It was changes in regulations, brought about by the fact that S&L were supposed to deal almost exclusively in home loans and personal property development. This put them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to banks and other finacial institutions. S&Ls were not supposed to take the kinds of risks that banks do, and because of that, they could not make the profits that banks did.
Which is why Charles Keating lobbied to change the rules, and got several Senators and congressmen, including as one example, John Glenn, Democrat senator of Ohio, to help them out.
You said that it is not a "It is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing." then complain about Republicans, and Puritans. Sorry, I see you trying to make this more a "pox on both their houses" kind of deal, but then your prejudices betray themselves.
Not being familiar with the particular congressman, or case, it is impossible to comment intelligbly except in general. A loan which is forgiven, is a loss to the business. And investors don't like losses, and start pulling their money out, selling their shares to others. In short, this is a great way to lose the business if this is what you are trying to do.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've gotten a couple of e-mails on this thread, and other stuff I have written, via the Fireflynet. Unfortunately, the reply bounces back to this net, instead of their e-mail account. Which makes replying offline difficult.
So, if you want to write to me, please put your e-mail address in the message. Hate mail, no matter how well deserved, is not welcome
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HOO BOY!
I can see why we've been going round and round! As far as you're concerned, capitalism = personal ownership, innovation, freedom, democracy, and everything good.
OK, can you try and refine that idea a bit by perhaps chiseling out what capitalism is NOT? Looking more specifically at capitalism's connection to democracy and personal freedom:
Although you claim that capitalism had its roots in prehistory, when do you suppose democracy came into being? IF Greeks and Romans had a form of democracy but also had slaves, were they capitalist?
As far as decision-making is concerned, you claim that under capitalism one gets to make decisions. What kinds of decision-making are prohibited under socialism?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First let me say that I have an error in my last e-mail.. The honorable congressman was making 300,000 a year as chairman of the board of his bank. not 300,000,000. Typo.
Drakon:
Obviously even a bright guy like you does not know what a capitolization ratio is. Look it up in the banking regs. It takes more than 5 seconds to explain so crooks get away scot free.
This country was founded on a reverence for hard work. There has to be a balance between the value placed on work and the value placed on capitol.
When work becomes over valued you get stagnation. When capitol becomes overvalued you get feudalism.
But here is another question.
What happens to this country and the world when the only jobs we don't outsource to another country are policeman, docters, lawyers, and the military?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Grin,
There are two ways of doing things. Either you make your own decisions, or you don't. If you do not, that means some outside agency makes them for you, such as a central planning committee, a single "Great Leader" etc.
Capitalism is not the same thing as democracy, however, as democracy is a political system, whereas capitalism is an economic system.
There is a relationship however between the two, since everything boils down to economics, the creation, distribution and consumption of limited resources to meet unlimited wants or demands. What you do and how you act, depends if you can afford it in terms of time, effort, or resources, even if its going to church, or staying home to watch the game.
One can have a socialistic economic system where the planning committee is elected by the population. You can also have a benign dictator who enforces the rules, especially property rights, but leaves the population free to interact on their own as they see fit. An executive to produce honest cops and honest judges, but leaves everything else alone.
My understanding of history is that while democractic Athens was pretty capitalistic, despite the slave owning (which has its own problems with regards to a free capitalist society, we can get into later) while Sparta was more what we would term fascist (in the original meaning, i.e. very nationistic, or tribal, and military) and communal. However the basis of the hoplite armies was the fact they were free landholders.
The issues of slavery, and the role of women is secondary, but somewhat important for determining whether an economic system is capitalistic or socialistic. It depends on how much control the state, or any other, has on your decision process. While slaves are not allowed to vote or determine for themselves, that would render their relationship a rather "socialistic-eques" with respect to their masters. But if the slave owners were free to treat their property, including slaves, as the owner desired, that would render it a capitalist system.
Slave societies are a bastardized half breed between the two. And ultimately, if the slave society is to be upheld, it has to be upheld by force, with more and more restrictions placed on the owner as to how to treat their slaves, and what to do with them. Even things like teaching a slave to read can be outlawed. What you see is that these "half breeds" don't work, and the system eventually evolve in one direction or the other.
The basis of capitalism is personal ownership. Which means that one is personally free to dispose of one's own property. Free to choose to produce, sell or buy, or whatever. Free market societies have shown to be more innovative than socialistic, or slave societies, and can produce more. (One of the biggest reasons the south lost the war of Northern Agression)
With personal economic freedom, comes a desire for more political freedom, more access and control of government. Which ends up meaning democracy, which as Churchill called it, "the worst form of government ever invented, except for all the others." Limited government is required for a capitalistic system to function. Once you get outsiders interfering, an "inalienable" set of minority rights have to be observed. Or else democracy becomes mob rule, and the majority can simply vote to pack a minority off to concentration camps.
I have used the term "liberal democracy" to describe what I am talking about. Without respect for minority rights, or limitations on government authority, things can quickly devolve back into a dictatorship. But too little government, too little protections of rights, or enforcement of laws ends up doing the same thing, as the guy with the biggest guns, and the will to use them, ends up coercing others into acceptance of his "Great Leadership".
Not necessarily "everything good" but at best "least bad" The trouble with the Other making your economic decisions is that he don't and can't know you, your wants, needs and abilities as well as you can and do. There is a big information problem i
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I understand about capitalization ratios and all that, I was pointing out that a bank is a business, and it has to be responsive to its investors, its customers and its workers. IF either of these groups are unhappy, they go somewhere else and take their toys (money, work, experience, whatever) with them.
Banks have to fogive bad loans from time to time. But if they are fogiving too many for too much, the bank goes under, they lose customers and investors, if not workers as well.
What is missing is the relationship between work and capital. It takes work to create something of value, whether it is a product or a factory to make a product. It takes work to accumilate capital, as people don't spend money on things of no value, willingly.
What you appear to be worried about is essentially other people's values, how they value one over the other, or to the exclusiong of the other. Some people are going to have values you disagree with, economic values being only a small part of the entire value structure that each individual has. Now, where you go with that disagreement, that is another question altogether.
Or, how to get people to agree with your value structure?
As for outsourcing, its a false delimma. Take a look at Say's Law, and remember that labor is a comodity like anything else. If you have a bunch of out of work folks, there is a labor supply there, and demand will follow that supply. Supplies, intentionally or not, tend to create demands.
And again, I keep seeing indications of the old class warfare at work in your posts. The rich are not the enemy, nor parasites of the poor, nor are they a different class. Anyone with a good idea, and hard work can become one of those rich folks. And quite a few have. At least in this country.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME