Is Capitalism Evil - From any point of view?

Since I hate thinking I've wasted all that time on this thread, I have moved this topic that Matt and I were debating over on SP to here. I know you've locked yourself out of SP, Matt, so I'm bringing the debate over to you.

Oh, and thanks Tex, I finally figured out what was wrong with how I was doing the quoting...

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And precisely where have I contradicted myself on free-market capitalism? This is yet another rhetorical device – make an unsubstantiated claim whose sole purpose is to misdirect attention. The comment I was responding to was " Dog eat dog is charitable?" I noted that this was a rather childish view of free-market capitalism and you come back with the above – which is completely non-responsive to my observation.

So explain how the free market isn’t “dog eat dog”?

I asked you first. Explain how it is dog-eat-dog.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I have never said I was for a free-market completely unregulated by government.

You have given me that impression and whenever I have asked how you feel about corporate accountability for unethical trading your attitude has bee “well, they are providing jobs” as though this noble cause overrides the very real necessity of keeping a watchful eye on them to stop them exploiting people or our environment. You seem to have very little regard for either of these things for either of those things. Sorry, but that is the way I see you coming across sometimes. Perhaps it is based on misunderstanding your position, but I would appreciate you explaining further.

Well I actually did explain further but for some reason you chose to simply cut that explanation from your response here.

I said, and I quote:

dblboggie wrote:Under our constitution, the federal government has very real enumerated powers and it has them for a good reason. And under our penal code, are more than sufficient laws to protect our citizens from illegal or abusive practices by businesses. And these laws (if one strips them back, say 70 years for the most part, though not entirely), are a rightful function of government and should be enforced.

But that is not what we have here in America any more. And we haven’t had it for about 100 years. And for some reason you wish to avoid this point by saying I have been inconsistent about my representation of free-market capitalism when I have not. I hope the paragraph above sets the record straight once and for all so that we can move forward with the real debate.

So you see corporate accountability is actually dependent upon the government actually enforcing the laws on the books. But that is not what our government has been doing. After all, the government needs those businesses to stay in business to hire people who provide the bulk of the revenue the government depends on. But rather than just applying the laws equally to all, our federal government has, over time, erected a MASSIVE body of laws and regulations that allow for them to monkey with the free market system, skewing the results in such a way as still preserves enough of a modicum of viability as to keep employment somewhat steady, but allowing our politicians to select the winners and losers in our economy in such a way as maintains and expands their power to do so.

This is called crony capitalism and it is the economic system we now labor under. That is NOT free-market capitalism. That is what happens when people are too trusting of their government.

But I’ll go you one better. I will paint a scenario (a real one) in which undue government interference, followed by a lack of valid government oversight converged to create a real disaster.

The recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is just such a scenario. First, the federal government blocks the exploration and development of oil drilling in the shallow waters off our shores and from just about all “federal” lands or any other land for that matter with massive and onerous laws and regulations that make it all but impossible to drill for oil we know to exist which then forces companies like BP to explore far off shore in waters much, much deeper than would make even good economic sense. But since the world demand for oil is there, drill that far offshore they do. NOW, when the federal government arguably has a valid oversight function as an accident in the Gulf could reasonably be seen to have a serious negative impact on our coastline, the federal government agency responsible for that oversight simply turns a blind eye to faulty practices on that drilling platform and boom, up the thing goes. This is crony capitalism at work, in all its tragic glory. Yes, BP and the other companies involved in that accident are responsible for taking shortcuts that ultimately blew up in their faces (literally). And yes, they should be punished according to the rule of law. But why did the government agency with oversight responsibility, an agency that gave this platform AWARDS for safe practices, not also face criminal action? This agency is just as guilty as the corporate entities for misfeasance if not malfeasance.

You see, corporate misbehavior cannot exist for any length of time without government permission. We know that the forces of human nature dictate that misdeeds will always occur; we erect governments to try and prevent such misdeeds, or punish them when they do occur. Unfortunately, without a properly educated population, human nature will also have its way with those governments. And that is what has come to pass here.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And under our penal code, are more than sufficient laws to protect our citizens from illegal or abusive practices by businesses.

Yes of course any country should. But I don’t think I have ever seen you criticize corporate exploitation and (as above) whenever challenged on it, you seem to shrug your shoulders and say “hey man, its all about jobs”.

I think it is time that you actually cite some examples of this so-called “exploitation” my friend. As I see it, a corporation can only “exploit” a person willing to be “exploited.” Companies cannot go out amongst a population with guns and force people to work for them (though governments can and do). I would be willing to bet that in virtually every case, these so-called “exploited” workers actually applied for these jobs by the thousands and that many of the applicants were turned away; that they more than willingly applied because their own country’s economic prospects were so poor that any job was a step up the economic ladder as opposed to a step down. I would submit that what you call “exploitation” is to those you seem to think are being exploited, more often than not, a welcome opportunity to provide for themselves and their families. Just because they are not making the wages you approve of or think proper and fitting, just because their work conditions don’t always live up to the standards you think proper and fitting, and just because their willing labor gives benefit to those who hire them (as it must to be economically sane), doesn’t mean they are being “exploited.” In most cases, these so-called “exploited” workers are making a significantly better wage working for Western companies than they make working for their domestic businesses. What you call “exploitation” in view of your Western sensibilities, is in reality an opportunity for these workers to better their lot in life. Just because you don’t approve of their willing participation in those job markets, or of the wages and conditions in which they labor, doesn’t make it wrong or exploitive. All things are relative in the real world and never as simple as some may think. Your excellent exposition on feudalism suggests that you understand this simple truth – so your condemnation of modern corporate “exploitation” in such simplistic and black-and-white a fashion strikes me as odd. I think it speaks to a politically based bias that filters your contemporary world view.

So I would like to see some actual examples of this so-called “exploitation” you speak of so often.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And that debate is whether free-market capitalism as originally conceived in America is an evil thing from a Biblical point of view.

I’ll leave that to the "my interpretation of Jesus is the correct one..." lobby

A wise choice; I concur.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And note that I’ve emphasized “undue” so as to be clear that I do not mean NO government role.

Ok, well thanks for your clarification. :thumb: I’ll be sure to pull you up on it if I ever see a contradiction from you

I look forward to that. I would love to see some actual examples of what you consider my contradictions.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I think it misses the larger point of what economic systems have been the most successful in terms of creating wealth, opportunity, and a large and vibrant middle class.

To be fair, a large vibrant middle class with lots of liquid wealth always seems to arrive from somewhere because there has always been a need for them. The Athenians had them (Metics). The Roman Empire had them (Equites) and medieval Europe had them both before and after the end of feudalism. During the late 13th and 14th centuries, England (still feudal) sought to attract them to the towns in order to expand their population. No king did more than Edward I to make England a commercial powerhouse in Europe. Of course, I’m not suggesting he had any idealistic reason for doing so, and I wouldn’t, but to suggest that social mobility did not and could not happen in a feudal society is false and after The Black Death, there was a lot more opportunity for shrewd members of the lower classes to become part of that vibrant middle class. My point here was to attempt to dispel one of the great myths about feudalism. I intend in the near future to do a post on how The Black Death ended feudalism.

Yes, this was true for the major cities, the centers of commerce as it were. But I don’t believe that held true for the more rural areas; whereas in modern Western nations, the middle class extends far beyond the major urban centers. And I would submit that the U.S. has (soon to be had) the largest middle class of any country in the history of the world. That was not an accident.

And I harbor no illusions as to Edward’s motives or of the realities of feudal society. I recently completed Will Durant’s 4th book in his chef d’ oeuvre “The Story of Civilization” titled The Age of Faith which covers this period extensively. I am now almost done with his 5th in that series which covers the renaissance, titled appropriately The Renaissance.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Actually, Huxely’s greatest fear was losing individual identity in the fast-paced world of the future.

...through industrialization and marketing. Arguably, he was right when we see generic ideas being thrust upon us as ideals of perfection by the media, by mass production and by the global economy.

But again, this was an economy controlled by the state, directly encouraged by the state, for the good of the state and not the people. That is not free-market capitalism; it is crony capitalism on a massive scale.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:In Huxely’s book, we see a world government which controls every aspect of society.

Led by mass production and a generic approach to commerce; hence the religion of “Fordism”.

Not led by mass production, but led by government which allowed, encouraged and indoctrinated the people to support this mass production. Remember, it is the government which set the castes that people would be born to. Can you not see the government control beyond the mere puppets of mass production which the government created?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:a Godless world

Replaced by the worship of the great industrial machine; hence replacing “God” and the crucifix with a “Ford” and the ‘T’.

Again, you seem to miss the point here. You seem to miss the massive government control that spawned this fictional distopia.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:where the simple morals of an earlier time are no longer passé in favor of recreational drug use and indiscriminate sex without moral qualms.

And the worship of spiritual forces is replaced by the worship of buying stuff.

Just as it is today with our own liberal forces in America. God scares liberals. God transcends government – which is the liberal’s religion. God stands for certain values that liberals consider themselves to be above. So they seek to replace God with something over which they have control.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I don’t know buddy, sounds like Huxley was writing about what the liberals want to do today to me.

Standardise everything. Replace personal advancement with the great industrial machine. Make people forget how miserable the world is by getting them to buy more things. Sounds more like an extreme market-based system. And of course “Fordism”. And I guess I don’t need to tell you what Henry Ford was famous for.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree over the message of that book.

Again, you completely miss the government’s hand in this. There is a difference between a FREE market and a GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED market. Huxley’s world was one in which the GOVERNMENT reigned supreme and CREATED the market through control of what castes were born and direct indoctrination of the population in this soulless, Godless, morality-free, state religion of consumerism.

It is though all you see is companies producing mass quantities of consumables and thus it is the fault of these companies when it REQUIRED to consent of, the encouragement of, this production BY THE GOVERNMENT for this to even come about. And ultimately it was all controlled by the government, not the corporations.

Have you and I read the same book?

Oh, and yes... I am quite well aware of what Henry Ford was famous for... the Model T...





Yes, I know, mass production.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:You’re kidding right? If liberals were allowed, we’d be cloning people right now.

If conservatives were allowed, we’d be stoning homosexuals to death right now.

Now whose wearing the tinfoil hat? Hell, homosexuals have been around and even tacitly accepted by the Church for thousands of years. Many highly ranking church officials have been homosexuals. This is just typical left-wing propaganda and nothing more.

And you say I’m paranoid... :giggle:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:and those would be the majority of liberals in politics, government, and education – are even now seeking to end the U.S. ban on creating new embryonic stem cell lines (which are created using cloning), despite the fact that embryonic stem cell research has still not lead to any successful treatments – while adult stem cell, and umbilical cord blood stem cells (which don’t require “killing” human embryos), have led to many treatments.

Got a citation for that? Because most people actively engaged in research are saying the opposite.

Are they really? And do you have a citation for that?

But since you asked, you can always visit this site: learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/sctoday/
There you can learn that there are, in fact, many successful therapies using adult and various blood stem cells. You could even visit Wikipedia, which also notes that adult stem cells have been being used for years to successfully treat leukemia and related bone and blood cancers. Meanwhile, there are no therapies using embryonic stem cells – just a future promise that has yet failed to materialize.

I’m sure I could come up with many more sites for you to visit, but I had to do that very short research from my phone and that is a pain in the ass. I’m sure you can Google up a list on your own if you need more convincing.

If this is a secret to you, blame your mainstream media which, like here, is likely NEVER to run a story on the many successes of adult stem cells as this would do nothing to forward their liberal agenda. No, they’d rather trot out a Christopher Reeve or a Michael Fox and rail against those backward conservatives standing in the way of science by seeking to ban the cloning of embryonic stem cells, all the while ignoring the very real treatments that adult stem cells have produced for years.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I recently read an article for my English Comp 112 class which had liberals very much in favor of looking toward that "brave new world" of bioengineered human beings. In fact, the assignment of fetuses into “castes” is something I can easily see liberals supporting with their self-righteous assumption that they are the sole possessors of "right thinking." This is manifested in laws like "hate crimes" laws which attempt to criminalize "thoughts" during the commission of what is already a crime and then make the penalty even harsher because the committer of the crime had "wrong thoughts" during the commission of that crime. This is a liberal invention, in complete alignment with "political correctness" which is merely an attempt to stifle freedom of speech.

I see. So you think I’m off base here then? "Hate crime" laws are a very real thing here in the U.S. – and it has been the Democrats and liberals who have fought for the enactment of these laws, which are nothing more than "thought control" laws. These laws say that a murder is even more heinous if the murderer was thinking thoughts considered "hateful" by the state, and warrants even harsher punishment than would otherwise be meted out (I guess they’d have the perpetrator killed twice or something in the case of a death sentence). This is punishment for WRONG THOUGHTS! Does this sound familiar to you? Might you have read something like this in a work of fiction?

You can post all the cute little "tinfoil hat" smileys you want my friend, it doesn’t change the facts one whit.

I’ll tell you what; I’ll cite the article from my English Comp class I referred to above. The article was written by James Pethokoukis, senior writer at U.S. News and World Report, it was titled “Our Biotech Bodies, Ourselves” and was published in US News and World Report on May 31, 2004. Go ahead, read it. Just note that the writer fails to mention the many successes of adult stem cell research and thus gives a faulty conclusion by saying that "Stem cell... therapies... have yet to spawn any successful treatments for disease..." So typical of the mainstream media.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Yes you do have “death panels.”

No we don’t.

Again, yes you do. You might not call them "death panels," they might not even meet in "panels," but somewhere, in some office or offices, are the people who make the decisions as to who gets what treatments for what. Rather than leaving that decision to the individual citizens in a free-market approach, the UK has decided to place these decisions into the hands of faceless bureaucrats and so life and death decisions are being made by these people every day.

A rose, by any other name... and all that.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:If your health care system has government bureaucrats whose job it is to make decisions about what treatments a person may or may not have for, say, some form of cancer which may likely kill them without said treatment, and that treatment is denied (because it is say, a drug not covered by the state), then that group of bureaucrats could fairly be called a “death panel” because their decisions are, in point of fact, life or death decisions. Just because it’s an unflattering term does not make it any less true. Rationing health care mandates that "death panels" will exist. You can bury your head in the sand all you want but the truth is the truth pure and simple. Rationing=Death Panels. Someone has to make the decisions.

That paranoid outburst doesn’t deserve a response.

And yet you respond. And though non-responsive to the issue, it is a response that reveals much about the responder. This isn’t paranoia, this is just a simple fact of life.

After all Matt, this was a story in your own press not that long ago. I seem to recall a story of a woman with cancer who wanted to be treated with a certain drug that would likely save her life and she was denied that treatment. If fact, I’m reading an article in the Telegraph right now about the problem and the fact that those buying a particular cancer drug on their own were being denied NHS services up until last year, and even now, many are still being effectively denied NHS services as a result of buying their own cancer drugs.

Rationing is a FACT of ANY health care system my friend (or any consumption for that matter). But in a free market, it is the consumer who makes the life and death decisions, and not some faceless bureaucrat, as is the the case in your system. The persons making those decisions about who gets what treatments are making a life and death decision whether you like it or not. This isn’t a matter of politics or opinion; it is just cold hard fact!

You can bury your head in the sand, on this point if you like; but it doesn’t change a single thing my friend. You have "death panels" whether they call them that or not.

Again, "a rose by any other name..."

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Actually, I don’t. Or if I did, I forgot. I would hope you are against it (cap and trade) – but I honestly can’t say.

Yes, I am against it but not because it picks on innocent corporations, or means that North Korea will be given international help in invading Washington D.C., but because it really defeats the point of reducing carbon emissions.

First of all, it isn’t a matter of “picking on innocent corporations” at all. It’s a matter of the government gathering unto itself a near total power to dictate what companies may do what and for how much – a power so massive in scope that I can not even comprehend how any sane nation would give a government that much power. And it is a power that is completely and utterly unconstitutional here in the U.S.

As for the North Korean crack, I have no clue what you are going on about here.

But your response now begs the question; what would YOU do to reduce “carbon” emissions?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:was the federal government FORCING banks to make home loans to people who should have NEVER gotten them followed by even MORE government interference in the housing markets all the while completely FAILING to do their proper and necessary job of ENFORCING THE LAWS already on the books.

Your government didn’t force our banks to do that, they couldn’t.

Ummm.... ... what the hell does that have to do with my statement?

dblboggie wrote:Bush and McCain (as piss poor as they were at their jobs) tried REPEATEDLY to implement badly needed reforms to the government’s oversight bodies for Fannie and Freddie giving them the tools they needed to properly regulate these two companies and the Democrats just as REPEATEDLY filibustered these needed reforms saying there was nothing at all wrong with Fannie and Freddie. And then the wheels came off, and rather than fixing Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats attack banks (the very banks they FORCED to give loans to people who shouldn’t have them) and Wall Street and left Fannie and Freddie completely off the hook!

You should really study up on an issue before you make unfounded assumptions about something like “financial reform.”

For some reason, this was included in your response and is not responded to by you. Was this left in by mistake? That’ll happen when you chop up a persons post mercilessly...

But more interesting is that you chose to ignore the Democrats responsibility in encouraging crony capitalism by exempting Fannie and Freddie from any reform under the new so-called "financial reform" bill and only going after the banks and Wall Street. This is something the Democrats salivate for. More government control and interference in the private sector, and now that the government owns Fannie and Freddie, letting these criminals escape justice.

It’s funny how you neglected to address this very salient point, while justifying the "financial reform" bill as being necessary to rein in "greed" by banks. You blame that greed, and not government red-tape, and when I show you that it was government interference in the free-market (the housing and banking markets in this case), that ultimately led to the collapse and that when reform came it left out the single most guilty parties for the collapse and suddenly you fall silent.

Why is that?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Sadly, it is the left who are trying to create that "brave new world" in utter obliviousness of Huxley’s work.

Then I would say the message was lost on you.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Perhaps you should reread the book – and see my bit on this above.

Though this looks as though it’s your statement, I believe it to be mine.

You’ve chopped up my original response so badly, I’m no longer sure whose posts are whose at this point. So I’ll just say that I believe I have addressed this more than adequately above.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I’m all for the rule of law. I’ve said as much many, many times.

Really? because most of your posts seem to be critical of your government attempting to create any law. You seem to advocate a complete laissez faire attitude to business on the basis that they provide jobs.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Well it’s right there for you to see…

http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2129174/Searchpage/1/Main/221421/Words/Fannie+Mae/Search/true/Re_Barney_Frank_goes_toe_to_to#Post2129174

http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1915293/Searchpage/1/Main/206866/Words/Fannie+Mae/Search/true/Re_Democrats_Wallow_in_a_Cultu#Post1915293

http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1914080/Searchpage/1/Main/206866/Words/Fannie+Mae/Search/true/Re_Democrats_Wallow_in_a_Cultu#Post1914080

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, search "Fannie Mae" in the politics section… I have been quite outspoken on this, QUITE outspoken…

Ok, then I take that back.

Thank you. I should hope that at this point you’ve seen that I do not resort to intentional lies to make a point. If I say I have spoken out about something, you can pretty much take it to the bank that I have. I don’t debate like that. And if I am wrong about something, I will freely admit that.

dblboggie wrote:First of all, it’s against the law to pollute, exploit or use illegal tactics. If governments would just ENFORCE THE LAWS, I would have no problem with that. But they are NOT just enforcing the laws. Governments create laws that they can use for THEIR OWN gain. It’s called crony capitalism. And governments have been doing it for a very long time.

As for a corporation, well what the hell, if they are violating the law you can always report it. And you DO have a vote when it comes to a company –

Again, you left out this bit of my response and chose to cut it as seen below. Your cut ignores my point that companies can only do the things you complain of when they are allowed to by government. Why do you ignore this point?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:it’s as simple as not buying from them. I don’t do business with companies who I disapprove of all the time. I vote with my wallet.

That is all very well and good for you and I (I agree about that, I do boycott unethical companies) but most people do not and cannot be bothered to vote with their wallet... or they do and they keep buying stuff from the company because they are providing the cheapest option. Hence that despite all warnings about sweatshops in China, people still buy cheap clothes. Despite exploitation of South American farmers, people still by cheap coffee and not the more expensive Fair Trade option. Despite appalling conditions of farm animals, still people are not voting with their feet in buying with ethically produced meat. So your ideal that the market is driven by the merits of the market alone is idealistic and you should know better.

See my response above on the "exploitation" of people like South American farmers and Chinese "sweatshops." As for the "appalling conditions of farm animals" you do realize that these animals are raised to be killed and eaten by people, right? And you give no citation for these "appalling conditions" and merely state it as an accusation against... who knows; you do not say.

But this ignores the larger point; and that is that this is how a free-market works. The demand is for cheap meat, that’s the market’s choice (and by market, I mean the individual consumers). Companies spring up to meet that demand. If they engage in practices that make their meat more expensive than their competitors, then they lose market share and eventually fold. Or they are clever, and seek a new market; say that percentage of consumers who would pay more for meat they perceived was raised more humanely. Since that demand is smaller, so would the companies working to meet it. But such companies are completely free to support (or even create) private organizations that would help educate the market on the virtues of buying humanely raised meat and thus grow their market share that way. The market is driven by the forces of supply and demand. When left free to do so, the bulk of people will always gravitate toward those products in demand that have the lowest price. That is just human nature and good economic practice. It has always been this way and you should know better yourself.

And why did you leave out the following exchange and my response to it? To wit:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:governments can and do FORCE you to give them your money at the point of a gun!

Who has ever put a gun to your head? For somebody who lives in constant fear of his government pointing a gun at his head, I'm surprised you signed up for military service for.

Well, you see it’s as simple as this. I feel it is my duty to be a responsible citizen and to participate in the success of this country by doing my bit. I feel that military service is a duty of any responsible citizen. But just because I believe in participating in politics is a duty does not mean that I have to love what politics hath wrought in our country today. It does not mean I owe unquestioning allegiance to those politicians who are raping the constitution and perverting our laws for their own greedy, power-hungry ends.

You ask a question and make a statement and when I respond you simply cut it from your response. I don’t understand your selective response style Matt. When I respond, I respect the work you put into a post and I try to respond to every single bit of that post. I don’t cut the parts I don’t like or that I think might require extra work on my part to respond to. And perhaps I’m reading more into this than I should, but I find it just a bit, flippant I guess, that you would simply ignore some of the points I raise. If this were a physical debate in person before an audience, you would not be able to get away with this selective editing of another’s response.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And what corporation has grievously wronged you with impunity, without that harm being condoned or at least allowed by government by a failure to enforce extant laws?

Not to me personally. See Tex’s forum, there is an article on GPS being fitted to people’s cars that Tex says is unconstitutional... ok fair enough if it is as I have no argument there. But you know that business does this all the time? Ok they don’t fit GPS to track your individual movements but they legally fill your computer up with ads that are tailored to websites you visit. Microsoft is developing software to do just that... tailor all ads you see depending on website you have already visited and you can’t opt out. You apply for a credit card, that company will sell your information about you that you fear the government getting hold of. Now, tell me why you are not concerned about businesses using this deeply personal and confidential information – and selling it to others without your consent – while claiming the government should never be allowed to get hold of it? Can you explain that to me please?

Businesses will do whatever is legally permissible to increase market share, productivity and profitability. That’s the whole reason they are in business. However, I think you exaggerate the kinds of information that businesses running websites actually collect. You say they are collecting "deeply personal and confidential information," I would like to know just what sort of "deeply personal and confidential information" you think it is that they are collecting. I would also like to know if you actually believe that the information they collect can actually be traced back to you personally, by name – and if so, I would like you to provide proof that this is so, a citation if you will.

In your example of website ads, even this site, SP, has tracking ads. These sites do not gather things like your name, your physical address (your home address that is), your social security number (or whatever passes for that in other countries), your personal banking information, and other info that would be required to personally identify you or steal your identity. Yes, these sites do track your surfing habits and do attempt to capitalize on that information to tailor ads to what seem to be your personal preferences, but tell me, how does that harm you?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Good God man! You missed the uproar over the entire spring/summer of last year??? You’ve got google, look it up. American’s today are STILL against Obama care and want it repealed!

I’m not looking for rhetoric, I’m asking for statistics. Cold hard facts.

Again, Google is your friend. Hell, the state of Missouri just voted, by 70 PERCENT, to annul Obamacare’s “individual mandate” within state lines and the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or pay a fine. And Missouri is just the first state to pass such a measure. There are 20 other states that have joined together to legally block the implementation of Obamacare!

Even a CNN poll this year (and CNN is about as far left as a mainstream media outlet can be) found that 59% of American’s oppose Obamacare with only 39% saying they were in favor of it.

That a majority of Americans are opposed to this raping of our Constitution is common knowledge to anyone paying even scant attention to the news. Even the liberal mainstream media have been unable to bury this story though you can sure that will try to marginalize it.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But a whole lot of good that opposition to Obama care did for us. Rather than represent the will of their constituents, our politicians jammed that bill down our throats with nary a moral qualm about giving the big middle finger to their constituents.

Not my point. I don’t give a fig whether people support it or not, all I want is for you to back up your claims that the majority were against it.

Well I DO give a fig about the people’s voice. And the people’s voice was ignored by their elected representatives who not only gave their constituents a big middle finger about their feelings on Obamacare, but some of them actually came out in the media and belittled, denigrated and lied about their constituents and the nature of their opposition to Obamacare. That is what our government has become – it has morphed (as Jefferson warned) into an enemy of the very people they were elected to represent. These politicians, who took an oath to uphold, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States of America, are violating that oath with wanton abandon and are praying that enough people have been weaned to the government teat that will continue to vote them into office as long as they promise these parasites enough of other peoples money. And sadly, America is almost at the point where nearly 50% of the population pays no taxes at all, and many even get money back from the government.

November of this year will truly tell the tale. We will see if enough Americans have awoken to the threat our current government poses to their freedoms and their welfare.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:A whole lot of good that vote did for us.

Well the point is that if enough people disagree with Obama and the Democrats and their policies, they will be voted out in 2012. What part of this concerns you especially as you claim that there is a majority of ill feeling over some of his policies (especially Obamacare)?

See above. The federal government has, by slow operations (another homage to Jefferson), made nearly half of our population dependent on government largess. Nearly half the population pays no taxes – these are people nearly guaranteed to vote for Democrats. This is what governments do. They use their power to buy those votes needed to keep them in power.

I can only hope that the true producers in this country, the people who still have jobs and are paying taxes, turn out to vote in November and again in 2012.

There is every indication that they will, but in politics anything can happen so I’m not counting my chickens before they’re hatched.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:That is not TRUE! Businesses are answerable to the consumers of their products and to the laws of the land.

But they are not. See my point a few paragraphs up.

It is only when politicians play political games that businesses can get away with the kind of stuff you so fear. It is THE GOVERNMENT failing to do its rightful job that gives corporations the ability to operate extra-legally.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:If the government would simply enforce the laws and let the mechanisms of the free-market system of supply and demand operate without skewing the playing field in favor of one business over another, we be just fine.

A company cannot be broken up for continued malpractice, a government will be by the power of the vote.

Of course it can! A company can be put out of business for continued violations of the law! Hell, there are companies that HAVE been put out of business for violations of the law. Where on earth do you live Matt??? Seriously man, you have just got to get a grip on this “corporations as the root of all evil” thing and realize that where corporations are allowed to violate the laws of the land without consequence, it is ALWAYS with the permission of willing governments. Where human nature in a real free-market system would punish such companies, the false inputs of governments in giving such companies a free pass is what crony capitalism is all about. Why you continue to give government a free pass for their hand in allowing the sorts of corporate activities you rail against is beyond my comprehension!

[quote="dblboggie"]I expect my government to operate within the strict confines of the Constitution and the rule of law, but it hasn’t done that in over 100 years. It is not only not protecting us from jack shit, it is ripping off businesses and citizens in an orgy of greed for the acquisition of power.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I view governments as our Founders did, with great suspicion and mistrust.

As we all should, but that doesn’t mean that surrendering ourselves to the mercy of corporations is the best antidote to that.

Free-market capitalism is NOT "surrendering ourselves to the mercy of corporations" as you put it. I swear, you accuse me of paranoia for viewing with suspicion the actions and motives of government – when it is governments who retain the legal use of force against their citizens, and right after that talk of being "oppressed" and "exploited" and being at "the mercy" of a corporation who CANNOT FORCE YOU to do ANYTHING! Talk about paranoia.

Honestly my friend, I just cannot wrap my wits around this sort of blind hysteria to the private sector.

dblboggie wrote:Oh, and thanks Tex, I finally figured out what was wrong with how I was doing the quoting... :snicker;

What was it?

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Oh, and thanks Tex, I finally figured out what was wrong with how I was doing the quoting... :snicker;

What was it?

I was preparing the post in a Word document and then posting it here. Apparently your site's software does not like the quote marks made in Word. So I had to post it sans quotes and insert the quotes while in the "Post A Reply" page. It's a pain in the rear, but at least it works.

Aye. That makes sense now.

You can also use the multi-quote button to reply to more than one post. Just click the button of the posts you want to quote into one reply. They'll turn red. Then hit the reply at the very bottom (not Quick Reply). Seems to work good when it's many posts going on in a hot thread.

As this is a monster post (even considered being a novelist dbl? ) I will handle it in due course so I am neither ignoring nor missing it. Time is quite short tonight.

dblboggie wrote:Since I hate thinking I've wasted all that time on this thread, I have moved this topic that Matt and I were debating over on SP to here. I know you've locked yourself out of SP, Matt, so I'm bringing the debate over to you.

The reason I took so long getting to this is because my laptop went haywire so I was restricting myself to shorter posts. Seriously, though this thing has been playing me up for months (keyboard gone) since getting back from Greece I have had to put up with RaNDoM cAPs oftEN cHANGiNG sEVerAl tImEs PEr secOnD

dblboggie wrote:I asked you first. Explain how it is dog-eat-dog.

The clue is in the title. "Free market" implies zero regulation, a complete free for all with an attitude of "let them get on with it". Otherwise we have dog eat dog, like a boxing match without a refereee.

dblboggie wrote:Under our constitution, the federal government has very real enumerated powers and it has them for a good reason. And under our penal code, are more than sufficient laws to protect our citizens from illegal or abusive practices by businesses. And these laws (if one strips them back, say 70 years for the most part, though not entirely), are a rightful function of government and should be enforced.

But that is not what we have here in America any more. And we haven’t had it for about 100 years. And for some reason you wish to avoid this point by saying I have been inconsistent about my representation of free-market capitalism when I have not. I hope the paragraph above sets the record straight once and for all so that we can move forward with the real debate.

Well that isn't really an explanation and that is probably why I didn't quote it. You say "there are laws" but seem to feel oppressed every time your government attempts to regulate anything.

dblboggie wrote:So you see corporate accountability is actually dependent upon the government actually enforcing the laws on the books. But that is not what our government has been doing. After all, the government needs those businesses to stay in business to hire people who provide the bulk of the revenue the government depends on. But rather than just applying the laws equally to all, our federal government has, over time, erected a MASSIVE body of laws and regulations that allow for them to monkey with the free market system, skewing the results in such a way as still preserves enough of a modicum of viability as to keep employment somewhat steady, but allowing our politicians to select the winners and losers in our economy in such a way as maintains and expands their power to do so.

Well that is the problem when you have a political system tied so thoroughly to big business, when the two main parties are not made up of a variety of interest groups. You simply seem to have a choice between voting for oil barons or for bankers. Therein lies the problem of the Adams approach to free market capitalism, we realised the problems in the industrial revolution and moved to social democracy.

dblboggie wrote:This is called crony capitalism and it is the economic system we now labor under. That is NOT free-market capitalism. That is what happens when people are too trusting of their government.

Or from another angle, when you allow your political parties to be courted so extensively by big business alone.

dblboggie wrote:But I’ll go you one better. I will paint a scenario (a real one) in which undue government interference, followed by a lack of valid government oversight converged to create a real disaster.

The recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is just such a scenario. First, the federal government blocks the exploration and development of oil drilling in the shallow waters off our shores and from just about all “federal” lands or any other land for that matter with massive and onerous laws and regulations that make it all but impossible to drill for oil we know to exist which then forces companies like BP to explore far off shore in waters much, much deeper than would make even good economic sense. But since the world demand for oil is there, drill that far offshore they do. NOW, when the federal government arguably has a valid oversight function as an accident in the Gulf could reasonably be seen to have a serious negative impact on our coastline, the federal government agency responsible for that oversight simply turns a blind eye to faulty practices on that drilling platform and boom, up the thing goes. This is crony capitalism at work, in all its tragic glory. Yes, BP and the other companies involved in that accident are responsible for taking shortcuts that ultimately blew up in their faces (literally). And yes, they should be punished according to the rule of law. But why did the government agency with oversight responsibility, an agency that gave this platform AWARDS for safe practices, not also face criminal action? This agency is just as guilty as the corporate entities for misfeasance if not malfeasance.

And without regulation, this is what happens. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243

dblboggie wrote:I think it is time that you actually cite some examples of this so-called “exploitation” my friend. As I see it, a corporation can only “exploit” a person willing to be “exploited.”

Oh come off it. Most people aren't aware of exploitation. Did you know that most tea, coffee and cocoa producers in the third world are earning so little money they need to work a seven day week, 18 hours a day? Why do you think Fair Trade and Rainforest Alliance movements have sprung up and appeal to people's conscience in a countries that cannot get enough of these products? We are paying a pittance to people producing a luxury. This is another reason I am against your brand of free market, because third world farmers deserve a chance to earn a decent living wage.

And let's talk about Microsoft who have monopolised a market (and still continue to do so) despite clearly being what I described in another thread as "a monolith of mediocrity". Do you not remember the Microsoft trial a couple of years ago? Their monopoly stifled competition for many years and the clunky, buggy, virus magnet known as "internet explorer" was foisted upon us because we had no other choice. I don't want to live in a world of corporate bullying, and I'm surprised that you do.

dblboggie wrote: Companies cannot go out amongst a population with guns and force people to work for them (though governments can and do).

You keep saying this. When has your government ever done that to you? Businesses might not be able to do that, but they do pollute our waterways and our air. They see no reason why they ought to change their practices so long as they are making money. Most people are too ignorant, too stupid or too selfish to make an ethical choice otherwise there would be no need for Fair Trade agreements. There would be no need for Freedom Food or Compassion in World Farming.

dblboggie wrote:I would be willing to bet that in virtually every case, these so-called “exploited” workers actually applied for these jobs by the thousands and that many of the applicants were turned away; that they more than willingly applied because their own country’s economic prospects were so poor that any job was a step up the economic ladder as opposed to a step down.

And in the west we have the luxury of high quality education, social mobility, some level of welfare and a high level of employment even in a recession.

dblboggie wrote: I would submit that what you call “exploitation” is to those you seem to think are being exploited, more often than not, a welcome opportunity to provide for themselves and their families.

And all too often they are not being paid enough, even by the lowest standards in their own countries. I'm fully aware that low pay in the third world doesn't necessarily mean exploitation but it does all too often otherwise there would be no fair trade.

dblboggie wrote:Just because they are not making the wages you approve of or think proper and fitting, just because their work conditions don’t always live up to the standards you think proper and fitting, and just because their willing labor gives benefit to those who hire them (as it must to be economically sane), doesn’t mean they are being “exploited.”

I never said they were. I am fully aware that we need to look at average wages in these countries, and minimum required for a basic standard of living, I am not stupid. I used to work for a clothing manufacturer that was accused of third world exploitation but the factory workers, despite what we might consider low pay, was actually higher than average in that country (I think it was Burma).

But if somebody is genuinely earning less money than they should be able to live on and are clearly being exploited, that doesn't bother you? And you claim your brand of capitalism is not dog eat dog?!

dblboggie wrote:So I would like to see some actual examples of this so-called “exploitation” you speak of so often.

Done. Need any more examples, just ask.

dblboggie wrote:Yes, this was true for the major cities, the centers of commerce as it were. But I don’t believe that held true for the more rural areas; whereas in modern Western nations, the middle class extends far beyond the major urban centers. And I would submit that the U.S. has (soon to be had) the largest middle class of any country in the history of the world. That was not an accident.

No, social mobility was pretty similar everywhere. Tenant farmers soon found themselves the only survivor of a large estate and was able to take it over unopposed. The change was fundamental and everywhere, not limited to any one demographic or location.

dblboggie wrote:But again, this was an economy controlled by the state, directly encouraged by the state, for the good of the state and not the people. That is not free-market capitalism; it is crony capitalism on a massive scale.

No, you still misunderstand it. It was a government in the pocket of the market, not the other way around. People were having it drummed in that they could be happy so long as they continue to "BUY, BUY, BUY more stuff! You need this stuff, buy it now!" and they were given soma to forget how shitty this mass produced consumer society had become.

dblboggie wrote:Can you not see the government control beyond the mere puppets of mass production which the government created?

Writing in 1932, I fail to see what parallel he was drawing when the age of big government - and most importantly - the expansion of Soviet Russia outside of its borders, before Hitler, before the Khmer Rouge and other totalitarian regimes. What government precedent precisely do you think Huxley was alluding to when his book is clearly a critique on the industrial world and specifically, mass production?

dblboggie wrote:Again, you seem to miss the point here. You seem to miss the massive government control that spawned this fictional distopia.

In 1932, what "massive government control" had spawned it?

dblboggie wrote:Just as it is today with our own liberal forces in America. God scares liberals. God transcends government – which is the liberal’s religion. God stands for certain values that liberals consider themselves to be above. So they seek to replace God with something over which they have control.

And the right have certainly compensated by selling God as a commodity. But seriously, parodies aside this is irrelevant. There is no God in Brave New World because it isn't a product to be sold. But I think your televangelists managed to solve that little conundrum

dblboggie wrote:Have you and I read the same book?

Was about to ask you the same thing. You have no precedent for the book being a warning against big government, I do have a precedent for my insistence that it is a warning about mass production.

dblboggie wrote:and even tacitly accepted by the Church for thousands of years. Many highly ranking church officials have been homosexuals. This is just typical left-wing propaganda and nothing more.

Don't ask, don't tell is hardly accepting of homosexuality. It expects them to pretend otherwise... isn't that bearing false witness?

dblboggie wrote:Are they really? And do you have a citation for that?

Well I will certainly concede that point. It is a long time since I read any research on that subject but I will try to read more in the near future and let you know what I find.

dblboggie wrote:No, they’d rather trot out a Christopher Reeve or a Michael Fox and rail against those backward conservatives standing in the way of science by seeking to ban the cloning of embryonic stem cells, all the while ignoring the very real treatments that adult stem cells have produced for years.

I would have hoped you knew me well enough by now to know that I would always choose to read academic papers where available. I don't care about what celebrities think, nor the media.

dblboggie wrote:Go ahead, read it. Just note that the writer fails to mention the many successes of adult stem cell research and thus gives a faulty conclusion by saying that "Stem cell... therapies... have yet to spawn any successful treatments for disease..." So typical of the mainstream media.

One paper does not a scientific position make. According to several sites, the issue is still hotly debated. I will reserve judgement though until I have swotted up a bit more.

dblboggie wrote:Again, yes you do. You might not call them "death panels," they might not even meet in "panels," but somewhere, in some office or offices, are the people who make the decisions as to who gets what treatments for what.

First, how is that different from a panel of insurance managers?

dblboggie wrote:Rather than leaving that decision to the individual citizens in a free-market approach, the UK has decided to place these decisions into the hands of faceless bureaucrats and so life and death decisions are being made by these people every day.

Doctors and researchers... people with medical training. And there can be many reasons for refusing treatment. The drug is untested, it has not been licensed, the drug is ineffective on certain types of cancer, and yes sometimes not enough money for drugs that have no guarantees. Too often the media portrays a drug as a "miracle cure" for a certain disease when it is nothing of the sort. People then expect to have it on demand, even if it is ineffective for their particular strain.

dblboggie wrote:After all Matt, this was a story in your own press not that long ago. I seem to recall a story of a woman with cancer who wanted to be treated with a certain drug that would likely save her life and she was denied that treatment. If fact, I’m reading an article in the Telegraph right now about the problem and the fact that those buying a particular cancer drug on their own were being denied NHS services up until last year, and even now, many are still being effectively denied NHS services as a result of buying their own cancer drugs.

Newspapers are rarely interested in showing the reality of a story, they twist it in order to appeal to the prejudices of its readership. I've experienced that first hand while at university, it the the reason I pay little attention to the media... or Michael J. Fox

dblboggie wrote:Rationing is a FACT of ANY health care system my friend (or any consumption for that matter). But in a free market, it is the consumer who makes the life and death decisions,

No it isn't, its faceless insurance men.

dblboggie wrote:As for the North Korean crack, I have no clue what you are going on about here.

Just jesting.

dblboggie wrote:But your response now begs the question; what would YOU do to reduce “carbon” emissions?

We could all stop being so wasteful with our fuel for starters. Is it really necessary in this day and age for a car to do 15mpg? My small sporty car does between 40-65mpg and still does that despite being nearly 12 years old. We all need to do that, governments and individuals. But harp on about your freedoms all you like. Your freedom to pollute is just another "tragedy of the commons"... another failed lesson from history.

A rose by any other name.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:was the federal government FORCING banks to make home loans to people who should have NEVER gotten them followed by even MORE government interference in the housing markets all the while completely FAILING to do their proper and necessary job of ENFORCING THE LAWS already on the books.

Your government didn’t force our banks to do that, they couldn’t.

Ummm.... ... what the hell does that have to do with my statement?

Looks pretty clear to me. Some of our banks needed bail out money and they weren't forced by your government to make loans to people who couldn't afford them. Our banks chose to be frivolous with their customer's money and there almost ended up being no money left.

dblboggie wrote:Was this left in by mistake? That’ll happen when you chop up a persons post mercilessly...

Bah, I get confused when you continually churn out novels.

dblboggie wrote:But more interesting is that you chose to ignore the Democrats responsibility in encouraging crony capitalism by exempting Fannie and Freddie from any reform under the new so-called "financial reform" bill and only going after the banks and Wall Street. This is something the Democrats salivate for. More government control and interference in the private sector, and now that the government owns Fannie and Freddie, letting these criminals escape justice.

I wasn't aware of that, now that I do I don't particularly care. In summer 2008 I was more worried about my job prospects for autumn 2009 when I finished my MA. My point is that what blighted your banks (govt interference you say) was not the case here. Of course there was some knock on effect but the banks here was managing themselves pretty badly to get into that state.

dblboggie wrote:It’s funny how you neglected to address this very salient point, while justifying the "financial reform" bill as being necessary to rein in "greed" by banks. You blame that greed, and not government red-tape, and when I show you that it was government interference in the free-market (the housing and banking markets in this case), that ultimately led to the collapse and that when reform came it left out the single most guilty parties for the collapse and suddenly you fall silent.

Why is that?

Because we are on different sides of the Atlantic? Why would I care what Bush did or Obama didn't do when our banking problems seem to have been handled differently but ended up in the same position? How could I answer that. That would be like me demanding why you haven't addressed Northern Rock mismanaging its funds when they had been allowed to do so.

dblboggie wrote:As for a corporation, well what the hell, if they are violating the law you can always report it. And you DO have a vote when it comes to a company –

dblboggie wrote:Again, you left out this bit of my response and chose to cut it as seen below. Your cut ignores my point that companies can only do the things you complain of when they are allowed to by government. Why do you ignore this point?

Stuff that I cut out is an attempt to keep quoting to a minimum, otherwise we'll end up taking 4 hours on each post. More often than not, I feel points have already been addressed. You are always free to say "please address this" directly.

dblboggie wrote:See my response above on the "exploitation" of people like South American farmers and Chinese "sweatshops." As for the "appalling conditions of farm animals" you do realize that these animals are raised to be killed and eaten by people, right? And you give no citation for these "appalling conditions" and merely state it as an accusation against... who knows; you do not say.

There have been so many documented instances of animal welfare, I can't believe you are blissfully unaware of any of it.

dblboggie wrote:But this ignores the larger point; and that is that this is how a free-market works. The demand is for cheap meat, that’s the market’s choice (and by market, I mean the individual consumers). Companies spring up to meet that demand. If they engage in practices that make their meat more expensive than their competitors, then they lose market share and eventually fold. Or they are clever, and seek a new market; say that percentage of consumers who would pay more for meat they perceived was raised more humanely.

And this comes back to my earlier point about slavery that you dodged. Do you honestly think that slavery ended because there was no longer a supply/demand for it?! Of course not, governments decided that it was no longer ethical. Market demand and the clearly cheaper approach that a slavery based economy would have been the better option for both of our countries. Your country split in half and went to war over the issue. It required government intervention to ban this unethical practice. I find it sinister that you seem to be implying that such things should only be subject to market pressures.

dblboggie wrote:Well, you see it’s as simple as this. I feel it is my duty to be a responsible citizen and to participate in the success of this country by doing my bit. I feel that military service is a duty of any responsible citizen. But just because I believe in participating in politics is a duty does not mean that I have to love what politics hath wrought in our country today. It does not mean I owe unquestioning allegiance to those politicians who are raping the constitution and perverting our laws for their own greedy, power-hungry ends.

You ask a question and make a statement and when I respond you simply cut it from your response.

I accidentally cut that out so accept my apologies and thanks for your explanation.

dblboggie wrote:However, I think you exaggerate the kinds of information that businesses running websites actually collect. You say they are collecting "deeply personal and confidential information," I would like to know just what sort of "deeply personal and confidential information" you think it is that they are collecting. I would also like to know if you actually believe that the information they collect can actually be traced back to you personally, by name – and if so, I would like you to provide proof that this is so, a citation if you will.

Well yes of course. Web ads are probably the least intrusive as you say. I'm talking about something where you offer personal information and have no comeback to whom that information will be sold. I'm talking about supermarket (or other stores) reward cards. You can opt out at having that information passed to other relevant companies but they can legally sell that information without your knowledge. Usually, this is information that a government could only dream of yet you have a problem with one and not the other?

dblboggie wrote:Again, Google is your friend. Hell, the state of Missouri just voted, by 70 PERCENT, to annul Obamacare’s “individual mandate” within state lines and the requirement that everyone buy health insurance or pay a fine. And Missouri is just the first state to pass such a measure. There are 20 other states that have joined together to legally block the implementation of Obamacare!

Again you fail to provide cold hard facts.

dblboggie wrote:Even a CNN poll this year (and CNN is about as far left as a mainstream media outlet can be) found that 59% of American’s oppose Obamacare with only 39% saying they were in favor of it.

A rough poll, that's a start I suppose. The point I'm making here is that you criticise my lack of examples when you are just as guilty, especially on climate change where you have never backed up a single claim.

dblboggie wrote:Well I DO give a fig about the people’s voice.

Rhetoric means nothing here. I'm just asking for cold hard facts. Why do you have such difficulty with that? Why do you just launch into a rant when I ask you a simple question? You do it on climate change too. I ask you to provide evidence that this warming is natural and you bang on about losing freedoms and liberals who hate America and Comrade Obama who apparently invented the whole thing. You accuse me of cutting bits out of your post I do not want to address, but you descend into a rant every time you don't want to answer a question.

dblboggie wrote:And the people’s voice was ignored by their elected representatives who not only gave their constituents a big middle finger about their feelings on Obamacare, but some of them actually came out in the media and belittled, denigrated and lied about their constituents and the nature of their opposition to Obamacare. That is what our government has become – it has morphed (as Jefferson warned) into an enemy of the very people they were elected to represent. These politicians, who took an oath to uphold, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States of America, are violating that oath with wanton abandon and are praying that enough people have been weaned to the government teat that will continue to vote them into office as long as they promise these parasites enough of other peoples money. And sadly, America is almost at the point where nearly 50% of the population pays no taxes at all, and many even get money back from the government.

And here is an example of that, all because I asked you to provide some figures to back up one of your claims.

dblboggie wrote:It is only when politicians play political games that businesses can get away with the kind of stuff you so fear. It is THE GOVERNMENT failing to do its rightful job that gives corporations the ability to operate extra-legally.

I guess we'll just have to put that issue down to the bigger role that corporations play in your political system. We're never going to agree over this issue.

dblboggie wrote:Where human nature in a real free-market system would punish such companies,

But it doesn't as you yourself say above... people will nearly always choose the cheapest option for them regardless of ethics, hence why there is a need for Fair Trade agreements for example. You keep contradicting yourself on this issue. On one hand you say "human nature is to go for the cheapest option" and now you are saying "human nature punishes malpractice". Well often the cheapest often is not the ethical choice because it is the cheapest option.

dblboggie wrote:Why you continue to give government a free pass for their hand in allowing the sorts of corporate activities you rail against is beyond my comprehension!

I don't give government a free pass, I'm trying to understand how you can rail against the government for doing the same things to you that businesses are doing, yet give them a free pass while you can vote a government out, while arguing that markets will never change because human nature will always go for the cheapest option, while simultaneously arguing that human nature allows an unethical company to become irrelevant, thereby they get voted out by market trends.

Seriously... wtf?!

dblboggie wrote:Free-market capitalism is NOT "surrendering ourselves to the mercy of corporations" as you put it. I swear, you accuse me of paranoia for viewing with suspicion the actions and motives of government – when it is governments who retain the legal use of force against their citizens, and right after that talk of being "oppressed" and "exploited" and being at "the mercy" of a corporation who CANNOT FORCE YOU to do ANYTHING! Talk about paranoia.

Is this about bathroom accessories again? Seriously, whenever you launch into this tirade against "government putting a gun to your head" it usually comes down to making your wear a seatbelt so that you don't do yourself or somebody else serious injury, or making you choose a specific type of toilet seat. Seriously, wtf?!

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As this is a monster post (even considered being a novelist dbl? ) I will handle it in due course so I am neither ignoring nor missing it. Time is quite short tonight.

I'm sorry Matt, I do have a tendency to go on a bit at times. And I had no fear that you were ignoring it, I realized that it was a monster sized post and figured that you'd get to it when you could. That is one of the reasons why I like debating you.

By the way, I hope you will forgive the hyperbole of that post... it was composed next door and I was in that "mode" so to speak, but I honestly mean no offense.

And I see that you have now responded to this monster, and now it falls to me to respond. I hope you will understand that it might be a bit before I can compose said response; between work, school and homework, my free time is scarce.

But I promise I will respond, and my response will be in the spirit of civilized debate.

And to answer your question, I would have never thought of being a novelist in a million years, but in the last few years I've been thinking that I might actually have a novel in me somewhere seeking to escape. I just may have to let that novel escape in the not too distant future. My only question is will it be non-fiction or fiction. I cannot say just yet. I suspect that as I pursue my BA, the question's answer will present itself.

By the way, good luck with your own book.

dblboggie wrote: I'm sorry Matt, I do have a tendency to go on a bit at times. And I had no fear that you were ignoring it, I realized that it was a monster sized post and figured that you'd get to it when you could. That is one of the reasons why I like debating you.

Well thanks. I think there is a lot of things my adversaries can accuse me of, but running away from a debate is not one of them.

dblboggie wrote:By the way, I hope you will forgive the hyperbole of that post... it was composed next door and I was in that "mode" so to speak, but I honestly mean no offense.

No of course not. These things get heated. Don't worry, I'm not going to ban you for it... yet

dblboggie wrote:I hope you will understand that it might be a bit before I can compose said response; between work, school and homework, my free time is scarce.

No problem, I certainly wasn't coming on this afternoon already expecting a reply.

dblboggie wrote:My only question is will it be non-fiction or fiction. I cannot say just yet. I suspect that as I pursue my BA, the question's answer will present itself.

Not to be entered into lightly. Any lengthy piece of work like that will have you tearing your hair out in frustration. I have one novel complete, two in process and countless number of short stories incomplete.

dblboggie wrote:By the way, good luck with your own book.

Thanks! I'm going to need it.