Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Free Market

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • All of the below is straight out of wikipedia. Helps to know I'm not just making shit up

    "Luis Ramírez Corzo, head of PEMEX's exploration and production division, announced on August 12, 2004 that the actual oil output from Cantarell was forecast to decline steeply from 2006 onwards, at a rate of 14% per year. In March 2006 it was reported that Cantarell had already peaked, with a second year of declining production in 2005. For 2006, the field's output declined by 13.1%, according to Jesús Reyes Heróles, the director-general of PEMEX.[5]

    In July 2008, daily production rate fell sharply by 36% to 973,668 barrels per day (155,000 m3/d) from 1.526 million barrels per day (243×103 m3/d) a year earlier.[6] Analysts theorize that this rapid decline is a result of production enhancement techniques causing faster short-term oil extraction at the expense of field longevity. By January 2009, oil production at Cantarell had fallen to 772,000 barrels per day (123,000 m3/d), a drop in production of 38% for the year, resulting in a drop in total Mexican oil production of 9.2%, the fifth year in a row of declining Mexican production.[2]

    In 2008, Pemex expected Cantarell's decline to continue to 2012 and eventually stabilizing at an output level of around 500,000 barrels per day (80,000 m3/d).[6] By September 2009 this figure was already achieved, marking one of the most dramatic declines ever seen in the oil industry"


    The reason is that there is a huge economic incentive to NOT announce that a field will be declining, with all known parties, both private and public, being hurt badly if it became known that a field would be in severe failure in the upcoming years. In short, they had started a nitrogen injection program in 2006, allowing them to extract more heavily at the expense of long-term extraction....but again, all incentives are aligned to do this. No one gets paid or elected from saving a field for 20 years down the line.

    The reality is that the geologists do not understand the long-term effects of some of these techniques for more rapid extraction of an elephant, because they don't have anything to go off of. It is all educated guessing at best.

    If one day the House of Saud announces that production next year will be falling double digits though, put your chin strap on. It would be an economic nuclear bomb. We would recover at higher prices, MUCH higher, but at first it would be a mess.

    The ultimate failure of a "free market", code for allowing aligned capital to do whatever they want to make money THIS quarter, is seen in areas like this, not to mention what happened in 2008 in banking....these all require long-term, patient planning. Acting as if completely self-interested capital should be at the reins of such seismic societal resources is ideological madness. It is common sense that it will be a disaster, as we have evidenced.
    Last edited by TheyCallMeLazarus; 09-24-2013, 09:43 PM.
    "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

    Comment


    • Thank you for that, Laz, and yes, Pemex, not Parabas. So - they did know and kept what they knew secret; and also they did not know how fast it would fail at the end.

      "Acting as if completely self-interested capital should be at the reins of such seismic societal resources is ideological madness." I wonder, if there was no Gov't, or VERY small Gov't, if our lifestyle, economy and production would be so completely dependent on Oil. I don't think so. For over 60 years engineering students, for their graduating thesis, have designed cars that run on a wide variety of sources, such as water - a steam engine. And for all that time Ford or GM have bought up those papers, designs, and buried them. Electric cars are seriously hampered because gas stations have no facilities for recharging them, and the big Oil companies have no plans on adding that. It's very possible, even likely I think, that our economy, society, country, culture would be very different if Gov't hadn't grown so big and controlled so much. And that's true in most countries.

      I agree, it does look like there's disaster ahead. There's no reason to think that our Gov't, Big Corporations, and elites will act any differently. How long do you think we have before the coming oil collapse, a guess, as you have said the figures are not available?
      Last edited by Cryptocode; 09-25-2013, 03:27 PM.
      "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

      Comment


      • I agree with your sentiment entirely....what I would say is that there is no separation between the government and the interests you outlined. They are one and the same. When I read "Big Government", I hear "corporate control of government"....most "bureaucracy" is just thinly-veiled corporate interference into protecting their capital.

        If one could create a real free market, with rules in place to prevent monopolization, and with strict rules that prevent money from running the political process, I am in favor. That would not be difficult. We did it for 200 years in the US, before Reagan.

        Government is steered by corporate interest, and their interest is about the next 3 months alone. If you run a country like that, it will be a disaster. That isn't rocket surgery.

        As for the rest, I don't really like to use the word "collapse", as that implies it will happen quickly and violently. I think it is more like a "new normal", where exceedingly expensive energy becomes just accepted....just as $4 a gallon has gone unnoticed without anyone questioning the fundamentals.

        Within ten years, it will be very obvious that we are in a huge amount of trouble....as my father always used to say "It will be so obvious, even stupid people will know it."
        "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

        Comment


        • Laz, we agree on the effects but perhaps disagree on the causes, or attribute causes differently.

          "If one could create a real free market, with rules in place to prevent monopolization, and with strict rules that prevent money from running the political process, I am in favor. That would not be difficult. We did it for 200 years in the US, before Reagan."

          It sounds like you place the primary blame on the corporations for offering bribes (no matter how legally). I place the blame primarily on the Gov't for accepting the bribes. Two hundred years ago it was considered shameful to 'want' political office, rather the 'people were supposed to actively choose a candidate by acclaim'. Today no one even understands the thought of any shame in wanting political power, and taking bribes to get it. The fact that Fed. and State pols get rich while being in office isn't even commented on, and they all do. Two hundred years ago a man of 30 - 35 who had established his own wealth or income from farming or business would be able to hold office without expecting to be paid, other than bare expenses, or to get rich, and desiring power over others was immoral. (Of course they held this belief while also having slaves.) Today such beliefs are considered somewhere between naïve and foolish.

          Because of the general moral depravity I think no Fed. Gov't preferable, and no enforced customs except 'non-aggression'. Because like everyone else I now have a hard time believing any politician is not out for power and money. Now if a community, town, area wants to make their own rules without enabling the majority to deprive the minority of anything, that would be OK. But I'm not sure that can be done.

          Thanks for the 10 year time guess. That gives us time to prepare.
          Last edited by Cryptocode; 09-25-2013, 06:47 PM.
          "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

          Comment


          • Laz, Please do respond. I really am ignorant of the view that the big corporations are primarily to blame. Yes, they are the ones with the money to spend, but that in itself is not morally wrong, is it? On the other hand, Big Gov't takes in quite a lot of money in taxes, and although that's supposedly a non-profit exercise, spending it does wield a great lot of power.

            I've also been thinking of your hope for the checks and balances of our Constitution to effect a good Gov't. Are you suggesting returning to the limits imposed by the Constitution?
            "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
              LJB's Howard University Commencement speech:

              But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

              You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

              Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

              This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

              For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities--physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.

              To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.
              And yet he was one the worst presidents in us history and one of the worst people
              Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
              Starting Weight: 294 pounds
              Current Weight: 235 pounds
              Goal Weight: 195 pounds

              Comment


              • good speech writer though
                "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                Jack london, "Before Adam"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                  Laz, Please do respond. I really am ignorant of the view that the big corporations are primarily to blame. Yes, they are the ones with the money to spend, but that in itself is not morally wrong, is it? On the other hand, Big Gov't takes in quite a lot of money in taxes, and although that's supposedly a non-profit exercise, spending it does wield a great lot of power.

                  I've also been thinking of your hope for the checks and balances of our Constitution to effect a good Gov't. Are you suggesting returning to the limits imposed by the Constitution?
                  I will try to make this as systematic as I can. It is a VERY complex issue....

                  First of all, let us start with the Constitution and what we were founded on. I have written about this before, both on this forum as well as more academically.

                  The founders were a very combative, diverse group...for this reason, pretty much anytime you hear the words "our founders said", whomever is talking is about to lie to you. Our founders disagreed on pretty much everything. There are only a few basic tenants that they all shared. Chief among this is:

                  -- Property rights and INDIVIDUAL liberty....what I mean is that they were anti-collectivists, all of them. They did not feel that large organizations, be that a monarchy, government, a corporation, or a bank, should be able to override an individual's liberty. Redress of grievances is the mechanism to affect this, through petition or protest. The government must be responsive, and AFRAID of the resolve of, the individuals of the society rising up against them.

                  Against this force, individual liberty, there were 5 forces aligned against it. If one reads anything by the founders, especially Jefferson, the odds are good he is talking about one of these 5 forces and it's dangers. (I can say I have read all published writing of Jefferson. Others I am working on.). In short, there is liberty, what we were founded on, and these 5 forces that we must always fight against.

                  1. The Government itself ---> very obvious, and spoken about all the time today, esp by the right.
                  2. Religion ---> They came from a place where the church could raid your home, take your possessions, or throw you in prison for what you believed. Assuring that the government favored no religion was central to their philosophy.
                  3. Large corporations, banking interests ---> The Boston Tea Party happened because of a tax break given to the biggest business/monopoly of its day, the East India Company. Most colonial businesses were constantly being choked out by British monopolies, so the founders were very leery of big companies. The same went for banking.
                  4. Perpetual war ---> Jefferson felt there was no greater way to enslave a population and ruin the treasury. This is why he opposed to his death a standing army.
                  5. Oligarchy, especially in regards to information ----> The ability of a small group of people to run things, and influence thought through media. This is why the freedom of the press was in the first amendment.

                  What has happened is that we have lost the idea of individual liberty....that is what is usurped by this made-up ideal of a "free market"....and it is the fault of the moneyed elite, more so than the politicians, because of that. In short, the 1950's and Milton Friedman, with all of his contemporaries like Rand, saw the ideal of a "free market" touted like a new kind of religion. That is the part I believe you are missing; that these politicians did not, and DO NOT today, make these decisions that vastly benefit the obscenely wealthy, out of being crooked or to make money themselves....they do it because they honestly believe, as it is now doctrine to believe, that these policies actually aid the country.

                  The idea of the "free market" did not arise out of nowhere. It was heavily promoted and funded by the super-rich as early at the late 40's. Any small amount of research will verify this. Out of the Chicago School of Economics as a sort of paid-for thinktank, it eventually became the official economic policy of the US starting with Nixon, but much more so with Reagan.

                  Under this idea, all organized capital must be given whatever it wants. This led to lobbying in its current form, whereupon interest groups are allowed to influence policy directly, and often to write the laws. (At our founding, this was explicitly illegal, and call by its real name, "bribery") There have literally been people put to death for treason in this country for doing what is now accepted economic/political practice, that being to allow those with monetary interest to write law.

                  The reason this usurps liberty is for the reason I started with; it is a COLLECTIVE entity, a corporation....we were founded on the idea that the collective, in whatever form, may not be allowed to over-ride the individual.

                  Every time a corporation influences government, it is taking the place of the rightful mechanism of change, that being the redress of grievances by the people, from having power. This is theft of liberty, pure and simple.

                  The reason it happens is not because all politicians are corrupt. It is because the elite have branded it, made tv channels and magazines, all from the idea that because an entity has money, it must be allowed to acquire power.....allowing this collective action of a legal entity, a corporation, to override our ability as citizens to influence government, now has a name, the "free market". In short, it is code for allowing the wealthy and to take over the government as a religious-like doctrine. It is genius that they have morphed it into this, and convinced so many of the non-wealthy citizens to give up their own power and turn it over to them, all in the name of so-called "liberty".

                  Of course, not understanding that liberty is an individual attribute. As Jefferson said, there is no such thing as a "free country", only the "souls of the living" can possibly know liberty, by its definition.

                  The wealthy created this idea, funded it, and gradually converted it into actual governmental policy....the chicken came before the egg, so to speak....or in this case, the free market cult came before the corruption. The simple problem with the so-called "big government" is that "we the people" are not in charge of it. We have lost out ability to redress grievances, and most of our problems have this in common. The free market religion has cultivated this robbery of our liberty into a virtue, much to the elite's benefit. Very brilliant.
                  Last edited by TheyCallMeLazarus; 09-27-2013, 09:19 AM.
                  "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                  Comment


                  • I see. Thank you, that is a very clear explanation.

                    How would you go about correcting the current situation?
                    "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

                    Comment


                    • I gotta be honest....that question would take me a book to answer. I am writing one, if that is any help. Fiction, but based on this kind of stuff.
                      "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                        -- Property rights and INDIVIDUAL liberty....what I mean is that they were anti-collectivists, all of them. They did not feel that large organizations, be that a monarchy, government, a corporation, or a bank, should be able to override an individual's liberty. Redress of grievances is the mechanism to affect this, through petition or protest. The government must be responsive, and AFRAID of the resolve of, the individuals of the society rising up against them.
                        I agree that this is important, but the collective must sometimes repress individual liberties if they cause excess damage, such as air, water, and noise pollution. I'm sure you'd agree. Furthermore, this concept of complete and total liberty can slippery slope itself (with the help of a not-so-rational person) into Weitko, as the natives called it. Don't you agree?

                        Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                        What has happened is that we have lost the idea of individual liberty....that is what is usurped by this made-up ideal of a "free market"....and it is the fault of the moneyed elite, more so than the politicians, because of that. In short, the 1950's and Milton Friedman, with all of his contemporaries like Rand, saw the ideal of a "free market" touted like a new kind of religion. That is the part I believe you are missing; that these politicians did not, and DO NOT today, make these decisions that vastly benefit the obscenely wealthy, out of being crooked or to make money themselves....they do it because they honestly believe, as it is now doctrine to believe, that these policies actually aid the country.
                        This is an important point that I agree with. The more I learn about the world, the more I learn that humans are not as complex as we think we are, in nature and in conspiracy.

                        Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                        The reason this usurps liberty is for the reason I started with; it is a COLLECTIVE entity, a corporation....we were founded on the idea that the collective, in whatever form, may not be allowed to over-ride the individual.
                        Protect the individual from the group, but also prevent the individual from causing excessive damage to the group.


                        Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                        The reason it happens is not because all politicians are corrupt. It is because the elite have branded it, made tv channels and magazines, all from the idea that because an entity has money, it must be allowed to acquire power.....allowing this collective action of a legal entity, a corporation, to override our ability as citizens to influence government, now has a name, the "free market". In short, it is code for allowing the wealthy and to take over the government as a religious-like doctrine. It is genius that they have morphed it into this, and convinced so many of the non-wealthy citizens to give up their own power and turn it over to them, all in the name of so-called "liberty".
                        Strong democratic streak here in this paragraph. I like it...


                        Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                        The wealthy created this idea, funded it, and gradually converted it into actual governmental policy....the chicken came before the egg, so to speak....or in this case, the free market cult came before the corruption. The simple problem with the so-called "big government" is that "we the people" are not in charge of it. We have lost out ability to redress grievances, and most of our problems have this in common. The free market religion has cultivated this robbery of our liberty into a virtue, much to the elite's benefit. Very brilliant.
                        I doubt they planned that back in the 1940s, but there is a grain of truth to it. Republicans love them tax breaks to the wealthy. That's exactly what you're describing.

                        My other main disagreement is that this whole concept is the biggest problem in America. How have our liberties gone to hell? I want to understand exactly what you're saying there. I think the change has been within every individual, on average. I don't think the change has only been within a few people in Washington. It's a shift in attitude because life has gotten too easy. I'm sure you remember the thread I started on it. It's not a perfect concept, but I prefer it to your explanation for its simplicity.
                        Last edited by wiltondeportes; 09-28-2013, 04:28 AM.

                        Comment


                        • I believe the #1 problem with the country is very, very simple, and can be put in one sentence:

                          The people do not run their own government. Done.

                          I think that no other problem has much any merit so long as this is the case....I am always amused at how, in a lot of overtly political forums I write in, people act as if their political stripe (right or left, fake "conservative" or liberal) has any hands on the levers of power.

                          They do not. I am all for an argument on where the country should go, left vs right, ONCE the people are actually in control of the government again. Right now, all of this poo-pooing the other side is pointless. Neither side is represented, in truth of policy in significant numbers, by politicians. The entire system is predicated on redress of grievances, and the ability for the populace to alter their government. This, simple as 2 and 2 giving 4, does not happen. Period.

                          I will give a very inflammatory example: Obamacare

                          The left wanted: A single-payer system.
                          The right wanted: Actual competition, with government having no intervention.

                          Understand that neither of these concerns, of different sides of "we the people", was ever discussed.....why? Well, because we have no representatives. Neither side does, in numbers.

                          What WAS decided on, argued over, was this:
                          - Big Pharma allowing the government to negotiate on drug prices was taken off the table immediately.
                          - Healthcare "exchanges", as are currently being setup, will have a set number of established players in them. This is why, in many states, only 3-4 companies are really available. This was written into the law.
                          - Any public option was killed very early on, as it would give the big insurance companies downward pressure. They would have someone that could no collude with, so this was unacceptable.
                          - Getting government out entirely, by no longer allowing for inclusive healthcare networks to be setup, as per a Ron Paul idea, was also taken off the table. This would end "patient funneling", something most private hospitals rely on to make money.
                          - Medicare rates, which steer private insurer rates, must be approved by a committee (HHS) that is knowingly staffed with members bought off by the big insurers.

                          I could keep on going.....in short, WHERE is the concern of the people, right or left, being considered at all?

                          All of those things are simply a tug-of-war over which direction, which industries, will be getting more or less money. It is big industries protecting their investments through their own political coercion....this is the common thread of every law written since about 1980, whether it was NAFTA, Bush's Medicare Part D, or Obamacare.....look at whatever outcome was going to funnel the most money into private hands, and THAT is what got passed, all regardless of party of the President. It is not about ideology, like the powerful would like us to believe.

                          Power doesn't care whether you are conservative or liberal or a communist or an anarchist....you have NO seat at the table. Thank you for keeping everyone distracted though

                          As far as the underlying roots of all of this, and how it got this way, it is assuredly a combination of factors that would take many volumes to describe. Part of it is the insidious nature of economic thought from the past 50 years infiltrating the government, part is what Wilton wrote about....but none of that really matters. We don't have a seat at the table. There are no levers for change, regardless of how you would change it, to the actual citizenry. I cannot imagine a problem greater than that.

                          It's like a joke I heard once:
                          "If you are heading 90mph towards a cliff in a car, it doesn't matter if you want to steer right or left or hit the brakes....because you are in the trunk. You get no say in the matter." - PJ O'Rourke

                          That is where we are, all of us.
                          "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                          Comment


                          • Lazarus, I was also saying that we are losing our spot at the table. I said that citizens gave up their seats at the table, and you said that powerful people took those seats away. Both factors are relevant, and I haven't decided yet which is more important. Regardless, a response:

                            Colluding is human nature. This collusion that we've seen has been more blatant, but can you really say it's far worse now than before? I'm not well read enough to know that answer. What about the first half of the 1900's or the whole 1800's? In a stable system with checks and balances and humans, I would naturally predict periods with greater collusion followed by corrections to the system. The ultimate question is if our system has lost that stability, and speaking on those terms, I understand how difficult that will be to answer. Complex systems are deceptive. But what are you predicting again? I thought you predicted a collapse of society, meaning you think the system has lost stability. Why won't there be a political uprising that spurns positive change, that saves our society?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                              I gotta be honest....that question would take me a book to answer. I am writing one, if that is any help. Fiction, but based on this kind of stuff.
                              Awh Shucks! I agree that fiction has the only capacity for a solution. Any solution in practical reality is impossible.

                              Would you please define, in your own words, 'liberty', 'money', 'currency', and 'private property'. Is money 'private property?

                              Vermont has an open town hall meeting structure of Gov't, I've heard. How does that work?

                              I've asked for your opinion, is it then moral for me to argue against that opinion? Isn't that rather like entrapment?
                              Last edited by Cryptocode; 09-28-2013, 05:14 PM.
                              "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

                              Comment


                              • I enjoy the thoughtful discussion. Most of the internets are full of garbage, idiocy, and boner pills anyway.

                                I will attempt to explain what I believe these terms mean:

                                Liberty: Most acutely answered and defined by Jefferson as "the soul's right to breathe".....I enjoy this definition, because it is at one hand very broad, but on another very specific. First, it defines it as something that is not purely material. In other words, liberty is not being able to go to the store and select from 400 kinds of cereal....it is a mercurial thing that each person must cultivate in themselves. For everyone, the soul desires different things....but he is saying that liberty is the ability to turn that fullest expression of what we want into reality, with government helping to facilitate that as much, and to stop others from intruding on, that ability.....also, it cannot be collective. It is not "our soul's right", but only your own. It is individual.

                                Money, currency: The same thing, to me.....both though represent, at their root, resources being taken in either physical raw material or human labor time.

                                Private property: Everything which you own, or are in the service of paying for by contractual agreement.....the key point to private property, a term essentially invented by John Locke (one of the most influential writers to the Founders), is that it is again an INDIVIDUAL liberty.

                                To really understand it, one has to understand where Locke and the Founders were setting an example from....in England and most of Europe at the time, the common man owned pretty much nothing. It was common for employers to rent out tenements for their workers, so even one's home was not explicitly theirs. One could be made homeless only by losing their job. Land was all owned by the VERY wealthy, hunting completely off limits to common men, as well as owning weapons.

                                Books were often property of the church. Tables were property of your employer or lord of the land you had built on. Your horse was often his also....

                                In the event that you were reasonably wealthy, as many of the founders were, the government (a monarchy, which you had no say in the matters of) could come INTO YOUR HOME anytime they wanted. The church could as well, by force if necessary. All of your possessions could be taken in a moments notice by the King, a land-owner (there were very few), or by a company.

                                In other words, it was a HUGE monarchy-driven oligarchy. There were essentially 3 groups of people: Nobility, land-owners and benefactors of monopolistic businesses (such as the East India Company), and the other 99.99% that had nothing. That is what they were wanting to build against.

                                Private property says that no, again with this word, COLLECTIVE entity can take what is privately mine. It was against the entire European system. As an individual, I am entitled to be able to claim things myself....to add to this, I can own land, own a gun (2nd Amendment), must actually be given a trial (6th), cannot be forced to testify against myself (5th. It was common for English courts to ransom your family or possessions to force you to testify), and I am as an individual entitled to redress of grievances (the whole thing).

                                What has been lost is this basic concept....that a company, bank, government official, should be or could ever know liberty. Businesses cannot have their liberty taken away. They are collective entities, not individuals...and our WHOLE COUNTRY was founder on the idea that the collective (monarch, church, business, president) cannot usurp the individual. We do it time and again to forget this.

                                For example, Citizens United, the recent Supreme Court case, said that to restrict corporations of their right to give unlimited money into political campaigns took away their 1st Amendment rights....never realizing that we were founded on the very idea that collective entities like a corporation are not OWED LIBERTY, only "the souls of the living". The people that founded the US were fleeing a place where the individual, their property rights, ability to actually affect their government, had been totally taken away from them.

                                This is only one example amongst a multitude, because the central idea has been all but forgotten in the US. Even among so called "conservatives", the idea has been completely washed out. It is rare to find someone ever remotely familiar with it, and that is most decidedly NOT an accident....power relies on having collective power. It did not like the idea of individual liberty then, and it does not like it now. For this reason, they have co-opted the word "conservative" to mean someone that believes that only collectives not of the government can steal your liberty. This is juxtaposed to the founders, who all believed, of the very few things they all shared, that any form of collective, be that a church, government, bank, business, or monarch could run rough-shot over one's liberty and property rights. It is truly masterful how it has been done....you don't always have to lie. It is better to just re-define the terms to suit your own needs, which they have done to great affect.

                                As for disagreement, it is all welcome. I write on a lot of political forums and did for years before I ever came here, so I am a veteran at this I may not fight back much though. I usually let my ideas speak for themselves. Fighting is for the insecure.
                                Last edited by TheyCallMeLazarus; 09-28-2013, 08:19 PM.
                                "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X