Bitcoin Forum
November 07, 2024, 01:18:10 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 »
  Print  
Author Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you?  (Read 33773 times)
forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 687
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 16, 2014, 06:21:55 PM
 #741


Very gracious of you, forevernoob. It's hard to find people with enough grace to offer apologies to strangers online. Many pats on the back, you deserve!

Let me assure you though, I am not apolitical. I am very, very political. I am just an equal opportunity asshole, as posters on the Democratic Underground, Daily Paul and Hannity forum will testify. In fact, I am gigantic troll on the Vanguard Forum (those racist supremacists deserve it though).

The thing is, if I accept labels, I have to defend and/or adhere to the parameters of said labels.

If I label myself as a liberal/socialist, I cannot scream in anger at Obama for capitulating to the demands of Congress in keeping Guantanamo open.
If I label myself as a libertarian, I cannot applaud Obama's iron will in preventing the United States from entering into a third war in Syria, despite the insistence of his entire cabinet (including SecState Clinton, SecDefense Panetta, CIA Director Gen. Petraues and CJCS Gen. Dempsey) and the neoncons in Congress (watch this Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing: )
If I label myself as a conservative, I cannot give credit to Obama for presiding over the lowest growth in Federal gov size since the Eisenhower administration.
If I label myself as a Green, I cannot criticize Obama for signing the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

I will be too busy hedging and hemming and hawing my opinions to toe my self-imposed label. By remaining free of such labels, I can stand on my own principles and beliefs. I am certain, you are also not comfortable with the entire political parameters of libertarianism.

I know of libertarians who get ulcers trying to reconcile the idea of child labor into their belief system, just because it fits with the current paleolibertarian zeitgeist.
I also know of fundamentalist conservatives whose conscience is torn asunder as they attempt to deny gays their right to love (interesting read: the love affair of David and Jonathan in the book of Samuel).
I know of liberals who froth in the mouth when it was revealed that Obama ordered the assasination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki (remember the DoJ whitepaper?).

If we are free from the shackles of labels, we are able to develop our own value system instead of relying on party platforms and flavor-of-the-month politicians. I feel insulted whenever someone tells me what I should think and believe in. Don't you feel the same?

Sometimes, I get the impression people are naming their favorite musical genres when speaking about their political beliefs.
Ooh, I'm a fan of techno and house music and I'm a crypto right wing anarchist.
Wow, you're so ordinary. I'm a fan of bluegrass and early Texas blues, and I'm a Jedi-liberal-constitutionalist.

Maybe you haven't noticed but I never outed myself as a libertarian in this thread. I'm not for throwing labels around.
But you cannot be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time.
Socialism uses force and therefor is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.

The OP stated that he made a transition from socialism to libertarianism.
If we didn't have labels there would be no discussion and the OP wouldn't be able to describe the transition.


shawshankinmate37927
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin: The People's Bailout


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
 #742

Oh wait, bitcoin is doing precisely that foir the first time in history!!! I almost forgot!

Well, people did trade amongst themselves without a government established money before they came along and hijacked it, but it has been a while.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."   - Henry Ford
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349


Eadem mutata resurgo


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 08:30:26 PM
 #743

Corporations only have power that is given to them by the state.  Take the power away from the state and the corporations are impotent.  A corporation is nothing more than a legal entity created by the state.

... and their paying customers. Popular consumer and supplier revolt against corporations is effective. People still buy their products voluntarily.

rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 250


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 08:43:21 PM
 #744


Very gracious of you, forevernoob. It's hard to find people with enough grace to offer apologies to strangers online. Many pats on the back, you deserve!

Let me assure you though, I am not apolitical. I am very, very political. I am just an equal opportunity asshole, as posters on the Democratic Underground, Daily Paul and Hannity forum will testify. In fact, I am gigantic troll on the Vanguard Forum (those racist supremacists deserve it though).

The thing is, if I accept labels, I have to defend and/or adhere to the parameters of said labels.

If I label myself as a liberal/socialist, I cannot scream in anger at Obama for capitulating to the demands of Congress in keeping Guantanamo open.
If I label myself as a libertarian, I cannot applaud Obama's iron will in preventing the United States from entering into a third war in Syria, despite the insistence of his entire cabinet (including SecState Clinton, SecDefense Panetta, CIA Director Gen. Petraues and CJCS Gen. Dempsey) and the neoncons in Congress (watch this Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing: )
If I label myself as a conservative, I cannot give credit to Obama for presiding over the lowest growth in Federal gov size since the Eisenhower administration.
If I label myself as a Green, I cannot criticize Obama for signing the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

I will be too busy hedging and hemming and hawing my opinions to toe my self-imposed label. By remaining free of such labels, I can stand on my own principles and beliefs. I am certain, you are also not comfortable with the entire political parameters of libertarianism.

I know of libertarians who get ulcers trying to reconcile the idea of child labor into their belief system, just because it fits with the current paleolibertarian zeitgeist.
I also know of fundamentalist conservatives whose conscience is torn asunder as they attempt to deny gays their right to love (interesting read: the love affair of David and Jonathan in the book of Samuel).
I know of liberals who froth in the mouth when it was revealed that Obama ordered the assasination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki (remember the DoJ whitepaper?).

If we are free from the shackles of labels, we are able to develop our own value system instead of relying on party platforms and flavor-of-the-month politicians. I feel insulted whenever someone tells me what I should think and believe in. Don't you feel the same?

Sometimes, I get the impression people are naming their favorite musical genres when speaking about their political beliefs.
Ooh, I'm a fan of techno and house music and I'm a crypto right wing anarchist.
Wow, you're so ordinary. I'm a fan of bluegrass and early Texas blues, and I'm a Jedi-liberal-constitutionalist.

1. Maybe you haven't noticed but I never outed myself as a libertarian in this thread. I'm not for throwing labels around.[/b]
2. But you cannot be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time. [/b]
Socialism uses force and therefor is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.

The OP stated that he made a transition from socialism to libertarianism.
3. If we didn't have labels there would be no discussion and the OP wouldn't be able to describe the transition.



1. You didn't, did you? Noted.
2. One can have values that encompass aspects of both libertarianism and socialism if one does not create restrictive labels.
3. If we didn't have labels, OP doesn't need to transition between labels at all.

I only have one label. I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

ps: Rereading my earlier comment, I may have given the impression that the last couple of paragraphs was directed at you. It wasn't. I'm sorry if you were offended.

practicaldreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 08:51:48 PM
Last edit: October 16, 2014, 09:09:48 PM by practicaldreamer
 #745

I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).


What - this kind of cool you mean ?




forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 687
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 16, 2014, 09:30:30 PM
 #746

2. One can have values that encompass aspects of both libertarianism and socialism if one does not create restrictive labels.
3. If we didn't have labels, OP doesn't need to transition between labels at all.

I only have one label. I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

2. Are you referring to the NAP being restrictive? I agree it is restrictive but in a good way. No force should be used ever. How is that bad?
3. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I think that's stupid. That's like saying we should never say black people just people.

Generalization is bad, and "black people" is often used in such a context. But sometimes it isn't for example if you want to describe the history of blues music you might say:
"Blues music originated from black musicians in the deep south"

In the same way ideologies are easier to describe if you have labels as a reference point.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Don't get me wrong I hate labels but we cannot erase them completely it just wouldn't work.

rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 250


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 09:56:55 PM
 #747



2. One can have values that encompass aspects of both libertarianism and socialism if one does not create restrictive labels.
3. If we didn't have labels, OP doesn't need to transition between labels at all.

I only have one label. I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

2. Are you referring to the NAP being restrictive? I agree it is restrictive but in a good way. No force should be used ever. How is that bad?
3. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I think that's stupid. That's like saying we should never say black people just people.

Generalization is bad, and "black people" is often used in such a context. But sometimes it isn't for example if you want to describe the history of blues music you might say:
"Blues music originated from black musicians in the deep south"

In the same way ideologies are easier to describe if you have labels as a reference point.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Don't get me wrong I hate labels but we cannot erase them completely it just wouldn't work.


2. NAP is one aspect of libertarianism. I was speaking on the absolute parameters of both labels as a whole. Besides, NAP is not necessarily as clear a delineator as you might imagine.
3. To each his own then - though pigmentation is a biological classification. Entirely different from political, or, psychological labels, or Cosmo labels (Are you a Carrie, Samantha, Miranda or Charlotte?).

Well, at least I now know you hate labels. That's something I suppose. This exchange has gone on for far too long, I think. I'll exit here.

rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 250


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 09:57:18 PM
 #748


I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).


What - this kind of cool you mean ?






You have a problem with my shell suit, fella? Well do you?
Quick, someone hold me.

Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 16, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
 #749

Regarding the "anti-labels" argument, I dislike this argument very much. Those labels do have meaning in that they represent where you fall on this:



For example, I identify as a social-anarchist, and when I take the test I fall almost on the absolute bottom left (collectivist) corner. Libertarians, by contrast, fall somewhere in the bottom right quadrant (neo-liberals).

If you're interested, you can take the test here and see for yourself where your values place your politics.


P.S.
All you libertarians should consider reading the very excellent book, A brief history of neo-liberalism.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 250


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 12:46:55 AM
Last edit: October 17, 2014, 01:35:41 AM by rugrats
 #750

Regarding the "anti-labels" argument, I dislike this argument very much. Those labels do have meaning in that they represent where you fall on this:



For example, I identify as a social-anarchist, and when I take the test I fall almost on the absolute bottom left (collectivist) corner. Libertarians, by contrast, fall somewhere in the bottom right quadrant (neo-liberals).

If you're interested, you can take the test here and see for yourself where your values place your politics.


P.S.
All you libertarians should consider reading the very excellent book, A brief history of neo-liberalism.

I've already expressed my views here, here, here, here,here and here, Beliathon, so I don't feel like revisiting the subject.
Labels invariably escalate into personality conflicts, pitting protagonists and their supporters into warring camps at the expense of the issues.
Non-empirical metrics like the one you linked, meanwhile, use leading questions to pigeonhole us into convenient labels.
So no, I absolutely don't believe in labels.

Edit:
Just checked - the POlitical Compass is prepared by this guy - a BBC journalist with theatrical aspirations, and financed by this lady. The site also placed Mitt Romney and Bibi Netanyahu in the same quadrant (!). Obama and Manmohan Singh also shares the same quadrant. That aside, I simply can't accept their evaluation of Romney.

The FAQ states that
"How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We rely on reports, parliamentary voting records, manifestos … and actions that speak much louder than words."
Romney only transformed into a right wing conservative fundamentalist in 2012. Prior to that, especially during his term as Gov. of Massachusetts, he was a liberal in all but name. He pushed through the first state-level socialized healthcare system in the country. As Governor, he was pro-choice, pro-LGBT (he even gave an executive order for state agencies to recognize same sex marriages), he favored progressive taxation (and initially, even opposed the Bush tax cuts), he believed in the threat of climate change, he included farming subsidies in his state budget - I could go on. And yet, based on 2012 campaign rhetoric,the site pegged him to be a hawkish right-winger in the mold of Bibi.  Grin

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3962
Merit: 1382


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 10:12:51 AM
 #751

Some of the words that describe what politicians say when they speak are:

deceit
deception
dishonesty
disinformation
distortion
evasion
fabrication
falsehood
fiction
forgery
inaccuracy

misrepresentation
myth
perjury
slander
tale
aspersion
backbiting
calumniation
calumny
defamation
detraction

fable
falseness
falsification
falsity
fib
fraudulence
guile
hyperbole
invention
libel
mendacity

misstatement
obloquy
prevarication
revilement
reviling
subterfuge
vilification
whopper
tall story

Sombody wanted to include "white lie," but that isn't really appropriate. "Black lie" would be.

Smiley

Covid is snake venom. Dr. Bryan Ardis https://thedrardisshow.com/ - Search on 'Bryan Ardis' at these links https://www.bitchute.com/, https://www.brighteon.com/, https://rumble.com/, https://banned.video/.
practicaldreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 10:39:20 AM
 #752

You missed out "bullshit".
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3962
Merit: 1382


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 11:15:13 AM
 #753

You missed out "bullshit".

Sorry!

 Smiley

Covid is snake venom. Dr. Bryan Ardis https://thedrardisshow.com/ - Search on 'Bryan Ardis' at these links https://www.bitchute.com/, https://www.brighteon.com/, https://rumble.com/, https://banned.video/.
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2014, 01:49:40 PM
Last edit: October 17, 2014, 02:00:57 PM by Beliathon
 #754

People are largely constructed by capitalism. Their opinions are largely constructed by capitalist media, which will always denounce anything not in the economic interests of the owners, managers and clients of the capitalist media.

Actions against the interest of capitalists will therefore never gain popularity until the flow of capital is disrupted and capitalist normality is disrupted. This is why the internet has been so disruptive and why they are fighting so desperately to gain control over it by destroying net neutrality.

To all my younger readers: This is why your parents' and grandparents' generations seem so much more obedient, brainwashed, and stupid than your own. They grew up in the age of centrally-controlled media (radio & TV). You didn't. It's all unraveling now, and there's no saving it. The truth cannot be stopped.

To everyone else: They built your mind since you were a child. It's your responsibility to unmake yourself from their lies and rebuild your mind on a foundation of radical truth. This will be difficult and painful, yes. But essential, you deserve to live in reality.






Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4746
Merit: 1277


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 05:54:54 PM
 #755

...
To all my younger readers: This is why your parents' and grandparents' generations seem so much more obedient, brainwashed, and stupid than your own. They grew up in the age of centrally-controlled media (radio & TV). You didn't. It's all unraveling now, and there's no saving it. The truth cannot be stopped.
...

What-huh?  The only group I see actually doing real things are the older generations.  The concept of actually doing something for oneself is so alien that there it is not even considered in the myriad of advice and regulations that our ballooning bureaucracy generates.  Want to dig a hole for some reason?  The DEQ's advice is to "Hire an experienced contractor."

The only people I see with their own equipment, machine shops, radio gear, etc are the older generation.  I was able to build a cable car mostly because it was such an outrageous off-the-wall idea that nobody thought to make regulations about it.  Back in the 40's when the country bridge collapsed a private citizen who needed to use it (for his small sawmill) just re-built the fucking thing and had it done in less than a week.  Back around the turn of the century a small group of locals decided they would like a road over down a shear 200 foot cliff.  They bought some dynamite, lowered themselves down on ropes, and built the damn thing.  When they got it working the country paid them some money though they did loan them some drills to do the work.  These things would be simply inconceivable today both for red-tape reasons and because the American people have become, as a group, lame and weak.

One of the government's chief goals is to get people on the dole and dependent on the corp/gov state and they are reasonably good at it.  This is the basic prerequisite for Socialism and central planning, and it serves the corporate and the government very well.  Both are active in the project.  I agree with you that the problem is partially attributable to "centrally-controlled media (radio & TV)", but I see it as being almost totally directed toward furthering goals with serve Socialist aspirations much better than Libertarian ones.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
practicaldreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 06:00:07 PM
Last edit: October 17, 2014, 06:28:00 PM by practicaldreamer
 #756

 I was able to build a cable car mostly because it was such an outrageous off-the-wall idea that nobody thought to make regulations about it.  Back in the 40's when the country bridge collapsed a private citizen who needed to use it (for his small sawmill) just re-built the fucking thing and had it done in less than a week.  Back around the turn of the century a small group of locals decided they would like a road over down a shear 200 foot cliff.  They bought some dynamite, lowered themselves down on ropes, and built the damn thing.  

Calums Road

ps. I reckon a big part of your beef is with bureaucracy tvb.
spiceminer15
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 17, 2014, 06:04:00 PM
 #757

libertarianism is where its at.

anyone who believes they should be able to steal from other people through government is a scumbag
spiceminer15
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 17, 2014, 06:05:45 PM
 #758

The state is not a creation of the corporations.  Corporations are a creation of the state.  Corporations derive their power from the state.
Corporations derive their power from money.
The state derives it's power from money, indoctrination of masses, and monopoly on legitimized violence. If you remove the state from the equation but leave capitalism in place, all of a sudden there is no state monopoly on violence. That means violence will be sold to the highest bidder: the corporations.

Corporations, endowed with this new power - the ability to wield violence as sovereign nations once did - will quickly work to monopolize this violence and prevent citizens from wielding it. The result would be fascism and probably mass slavery and/or genocide.

The solution is to take away the state's authority to initiate the use of force and make all interaction and exchange voluntary.
The only way to truly make all interaction and exchange voluntary is to live in a world totally without violence. A world governed by reason and reason alone. This is not at all compatible with capitalism, which necessitates systematic violence as a prerequisite for its existence.

The path to a world governed by reason is providing the essentials for survival to all human beings as a birthright, and then allowing us to compete for everything else (luxuries and such). That means decent food, shelter, healthcare, and education must be provided to all human beings FREE, not one person excluded.

totally clueless.

you have a choice whether you want to buy a companies product or not. with government you have no choice.

who is going to provide the essentials for survival of all humans? government? who are they going to steal it from to give it to someone else? are they going to use violence to steal this wealth? are men with guns going to kill people who resist?

what you're saying is people should have to give something they earned to someone else, or else your thugs with guns are going to come kill them?
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
October 18, 2014, 12:04:54 AM
 #759

Beliathon cant objectively explain or define capitalism without regressing into meaningless pejoratives and circular reasoning.  At least I havent seen it.  So without clear defintions, you cant discuss intelligently. Sorry but its true.

Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2014, 12:53:54 AM
 #760

Beliathon cant objectively explain or define capitalism without regressing into meaningless pejoratives and circular reasoning.  At least I havent seen it.  So without clear defintions, you cant discuss intelligently. Sorry but its true.

One reason that radical capitalism, what some of you may erroneously refer to as "anarcho"-capitalism, has won the hearts of so many is that it is highly plausible; it sounds great. A world of abstract morality where the anonymous ‘market’ expertly and without pity, favoritism or error decides the ultimate value of goods and services and delivers those goods and services with maximum efficiency, the highest good. A world where shared ownership shifts corporate responsibility to a plebiscite to which the corporation answers; the interests of the shareholders will echo the interests of humanity. A world where capital flows continuously from the corporate class back to the entrepreneurial class, endlessly cycling value into new innovations that serve humanity.

Hell, I’ve almost convinced myself!

Each of those assertions is not just false, but diametrically opposed to reality. And reality is all we have left.

The Truth Within the Lie

While each of these assertions is false, each has some kernel of truth or potential for truth that tethers radical capitalism to reality enough for many people to overlook the obvious flaws and falsehoods in this religion, er, approach to economics.

So with the market’s ability to assess values, it’s true that a broad, robust, well-managed market can do this thing. But our current leveraged, opaque, unmanaged markets do just the opposite, as evidenced by the series of economic bubbles that have ruined our economy.

A hardcore radical capitalist intellectual would point out that, despite the bubble a true value was eventually determined. I would counter that a bubble can only exist when significant market players facilitate transactions that they KNOW to be badly valued. And I don’t mean once, I mean tens of thousands of times.

If a market can be manipulated, no price can be trusted. Nothing has any value.

Again, it is true that markets seek efficiency – stone cold truth. The mythical part is that efficiency is the highest good. In reality, efficiency is a dangerous, brittle approach prone to catastrophic failure. The opposite of efficiency is not inefficiency; the opposite is resilience.

Surely though, the broad base of shareholders can anchor corporate behavior within the framework of human betterment. Surely enough humans have the strength of character to say “no” to those practices that endanger employees or put our environment at risk.

I have no doubt that most humans have the broader human interest in their hearts. It’s just that “the shareholders” aren’t humans. The shareholders are other corporations. The idea that Johnny Puterbox’s 184 shares of GE somehow give him decision-making authority is laughable. Those votes count for nothing compared with the millions of votes the institutional investors get. And besides, it’s not like the board of directors has to do what the shareholders say. The directors do what they think is in the best interest of the shareholders, regardless of what the shareholders say.

If you did not know this, the current state of corporate boards of directors can best be described as the most expensive circle-jerk in the history of the species.

That leaves us with the capital itself. All that money soaked up by the institutions through all those bubbles, on top of all of those cynical transactions, after all that “value” has been wrung out of companies through the magic of profits…doesn’t that go to fuel the next wave of innovation, the new jobs?

For me, this is the piece de resistance of radical capitalism. A preposterous lie, transparent on the face of it and never once challenged on the basis of data. If this were true, no state, local and even now federal government would ever risk a dollar of taxpayer money on seed funds, loan guarantees or tax abatements. NEVAH! And yet any government that can find the money is putting into the venture space.

Here’s how we know that radical capitalist are cynical liars – every one of them knows that as wealth increase, the appetite for risk decreases proportionally. When money gets big, it gets notoriously skittish, fearing everything and seeking the safe haven. Big money is why bonds are selling like risk-avoidance crack. 0.25%…? SOLD! Only a microscopic portion of amassed wealth gets reinvested in the economy.

Occupy Reality

Right now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash. Oh, they’d help you out with your economy and all, but they’re a-scared. They’re worried that if they gave some of that money to the government in taxes they wouldn’t have it anymore.

And if they loaned some to you for your company, there’s a slight chance that they wouldn’t get 100% of the value they anticipated based on the amortized payment scheme in which you end up paying them far more than they actually lent you and they can’t not get 100% of anticipated revenue because they would already have leveraged 100% of the anticipated revenue 40:1 against corn futures.

But your landscaping business represents a serious risk. So they’ll just wait it out while you die. They have to look out for the shareholders.

This country needs to learn, once and for all, that capitalism is not perfect and that radical capitalism is destructive. Markets, trade, money, all the normal stuff is generally fine, but the special status afforded the Too Big to Fail club puts them beyond the law yet dependent on government to save them when they’ve gone too far. They get all the speech rights of an individual, only their speech is money and they have pretty much all of that.

This, my friends, is called “tyranny”. And it has got to go.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!