Moving beyond money

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

both movements at their core are concerned about unjustified power

 

tea party- hates corporate welfare/fed, wants a friedman free market

 

occupy- hates corporate welfare/fed, wants to democratize finance/corporations....

 

again, free markets with contract law or democratic institutions...

 

it's the same debate...

Edited October 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[OCinBuffalo]

both movements at their core are concerned about unjustified power

 

tea party- hates corporate welfare/fed, wants a friedman free market

 

occupy- hates corporate welfare/fed, wants to democratize finance/corporations....

 

again, free markets with contract law or democratic institutions...

 

it's the same debate...

Perhaps...but the methods of achieving these are a lot different. So are the end results.

 

I don't know about you, but I favor freedom and liberty....over Fascism and having every aspect of my life determined by some social science major, or a committee of them...who now works for the Fascist government OWS has installed, because that's the only job they are qualified to do.

 

I mean...if you carry the stated methods and objectives of both groups to their conclusion....that's what you get. Just ask any OWS person(if you can find one)...and they will tell you that they will do...whatever "the committee" decides. Yeah...not Fascist at all.

 

Then, ask a Tea Party member about freedom.

[Pete]

both movements at their core are concerned about unjustified power

 

tea party- hates corporate welfare/fed, wants a friedman free market

 

occupy- hates corporate welfare/fed, wants to democratize finance/corporations....

 

again, free markets with contract law or democratic institutions...

 

it's the same debate...

bingo. Thank you for making my point. The occupy and tea party movements are in agreement on most. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!

[Nanker]

Bull ****! The Tea Party wants to revisit the American Revolution.

The OWS movement wants to revisit the French Revolution.

 

There's a HUGE difference and if you can't recognize it go back to reading People magazine.

[Pete]

Bull ****! The Tea Party wants to revisit the American Revolution.

The OWS movement wants to revisit the French Revolution.

 

There's a HUGE difference and if you can't recognize it go back to reading People magazine.

You do know the biggest unsung hero (and perhaps the biggest American hero ever) of the American Revolution was also responsible for the French revolution. His philosophies shaped America and he felt all men should be free. Please don't tell me you are another American that does not know his history, nor geography. Who am I referring to? And there is a linear continuation between the American and French revolutions.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Perhaps...but the methods of achieving these are a lot different. So are the end results.

 

I don't know about you, but I favor freedom and liberty....over Fascism and having every aspect of my life determined by some social science major, or a committee of them...who now works for the Fascist government OWS has installed, because that's the only job they are qualified to do.

 

I mean...if you carry the stated methods and objectives of both groups to their conclusion....that's what you get. Just ask any OWS person(if you can find one)...and they will tell you that they will do...whatever "the committee" decides. Yeah...not Fascist at all.

 

Then, ask a Tea Party member about freedom.

 

i agree sorta. some freedoms makes sense individually, like the bill of rights, others makes sense collectively, because your decisions affect others...

[OCinBuffalo]

i agree sorta. some freedoms makes sense individually, like the bill of rights, others makes sense collectively, because your decisions affect others...

But they are not equivalent. Freedom is both the higher and the better idea, and here's why:

 

Because we are free, I can form a corporation with friends. We agree to work as a collective, and share the profits equally, for now. Because we are free, we also could have given each guy a different share of the company, based on what they bring to it. Uh oh, trouble: one of my friends isn't holding up his end, but, we can't just kick him out. Because we are free, but also subject to the rule of law, we have to follow the law. If we do in fact --vote-- to approve a buy-out of my friend, we can boot him, but at least we send him on his way with his...real..."fair share". We can't just rip him off, because it's best for the collective. Similarly if the collective we've formed isn't working out, because we are free, we can dissolve it any time we want....or reorganize it, take on new people, etc.

 

See? Corporations ARE people.

 

Now, take everything I said....and in a collectivist society, turn it upside down. You aren't free, so you can't dissolve the collective and start over/modify it. That's because we are collective first, and free second, such as in Europe, or not free at all = Russia. Once a corporation is formed, and hires people, you can't fire them. The first people to get the shaft are always the shareholders, so unless you really have a good reason, there's no point in starting a new corporation. From the example above, I can't fire my buddy, and it's cost prohibitive for us to try to toss him out of the corporation.

 

In fact that's the recurring theme in a collectivist, then free, society. It's not so much that you can't do things, as it is the process is sooo expensive, and the government has put in so many regulations, that you are prevented from doing them by default, because you run out of money, patience, or both.

 

We can't dissolve corporations, or government entities without a massive national push to do so. But, the flip side of that = if there is a massive national push to do something stupid, since collective's "rights" are always valued over individual rights, that stupid thing will be done, no matter what.

 

These LCD collectives...are no different than the Roman mob...or the French Revolution mob. No accountability and thinking only in base terms, appeals to the lowest common denominator(LCD, get it?). Therefore the mob is run by the LCD. As with the Ceasers....and liberal politicians of today...the mob is easily placated by handouts, because the mob, whose thinking is also LCD, is only concerned about today.

 

Do you see the limitation here? Because we are free, for now, and much more so after Romney wins, our corporations have the ability to adapt, adjust and overcome competition, and other external challenges, as they present. The collectivist society will always lag behind in it's adaptability, if it can adapt at all: see Greece.

 

The mob in Greece is making it impossible to do the right things right, in a timely fashion. The rights of the mob, because there are no individual rights, mean it's OK burn and loot, and destroy the country's financial future....because the LCD is in charge. And, the only people who will get elected...are those who promise the mob handouts.

 

Freedom, if nothing else, keeps us safe from the LCD being in charge, of anything. Freedom is the superior approach, it's undeniable.

 

See, the simple fact is: Americans of today are 200 years removed from the mob. Our founding fathers were 0 years removed from the mob, because all they had to do was visit Europe to find it. Thus, our founding fathers had a healthy respect for the danger of the mob and chose freedom as he best way to destroy that danger. Some people in this country, um, 30 year old college students = LCD, want to turn this country over to the mob. OWS is the mob. You got to see what the mob looks like.

 

The choice as to whether to support them, or freedom, is up to you.

Edited October 5, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

But they are not equivalent. Freedom is both the higher and the better idea, and here's why:

 

Because we are free, I can form a corporation with friends. We agree to work as a collective, and share the profits equally, for now. Because we are free, we also could have given each guy a different share of the company, based on what they bring to it. Uh oh, trouble: one of my friends isn't holding up his end, but, we can't just kick him out. Because we are free, but also subject to the rule of law, we have to follow the law. If we do in fact --vote-- to approve a buy-out of my friend, we can boot him, but at least we send him on his way with his...real..."fair share". We can't just rip him off, because it's best for the collective. Similarly if the collective we've formed isn't working out, because we are free, we can dissolve it any time we want....or reorganize it, take on new people, etc.

 

See? Corporations ARE people.

 

Now, take everything I said....and in a collectivist society, turn it upside down. You aren't free, so you can't dissolve the collective and start over/modify it. That's because we are collective first, and free second, such as in Europe, or not free at all = Russia.

Once a corporation is formed, and hires people, you can't fire them.

The first people to get the shaft are always the shareholders, so unless you really have a good reason, there's no point in starting a new corporation. From the example above, I can't fire my buddy, and it's cost prohibitive for us to try to toss him out of the corporation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact that's the recurring theme in a collectivist, then free, society. It's not so much that you can't do things, as it is the process is sooo expensive, and the government has put in so many regulations, that you are prevented from doing them by default, because you run out of money, patience, or both.

 

We can't dissolve corporations, or government entities without a massive national push to do so. But, the flip side of that = if there is a massive national push to do something stupid, since collective's "rights" are always valued over individual rights, that stupid thing will be done, no matter what.

 

These LCD collectives...are no different than the Roman mob...or the French Revolution mob. No accountability and thinking only in base terms, appeals to the lowest common denominator(LCD, get it?). Therefore the mob is run by the LCD. As with the Ceasers....and liberal politicians of today...the mob is easily placated by handouts, because the mob, whose thinking is also LCD, is only concerned about today.

 

Do you see the limitation here? Because we are free, for now, and much more so after Romney wins, our corporations have the ability to adapt, adjust and overcome competition, and other external challenges, as they present. The collectivist society will always lag behind in it's adaptability, if it can adapt at all: see Greece.

 

The mob in Greece is making it impossible to do the right things right, in a timely fashion. The rights of the mob, because there are no individual rights, mean it's OK burn and loot, and destroy the country's financial future....because the LCD is in charge. And, the only people who will get elected...are those who promise the mob handouts.

 

Freedom, if nothing else, keeps us safe from the LCD being in charge, of anything. Freedom is the superior approach, it's undeniable.

 

See, the simple fact is: Americans of today are 200 years removed from the mob. Our founding fathers were 0 years removed from the mob, because all they had to do was visit Europe to find it. Thus, our founding fathers had a healthy respect for the danger of the mob and chose freedom as he best way to destroy that danger. Some people in this country, um, 30 year old college students = LCD, want to turn this country over to the mob. OWS is the mob. You got to see what the mob looks like.

 

The choice as to whether to support them, or freedom, is up to you.

 

ok, thats a good point. nowhere do i think, people should be able to not work, or cause many problems, and not be fired. the 1st premise in any co-op is obviously you have to work. and markets work from there. your work, effort, personality, etc are evaluated by others. if you are a dick, never show up to work, are always late, well, the group will vote you out. and if the group is really big, then elected reps can evaluate that decision. so yeah, 1st premise, atleast in my book, nobody just gets a free ride.

 

secondly, some collective action is needed, because we simply cannot do everything with our group or as an individual. we need courts, we need force to deal with certain contracts, we need a military, roads, police, etc etc etc. and that obviously implies taxes. your individual freedom, is dependent on the collective. ( there is simply no way around this). hobbes social contract, blah blah... from what i understand. feel free to correct me, but im pretty sure we need this very basic foundation of govt in order for a political system to work. yes the reps would be elected.

 

if you want to debate capitalism vs democratic socialism, thats fine. but capitalism does not equal a free market imo. ( i could be wrong of course)

Edited October 5, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[CosmicBills]

 

See? Corporations ARE people.

 

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

 

from what i understand, he thinks because it has people, they are acting like people. nevermind no democracy or market forces making them make decisions that are sometimes inhumane...

Edited October 5, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[OCinBuffalo]

ok, thats a good point. nowhere do i think, people should be able to not work, or cause many problems, and not be fired. the 1st premise in any co-op is obviously you have to work. and markets work from there. your work, effort, personality, etc are evaluated by others. if you are a dick, never show up to work, are always late, well, the group will vote you out. and if the group is really big, then elected reps can evaluate that decision. so yeah, 1st premise, atleast in my book, nobody just gets a free ride.

 

secondly, some collective action is needed, because we simply cannot do everything with our group or as an individual. we need courts, we need force to deal with certain contracts, we need a military, roads, police, etc etc etc. and that obviously implies taxes. your individual freedom, is dependent on the collective. ( there is simply no way around this). hobbes social contract, blah blah... from what i understand. feel free to correct me, but im pretty sure we need this very basic foundation of govt in order for a political system to work. yes the reps would be elected.

 

if you want to debate capitalism vs democratic socialism, thats fine. but capitalism does not equal a free market imo. ( i could be wrong of course)

What motivation is there, for anyone, to be effective, never mind efficient or just showing up, if they know that they won't be rewarded properly for it, AND, that they won't be punished for being ineffective? I mean, have you been to the DMV? Yes, we have to have a DMV, and it has to be a collective. But, does it have to be a centrally-planned entity, run by the LCD? Are the current tactics, organizational structure and business processes of the DMV...the only way to do it? Sure we need to have collective entities...but that does not = there's only one way to do it. It certainly doesn't mean that we should lose our freedom to remove or modify that entity...because a political party wants to derive campaign funds and votes from it in perpetuity.

 

In fact, "one-size-fits-all", and "only one way to do it"...are the most anti-American concepts there are. Did you miss the iPhone? What the big deal? We had a massive, pervasive platform in the Microsoft Mobile/.Net operating system for smart phones. Why didn't we just stick with that? It met all of the requirements. There was nothing wrong with it. Why didn't everybody just conform? After all, Microsoft people did the thinking, and many of them have multiple masters degrees. Why wasn't a small group of smart people doing the thinking for everybody no good enough? That OS/platform could have lasted 45 years...just like Medicare. Why did all these people want the freedom to do something else?

Hehehehe. I see my intentional hook...got a fish. Man, if it was just a little easier...it wouldn't be as amusing, and not worth doing.

 

It never fails to amaze me how often...in these long posts which are never read because they are too long...somebody picks out something in the middle of them to comment about. And, yeah, its purely an accident that I stick things like that in the middle.

from what i understand, he thinks because it has people, they are acting like people. nevermind no democracy or market forces making them make decisions that are sometimes inhumane...

You know, it's funny, in my dealings, with now 56, Fortune 500 companies I've never met this nebulous entity whose name is "corporation".

 

No. I've met this guy named Bob, right after meeting his assistant Mary. (Bob/Mary are far and away the most likely names I encounter...) Bob has a wife, kids, and a real set of problems, which Bob is asking me to help solve....because if they aren't, Bob ain't paying for his kid's college. Bob has a boss, or Bob is the boss, and Bob always has people that work for him, about which he almost always is genuinely concerned.

 

He is concerned, because Bob made a series of promises, to both himself and his people, and the people that hired Bob, the board and shareholders, that he knows not only WTF he is doing, but, that he knows how the F to do it. Bob is usually worried about himself, sure, but not as much as he is worried about backing up those promises. He is loyal to his people, often to a fault, and genuinely pleased when they succeed.

 

That's because...Bob is a person. A human being, who has human being dreams and fears. I meet a Bob about 80% of the time.

 

There's an interesting book about liberals and cliches, and how cliches allow them to avoid thinking. I would argue, that it also means that they get to avoid talking to the real people, and replace them with the cliche: generals, officers, and soldiers in the military, and it certainly allows them to avoid talking to Bob. They wouldn't consider talking to Mary. After all Mary has no power, right? Power is what liberals care about, they just use Mary's "plight" to gain it. That's why they don't last long in my business.

 

I buy Mary lunch once a week. Because she is also a person, in the corporation, who also has human being dreams and fears, and she has more power than you can possibly imagine...especially when it comes to scheduling meetings. The person in charge of the conference room schedule is no joke.

[TakeYouToTasker]

A corporation is a legal entity designed for the purpose of limiting the legal and financial liability of the people who work for it, and the people who own it. It, in and of itself, is not a person.

[Pete]

14th ammendment thoughtfully intended for free slaves rights but stolen by corporations for their own nefarious objectives

Edited October 9, 2012 by Pete

[3rdnlng]

A corporation is a legal entity designed for the purpose of limiting the legal and financial liability of the people who work for it, and the people who own it. It, in and of itself, is not a person.

 

So, since a corporation is just a legal status backed up by some ink and paper, it can't take on some onerous personality. Greedy, corrupt, dishonest and polluting are not traits that can be attributed to a corporation. The OWS, Green Party people, and far lefties have thus lost a great deal of targets, leaving them free to further work on reducing the size of sugary drinks and the amount trans fats. Thanks alot.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

So, since a corporation is just a legal status backed up by some ink and paper, it can't take on some onerous personality. Greedy, corrupt, dishonest and polluting are not traits that can be attributed to a corporation. The OWS, Green Party people, and far lefties have thus lost a great deal of targets, leaving them free to further work on reducing the size of sugary drinks and the amount trans fats. Thanks alot.

This is atleast partially correct. The people who run the corporations ultimately do wind up doing many nefarious things, that were they not protected by corporate personhood (and the federal bailout culture) would land them in prison and destroy them financially. Those individuals, having vast resources at their disposal and being absolved of proportional concequences for their actions, often fall prey to the phenomenon that is moral hazard and make decisions that they would not otherwise without their federally granted legal protections. For that reason I believe that corporations, as they exist today, are ill conceived and ultimately detrimental to society at large. This is not that fault of the corporation, however. Much as Frankenstein's monster was not at fault for the nature of it's existence. The fault for the flaws inherent to corporations lie squarely at the feet of their creator, the federal government.

[3rdnlng]

This is atleast partially correct. The people who run the corporations ultimately do wind up doing many nefarious things, that were they not protected by corporate personhood (and the federal bailout culture) would land them in prison and destroy them financially. Those individuals, having vast resources at their disposal and being absolved of proportional concequences for their actions, often fall prey to the phenomenon that is moral hazard and make decisions that they would not otherwise without their federally granted legal protections. For that reason I believe that corporations, as they exist today, are ill conceived and ultimately detrimental to society at large. This is not that fault of the corporation, however. Much as Frankenstein's monster was not at fault for the nature of it's existence. The fault for the flaws inherent to corporations lie squarely at the feet of their creator, the federal government.

[3rdnlng]

This is atleast partially correct. The people who run the corporations ultimately do wind up doing many nefarious things, that were they not protected by corporate personhood (and the federal bailout culture) would land them in prison and destroy them financially. Those individuals, having vast resources at their disposal and being absolved of proportional concequences for their actions, often fall prey to the phenomenon that is moral hazard and make decisions that they would not otherwise without their federally granted legal protections. For that reason I believe that corporations, as they exist today, are ill conceived and ultimately detrimental to society at large. This is not that fault of the corporation, however. Much as Frankenstein's monster was not at fault for the nature of it's existence. The fault for the flaws inherent to corporations lie squarely at the feet of their creator, the federal government.

 

 

So, I post a mocking response to your post (even though it was technically correct) and you expose your leftist owned vagina? You are either the most awkward expressing dipschit here on this board or one of the Team Pathetic, playing more games.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So, I post a mocking response to your post (even though it was technically correct) and you expose your leftist owned vagina? You are either the most awkward expressing dipschit here on this board or one of the Team Pathetic, playing more games.

I see... So you, who have roughly the same IQ as a lobotomized Kardashian, have decided to mock a statement that is observably true, and therefore have demonstrated a flaw in my logic?

 

Or maybe it's because you're so bogged down in the false dichotomy of American politics that you can't see past your laughable "Red People vs. Blue People" meme...

 

Regardless, I'll look past your silliness and simply ask you several simple questions which even you should be able to answer:

 

Which part of my above statement is incorrect?

 

Was is that corporations aren't people, but rather are legal entities?

Was it that the people who run corporations enjoy various financial and criminal protections through the incorporation of the companies they work for?

Was it that a lack of purportional consequences to percieved potential rewards creates an environment prone to moral hazard?

Was it that the Federal government created corporations?

 

If you'd like to argue in favor of the legal protections that corporate personhood grants, and in favor of Federal bailouts; go for it. I'll be looking forward to engaging you. However if you're simply stating that my unwillingness to toe the Big Government, neo-mercantilist, Republican line somehow makes me unthinking and incorrect than you're quite possibly the dumbest bastard posting to these boards at worst, and the Republican shill version of Duck_Dodgers at best.

 

Oh well, atleast your pretzel logic is entertaining. Would you like some mustard with that?

Edited October 9, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Oxrock]

 

I see... So you, who have roughly the same IQ as a lobotomized Kardashian, have decided to mock a statement that is observably true, and therefore have demonstrated a flaw in my logic?

 

Or maybe it's because you're so bogged down in the false dichotomy of American politics that you can't see past your laughable "Red People vs. Blue People" meme...

 

Regardless, I'll look past your silliness and simply ask you several simple questions which even you should be able to answer:

 

Which part of my above statement is incorrect?

 

Was is that corporations aren't people, but rather are legal entities?

Was it that the people who run corporations enjoy various financial and criminal protections through the incorporation of the companies they work for?

Was it that a lack of purportional consequences to percieved potential rewards creates an environment prone to moral hazard?

Was it that the Federal government created corporations?

 

If you'd like to argue in favor of the legal protections that corporate personhood grants, and in favor of Federal bailouts; go for it. I'll be looking forward to engaging you. However if you're simply stating that my unwillingness to toe the Big Government, neo-mercantilist, Republican line somehow makes me unthinking and incorrect than you're quite possibly thpoe dumbest bastard posting to these boards at worst, and the Republican shill version of Duck_Dodgers at best.

 

Oh well, atleast your pretzel logic is entertaining. Would you like some mustard with that?

Your are not unthinking. Just wrong.

Unions = persons grouped together as one

Corporattions = persons grouped together as one

 

The simple mind views a Corp. as only a legal concoction. It's not. It is people like you and I. Corporate personhood is a liberal lie.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Your are not unthinking. Just wrong.

Unions = persons grouped together as one

Corporattions = persons grouped together as one

 

The simple mind views a Corp. as only a legal concoction. It's not. It is people like you and I. Corporate personhood is a liberal lie.

Several points for you to consider if you are assuming this argument:

 

It's logical extension is that all individual rights must be surrendered by the persons forming the corporation in favor of the concept of group rights. This is not the case however, as incorporation does not strip the forming individuals of their rights at all, but instead creates a new person out of thin air, stripping the incorporators not of their rights, but instead relieving them of their responsibilities. This new "person" has no human traits or decision making abilities of it's own, but it assumes the large share of the financial and legal reprecussions of those actual individuals making the decisions.

 

Reprecussions to which those actual individuals making the decisions are less likely to concern themselves with because they are now protected from their ultimate ramifications.

Edited October 9, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker