What do you think about Chaz in Seattle?

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Waggs098

Did you read the articles? Did you look elsewhere to verify it? Or do you instantly ignore because it's from the blaze?

Glenn Beck, another notorious media clown with zero credibility.

[donquixote99]

Waggs, among the the things you do not comprehend is how awful The Blaze is. What they do is distorted, dishonest, manipulative, garbage. There is about zero probability that anything presented on The Blaze is not twisted to support their rotten, evil propaganda enterprise. You will dismiss this as a rant, and it is, but I want you to have some vague inkling of my disdain, of my revulsion, of my utter rejection of the idea that I or any thinking human being should for one second consider The Blaze as a respectable source of truth.

[Waggs098]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Waggs, among the the things you do not comprehend is how awful The Blaze is. What they do is distorted, dishonest, manipulative, garbage. There is about zero probability that anything presented on The Blaze is not twisted to support their rotten, evil propaganda enterprise. You will dismiss this as a rant, and it is, but I want you to have some vague inkling of my disdain, of my revulsion, of my utter rejection of the idea that I or any thinking human being should for one second consider The Blaze as a respectable source of truth.

Ok here's one not from the blaze.

https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2...kans-doorstep/

[RickeyM]

Those damn Commies

We are the Seattle chapter of the Democratic So-cial-ists of America
Seattle DSA is a chapter of the Democratic So-cial-ists of America. We believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through community-based chapters DSA members use a variety of tactics to empower working people.

"the economy and society should be run democratically" How dare they!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Waggs098

Ok here's one not from the blaze.

https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2...kans-doorstep/

So that was the point? That the movement contains so*ialists? One, I am hardly shocked. So*ialism is not a dirty word to me. So*ialism is a very vast array of ideas, actually. It is hardly an exaggeration to say there are about as many kinds of so*ialists as there are so^ialists*ts. Rather few are like Pol Pot, especially around here.

What unites the so*ialiststs I think, if anything does, is the basic notion that ownership rights are not the supreme value for any society, that owners, especially owners of huge great amounts of the economy, should have to let government and other stakeholders (employees, the public) have a say in what they do. And likewise, the surplus (you can think 'profits') do not automatically ALL belong to the owners. As I was saying, there are endless variations and elaborations, some much more radical than others, on these basic ideas.

I'm not very radical at all, I like the enterprise and innovation of good capitalists, and I recognize the stagnation and inefficiency that often plague enterprises that are shielded from competition and market forces. But modern oligarchical capitalism is extremely 'public be damned' in its attitudes and actions. Unchecked power always goes exploitative and dysfunctional. Read my thread on "Why Did We Lose Sparta" for an example. Enterprises should have to seek permission of regulators, I say, rather than just decide totally on their own, to take huge-impact actions like closing major plants. The bad results of Phillip's irrational decision (they lost huge amounts of money) show they do not DESERVE unchecked power.


* BTW, have to spell so*ialsm with an * on this board because someone a long time ago coded a thing to insert a ton of ***************** in place of a string of letters contained in so*ialist. It was an anti-spam measure, and now it's sort of hard to fix and management can't be bothered.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So that was the point? That the movement contains so*ialists? One, I am hardly shocked. So*ialism is not a dirty word to me. So*ialism is a very vast array of ideas, actually. It is hardly an exaggeration to say there are about as many kinds of so*ialists as there are so^ialists*ts. Rather few are like Pol Pot, especially around here.

What unites the so*ialiststs I think, if anything does, is the basic notion that ownership rights are not the supreme value for any society, that owners, especially owners of huge great amounts of the economy, should have to let government and other stakeholders (employees, the public) have a say in what they do. And likewise, the surplus (you can think 'profits') do not automatically ALL belong to the owners. As I was saying, there are endless variations and elaborations, some much more radical than others, on these basic ideas.

I'm not very radical at all, I like the enterprise and innovation of good capitalists, and I recognize the stagnation and inefficiency that often plague enterprises that are shielded from competition and market forces. But modern oligarchical capitalism is extremely 'public be damned' in it's attitudes and actions. Unchecked power always goes exploitative and dysfunctional. Read my thread on "Why Did We Lose Sparta" for an example. Enterprises should have to seek permission of regulators, I say, rather than just decide totally on their own, to take huge-impact actions like closing major plants. The bad results of Phillip's irrational decision (they lost huge amounts of money) show they do not DESERVE unchecked power.


* BTW, have to spell so*ialsm with an * on this board because someone a long time ago coded a thing to insert a ton of ***************** in place of a string of letters contained in so*ialist. It was an anti-spam measure, and now it's sort of hard to fix and management can't be bothered.

In the US, we have three branches of government. We don't have an "unchecked power" problem here. Even if one party controls two branches, the third branch - the SCOTUS - steps in to ruin their nefarious plans.

And when all three agree, just maybe those that disagree with them are actually on the wrong side of history, be they the right or the left or some other interdimensional "side".

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

In the US, we have three branches of government....

Point missed, on purpose I suspect. I didn't mean GOVERNMENT unchecked power. You don't have to be the government to have power that needs to be checked. I meant the capitalists.

My example is Phillips having unchecked power to wreak havoc by closing a very profitable plant.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Point missed, on purpose I suspect. I didn't mean GOVERNMENT unchecked power. You don't have to be the government to have power that needs to be checked. I meant the capitalists.

My example is Phillips having unchecked power to wreak havoc by closing a very profitable plant.

Dood, you're living in the 19th century. Back in the days before we even had income taxes and property taxes. Imagine the companies in the US with NO tax department. No "capital vs O&M" concerns. Just make stuff, sell it, and rake in the money.

I suspect stuff would be a lot cheaper.

Also, a lot of folks here are probably not old enough to remember "Ma Bell", before the government broke up the phone company monopoly. Corrupt government can be a problem, but there is certainly nothing wrong with capitalism. It is responsible for the tech we live with today.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” -- Adam Smith

You like your iPhone and your light bulb? Thank capitalism.

[donquixote99]

Read this and get back to me, about 'nothing being wrong with capitalism.'

'Go tell the Spartans.'

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Read this and get back to me, about 'nothing being wrong with capitalism.'

'Go tell the Spartans.'

Sorry, I should be clear: There is something "wrong" with all man made systems. It's all relative. It's why it cracks me up when people look at any president and look at his disapproval numbers as though it proves they can't win re-election. That may be true if they were running against Jesus, but none are.

You don't have to outrun the bear. You just have to outrun your camping buddy. That goes for presidents and economic/social systems. Capitalism is by far the most efficient and successful at improving the condition of man. Nothing else coms close.

Again, the Adam Smith quote gets to the point.

And our current system has more in common with fascism than capitalism. When the government tells you the minimum you have to pay people and whom you have to hire based on sex and race, that's textbook Fascism. How's that working out for us?