Capitolism: Harnessing the Power of Stupid

[CNHT]

This is why you're a dilettante Jane. I mile wide and an inch deep.

Maybe that's why you're so unpopular -- you have no clue who I am...or how deep I am. Or what I choose to share with people who I feel are a waste of time.

PS - If I really wanted to bore people to death I too could copy things out of books and drop names of authors just as you do... that speaks more to your lack of depth than anything.

[error]

Personally, I think owners should be held responsible up to the amount of their investment, and no further, though if they actually participated in or explicitly sanctioned such a crime, then their liability should not be limited.

[EthanAllen]

I told you the spirit of give and take that I would be willing to discuss the question you had. It was a lame response on your part.

So sometimes better than others. Did I communicate that effectively?

No. I'm not sure if the "so sometimes better than others" is a summary of my response or whether it is your own response.

Anyway, the "well how are we going to build cars?" question is interesting enough for me. Care to answer that one?

It is giving what I got.

I ask the questions and you try to answer them grasshopper.

[EthanAllen]

This is why you're a dilettante Jane. I mile wide and an inch deep.

Maybe that's why you're so unpopular -- you have no clue who I am...or how deep I am. Or what I choose to share with people who I feel are a waste of time.

Yet what gives you the knowledge or experience to judge me or my ideas? I mean come on, limited liability protection is libertarianism 101.

[CNHT]

I ask the questions and you try to answer them grasshopper.

it's a valid question and you are a typical liberal effete snob.

[EthanAllen]

I ask the questions and you try to answer them grasshopper.

it's a valid question and you are a typical liberal effete snob.

It was a inside joke between me and LOA. You drive the Audi not me.

[CNHT]

Yet what gives the knowledge to judge me or my ideas? I mean come on, limited liability protection is libertarianism 101.

See that's what I mean. WHO GIVES A FU**?

I've never pretended to be a 'libertarian' like some of you liberals in disguise who are trying to use slick-tongued and Orwellian doublespeak language to get people to go along with your insane control freak ideas.

I also know that true libertarians don't use the race card or class warfare or worry about being 'politically correct'.

[CNHT]

It was a inside joke between me and LOA. You drive the Audi not me.

Yeah baby, I "EARNED" it....working for 45 years....I suppose that's bad in your eyes...being that you are of the 'tax the rich' crowd.


Oh I forgot -- a little bit of class warfare never hurt right?

[EthanAllen]

I've never pretended to be a 'libertarian' like some of you liberals in disguise

Yet you are supporting probably the most viable, radically libertarian candidate to run for president since Barry Goldwater in '64 - who was also the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in '88.

[CNHT]

I've never pretended to be a 'libertarian' like some of you liberals in disguise

Yet you are supporting probably the most viable, radically libertarian candidate to run for president since Barry Goldwater in '64 - who was also the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in '88.

Well isn't that special.

I'm an individual and know I can never fit exactly into any one of the three molds the purists from each would expect, and thus, I support the MAN, not the label.

I'm not supporting a party but someone I've known and loved for 20 years...or more. (When one is as old as I, one tends to lose track of time)

[error]

Your question is, who pays for the damage caused by accidents? I think the market has already pretty much solved that one.

[KBCraig]

Sometimes I'm reminded of a Protestant, a Catholic, and a Mormon debating Salvation. Disagreeing vehemently even when they're using the same words.

Definitions are important. Here's G. Edward Griffin riffing on capitalism versus corporatism and the various other -isms. But he boils it down to individualism versus collectivism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Dhv59JYpA

[youtube=425,350]W-Dhv59JYpA[/youtube]

Oh, and you might notice the t-shirts and signs in the background. It was at the Bay Area Ron Paul rally.

[dalebert]

Here's G. Edward Griffin riffing on capitalism versus corporatism and the various other -isms.

Definately some great ideas, but where HIS logic falls apart is the notion that government is needed to make sure people don't lie, cheat, steal, etc. Most of the lying, cheating, and stealing happens IN government, frequently by people who've been bought by the wealthy.

Anyhoo, we have nothing close to a free market right now. Corporatism, the Fed, and all that bullshit allows the super wealthy to control the market for their own benefit. That 90% failure rate would almost certainly go down and the lifestyles of laborers would definately go up substantially if we weren't enslaved by the corrupt system. Regular people used to save up and buy a house. Now the notion of buying a house with a loan is just understood to be the norm. Why is it the norm? Why are even the upper middle class types having to borrow money to buy a house? Why is most of the country in debt? It's the most efficient and organized crime imaginable.

[EthanAllen]

When I try to get Republicans to see the error of their ways when they spend the vast majority of their time worshipping at the altar of the corporation, I just cant get them to understand that the corporation itself is a group, and as such, is potentially as dangerous as any other artificially created group.

Likewise, in anarchy where all lands are privately owned, how can libertarians not see the danger of private states (large landholdings) to the liberties of those who do not own land?

[penguins4me]

I've never pretended to be a 'libertarian' like some of you liberals in disguise

Yet you are supporting probably the most viable, radically libertarian candidate to run for president since Barry Goldwater in '64 - who was also the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in '88.

... who is also neither a fascist, a socialist, a communist, nor a back-biting lying snake, a bald-faced liar... BUT does have an actual decent chance at winning the Republican nomination due to his principled record of *gasp* abiding by the oath he presumably swore to uphold the supreme law of our land, something which can likely only be said of persons numbering, at most, in the single digits out of all 600+ elected members of Congress...

... and the only candidate of the two-party system which stands out, is unique.