Thread: Anti-Union Bill Set to Pass In Wisconsin; Massive Protests Move Into Day 3

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Maybe. There's another point where I disagree with Marx: his predictions. But as you say, the jury may still be out.

Still -- in the last century, we did have a workers' revolt, just as he predicted, but it was resolved (at least temporarily) short of a full-blown revolution. We got a compromise in which capitalism remained in place, but was regulated and subjected to a steeply graduated tax system. Unions were encouraged and other measures taken to boost wages. The result was a large and prosperous middle class, many of its members blue-collar workers. The proletariat, rather than overthrowing the state, was bought off. Beginning in 1981, that situation was reversed, and today the middle-class has been seriously hollowed out. So we're fast approaching a second chance at establishing true socialism. But my gut feeling is that once again it won't be allowed to go that far; capitalists just aren't stupid enough to let that happen if they can avoid it. So I expect another wave of reform and for the people to be bought off again one way or another.

I don't think we'll end up with true socialism until computers and robotics progress quite a bit further and jobs become really scarce. At that point, a socialist economy will be the only way that most people can have a middle-class standard of living.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Marxist progression has a little bit of a flaw.....instead of resulting in a Communist utopia it inevitably results in an authoritarian police state. The idea that communal interests will EVER supersede individual interests on a large scale is all pie in the sky. It simply isn't natural. In fact, the only way to get people to work for someone else's interests on a large scale is to reward them for doing so or to punish them for not doing so. If the community limits the prospects for reward (by trying to equalize the proceeds of labor) then the labor force will gradually decrease their efforts until whatever reward they do get matches their perception of value for the labor which they provided. This diminishing productivity then fails to meet the community needs and the option of using force to motivate productivity becomes the only viable option.

Life in general is competitive and progress only comes from the struggle to outdo ones peers. Please note that the function is to outperform not to dominate. A lion, for example, might compete with others in the pride for the right to mate but if he were to run off the rest of the pride he would lose the pack advantage while hunting. Likewise, a merchant that drives off all of his competition and mistreats his consumer base will only prosper until the consumer decides that they no longer need that merchant and either seek out a new source for their demands or adjust their demands so that they no longer require his service.

Originally Posted by Mr.Nick

What you liberals are being taught today is nothing more than an offshoot of "whole language." You're being taught your interpretation of defined facts is actually the correct definition, when its NOT....

Blue will always be blue and it will NEVER be purple..

I suppose my point is that your nonsense and how you feel does NOT make concepts factual...

Every liberal here is wrong - absolutely wrong factually on just about everything.

Its not a matter of opinion either - YOU'RE wrong!!!!!

Your opinions on facts mean absolutely nothing - at the end of the day an A is still an A and your opinions will NEVER change that!

Geez...

I think you should say that to Beck and co!

You are so funny! Delusions have a tendency to snowball!

Have fun in Lala land!

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

You know, before I answer this, I have to say that it's bloody irritating to be called ignorant by someone as incredibly ignorant as you are. It's like a midget calling me short. It's like a believer in creationism calling me anti-scientific. It's ridiculous. It also makes you look like a complete cretin, and torpedoes any credibility you ever had. You might want to avoid that shit for that reason if no other. I'm leaving it in the quote this time in the hopes you'll be ashamed of yourself (you certainly should be). In the future, I will snip all such garbage, as it is unworthy of a response.

The word socialism has evolved, and I'm using it in all of its meanings. The economies of the social democracies of western Europe, particularly the Scandinavian countries, are called socialist today. They don't fit the classical definition, in that the state doesn't own the means of production, but a word means what it is used to mean.

The idea that only a capitalist economy can produce wealth has no basis in fact. Of course there is wealth to distribute in a socialist economy, just as there is in a capitalist economy, an agrarian economy, or a foraging/hunting economy. Distribution of wealth is one of the two fundamental economic tasks, the other being production of wealth, and any economy that fails in either task is not really an economy.

The idea of a fundamental shift between classical and modern liberalism is common in right-wing circles but that also has no basis in fact. Or not much of one. It rests on mis-defining classical liberalism in terms of a few minor points of method instead of on its goals and values, which are exactly the same as those of modern liberalism. I can show you plenty of things in the writings of Thomas Jefferson or Adam Smith that point towards socialism, and I stand by what I said in my signature: if Adam Smith were alive today, he would be a socialist. It's perfectly clear that he was for leveling of wealth and against privilege, and if he recommended means that today would serve conservative rather than liberal ends, that's because he was confronted with a different situation than we are today, and applied different solutions to a different problem. He would reject many of those same means given the realities we have today.

Liberalism and socialism aren't in opposition. The goals of liberalism include, but are not limited to, those of socialism. Liberalism could almost be defined as socialism plus democracy. One can be a socialist without being a liberal, but one cannot be a liberal without being a socialist, or at least leaning in a socialist direction.

Now I'm going to give you the same advice you, quite absurdly, gave me: read a book. Since you can type, I believe you are capable of reading. But you give every evidence of not having done so.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

In what universe was Lenin "liberal" or Mao for that matter who as in a matter of fact viewed Marx as a godfather to his (2) revolutions???

You seriously are about as uneducated as they get!!!!

You may as well call North Korea liberal or Stalin's Russia liberal...

Was Pol Pot liberal too?

WTF dude...

Its not like I'm criticizing an experiment that hasn't been tried.

Remember Cuba's purge????

What was the reasoning behind that purge??????

Originally Posted by Sadanie

I think you should say that to Beck and co!

You are so funny! Delusions have a tendency to snowball!

Have fun in Lala land!

Then assault me with your education.

Originally Posted by Mr.Nick

Then assault me with your education.

Not worth it. I don't want to go back to middle school!

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Not worth it. I don't want to go back to middle school!

Their lack of established facts and their perpetrate misinformation regurgitation is strongly acknowledged as the bullshit opinions they are.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Lets see, if I'm a public employee and I ask for a 10k raise and I have to pay 3.5k in taxes am I not ahead demanding every penny I can squeeze out of the other tax payers?

Your logic is really screwed up. Hell for every dollar I bargain for I receive .65cents. Now how in the hell am I holding my own money hostage. Did you ever go to a math class?

For every dollar you bargain for you receive less than 7 tenths of a cent, and you're asking me if I went to math class?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

For every dollar you bargain for you receive less than 7 tenths of a cent, and you're asking me if I went to math class?

Thats pretty ironic when you compare the public sector to the private sector, and we're only talking salary - not pensions..

Originally Posted by Mr.Nick

Sorry to break the news to you but money does matter - it accounts for the fact you're not dead right now by the flu...

Our living standards are a direct result of "money" or capitalism.

Wealth is NOT finite as you leftists continually tell yourselves.

Money, inherently doesn't matter. I think this is where there becomes a disconnect. We need to clearly understand some basics first. Money never cured the flu, nor raised our living standards. It is a medium of exchange: exchange of FINITE man power and FINITE resources.

We all know how quick money can become worthless. It relies upon a psychological, unified, societal acceptance.

In all cases, it was people together that did all the things you may mistakenly attribute to money or the "wealthy."

What is scary about socialism is that it upsets this balance.

The problem here is that no one wants to get past the foundation. I am not a socialist. But when I point out that society relies on humans and their cooperation in order to function, that the poor job is just as vital, sometimes more vital, than the rich man's job, and that it therefore isn't JUST that he gets less, we get accused of marxism.

Look, socialism is a great idea, but like pointed out, it isn't gonna work. If the Mormons, who believe in a modern day prophet, believe that God himself is telling them to live socialism (just like the christians in the book of Acts, commanded to have all things in common) and these people, sincerely believing this is from God, STILL won't live it, well then I think it makes it clear that human nature can't be socialist.

So I like a balance, and from what I see of Dragon and others they agree. The fault we have with conservatives is that you seem to believe that supply and demand is not only just, but is law, is sacred, is scripture.

I think the Teachers in Wisconsin NEED and DESERVE protection. They do a valuable job, one that supply and demand will not value (specifically in inner cities). One that we, as society, have a moral obligation to protect. Meanwhile the wealthy, who leech their money off of natural resources and hard work of others, do NOT deserve our protection.

We have it so messed up, those that are exploiting should have less protection than those who dedicated their time to the public. What the hell is wrong with people? The rich don't earn or deserve their wealth. But we can't HAVE a fair system, so we let the rich keep exploiting, but for hell's sake, we can at least help balance the fairness!

Originally Posted by Guardiands

Money, inherently doesn't matter. I think this is where there becomes a disconnect. We need to clearly understand some basics first. Money never cured the flu, nor raised our living standards. It is a medium of exchange: exchange of FINITE man power and FINITE resources.

We all know how quick money can become worthless. It relies upon a psychological, unified, societal acceptance.

In all cases, it was people together that did all the things you may mistakenly attribute to money or the "wealthy."

What is scary about socialism is that it upsets this balance.

The problem here is that no one wants to get past the foundation. I am not a socialist. But when I point out that society relies on humans and their cooperation in order to function, that the poor job is just as vital, sometimes more vital, than the rich man's job, and that it therefore isn't JUST that he gets less, we get accused of marxism.

Look, socialism is a great idea, but like pointed out, it isn't gonna work. If the Mormons, who believe in a modern day prophet, believe that God himself is telling them to live socialism (just like the christians in the book of Acts, commanded to have all things in common) and these people, sincerely believing this is from God, STILL won't live it, well then I think it makes it clear that human nature can't be socialist.

So I like a balance, and from what I see of Dragon and others they agree. The fault we have with conservatives is that you seem to believe that supply and demand is not only just, but is law, is sacred, is scripture.

I think the Teachers in Wisconsin NEED and DESERVE protection. They do a valuable job, one that supply and demand will not value (specifically in inner cities). One that we, as society, have a moral obligation to protect. Meanwhile the wealthy, who leech their money off of natural resources and hard work of others, do NOT deserve our protection.

We have it so messed up, those that are exploiting should have less protection than those who dedicated their time to the public. What the hell is wrong with people? The rich don't earn or deserve their wealth. But we can't HAVE a fair system, so we let the rich keep exploiting, but for hell's sake, we can at least help balance the fairness!

Sorry but money/economy is real and psyche and or opinion is all in your heads.

I understand your social positions, but I also understand that the economy er model has no heart.

When a family cant afford pizza because daddy got cut er culled - you have to cut back pizza...

Now we have to do that as a nation...

As a conservative that understands economics I only wish you could have all the pizza you want but you CANT, not now.. You gotta earn it tho..

The union structure is a massive problem to boot, right off the bat - let alone the money - teachers shouldn't have the right to teach whatever they want and or just be bad teachers. And they shouldn't be making 2x what their students parents make.

Originally Posted by Mr.Nick

Sorry but money/economy is real and psyche and or opinion is all in your heads.

I understand your social positions, but I also understand that the economy er model has no heart.

When a family cant afford pizza because daddy got cut er culled - you have to cut back pizza...

Now we have to do that as a nation...

As a conservative that understands economics I only wish you could have all the pizza you want but you CANT, not now.. You gotta earn it tho..

The union structure is a massive problem to boot, right off the bat - let alone the money - teachers shouldn't have the right to teach whatever they want and or just be bad teachers. And they shouldn't be making 2x what their students parents make.

If a teacher makes twice what the parents of her students make, its because they have invested less in education and do not have access to professional jobs.

NO ONE says that we don't need to cut back on spending. . .but any reasonable person is wondering why the only people affected by the cuts are the poor and the middle class, while the 1% wealthiest are not cutting, but actually making more money.

It is obscene if we know that a person can't afford food for their family, to spend $120 a oz on caviar!

So. . .how about asking those people to forgoe their caviar for awhile. . .and eat steak instead. . .that might allow others to have hamburger instead of starving!

Money is just a dull piece of paper. Even when it was backed by gold then it was just a mostly worthless rock. That paper and rock never created much of anything. It was people, and people using a variety of natural resources.

As for cutting back, I think cutting back sums up the conservative position nicely. Public jobs need to cut back their pay, and the wealthy get to cut back on their taxes.

How about this: we expect more from those that benefit more. We give more to those who dedicate more. Raise public sector jobs (I think a teacher should make much more than 50K) and raise taxes! Wow, then times aren't so bad, and we increase the quality of education.

The premise is that supply and demand is scripture, is just, is fair, but we all know that isn't true. If anything, the very idea of supply and demand is at odds with society. Why band together and help one another if, as often has been the case, we really just end up banding together to protect a very few, who turn around and exploit us?

I understand we need to cut back, but can't we start by having those who have no realistic monetary worries to cut back first?


"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."
— Wendell Berry

EDIT: I agree with you when you say this, however:

teachers shouldn't have the right to teach whatever they want and or just be bad teachers.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Except for the money that lives the U.S. to go in hiding in Switzerland or Luxembourg!
And the money that is used to buy those beautiful yachts from Italy, beach homes in Costa Rica, and Diamonds in Antwerpen.
None of it doing any good fort he U.S. economy!

I think that we have Americans that build yachts too. We also have beach front properties right here in the United States that Americans build. You know they're called construction workers. We also have American jewlery stores that sell diamonds--what about the Americans that work in those.

You liberals are totally focused on a population in this country aka the over 300k per year crowd that represents 1% of the entire population of this county.

And yes you swallowed the B.S. You were promised by the current President that he would only tax the over 250K crowd which represents only 5% of this nation--while giveing you a tax cut in the process--and that this 5% would be able to pay down the deficit--pay for an additional 1 trillion in Obama's spending plans--and give you free health care at the same time. You bought this garbage hook--line and sinker--and now it's YOU that is going to have to pay for it.

A 3rd grade math student could have figured that was fuzzy math--

9-trillion-deficit.jpg

Now up to 14 trillion dollars


"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other people's money to spend"--Margaret Thatcher