How to Defeat the Right in 3 Minutes: A Libertarian Perspective

[Capitalist Pig]

In PatrickHenry's Share a Link! thread, gr8fuldaniel showed us an article called Defeat The Right In Three Minutes, from Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy and Tactics. gr8fuldaniel requested we. . .

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Check out these bullet points

. . . well, I don't mind if I do!

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Not so. Companies should be able to pay you whatever they wish, because it is a good thing. If you accept supply-and-demand as a valid mechanism for determining the optimal allocation of resources (and there is no respectable economist who doesn't), then there is no logical objection to applying the same theory to the labor market, too. That is, successful companies will always meet their employees at least half way. Any company, which can not pay sufficient wages, will either lose business, or get exposed as a fraud. Both consequences are a result of poor business practices, and occur without any nudging from bureaucratic oversight.

Otherwise, you have the sort of environment where big business is encouraged to lobby and support economic regulation that poses a detriment to competitors and, ultimately, the overall market, yet have little affect on the monopolistic firm's own operational costs and profit margins. This is why governments are often accused of perpetuating monopolies, as they are the only entity immune to their own antitrust laws.

It is a popularly held misconception that governments pass economic regulation in order to ensure a "fair" market and ensure "ideal competition". These notions are travesties to the highest degree. A "fair" market permits businesses to fail as quickly as they began, not invoking government action when Store A has a competitive advantage (such as low prices) compared to Store B. These actions are not coercive, and are thus, already fair. "Perfect competition" involves companies serving the interests of their customer base, and in turn, generating a profit as compensation for their service, not a government-sanctioned cartel.

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Again, another myth. If supply-and-demand works with goods and prices, then why not with workers and wages? Minimum wage contributes to unemployment and makes starting your own business more expensive than it may otherwise be. See my thread Why I Hate Big Business. In it, I detail how companies, like Wal-Mart, that enjoy a significant cost advantage over their smaller competitors in certain areas, will seek to maximize these circumstances to their benefit. In this case, Wal-Mart supports a minimum wage increase when it already pays an average that is almost double the federal minimum. Even a 100% increase in minimum wage may not seriously affect Wal-Mart's operations. But for some smaller firms it could trigger massive layoffs, huge cutbacks, a sharp reduction in the scale of their operations, and other unanticipated effects that would not naturally occur otherwise in a free, unregulated market on labor.

• Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

I like free trade, too. But I do not like so-called "free trade agreements". FTAs are mercantilism, and they're not even in disguise. People are just too dumb to realize the difference. Free trade occurs when there is no government say on who gets "preferential treatment" (protectionism) when trading, and enacts no tax or tariff upon goods and services traded. An entrepreneur anywhere in the world can choose where and when they wish to do business, depending upon their preference and ability. If they have no market at home, they can search for a market somewhere else. That is the essence of globalization.

• Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

I do not oppose a woman's right to choose. In another thread, I said, "Animals have no rights." You can replace "animals" with "fetuses" and the statement would still be entirely true.

• Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Wages go beyond equilibrium because of things like minimum wage (brought to you by unions), and other coercive tactics the unions utilize. I would have no problem at all with labor unions, if they hadn't been a major source of anticapitalist propaganda since about the 18th or 19th Centuries, and cause more harm than good to the workers they claim to protect. When Roosevelt's New Deal sought a more neoclassical approach to economics, and took influence from the Keynesian school, labor unions took the opportunity to secure rights from the government that enable a union to act with zero criminal liability. A good piece about this is "The Myth of Voluntary Unions" by Thomas DiLorenzo, author and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

An historical example of labor unionism at work is the Luddite movement in early 1800s England. The Industrial Revolution radically changed the way many goods were produced, and manufacturing jobs were constantly getting handed off to machines that produced a similar or higher quality product, for less than the time and money spent on human laborers. It permitted factory owners to more efficiently organize their human resources, and factories became cheaper to manage. However, the Luddites didn't enjoy all these new “fangled” contraptions in the workplace, and went so far as destroying and sabotaging technology for the sake of their obsolete professions. This is one very telling tale of labor unions stagnating progress, rather than contributing it.

• Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".

This talking point plays on the misconception that morality is a limit upon freedom of choice, by defining rigid ethical standards that do not conform to our natural sense of what may be "right" or "wrong". The problem here is not morality itself, but rather your perception of it. Morality is to be understood as the guidelines that you determine for yourself, in order to achieve whatever you wish to fulfill.

Aristotle tells us that excellence is not simply an act, but a habit. The habits constitute our virtues. We practice our virtues in order to achieve a desired end, or value. The only way we can tell if a value is "good" or "bad" is by determining if it conforms to your moral standard.

"But wait," you protest. "How do I know my moral standard?" Well, that is ultimately up to you. But I'll make a suggestion. How about your own life?

• Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.

Actually, I think what is being attacked here is the employer's right to deny anyone employment or business for whatever they wish. Businesses are private functions. An employer's right to deny someone's business for whatever reason is the same right homeowners possess to remove any unwanted person from their home, for whatever reason. In most cases, I think bigotry would probably harm a business more than it benefits it, however that all depends on your market and demographic. When it comes to matters of law and natural rights, then all men are indeed created equal.

In conclusion, some good points, but still a bit too left authoritarian for me. :)

[gr8fuldaniel]

I am not going to respond to all of these at once here. I have already been online longer than I'd like today. Here are a couple of things I disagree with. First of all you left out the preamble to those bullett points:

How to Defeat the Right in 3 Minutes <snip> Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words. "Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives". "Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap. Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.

Your whole theory built around this concept, falls apart because the numbers are incorrect:

Quote by: C.Pig In this case, Wal-Mart supports a minimum wage increase when it already pays an average that is almost double the federal minimum.

The majority of their employ makes about 8.00 p.h.. Management , about 12.oo p.h.

Quote by: C.Pig Actually, I think what is being attacked here is the employer's right to deny anyone employment or business for whatever they wish.

No, what is being attacked (And those bullett points are not the bulk of the article) ...is the corporate agenda to keep the working class down. And its really more of an attack on the government, than the "employer". The govt. has sworn an oath, not to cater to multi-national corps, but to defend the Constitution and the people.
Under a more liberal flag we all prosper. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. Under the Neo-Con flag The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 90% of this nations wealth is in the pockets of 2% of the population. Is that fair? I am not an economist, but I can tell when I have been screwed financially.

A corporation is not a person. So, when it becomes so powerful that it controls our government, at the expense of the people, it can be taken out back and shot.

I'll check back later.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8fulDaniel said:
Under a more liberal flag we all prosper. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. Under the Neo-Con flag The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 90% of this nations wealth is in the pockets of 2% of the population. Is that fair? I am not an economist, but I can tell when I have been screwed financially.

I say:
Now you just need to figure out how, and then drop the democratic party for their part in the sell-out of our laws, our nation, our corporations, and our future.

Modern Democrats need to understand they are supporting socialism, as well as modern republicans need to understand they are supporting fascism.

One evil is not better than the other.

[Capitalist Pig]

When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't.

Agreed, but this website is not quite that informed, either.

"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

Well whether or not that is what "cheap labor conservatives" believe, I do support their endeavors to abolish things like minimum wage. However, their endeavors should go much further, because there are things other than minimum wage that affect labor cost. There is, of course, workers' comp, the Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, capital gains tax, all of this stuff drains money that can be spent or invested in other areas, not just labor.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Your whole theory built around this concept, falls apart because the numbers are incorrect: Quote by: C.Pig In this case, Wal-Mart supports a minimum wage increase when it already pays an average that is almost double the federal minimum. The majority of their employ makes about 8.00 p.h.. Management , about 12.oo p.h.

My figure for the average wage paid to full-time employees came from WalMartFacts.com. It says, "Our average hourly wage for regular full-time associates in the U.S. is $9.68 an hour, almost double the federal minimum wage. Wal-Mart’s average full-time wage in urban areas is slightly higher than the national average. For example: Chicago, $10.69; Austin, TX, $10.69; Washington D.C./Baltimore, $10.08; Atlanta, $10.80; and in Los Angeles, $9.99." So, as I said, Wal-Mart could still manage a 100% increase in minimum wage.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Quote by: C.Pig Actually, I think what is being attacked here is the employer's right to deny anyone employment or business for whatever they wish. No, what is being attacked (And those bullett points are not the bulk of the article) ...is the corporate agenda to keep the working class down.

Well I was speaking in regard to that particular bullet point.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel And its really more of an attack on the government, than the "employer". The govt. has sworn an oath, not to cater to multi-national corps, but to defend the Constitution and the people. Under a more liberal flag we all prosper. The rich get richer and the poor get richer.

Correct, under a true Liberal flag.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Under the Neo-Con flag The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 90% of this nations wealth is in the pockets of 2% of the population. Is that fair? I am not an economist, but I can tell when I have been screwed financially.

What is fair is allowing individuals to keep what they earn, and pursue their endeavors, protected from the coercion of others and unabated by interventions of the state.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel A corporation is not a person. So, when it becomes so powerful that it controls our government, at the expense of the people, it can be taken out back and shot.

And the government should be changed, so that such manipulations can no longer eventuate. The only way to do that would be to sever all ties between government and economy.

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel No, what is being attacked (And those bullett points are not the bulk of the article) ...is the corporate agenda to keep the working class down. And its really more of an attack on the government, than the "employer". The govt. has sworn an oath, not to cater to multi-national corps, but to defend the Constitution and the people. Under a more liberal flag we all prosper. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. Under the Neo-Con flag The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 90% of this nations wealth is in the pockets of 2% of the population. Is that fair? I am not an economist, but I can tell when I have been screwed financially. A corporation is not a person. So, when it becomes so powerful that it controls our government, at the expense of the people, it can be taken out back and shot. I'll check back later.

Spoken as though you were a socialist!

corporate agenda to keep the working class down

Let us look at CORPORATE AGENDA - in the late 70's UAW union had people cleaning toilets for $12.00 an hour to start.

CURRENTLY: in the private sector (2005) a typical starting wage is $8.00 an hour.

Why is it that Unions were over 25 years ahead of the economy?

. . . and how many POOR can NOT afford new cars?

Darn government - huh?

Are you aware of a company called Todd Shipyards?
... or how about how the unions were forcing them into higher wages in about 1990 so they could NOT compete with the east coast and gulf coast?

. . . or how about the hotel union that lied to the maids at a Quality Inn so they would vote the union in. They got it good on THAT DEAL! Union negotiated their wages - they ended up with 25-cents an hour LESS plus union dues that had to be taken out of their wages!



What do you know about being poor WORKING CLASS?

in most cases - IF they would actually try to WORK MORE - they would get more money!

It is called "Getting Paid What Your Job Is Worth"

Imagine people working in a Nike plant here - what would they think their job was worth?

I would bet that IF Nike had a plant here - no one would be able to afford to buy their shoes.

Imagine a dish washer getting paid more - where would that money come from? Tips? sure thing!

I have worked in the service industry and have seen this ONE FACT - of every customer that tipped me - NOT ONE had a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on their vehicle! :rolleyes:

Who complains the loudest about caring for the POOR?

The poor need to help themselves and establish REAL PRIORITIES - then and ONLY then will they better themselves!

I bet NO ONE HERE has been as poor as I have been from the early 70's until less than 10 years ago

.
.
.
.




I was a habitual Homeless person!

Top That!

Now look at what a homeless guy can do - a new home that no one else ever lived in

an '04 Mazda6 (6 cyc) with sport & luxury pack
'01 F-150 Lariat Super Crew with all the whistles and bells!
'70 Coup DeVille convertible
42" plasma TV
LCD TV
couple laptops (oldest on 2 years old)
almost a complete wood shop set up to build furniture in my 2-car garage (need more room)

also have a couple acres on a major cross state north/south highway.

Spent over a grand on my 7-ear old sons Christmas which included a life time sportsman's license.

... and in the mean time I have also started to learn HTML on my own URL's
www.slantedfacts.com and www.webwholesaler.com

Thank God I figured it out


That is what you can do when you JUST DO IT!

Quit crying - grab the seat of your OWN pants - lift and RUN!

Run Fast
Run Hard
Run To Win!

ONLY Your Own Legs will carry you over the finish line in the race!

By stander's do not get trophies!

Keep sitting there and watch others win and cry cuz yer too foolish to join the race - poor YOU aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Po Thang!

Sympathy is found between Shit and Syphilis in the dictionary!

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Now you just need to figure out how, and then drop the democratic party for their part in the sell-out of our laws, our nation, our corporations, and our future.

Is there a viable party that has a chance to oust the current crime syndicate? Should we send Urkel or PeeWee Herman to throw em out of the White House? (I dont know why I still capitalize the White House, it doesnt deserve the respect) I am neither Dem nor Rep, but to participate in California Primaries I believe you have to declare a party (Not sure).

I am in the middle. We need balance of power. I have unanswered questions about Libertarians, Like, what kind of stop-loss is going to prevent anarchy, when the volunteer militia doesnt feel like stopping the riots or looting Where its at, rather than defending their own family where their property line begins/ends. It would be interesting to see a real example of a Libertarian system. What happens to the poor and sick? Are they just extinguished? What if there is not enough voluntary help to go around? We could go backward into a third world nation.
In the REAL WORLD accidents happen and not everybody can afford health insurance or hospital bills. hardship like a traffic accident or a fire at home or unemployment or any hardship by a family member can drain any savings (remember those days? I dont) we may have. It happens to EVERYONE, but only the blue bloods that are hoarding more money than they could use in ten lifetimes can survive hardship. I believe we should have programs that help those who cant help themselves. Libertarians must feel verrrrry lucky. That it wont ever happen to them. Libertarians are too far right when it comes to INFRASTRUCTURE. Check this from the "Defeat in 3 Minutes" website: “The Public Sector and Private Fortunes”.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Modern Democrats need to understand they are supporting socialism, as well as modern republicans need to understand they are supporting fascism.

I agree, I am convinced that Fascism is also defined as Corporatism, but you have to admit the Dems dont really have much power lately. They are a small voice in the wilderness. They dont have many rights, like to subpoena and such. They have been given bogus intelligence and forced to pass bills without given time to even read them. I dont want to unjustly defend them, but they were led (forced) to believe (terrorized with anthrax!!) the urgency of passing those bills and acts.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready One evil is not better than the other.

I disagree, the evil we know, could be MUCH worse than the evil we dont know.

Quote by: Capitalist Pig My figure for the average wage paid to full-time employees came from WalMartFacts.com. It says, "Our average hourly wage for regular full-time associates in the U.S. is $9.68 an hour, almost double the federal minimum wage.

That right there is just plain CRIMINAL. It is a JOKE! You have to include full time AND part time, or you/they are being deceptive (if not out right lying), you also have to look at how much they pay illegal immigrants who are working the night shift, (and get locked inside so they wont pilfer) The majority of the work force is NOT full time. This is so the corporation can bend as many working stiffs over a barrel, keep him out of the loop of benefits like healthcare insurance and a pension and overtime and etc... (that only the rich should benefit from, right?)

Quote by: Capitalist Pig The only way to do that would be to sever all ties between government and economy.

You mean sever the whole current admin? That would be a good start. I believe the common man deserves a little respect. A little protection from what we know will happen again if not provided by government, outright slavery. You know good and welll, this would happen if corporations were not regulated at all. We would be back to robber barons and sweat shops in no time.
I would like to reserve the right to come back and reply to more of your post later. For now could you glance at this link that I found on the bottom of the page of 3 Minute Defeat: “The Public Sector and Private Fortunes”.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Capitalist What is fair is allowing individuals to keep what they earn, and pursue their endeavors, protected from the coercion of others and unabated by interventions of the state.

That would mean throwing all the lobbyists, (oilmen and tobacconists alike) out of DC. I guess you wouldnt mind the people organizing into unions to ensure that they "to keep what they earn, and pursue their endeavors, protected from the coercion of others and unabated by interventions of the state"... and also protected from the coercion and interventions of the corporations (who are organized themselves)

I think its just as important keep Money seperate from the State;
as it is to keep Church and State seperate

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel That would mean throwing all the lobbyists, (oilmen and tobacconists alike) out of DC. I guess you wouldnt mind the people organizing into unions to ensure that they "to keep what they earn, and pursue their endeavors, protected from the coercion of others and unabated by interventions of the state"... and also protected from the coercion and interventions of the corporations (who are organized themselves) I think its just as important keep Money seperate from the State; as it is to keep Church and State seperate

Don't guess - stick with facts!

I guess you wouldnt mind the people organizing into unions

UNION's are Lobbyists too!
How can you honestly justify a comment like that?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: capitalist How to Defeat the Right in 3 Minutes: A Libertarian Perspective

A Libertarian Perspective ???????????

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel That would mean throwing all the lobbyists, (oilmen and tobacconists alike) out of DC. I guess you wouldnt mind the people organizing into unions to ensure that they "to keep what they earn, and pursue their endeavors, protected from the coercion of others and unabated by interventions of the state"... and also protected from the coercion and interventions of the corporations (who are organized themselves) I think its just as important keep Money seperate from the State; as it is to keep Church and State seperate

Now to agree with part of what you said:

I think its just as important keep Money seperate from the State; as it is to keep Church and State seperate

That is so true!

How is Seperation of Church and State seperated when it is a TAX DEDUCTION?

Taxes are part of the government - not the church.

It would help reduce the popularity of the harlot churches (which may well be 99.8% of them)

[gr8fuldaniel]

How can you honestly justify a comment like that?

because until he responds, I dont know if he is ready to end corporate influences of the state, or not. If corporations do not own our politicians then the people can define their own terms of employment . No need for the unions to lobby with the state.........They can then lobby with the boards of directors., who are also organised

If it were not for unions. There would not be an 8 hour work day and safety measures like production limits and machine maintenance etc.........

[Zealot]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Gr8fulDaniel said: Under a more liberal flag we all prosper. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. Under the Neo-Con flag The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 90% of this nations wealth is in the pockets of 2% of the population. Is that fair? I am not an economist, but I can tell when I have been screwed financially. I say: Now you just need to figure out how, and then drop the democratic party for their part in the sell-out of our laws, our nation, our corporations, and our future. Modern Democrats need to understand they are supporting socialism, as well as modern republicans need to understand they are supporting fascism. One evil is not better than the other.

Dang Osborne, I hafta agree with ya on this one, glory!!!!

[SlantedFacts]

Quote by: Zealot Dang Osborne, I hafta agree with ya on this one, glory!!!!

huh? you have to explain that to me....

You are agreeing with this quoted comment:

Under a more liberal flag we all prosper. The rich get richer and the poor get richer.

That is ILLOGICAL

How can that actually math out?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Need I even comment on this article? I think it speaks volumes. This is reverse Robin Hood. Why would the rich need welfare especially when it is a direct transfer from our most needy to our most wealthy?

LINK Tax Breaks for the Wealthy by Gene C. Gerard www.dissidentvoice.org January 30, 2006 On January 1, Congress allowed two tax breaks that benefit the wealthy to become effective. The cuts eliminated current provisions of the tax code that limits the amount of personal exemptions and itemized deductions that Americans with high incomes can take. Over the course of the next five years the tax cuts will cost approximately $27 billion, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ironically, Republicans in Congress, only two weeks before the cuts took effect, voted to reduce domestic spending on programs affecting the poor and the middle class by $39 billion over the next five years. More....

EDIT to add:

HeyPig, Why did you title this thread "......: A Libertarian Perspective "?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: SlantedFacts Quote by: gr8fuldaniel The rich get richer and the poor get richer. That is ILLOGICAL How can that actually math out?

I see Slanted got the stamp

But, I meant to come back to respond to this. I got sidetracked. Anyhoo.......
The poor would get richer because they would be paid a living wage, have affordable prescriptions and healthcare, but the real difference would be in the economy. A demand for American products and services would be rejuvinated. Our money is leaving our shores by the boatload.
Here are 3 of 13 Economy "bumper stickers" From PROGRESSIVE ECONOMICS FOR DEBATING PURPOSES (on the 3 Minute website):

The main thing to undestand -- everything else flows from it -- is that demand is the engine that drives our industrial capitalist economy. Once you understand that, it is all actually fairly straightforward. Policies that put money in people's pocket stimulate the economy. Generally speaking, the further down the ladder the beneficiaries of those policies, the better the economic stimulus. In other words, it does more good to help out the little guy. That's the claim, but you will need the proof. So lets take a look at the some "bumper sticker" principles. [They're not really very pithy. But they are short.] 1) "All economic enterprise boils down to the organization of labor." That is the starting place. Every good that is produced, every service that is offered involves somebody doing some work. The car you drive started out as a mountainside of iron ore. Somebody blasted the ore out of the mountain. Somebody loaded the ore onto railroad cars. Somebody ran the blast furnace. Somebody ran the lathes and presses. Somebody assembled the car. Somebody transported it to the car lot. And for each of these steps, somebody built the machines that were used -- each of those machines had the same steps. Even your bank has somebody running the machinery that processes your cancelled checks. 2) "Money, Capital, Property Rights, Contract Rights, Corporations, and a host of other ideas are abstract concepts used to organize labor". These ideas are human inventions -- they are conventions -- that determine how to distribute what labor produces. Going back to our mountainside, someone blasts the ore loose, someone loads it up, but they don't "own" what they work on. The mountainside and everything in it is the "property" of a "corporation". These legal concepts -- and concepts is all they are -- give control over that pile of rocks to some guy in a suit who doesn't even know how to get to that mountainside. This leads to a really obscure question, that is really in the realm metaphysics, when it gets down to it. Are these concepts "real"? [I use the word "tangible" to describe labor and materials, to avoid the metaphysical question.] 3) "However useful these organizing concepts may be, they are just concepts, and they can be modified." "Capitalism" is a unified system of legal concepts. Which means that capitalism is created by a legal infrastructure -- one that evolved over several hundred years. First was basic property rights. Then those property rights were modified -- by the English Parliament in the 17th century -- to emphasise "exclusive" rights. "Corporations" grew out of shipping in the seventeenth century -- as a means to syndicate risk. Our banking system grew up at the same time. The problem is that this unified system called "capitalism" produces some very ugly problems, including poverty, wage slavery, and environmental destruction. Some say that capitalism must be entirely replaced in order to eliminate these problems. I disagree, because I see that the problems do not grow out of big mistakes, but little ones. [I will not get into details of this, right now. If you are one those who thinks capitalism is "evil", and must be destroyed, that's fine with me. It's mighty big, and we won't be destroying it any time soon. I'll happy if we can manage a few less homeless, hungry and ignorant.] More....

The rich would get richer because they would be rewarded with more business on our shores. Those who have offshore bank accounts would no longer be granted no-bid contracts like Haliburton A foreign company who avoids taxes by having a mailbox on an island. Our government would do business with AMERICAN companies. A fair tarriff would be imposed on imports to encourage citizens to "Buy American". Foreign companies would be cut off from Gov Contracts. So American business would flourish.

Edit to Add: Watch the movie:


Find a free screening in your area

[thatoneguy00]

I agree with trying to make the amercain business once again BOOM, but come on I had a ford then I had a dodge now I drive a honda and it has outlasted and outperformed any other car I have had and I have not once had to repair it at all.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: thatoneguy00 I agree with trying to make the amercain business once again BOOM, but come on I had a ford then I had a dodge now I drive a honda and it has outlasted and outperformed any other car I have had and I have not once had to repair it at all.

Are you blaming the auto workers for shoddy workmanship or the Management for cutting corners to A) save a dime B) make money on aftermarket repairs?

Would you be willing to pay the 25% more for your foreign car? Thats what we pay to export to Japan. The current tarriff we charge them is 2%.