Put up or shut up.

[bishop]

and,

http://faculty.washington.edu/himma/law566/haslett.htm

[Leopard]

ROFL! funny link! Does anyone even have an inkling of what or how capitalism works?

A. Distribution According to Productivity. The wealth people get through inheritance has nothing to do with their productivity.

Productivity does not necessarily equivalent to wealth. The Labor theory of Value has been completely disproven.

B. Equal Opportunity. Insofar as equal opportunity guarantees not equality in outcome but equality in starting point, inheritance is inconsistent with equal opportunity because it gives the wealthy a head start: “Wealth is opportunity for realizing one’s potential, for a career, for success, for income. There are few, if any, desirable occupations that great wealth does not in one way or another, increase – sometimes dramatically – one’s chances of being able to pursue, and to pursue successfully. And to the extent that one’s success is to be measured in terms of one’s income, nothing else, neither intelligence, nor education, nor skills, provides a more secure opportunity for ‘success’ than does wealth.”

Equal opportunity does not mean or imply 'equal starting point' - no one is born with an equal starting point - some are stronger, smarter, healthier, etc. To cry out at the 'unfairness' of this natural fact of the world is just insane and unrealistic - can't change the laws of the world/universe we live in.

C. Incompatible with Equal Freedom. If “freedom” means the ability to do what one wants to do, then it is clear that inheritance is inconsistent with equal freedom. Although it is true that without inheritance people are no longer free to leave their fortunes to whomever they want, abolishing inheritance would have the effect of increasing the freedom of most people without appreciably diminishing the freedom of the very wealthy. Abolishing inheritance would increase overall freedom in two respects: (1) Increase equality of opportunity; (2) increase freedom in the sense of increasing overall utility, since wealth has diminishing marginal utility (the more one has, the less utility of each increasing increment). These freedoms offset any loss in freedom for the rich.

ROFL! 'Freedom' means to be free from others exerting control or interference. This is NOT consistent with restricting someones determination of disposition over their justly obtained wealth or property. This guy is plain old nuts & bolts - without the bolts. Utilitarianism is NOT consistent with respecting individual rights (human or natural rights). His subjective view in his phrase: 'without appreciably diminishing the freedom of the very wealthy' is very telling - first, he assumes to know what everyones valuation of differing degrees of freedom is and then he justifies his 'plan' with his definition. Beware those who would tell you how much your (freedom/health/love/labor/etc) is worth!

michael

[Osborn F Enready]

Lets see if I can say my two cents on Capitalism, as it is today.

Our country is doing the same thing to the meaning of Capitalism, as the U.S.S.R. did to the meaning of Socialism. We are distorting the true meaning by breaking, or bending the rules for all essential parts, until it will no longer resemble the original intention at all.

Liberty and a truly free market are essential, yes ESSENTIAL to the system we put in place. That is why, since the "nanking holiday" and the passing of the War Powers Act our system has made a (governmental) decline in efficiency, purpose, and result. The executive branch has consistently made critical, series type, decisions that have eroded our Constitution as written to a veritable rag, since it no longer has checks and balances(which are critical to the systems design). Our states rights are non-existant, our federal laws infringe on almost every right we have promised, and yet people still refuse to understand this system no longer represents what the SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE.

[Leopard]

true

[Suburbanite]

Well said Osborn.

[Zeebadee]

So, assuming that the public isn't going to rise up and demand a return to the days of liberty and free markets, where are we going? What is our best guess about the future way of life here in this country? How best do we position ourselves to maintain an acceptable quality of life in America, both for ourselves and our society? How do I protect what has taken me a lifetime to build? Should I sell everything and move to some other country? Where? Lots of people are aware of the problems, but no one seems to have a handle on exactly what to do about them.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, So, assuming that the public isn't going to rise up and demand a return to the days of liberty and free markets, where are we going? What is our best guess about the future way of life here in this country? How best do we position ourselves to maintain an acceptable quality of life in America, both for ourselves and our society? How do I protect what has taken me a lifetime to build? Should I sell everything and move to some other country? Where? Lots of people are aware of the problems, but no one seems to have a handle on exactly what to do about them.

Good question Z. You are thinking along the lines I was a year or so ago. New Zealand looks good, but uprooting your life, leaving friends and family from fear isn't me. I decided to stay and fight. And investigate like hell. And guess what, I think I got to the bottom of the whole mess. The State of Emergency. Now I'm trying to get the word out. How many will it take? 20 million Americans saying "return to constitutional rule"? 50 million? I am not gonna give it a rest.

[Zeebadee]

I admire your devotion and tenacity, Patrick, but the inertia to motivate 20 million people is simply too great, let alone 50 million. And it probably wouldn't do much good if you could anyway, just look at Prop 187 here in California. As much as our politicians like to call themselves "public servants" (LOL!!) we all know who the real servants are.

[Leopard]

I posit that it will only take a few thousand to get the ball rolling.. but a concentrated effort and some soveriegnty is required...


michael

[Osborn F Enready]

Go FSP! At least that was the answer for me, or a big part of it. As long as you can get the word out, make your voice heard over the rhetoric occasionally, eventually people will see the light.

What I can't understand, as silly and trivial as it is, is how people could go and watch films like "Braveheart", or series like "Band of Brothers", and watch them in numbers to make them BEST SELLERS, yet can't see the irony of the ideals set forth and what is practiced.
I hope you can see I am not saying Hollywood represents the truth, but they never the less occasionally broach the topics of honor, courage, and freedom. That movie and series sold on those issues, and were best sellers, yet so few realize what is happening before their very eyes. Where is our William Wallace? Political and militant, should the need be. It is sad when so many men to be picked from, yet so few willing to lead the way.....Would he be a media reporter? A general? An average John Q. Public? An ex-police officer? A felon?

The field dwindles everyday as the system grows larger. More are imprisoned every minute of every day. More are fired for making noise, causing waves. The new capitalism is truly survival of the fittest appied to economics, and now government. The only question remaining now is when are the sheep going to trample the wolf, instead of being eaten one by one.

A little dramatic, yes. Applied theory? Yep.

[dotcoma]

The heroes are out there. But remember, the revolution will not be televised.

[Osborn F Enready]

LOL, no it won't. I am just trying to poke sticks into people concept and grasps at what they hold dear. People love to speak, talk and discuss freedom, but once it involves action and self sacrifice, many come up with the "I have too much to lose" argument.

That always leads me to the question, "How plush is your prison?"

This entire planet is a sociological experiment. Every soverign nation has their own flavor of societal structure, societal beliefs, as well as diverse inner societal cultures, religions and politics. I think VERY few people today stand back and look at things in the BIG PICTURE format, if you know what I mean.

Whether or not people believe in religion, it is hard to dispute the evolution of socities. Look at the development of these societies. Many that became civilized, and "structured" first, used that advantage to branch out to new lands, to either force their cultural or societal beliefs onto other cultures, or outright annex their land or "colononize" it. Many people today, who live in these "more advanced" socities, due to attrition and ageing, have lost the lessons learned in past struggles, and forgot just how deep the knife of corruption cuts when left unchecked as the people who actually witnessed it die off, and their offspring are brought into easier, more civilized cultures. No matter how well written a record, it is always left open to the threat of modern interpretation, which is witnessed with the subversion of the Constitution. Just like our history is taught with a slant towards our culture, others write their history with a slant toward theirs.

I guess it all goes back to the old adage; "Don't criticize a man, until you have walked a mile in his shoes."

I just think our problems could all be solved once people admit that we are FAR from what our government CLAIMS we are, and that wasn't always true. The people need to see that true freedom no longer exists in this country, and won't until we force this government to live up to the oaths of office they are sworn in under, and the power is given back to the people. Our constitution needs to be ressurected, and have an additional few amendments to rectify the problem of accountability of elected officials, and to outline a new improved more ACCURATE, and REPRESENTATIVE voting system. To set term limits on ALL positions in government, in all branches. To remove political "slush funds" and "special programns" that are only reserved for the politicians and the elite.

Once that happens, the revolution wouldn't need to happen, but to do it without revolution is almost impossible, as these people will NOT cut their own throats, so to speak. Time will tell, and hopefully people will take intrest. If they don't, they must not understand and enjoy the concept of liberty that this system was founded on, and I shall have to find a new home, or die in the struggle.