"The quest for rule by the power mongers is an anti-technology war to control man's mind. They need an illiterate and poor populace to control. They are the anti-industrial left."

This makes me smile, since the anti-science crowd is almost always associated with the far right (and, most often, the far religious right), not the left, and scare tactics are most often associated with the right, not the left (though, as we all know, both parties use scare tactics more than anything else in politics these days).

NO system at all would be best.

No one makes demands on any other person. No person initiates force against another man period. No one takes anything from anyone.

Unfortunately throughout history we need society/government to protect each man's basic rights from those who want to limit these rights. And the goal of some societies/governments is to eliminate all personal freedoms.

No one should force technology on another person. If someone wants to be an island and be self-sufficient without technology, that is fine by me, just don't ask/force me to finance any part of it.

"The quest for rule by the power mongers is an anti-technology war to control man's mind. They need an illiterate and poor populace to control. They are the anti-industrial left. Their enemy is the men of the mind. Their mantra is religion in its various manifestations. Their enemies are the men of the mind, such as Rog. These power mongers fear

- Objective Reality
- Reason
- Self-interest of each individual
- Capitalism"

So, let me get this straight: a bunch of left wing religious fascist luddites who fear objective reality (versus what - subjective reality? objective non-reality?) who are power mongers (i.e., they are all powerful) are seeking power (but why - aren't they all powerful already?) by making people their mindless slaves by making them poor and illiterate in an anti-technology way. Rog is their enemy.

I can't say that I've ever met a religious anti-technology leftist trying to control my mind by making me poor and illiterate (but with that many contraditions inherent in their psyche I'd think that they had a few mental issues of their own) - are there many in the US? Or is this one of those global-end-of-the-world-black-helicopter things and I should be checking locally?

I don't see it as a left-right issue in the UK. There are plenty of misguided people in positions of power on both sides of the political divide here.

In the states, the cap and trade issue has polarized opinion along party lines. The political class as a whole has an interest in finding novel ways to tax the rest of us for their own benefit though, so watch out.

At the higher international level, I think the global carbon scare is intended to curb the development of China and India and Brazil, among others. These countries have seen through the ploy, and will have none of it.

China started an embargo on the export of rare Earth elements to the US today.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/21/china-halts-rare-earth-minerals-to-us-hi-tech-affected/

This could get nasty, since China produces 97% of the worlds rare earth's, which are needed for high tech gadgets, electric motors, and missile guidance systems, among other things.

The Cancun climate conference will be little more than a brightly lit talking shop.

Edited by tallbloke on 10/22/2010 16:34:07 MDT.

"No one makes demands on any other person. No person initiates force against another man period. No one takes anything from anyone."

Please explain how personal rights/freedom are at all compatible with laizze faire capitalism and a self-centered, objectivist philosophy in light of privately controlled monopolies in the marketplace?

I.E.:

What of when an individual/company gains an economic advantage so large that it can use that advantage to swallow and stifle its competition until a complete monopoly/oligopoly is created? Thus freedom to compete without regulation leads to complete and total lack of competition, and ultimately, the freedom it sought to promote. How do you stop the monopoly/oligopoly without regulation?

Are the great producers amongst us, the "men of the mind", so enlightened that we can trust that without regulation they would never join and use their economic might to manipulate markets for their own benefit?

How do we uphold personal rights and freedoms in the face of a monopoly/oligopoly? When privately held companies become powerful enough to determine the economic success of their host nations (if not their entire hemisphere), how do they not by default become more powerful than a representative government (if not become the government themselves)? How is this compatible with democracy and the Constitution that so many Libertarians speak so highly of?

Isn't this the road to fascism?

DW,

Think...

"Blessed are the poor; for they shall inherit the earth"

"The Catholic church has said since its beginning that birth control was "wrong".

Should we encourage the poor to continue to have more babies, so they will never get out of poverty? If we do, the church will have more power over them... because they will somehow help them "inherit the earth."

If people are able to take care of themselves without religious of government intervention, then it becomes difficult for power mongers to gain control. The people will not let them, because do not need government or religion.

The largest religion on earth is Christianity with over 2 billion people. Do you believe that the Catholic Church has no power over men? Does this church embrace science, or is it often at odds with science? The Roman Catholic Church estimates that their membership is over 17% of the world's 6.7 billion people.

I am not singling out the Catholic Church, as most religions have tenants to control many aspects of their flock, beyond living a "moral" life.

Democrats would have little or no power with out poor people to protect. Collective governments NEED poor people. Without poor people there would be no need to take "from each according to their ability, and give to each according to their need."

Republicans would have no followers if the public rejected their stance on some religious beliefs, such as a woman's right to her own body. Republicans want power over the individual's right to their own beliefs... they want to force their morality on them.

Most government and religious leaders would starve to death if they had no power over people. They would have to earn a living. And these leaders who profess only a desire to help the down-trodden, have gained financially from this "altruistic" endeavor. Of course you can throw out examples like Mother Theresa or Ghandi, but they are exceptions, not the rule.

Rog,

Great pictures, hat and schnoz. Congrats on your successful climb.

Please explain how personal rights/freedom are at all compatible with laizze faire capitalism and a self-centered, objectivist philosophy in light of privately controlled monopolies in the marketplace?

I.E.:

What of when an individual/company gains an economic advantage so large that it can use that advantage to swallow and stifle its competition until a complete monopoly/oligopoly is created? Thus freedom to compete without regulation leads to complete and total lack of competition, and ultimately, the freedom it sought to promote. How do you stop the monopoly/oligopoly without regulation?

Are the great producers amongst us, the "men of the mind", so enlightened that we can trust that without regulation they would never join and use their economic might to manipulate markets for their own benefit?

How do we uphold personal rights and freedoms in the face of a monopoly/oligopoly? When privately held companies become powerful enough to determine the economic success of their host nations (if not their entire hemisphere), how do they not by default become more powerful than a representative government (if not become the government themselves)? How is this compatible with democracy and the Constitution that so many Libertarians speak so highly of?

Isn't this the road to fascism?

Good questions.

99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Anti-trust laws are based on some socialistic premise that laizze-faire capitalism would lead to coercive monopolies.

No coercive monopoly has ever been created or could be created in a free market economy. Every pure monopoly ever created, was created by............................

GOVERNMENT intervention into the economy. They provide special privileges to a few, and then close competition to all others by law or regulation.

What does a coercive monopoly mean? It means a company can set its prices and levels of production independent of the market place, without regard to the concept of supply and demand. This can only happen in a country that prohibits a free market economy. If a company were to get so big and so profitable in a free economy, competitors would rush to invade the industry with alternative products that would capture market share.

>>> Of course you can throw out examples like Mother Theresa or Ghandi, but they are exceptions, not the rule.

Very few of them because there is no money to be made doing it their way. But in both examples, they are proof that the impossible is possible. They are a glimpse of what type of leadership can significantly alter the world. Everything changes. It takes time usually. Not always.

Standard Oil.

>>> as we all know, both parties use scare tactics more than anything else in politics these days).

TRUE! You just have to wonder why it works. That is why they keep doing it. Weird. Are we becoming Idiocracy?

>>> Standard Oil

And how did you come up with that example?



In 1880 when the oil industry was in its infancy, Standard Oil controlled 90% of the country's oil production. And I will agree that some of their business practices were questionable or unethical, but not necessarily illegal. In 1911 when the Government broke up Standard Oil, their control had dropped down to 65%. And how did that happen?

To quote myself,

"competitors would rush to invade the industry with alternative products that would capture market share."

In this case it was not even alternative products. You may have heard of a couple of those competitors: Gulf Oil and Texaco, among many others.

Often huge corporations become big because they are efficient, and can deliver products cheaper than any other competitor. If you break them up, inefficiencies among the remnants can drive up prices to consumers. Is that what we want?

Remember, prices are determined by supply and demand. If the price is too high demand drops and so do profits.

Anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws inhibit innovation. Lets suppose that Standard Oil had been able to become a true monopoly, and no one could enter the oil industry. Would others have have developed great alternative fuels nearly 100 years ago to compete with oil? Who knows, maybe we would have avoided all of our Carbon Flame War debates, because the world would be using some other fuel that is more efficient and less polluting. But since it became easier for many players to enter the oil business, there was no need to develop alternatives. Heck, we might be driving around in cars powered by static electricity today :)

Okay, last post of the week. I have to pack up and head out for this weekend's adventure.

De Beers.

"I am not singling out the Catholic Church, as most religions have tenants to control many aspects of their flock, beyond living a "moral" life."

Actually you were.

So, when you posted about:

"The quest for rule by the power mongers is an anti-technology war to control man's mind. They need an illiterate and poor populace to control. They are the anti-industrial left. Their enemy is the men of the mind. Their mantra is religion in its various manifestations. Their enemies are the men of the mind, such as Rog. These power mongers fear ..."

you were talking about the Catholic Church.

Nick, as I understand it, you're arguing that if the government simply stayed out of economics, the monopoly issue (as well as many other economic problems) couldn't happen.
So the "free market" economy is the solution.

Here's the problem I have with this:
How can we possibly disentangle the interests of business from the interests of government (and keep one from influencing the other) considering we live in a world in which multinational corporations have yearly earnings that can dwarf the GDPs of entire nations? Where do we draw the line between a country and the businesses of that country?
A simple example:
Is it realistically possible separate business from government intervention or regulation when businesses need the waterways secured by the Navy in order to trade while the government is wholly dependent on the revenues generated by their largest businesses to build the same Navy? I suppose in a truly "free" market, corporations will build their own Navies and protect their own oil fields?

Then we have the financial interests of our elected officials and citizenry. Can a market be ever "free" from government influence if government officials themselves have a financial stake in certain businesses within that market? What about elected officials that represent blocks of citizens or states with financial interests in particular industries? How do we scrub bias in business law from the judicial system when when we have a representative democracy...representative because we elect people we hope will represent our own interests, economic and otherwise.

Geopolitics, global power structures, national security, and economics are far too complicated and intertwined to ever be separated from one another. We can't "free" the market from government just as government can't be freed from the markets that support it.

I find the "free market" solution to our ills about as utopian as many of the more extreme socialist plots. It ultimately seems to require the same devotion to to an external ideal, in this case the "free market" as opposed to the State, and expects people to overcome their own greed and self-interest to achieve it for the benefit of all. It not this simple.

"They talk about the left wing - They talk about the right wing - For me and you it's getting pretty frightening."

"Violence is caused by governments, armies, police force."

"Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Capitalism are Obsolete. Better watch out you rich kids, the children of the New Age are coming to inherit the void."

Planet Gong - Floating Anarchy '77

Classic space rock. :-)

>>> Classic space rock. :-)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7TTk_0XYn4


edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANlPU9YFmw&feature=channel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rp6dKYWsrY&feature=related

Edited by gmatthews on 10/23/2010 18:27:55 MDT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ9J4M5xN3k