Filing down in the Black Lodge

How horrible! You freely agreed to work for a certain amount of money, and it was below the minimum wage! It must have been severely traumatising to willingly do something without any coercion whatsoever.

Why, those rich people need to be taught a lesson. How dare they make contracts where both participants freely agree to exchange labour for money! We ought to take 40-60% of their money every year and give it to other people. And if they don't want to give up that money, we'll get a bunch of big men with guns to throw them in jail!

Oh wait, we have that system already. Welcome to paradise, fucker. Hope you like it, cause this is as efficient as communism gets without cameras on every street corner to root out corruption. But don't worry, even that's not far behind.

"How horrible! You freely agreed to work for a certain amount of money, and it was below the minimum wage! It must have been severely traumatising to willingly do something without any coercion whatsoever.

Why, those rich people need to be taught a lesson. How dare they make contracts where both participants freely agree to exchange labour for money! We ought to take 40-60% of their money every year and give it to other people. And if they don't want to give up that money, we'll get a bunch of big men with guns to throw them in jail!

Oh wait, we have that system already. Welcome to paradise, fucker. Hope you like it, cause this is as efficient as communism gets without cameras on every street corner to root out corruption. But don't worry, even that's not far behind."

Indeed, we should. After all, that money isn't helping ANYthing if all it's doing is sitting in a bank account, piling up like a landfill!

Is that what you think happens to money you put in the bank?

Once you get to high school you'll have to opportunity to learn basic economics. My advice: don't skip that class.

I've never met anyone who made over 70k that seemed remotely human, or deserving. Albeit, the ones who I do meet are usually "prominent" (a.k.a. pretentious) toronto lawyers (one of my jobs entails dealing with them). So, I completely agree with you on sterilization. I'll be first in line to help with the castration!

Sterilize: yes

Castrate: NO

I agree with you, sir: taxes are a terrible burden on hard working, up-standing monetarily-gifted white men. We communist-like theives siphon miles of cash from the pockets of those who bust their hearts earning it, and for what?

Homeless shelters? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Mental institutions? Those places aren't cures, they're jails! Wildly-gesticulating men on street corners add color to our lives.

Breakfast programs for kids? Why don't they just eat breakfast at home? If their parents can't feed them they should stop use condoms.

Everybody's lazy! Lazy, lazy, lazy!
Bwahahaha- I mean: sincerely, diesel

I emailed to K. this but forgot to post it- silly me, where's the flame potential in that?

______________

> How horrible!

At the time I was happy to. Its only in retrospect that I see this
$30,000,000/annual minimum net lodge/golf course for wealthy as a little unscrupulous for child labor paid beneath minimum wage.

>You freely agreed to work for a certain amount of money, and it was below
the minimum wage!

Compare and contrast illegal immigrants.

>It must have been severely traumatising to willingly do something without
any coercion whatsoever.

[moment of zen- sidesteps urge to get pissy]
You think the laws were put in place because the children of the dirt poor didnt agree to work? It is likely that a parcel of common folk were hurt by the child labor laws if, say, they were Hitler's pissboy, or Atilla the Hun's caddy. In this job I was more like Dakow's cpa's grunt. As I said: only in retrospect did I even question the event and its legality, reasoning etc.

>How dare they make contracts where both participants freely agree to
exchange labour for money!

Yeah fuck the law, the corporations are our real leaders anyway!

Yeah like free baby formula until the women's breasts dry up in 3rd world
countries then jacking up the cost to recoup at an equitous margin! You scratch my back I'll whore yours foriegn policy is a god given right OUR FUCKING GOD!!!!

[rereads to see if he has lost zen]

>We ought to take 40-60% of their money...

Poly sci major are we?

> Welcome to paradise, fucker.

Whoa! Am I in Switzerland! Hahaha

America:
Land of greed wars, ecobullying, drooling tv addicted masses, overblown selfimportant nationalism, and rigged elections- BUT ITS RICH AND THEREFORE BETTER! Basic needs are coverered so the people are VISCIOUSLY lazy (as in will just watch whatever is playing on their TV because they cant find the remote and getting up to push a button is SOOOOOOO inconvieniant meanwhile their clothes and goods are produced by folk who are only a step over slave labor on foreign grounds, which is okay as long as a big deal isnt made about it- in their own businesses on US dirt, they begrudgingly conform to the laws... mostly... sometimes... when someone is looking... that they cant discredit buy or bury... okay, maybe once in awhile for public display)

>Hope you like it, cause this is as efficient as communism

"This" as in America? Or your brilliant summation of a communist state.
You're getting all frothy and I cant make out what you are saying.

> gets without cameras on every street corner to root out corruption.

If you mean America then you are right, they are proposed to catch traffic
offenders and save $$$ in police manhours. If you mean your Disneygrad then why not elves to root out corruption? [that was not zen- breathe]

>But don't worry, even that's not far behind.

Behind the behemoth statement of Bush's election letting us public know that
America is no longer even a representative democracy? It only follows, or would that be y- [recaptures zen just in time]

<3
REVSCRJ

>Is that what you think happens to money you put in the bank?

You mean the money that the banks charge you to hold while investing liberally at a high % profit + gaining the political power that much money entails? Ahhh, you can simply refer to that as "The way they fuck everyone but the rich".

Economics classes are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
<3 REVSCRJ

>toronto lawyers
>(one of my jobs entails dealing with them).

My condolences. They have the ability to divorce ethics from business, not uncommon, but a cancer nonetheless.

>I'll be first in line to help with the castration!

Admitidly they deserve it (for the most part) but THAT LINE would be one I'd be real damn leary about being around if simply for the fact that I am castratable. Lets think: a sterilizing injection/pill/beverage shall we? To quote Smitty-boy "Ouch".
<3 REVSCRJ

As communist scum who happened to recieve an A in college econ. I agree with the reverend's assessment of the banking industry. Maybe Vash's landfill was more vast and kinetic than you so stoutly assumed, mm?

>I emailed to K. this but forgot to post it

Good thing you posted it, Rev. I never got your email.

>Compare and contrast illegal immigrants

What about illegal immigrants? I don't see your point.

>You think the laws were put in place because the children of the dirt poor didnt agree to work?

Doesn't really matter why they were put in place if they're bad laws, now does it?

>It is likely that a parcel of common folk were hurt by the child labor laws if, say, they were Hitler's pissboy

Anybody that brings up Hitler when talking about minimum wage laws is clearly a rational person. I withdraw my earlier comment labeling you a fucker. But since you bring it up, did Hitler's victims willingly agree to be hurt, without any coercion whatsoever?

>As I said: only in retrospect did I even question the event and its legality, reasoning etc.

Who cares when you questioned it. I'd still like to know what you think is so terrible if two people willingly agree to a exchange labour for money. I notice that despite having time to rant about Hitler and corporations, you have carefully sidestepped this issue. Tell me, exactly how were you hurt in this transaction?

>Yeah fuck the law, the corporations are our real leaders anyway!

Funny how the people who hate corporations the most are the ones who create them. Socalism leads to big government leads to lots of regulation leads to the destruction of small businesses. Only big corporations can survive the regulatory burden. This naturally leads to corporate culture which leads to even more people "rebelling" by voting for more socialism.

Hair, flakes, hair, flakes. It's a vicious circle, doncha know?

>Yeah like free baby formula until the women's breasts dry up in 3rd world

I don't follow your logic. What does this have to do with anything?

>countries then jacking up the cost to recoup at an equitous margin! You scratch my back I'll whore yours
>foriegn policy is a god given right OUR FUCKING GOD!!!!

The more exclamation marks you use the more compelling your argument becomes. You almost have me convinced.

>Whoa! Am I in Switzerland! Hahaha

Now that you mention it, if America is so horrible why don't you move to some socialist paradise? Surely, any socialist country must be a paradise in comparison if the horrors of capitalism are anywhere near as bad as you make them out to be.

>>Hope you like it, cause this is as efficient as communism
>"This" as in America? Or your brilliant summation of a

Yes, 'this' as in America. It is a lot more socialist than it was 50 years ago. Look at how much taxes have risen, if you don't believe me.

>Behind the behemoth statement of Bush's election letting us public know that
>America is no longer even a representative democracy?

It is, in fact, a representative democracy. Definition: a democracy in which government is effected by elected representatives of the people.

Just because you don't like the fact that a president can be elected without the majority of the votes doesn't mean it's not a representative democracy.

Here's another question for you, which I'm sure you'll try to weasel out of answering: Do you think that Gore should have been made president, even if it meant violating the constitutional provision of the electoral college? Yes or no?

>You mean the money that the banks charge you to hold while investing liberally at a high % profit
> + gaining the political power that much money entails?

Well, if that's what your problem with banks is then I have a simple solution for you!

Don't put your money in the bank.

Even better, if banking is such a goldmine, why don't you buy stock in a bank? They're publicly owned, you know. From the way you describe their fabulous profits, I'm sure you'll double your money in no time. Can you believe they'll let anyone in on this gig? Why, they must be crazy.

The same goes for you, Diesel. Why aren't you investing in this goldmine?

>Economics classes are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, you're saying it's some kind of conspiracy? Do tell.

>Rev. I never got your email.

Hmm... miracles of modern technology... aw well, at least you got the post.

>What about illegal immigrants? I don't see your point.

Illegal immigrants (being unable to work legally) are exploited the same way. They WANT TO WORK however, should they? Who hires them? Certainly not the (vanishing) middle class. A: those who disregard the laws because their wealth makes them think its okay. OR: the same folk that hired me when I went to work as stated in the above article.

>Doesn't really matter why they were put in place if they're bad laws, now does it?

.........child labor laws are bad?

>Anybody that brings up Hitler

Use emoticons, it makes sarcasm more acsessible :)

>when talking about minimum wage laws
>is clearly a rational person.

Well, "Hitler" "Atilla" and "Bush" work better than sociopathic-elitist-fuckhead though not quite as precise. Excuse my vaugery, in my vocab. they are interchangable.

>did Hitler's victims willingly agree to be hurt,
> without any coercion whatsoever?

If you are baiting me then "No they didnt" make your point.
If not, what the hell is your point?

>I'd still like to know what you think is >so terrible if two people willingly agree

Did you get the illegal immigrants analogy or should I detail further? No sarcasm here, I think this is a perfect analogy and am willing to go into detail.

>Tell me, exactly how were you hurt in this transaction?

Perhaps the guy "of working age, for working wage" at the employment office was hurt, I was not. After all, I got my video game money, didnt I? :) <---note emoticon

>Funny how the people who hate corporations the most are the ones who create them.

REVSCRJ inc. gee... now that you mention it... I have no clue what you are refering to by this. Ben and Jerry maybe?

>Socalism leads... [to] regulation [which] leads to the destruction of small businesses.

Depends on the particular regulations. We dont need to read our governments out of textbooks.

>It's a vicious circle, doncha know?

In your scenerio, one of a nigh infinitude of 'em, you are right.

>I don't follow your logic.

Corporate America is not about making a better world, its about making a dominent corporation. Now before you ask what is wrong w/ that, reread the very real examples I posted. This is how "equitous" exchanges work w/ corporations. I may not have suffered being paid so little but even the great falicy of "trickle down economics" wasnt trickling that day aside maybe a dampening moist breeze.

>The more exclamation marks you use the more compelling your argument becomes. You almost have me convinced.

Damn if only I were speaking spanish I'd have sold you on my side days ago!

>why don't you move to some socialist paradise?

Do you know how damn hard it is to get a Swiss citizenship? I tell you, if you want "my kind" out of your hair arrange it and Im gone! (!!!!!!! <---to convince you )

> Look at how much taxes have risen,
>if you don't believe me.

...risen disproportionately to the socialized benefits. Where has the money gone? 90% of our wealth is in the hands of 2% of the people... the people you are defending.

ON DEMOCRACY: Nononononononono, ballots shipped over to Jeb, lost and such... sudden crateloads of probush ballots appear out of nowhere... from Jebs county... all and all its pretty obvious that the election was rigged. THAT was what I meant by saying we are no longer even a rep. democracy.

>Do you think that Gore should have been made president, even if it meant violating the constitutional provision of the electoral college? Yes or no?

No. There should have been an entirely new election as the facts pointed at rigging. <3 REVSCRJ

>Don't put your money in the bank.

I dont.
Fuck those bastards. Thomas Jefferson was right in not wanting them instituted.

>why don't you buy stock in a bank?

Or sell my soul to the devil? [flips coin- lands on edge]

>So, you're saying it's some kind of conspiracy? Do tell.

If you say that x trend = y result you cause investors to react as such. No conspiricy, just herd dynamic. We should teach ethics/logistics in application to economics as opposed to just economics.

<3
REVSCRJ

>Illegal immigrants (being unable to work legally) are exploited the same way. They WANT TO WORK however, should

Are you saying immigration laws stop to exist immigrants from getting exploited? And all this time I thought they were basically protectionist tariffs for local labour - i.e. to protect workers of the country from immigrants, not vice versa.

Are you one of those people who believes that when operations employing illegal workers are busted and the workers sent back to Mexico, that they're doing it "for their own good"? Here's some news for you: those illegal immigrants aren't being sent home for their own protection. They're being sent home because they take jobs away from the locals. The difference being that locals can vote and illegal immigrants can't. Thus they vote to have the competition kicked out.

If you're saying they're being exploited despite the fact that they want to work, you're saying that you know what's good for them better than they do. It's a good thing they have you to protect their best interests, even if you have to force them to do it. It's kind of like parents forcing their kid to eat vegetables. Not that I'm calling paternalistic - to borrow from Ferris Bueller, surely a leftist radical such as yourself is incapable of paternalism, racism, elitism... practically any -ism, it seems, apart from socialism.

>.........child labor laws are bad?

Would you arrest someone for paying their neighbour's kid to mow their lawn? If not, then what's the difference if a business does it? What about a corporation? Where do you draw the line? Explain to me at which point it stops being a mutually agreed upon trade between two consenting parties and becomes exploitation. Surely, there must be some mathematical formula involving the number of employees the business has or some such thing.

>Use emoticons, it makes sarcasm more acsessible :)

But if I use special symbols to denote sarcasm and make my writing more accessible, poor people might stumble upon it and understand it. Just the thought of that makes me feel dirty... it makes me want to call in my team of Mexican household staff forthwith and berate them for some imagined wrongdoing.

>Well, "Hitler" "Atilla" and "Bush" work better than sociopathic-elitist-fuckhead though not quite as precise.

You know Hitler was a socialist, right? If you take some of the speeches he gave but replace every occurance of the word "Jews" with "corporations" and you've got modern leftism.

>>did Hitler's victims willingly agree to be hurt,
>>without any coercion whatsoever?

>If you are baiting me then "No they didnt" make your point.

My point is that most of the really bad things in life happen when one person uses violence or the threat of violence to force their will on someone else. All government regulation has the potential to do just that because it's backed by the threat of men with guns throwing you in jail if you break the law. You seem to think that the root of all evil is when two people mutually agree on a contract which you consider to be exploitation. Your solution to situations which involve only free will on both sides is to use violence and physical coercion (i.e. laws backed by police with guns) to force those parties to do something else. That's socialism: the triumph of violence over free will to force people to do things "for their own good".

>Did you get the illegal immigrants analogy or should I detail further?

As I explained above, the illegal immigrants analogy doesn't apply. They're not being kicked out of the country for their own protection.

>Perhaps the guy "of working age, for working wage" at the
>employment office was hurt, I was not. After all, I got my >video game money, didnt I? :) <---note emoticon

Let's see... you're using a smilie to denote that you're being sarcastic while saying that you weren't hurt... which means you really were but refuse to explain why? Oh, this is just to much for my poor little brain. If you're saying that guy who could have had your job was hurt, then what's so wrong about paying someone who's willing to do the job for less? Unless you've got some objective idea of what exactly a fair wage is for a particular job, what's wrong with going for the lowest bidder?

>>Funny how the people who hate corporations the most are the ones who create them.

>REVSCRJ inc. gee... now that you mention it... I have no clue what you are refering to by this.

As I explained in the last post: socialism leads to government regulation leads to the destruction of small business leads to big corporations. Every time you raise taxes to get more money out of those evil rich people, you're killing another small business and making sure only the biggest corporations can survive.

>Depends on the particular regulations. We dont need to read our governments out of textbooks.

Unless you've got some magical set of laws that are unlike anything the world has seen before then that's just an empty statement. All regulations increase a business's regulatory burden and bigger companies can deal with it more effectively than smaller ones. That's not some clever capitalist lie I'm trying to hoodwink you with, my socialist friend, that's a law of nature. It's the economy of scale. 100 guys working on an assembly line can produce cars way faster than 100 guys working individually.

It's all about overhead. A big corporation can comply with new laws just as easily a two smaller ones that are half the size. Why should those two smaller corporations both hire lawyers to tell them how to comply with the laws when they can just merge and only pay for one set of lawyers. For exmaple, when the entire huge company has one hiring policy than you've only got to hire one set of lawyers to modify that policy instead of doing it twice for the separate policies of the two smaller companies.

>Corporate America is not about making a better world, its about making a dominent corporation.

In that way, corporations are exactly the same as individuals. People look out for their own best interests, just like corporations do.

>Do you know how damn hard it is to get a Swiss citizenship?
>I tell you, if you want "my kind" out of your hair arrange it and Im gone!

Why not move to Sweden or Canada? Both are as socialist as Switzerland have fairly liberal immigration policies.

>...risen disproportionately to the socialized benefits. Where has the money gone?
>90% of our wealth is in the hands of 2% of the people... the people you are defending.

Yes, that's exactly what happens when you give socialized benefits to people. Most of it gets spent on crap like commitees and mindless paperwork. The government is *really*, *really* inefficient. That's why it's a good idea to make it as small as possible. Now, I know what you're going to say - you'll tell me that the solution is not to make things less socialized but to make the government more efficient. The problem is that it just won't happen. That's just not the way governments work. Unlike a business, it's not in the best interests of people in charge of government to make it efficient, rather the opposite. See my Kid's Korner article on politicians. You can't force efficient government and more than you can force honest politics - good politics and good government only comes with an alignment of interest.

>If you say that x trend = y result you cause investors to react as such. No conspiricy, just herd dynamic.

So if it's all a herd dynamic why not just tell the herd that we'll all be rich tomorrow? Maybe if we all close our eyes and believe really hard then we'll get a paradise. We'll create wealth out of pure willpower! That's what you think economics is - voodoo science, right?

>We should teach ethics/logistics in application to economics as opposed to just economics.

Ha! Ethics as decided by who? The left, of course!

Do you realize how much that sounds like the communism of days gone by? Why, according to them, communism wasn't just an idea, it was both a science and an ethical imperative!

Here's some ethics for you try out: how about a system where, as much as possible, we try not to force people do what we want even if it's for their own good. In fact, as long as they're not bother anybody else, we might just... well I don't know if I should say this because it'll mark me as the crazy radical I am... ok this is a reeeeeal crazy idea but... why don't we just LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE?

That's right, don't pass more and more laws that will be enforced by big men with guns. Try to limit the use of force and therefore the use of laws. It's so crazy! What kind of a twisted mind could ever propose such a wild idea?! I should be locked up for the good of society.

>...immigration laws stop..immigrants
>from getting exploited?

As in the definition "used"- yes they do, for cheaper than the citizens of this country will work, often in conditions that are not to "code" coz 'who is going to complain'?

Beware the line you are preaching leads to sweatshops

>Are you one of those people

I live in california, have for most of my life- as far south as San Diego when I was a kid. I used to work in the ag. biz- I am well versed with all sides of the illegal immigration issue

No skin off my back but you did a lot of unecsessary typing hypothisizing on what my beliefs are and thus where I should go for them. If you want to know if Im one of those goddamn whatevuhs, ask, tether the chain and save it for after the answer.

>"for their own good"?

Depends- migrant illegals who pick lettuce have destroyed backs by their mid 20's but keep working w/ no coverage or compensation in a "you dont want to work wetback?! NEXT!" kind of enviornment in some cases. Where this is true, regardless of what they need as individuals the practice is fucked up for the whole of humanity and is prosuffering.

For the most part you are right- it is illegal to keep the employeers from paying us $1 [canadian] / hour.

You realize of course that this is a HUGE OTHER can of worms here. I was just bringing it up to compare it to child labor... but if we must, we must.

>despite the fact that they want to work,

Some women whore to feed their kids when times are hard. Some men too, its called love and poverty. People will take a lot of cruelty to have their families fed. Should they have too? No. No- as in, fuck those who prey on them with a wire brush and pepper oil- 'no'.

>you know what's good for them better than they do.

They do what they must. Ultimately I hate the concept of national borders, but that is another thing alltogether. If we have them, we should not tolerate illegal immigration or we should relax standards for work visas coz as it sits we're basicly allowing a kinder gentler slave labor force of the REALLY-REALLY-poor in so that the REALLY-REALLY-rich can horde a little bit more.

>any -ism, it seems, apart from socialism.

There are a number of -ism's I am behind (am a Rev in the tradition of Gnosticism for 1)

>Would you arrest someone for paying their neighbour's kid to mow their lawn?

If they had to do it 12 hours a day with no breaks and had to buy lunch at inflated prices so as to cost the 2/3ds the day's labor from the company cafeteria due to a eating period so short they dont have time to dash to anywhere else? Yes. I would.

"Saint Peter dontcha call me coz I cant go
I owe my soul to the company store"

>If not, then what's the difference if a business does it?

Refer to what the wobblies fought during the late 1890's-1900's and you will see what "small government" approaches like you describe create.

> Where do you draw the line?

Truthfully I'd like a lot less laws and a lot more vigilantes (lethal but also creative and destructive sorts)could earn them a lot of hell.

We as a species are not evolved enough to keep that from turning into gang-rule or fuedalism though. So I suppose the line is the current Law in regard to it with some tolerance for short term outside contracting by private individuals NOT businesses, at or above minimum wage.

>You know Hitler was a socialist, right?

Actually yes. Hitler was an evil fuckhead but he did improve Germany's common-person's abillity to feed themselves. [REV: hates to admit this coz it usually means he has to reiterate his antigenocide/fascism/sadism several times before the point is made that evil fuckheads can do occasional right as noble leaders can do occasional wrong]
Look at the state Ger was in after WWI!!!

>"Jews" with "corporations" and you've got modern leftism.

Oddly I agree w/ you, but I'd apply that to all the political and religious -isms that are intolerant, brutish, unthinking, elite class oriented or counter to specieal evolution by requireing homogeny.

. As long as people act like sheep they will be herded and slaughtered.

>You seem to think that the root of all evil is > when two people mutually agree on a contract

Ahh the crux of confusion. No, I just hate to see people used like appliances by sociopaths who, rather than help when seeing suffering, get off on it; or to have a broader application, horde their means of assistance and consider how this suffering can "work for them"

>That's socialism: the triumph of violence over free will

Yeah those barbaric Canadians and their violent counter-freewill socialized medicine!

>you're using a smilie to denote that you're being sarcastic

Naw- its just funny that my priorities at that age were video games, THERE'S a workforce- pay'em in quarters!

> wrong about paying someone who's willing to do the job for less?

Hmm, let say a bunch folk are out of work and you are a welder or some such thing with a family.

Employer: $3 a day.
You: but that is not even liveable! Emp: So? Not my problem, I dont care about you. You: I have a [REV:criminally] expensive medical bill I've been paying slowly off, car insurance, kids to put through school, rent, utilities, and food to cover! $3/day isnt even 1/3 that! Emp: See that line? One of them is hungrier than the rest and single. Get out of my sight.

Cartoon yes, but do you see? If you think this is extreme, look what employers did during the dustbowl, depression, and industrial revolution.

>fair wage is for a particular job

Minimum wage is about assuring that if there is a glut of applicants for a job AT LEAST the wage will not fall below a livable threshold like the bastards would have it if they could.

<3 REVSCRJ

odd... mustve had some
thing highlitand hit space...

The Vigilante point: "so that employers would HAVE to consider the fairness or ethic nature of their dealings with people because they would be IN REAL DANGER if they do not."

<3
REVSCRJ

>Every time you raise taxes...you're killing...small
>business and...biggest corporations can survive.

Ha! A) prices vary in accord to production and popular ability to pay, by degrees I know but jesus next to shit like Starbucks coffeshop takeover/shutdown policies or the grotesque corporate sponsored leaking-gas-tank bullshit that was proven false AFTER it shutdown 90 NINETY percent of America's independant gas stations, or Dole's nifty union crushing and susequent mass firings and position pay cuts (oft by more that 60%) in order to force competitors out of biz by dropping their product price for a "weatherable time" since they have enough money to run at a loss for a year or two what w/ "restructuring" meanwhile small biz offering oh profit sharing or pensions, or medical-dental, vacations etc. ... well lets say they could either continue allowing for their workers to be secure and peraps a little happier OR survive as a biz.

TAXES? You say TAXES is what kills s.biz?
Dude! Coffee----->smell it?

>Unless you've got some magical set of laws

No I have an imagination, and the ability to use it constructively and trust that there are quite a number of others out there that are likewise able- some who may even like politics, unlike myself, thus would be better equiped to innovate than I.

>That's not some clever capitalist lie
>I'm trying to hoodwink you with,

I dont think you are trying to deceive me. I think you are partly duped, partly resigned to the-world-as-it-is, and partly a bit narrow sighted. I see no malice- aside from surface- in any of this.

>that's a law of nature. It's the economy of scale.

We have dated the universe, stopped light, and constructed a tax code so complex that no two proffesional auditors can audit a company with the same result- we can redefine our society and its commerce regulations if we desired it (or werent in the chokehold of the powers that be propagating weak and lazy behavior patterns)
On you following point:

You are pro monopoly?
Refer to Industrial revolution, Ma Bell, Standard Oil, Microsoft . Then start thinking about oooh the makers of chemotherapy products cornering the market quintuppling the price and letting those who cant afford it die.

>In that way, corporations are exactly the same as individuals.
>People look out for their own best interests, just like corporations do.

If you mean "unevolved selfcentered uncaring claw-their-way-to-the-top spiritualy-diseased MEMEMEME-fuck-everbody-else people" then I'd agree.

>Why not move to Sweden or Canada?

LEANDRO: hows the "a wife for Rev" hunt going? C'mon man!
(off topic: my email is on blitz if you tried to mail me back)

>Yes, that's exactly what happens when you give socialized benefits to people.

No. Thats when you dont regulate the administration of them or make them accountable for their actions or let them appoint to freely (ie: The same fuckers that would be president to secure oil deals failing that settle for Director Of Whatever and fill the appointee positions w/ their Biffs and Tads then vote big pay raises for themselves paid by the populace) which is COUNTER to socialism.

Most of it gets spent on crap like commitees and mindless paperwork.

EXACTLY-
this is not fault of the government, but of the corruption and laziness in them.

>The government is *really*, *really* inefficient.

Yup. Its better than the inefficency and inequity that we currently have, but I agree with you- something new is in order.

>The problem is that it just won't happen. That's just not the way governments work.

Case in point as a comparison to how I meant it when I said "economics classes are a self fulfilling prophecy" except in a poli-sci delivery.

>Unlike a business, it's not in the best interests of people in charge of government

RIGHT THERE- then obviously we have chosen the wrong kind of people to lead us. Dethrone them, try again.

>So if it's all a herd dynamic why not just tell the herd that we'll all be rich tomorrow?

Well coz you and you family and your friends would be killed by the sheep farmers before you got to 'morrow'.

> Maybe if we all close our eyes and believe really hard then we'll get a paradise.

Are you Budhist?

>We'll create wealth out of pure willpower!

It worked for 'money', why not wealth? Hey I know! Lets refocus on wisdom as a mesure of wealth! Or "the country that eases the most suffering" as "THE GREATEST" nation! Hell lets try to get over competeing for power enti- *boom* rev catches a bullet in skull.

>That's what you think economics is - voodoo science, right?

No. It is deadly like a specieal cancer when it goes bad, or is manipulated by the sociopaths- like all sciences and can cause great tragidy. We are too reliant on the passing of paper to represent our work. WAY too reliant- its not prudent. Voodoo? 1929: Someone stuck a pin in the economics doll.

>Ha! Ethics as decided by who? The left, of course!

Anybody is better than nobody.
Seriously.

> why don't we just LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE?

Because they wont leave us alone, because they will bleed people to death with lives of misery so that they can have a creature-comfort, because they would put you and your kids in the mines for 20 hours /day (damn that you have to sleep) until you were dead where upon they'd find some other 'nobody' and their 'meaningless' family to fill your spot. Fuck paying you, remeber them big guns you were talking about? Guess where they point in your scenerio...

> I should be locked up for the good of society.

No. You are debating and trying to prove truth, which creates growth They simple do what they want without regard to the lives of others.

<3
REVSCRJ

Eheh- ommision again (its late, Im tired)

"B) regulations vary with the hand that scribes them
and C) can you not conceive of provisions that would prevent that effect written into the regulations?"

Obviously this is no 'socialist lie meant to hoodwink you' either, as I'd have had the party line simply faxed over and wouldve been asleep hours ago. g'night.
<3 REVSCRJ

You know you'e getting old when *know* you were awake typing at 1:am and look at the web log that says it was 11 then down to the line "you know youre getting old when" and suddenly fear senility until you hear yourself saying "the machine is wrong, its the machine"

<3
REVSCRJ

"hows the "a wife for Rev" hunt going? C'mon man!"

I did some research, and it just might be possible without marrying you off.

As to Konrad: Why I haven't purchased stock in bank, thus becoming exceedingly wealthy?

First, the profit isn't funneled directly to the stock holders, so logistically it's different from ownership in the classic sense. The bank is managed by high level organizers who make up to or over half a million per year each.

The money that does get distributed via loans goes mainly to the middle and upper class, who are done a service, which they pay for. Note here that I do not object to the idea of banks and loaning, only to the fact that people at the top tend to stay at the top, hoarding money for whatever reason or passing it back and forth to one another while a large segment of the population of the world is forced to work exceedingly hard for very little money in order to survive.

And to really answer the question: my life goal doesn't happen to include becoming the center of a landfill, regardless of the market value.

>As in the definition "used"- yes they do, for cheaper than the citizens of this country will work,
>often in conditions that are not to "code" coz 'who is going to complain'?

Sorry, but I can't find your definition of 'used' in any dictionary.

Look, you just don't get it. There isn't any intrinsic value for labour. It's like asking how much a painting is *really* worth. A painting is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. The same goes for labour. If you're saying that someone is getting used in a mutually agreed-upon contract, then what you really mean is that you have some objective idea about the *real* value of that labour. So, tell me, what's the Mona Lisa *really* worth?

>Beware the line you are preaching leads to sweatshops

I don't see any sweatshops in the US. Funny how market forces work, isn't it?

>No skin off my back but you did a lot of unecsessary typing hypothisizing on what my beliefs are and thus
>where I should go for them. If you want to know if Im one of those goddamn whatevuhs, ask,

And, as you admitted yourself, I was completely right. Just as I guessed, you really do believe that illegal immigrants are being protected by those laws for their own good.

>Some women whore to feed their kids when times are hard. Some men too, its called love and poverty.
>People will take a lot of cruelty to have their families fed. Should they have too? No.

It's nice that you feel that way but why don't you go out and shake your fist at the sky instead of blaming those with more money? Lettuce farmers in the US didn't create the poverty in Mexico.

You still seem to be stuck with the primal idea that there's only X amount of wealth in the world and that, somehow, the rich got that way by stealing it from the poor. America is wealthier than Mexico because it produces more wealth, not because it stole it from the Mexicans. That is true today and it was true a hundred years ago, before American companies started opening up branches south of the border to take advantage of cheap labour. I know you don't want to believe that, because you'd like to think that the only reason the west is rich is because they exploit the the 3rd world.

I know that it's an attractive philosophy. It makes things so simple; whoever has lots of money must be a thief. Therefore, all you need to do to make the world fair is divide up all the money, right? Even Marx knew that idea was full of shit. That's why he specifically talked about the 'means of production' rather than just the wealth itself.

>>Would you arrest someone for paying their neighbour's kid to mow their lawn?
>If they had to do it 12 hours a day with no breaks and had to buy lunch at inflated prices so as to

When you use the word 'had' you're talking about coercion. That's not a free market. I don't see any companies around here holding their employees at gunpoint. If you don't like eating from the company cafeteria you can switch jobs. So I'll ask you again: would you arrest someone for paying their neighbour's kid to mow their lawn? What if the kid chose to work 12 hours a day?

>Refer to what the wobblies fought during the late 1890's-1900's and you
> will see what "small government" approaches like you describe create.

You mean it creates a country with living conditions so unbearable that millions of eager immigrants came to it every year? Sounds horrible.

>>You seem to think that the root of all evil is >when two people mutually agree on a contract
>Ahh the crux of confusion. No, I just hate to see people used like appliances by sociopaths who, > rather than help when seeing suffering, get off on it; or to have a broader application, >horde their means of assistance and consider how this suffering can "work for them"

So, by your definition, anyone with more money than the average is a sociopath. After all, anyone with money could have used it to alleviate some suffering. How many starving kids in India could you feed if you hadn't spent money on all those joints you've had over the years?

>Hmm, let say a bunch folk are out of work and you are a welder or some such thing with a family.

Yes, that's a nice fantasy scenario. What's your point? I can sit here all day and make up fantasy scenarios too. In the real world, there's more poverty caused by socialism than cured by it.

>Minimum wage is about assuring that if there is a glut of applicants for a job AT LEAST the wage will
> not fall below a livable threshold like the bastards would have it if they could.

Yes, because you've made it illegal for it to fall below that level. Guess what happens then? Do you think the number of jobs will stay the same but employers will just pay more? Wrong. People aren't stupid. If paying minimum wage for some particular job isn't profitable for the business, that job will just disappear.

>TAXES? You say TAXES is what kills s.biz?

Yes, that's right. I know you'll just refuse to believe it, because it doesn't go along with your personal philosophy of how the world *should* work, but that's how it is. How many mega corporations existed in the 1950s? Why do you think that is?

>No I have an imagination, and the ability to use it constructively and trust that there are quite a number of
>others out there that are likewise able- some who may even like politics, unlike myself, thus would be

Yes, yes. I'm sure your imagination is wonderful. So why don't you go live in some hippie commune and prove to us how wonderfully well your system works? Why do you need to force your ideas on others by passing laws that are backed by men with guns?

>I dont think you are trying to deceive me. I think you are partly duped,

Yeah, of course, I'm duped and you can see clearly. Look, what if some of us dupes would like to live without the government telling us what a "fair" wage is? What if we want to live with as little corecion as possible? Are you telling me you'd like to force socialism on us for our own good, at the point of a gun?

>We have dated the universe, stopped light, and constructed a tax code so complex that no two
>proffesional auditors can audit a company with the same result- we can redefine our society and its >commerce regulations if we desired it

Yes, we can, at the point of a gun. Take away that gun and you're left with the free market. All you're advocating is that the government should decide what's good for people and then force them to do it.

>You are pro monopoly?

Bill Gates never stuck a gun in my face and made me buy Windows. I can refuse to buy MS. I can't refuse to pay taxes. See the difference?

>Then start thinking about oooh the makers of chemotherapy products cornering the market
>quintuppling the price and letting those who cant afford it die.

The makers don't control prices. It's called supply and demand. If you think it's so easy to make chemotherapy products, why don't you do it yourself? You'll be a millionaire in no time, right?

Problem is, you can't. Know why? Cause of people like you. It now costs $800 MILLION to get a drug past the FDA. That's right, just under one billion dollars. That's 9 zeroes, for those of you playing along at home. All because of government bureaucracy. If I paid a billion bucks to get a drug approved you're goddamn right that I'd charge big money for it. What do you think the drug companies are? Charities? If they didn't spend all that money on developing those drugs then they wouldn't exist in the first place.

>No. Thats when you dont regulate the administration of them or make them accountable for their actions or let them appoint to freely [...] which is COUNTER to socialism.<

No, that's what *always* happens. Show me one example where it isn't so.

>EXACTLY- this is not fault of the government, but of the corruption and laziness in them

And in your fantasy world, you know how to make a non-corrupt government? Sorry, but it's never happened and it never will.

>>Unlike a business, it's not in the best interests of people in charge of government

>RIGHT THERE- then obviously we have chosen the wrong kind of people to lead us.

That's exactly the opposite of what I was saying. Go back and read my Kid's Korner article again.

>>Maybe if we all close our eyes and believe really hard then we'll get a paradise.
>Are you Budhist?

I was being saracastic.

>>We'll create wealth out of pure willpower!
>It worked for 'money', why not wealth? Hey I know! Lets refocus on wisdom as a mesure of wealth! > Or "the country that eases the most suffering" as "THE GREATEST" nation! >Hell lets try to get over competeing for power enti- *boom* rev catches a bullet in skull.

So you're saying it's one big conspiracy? Look, I can't convince you of something you don't want to believe. No matter what I say, you can just make up more and more ridiculous stories. So what's the point? If you don't care to know the truth why keep up the pretense at all?

>Fuck paying you, remeber them big guns you were talking about?
>Guess where they point in your scenerio...

Doesn't sound like the free market to me. Sounds like coercion - exactly what you're proposing.