Thread: American Spring - Spread the Word [-:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The turnout for this little shindig ended up being about 99.9999% of the expected number.

Sorry, got it backwards. It was 0.0001%. If that.

Is that good news or bad?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Harry Reid is actually pushing to overturn Citizens United. The GOP is completely owned by the likes of the Koch Brothers, so libertarianism in this country has been hijacked by corporatist fascism. If the libertarians were to succeed, then in perfect newspeak irony the country would turn exactly into what they mislabel as socialism. Monopolistic interests by the elite would derail capitalism so they aren't subject to competition and the government would be, as it is now, nothing more than a shield and enabler for a corrupt elite class that pay themselves with american tax dollars.

That's why libertarians always target democrats, or as I like to call them, medium fascists, because they want to make it so the people have to struggle against themselves just to get a lighter version of the fascism than what the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party intend to implement.

Why else do libertarian parties always target minuscule social programs and ignore things like Citizens United? Why are they always looking to cut down any social safety net in their path but they ignore corporate welfare? Because they're not really libertarians, they're being fooled into acting against their best interest. They're vetting the new american fascist movement.

The GOP is not about libertarianism, and neither is the new line up of the Tea Party. Both are about hypocrisy and theocracy. Harry Reid might promote some good things, but he promotes a great deal of bad things. The way to make corporate money worthless in government is to make the government so small that there is nothing to buy off. If the people would grow brains and balls, we could completely control the problem by refusing to vote for any politician who becomes a corporate shill. It's in our hands. The answer to corrupt government is not more government. It is less government. With power comes corruption.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that good news or bad?

Depends on which side you're on. Personally I didn't expect their protest to amount to much, certainly not anywhere near 30 million (or even 3 million, or 300,000) in terms of actual turnout. I'm not sure how effectively they would convey their message either. Dressing up with tricornes and waving Gadsden flags is a little overdone. Makes them look more loony than serious.

So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You sound like just as blind a conservative as ever. The Koch brothers are employing the shills that derail libertarianism and turn it into corporatism, not the democrats. And so long as wealth provides influence over government, the wealthy will tamper with the government, that's how capitalism naturally leads to extortion. You act as though because you don't use Comcast, you're safe from the extortion taking place, let's see how that works out for you when you can't stream videos from websites that couldn't afford to pay for the fast lane, when you can't download independently developed software with an emphasis on privacy because the independent developer can't afford the fast lane. We're paying 3 times for internet in the US because we're extorted. If you were really free from monopoly, you'd be paying a truly competitive price for internet along with the rest of the world. You'd be paying a competitive price for healthcare, too, instead of being extorted by the medical industry.

Do you have proof that the Koch Brothers are derailing libertarianism with imposters? I know it's happening, but how do you know it's the Koch Brothers? I believe Sarah Palin might be working for the Democrats because it's the Republican Party she represented and hurt severely. She cost John McCain the 2008 election. She hurt the Tea Party too, but a lot of Republicans support it, especially now that it's pro-theocratic and pro-war.

I didn't say internet companies that pull the internet shenanigans aren't assholes. I just said that what they are trying to do is fair game because they are manipulating their own property. Hopefully they will lose tons of customers over it.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Now, as far as the investment side of anarcho-syndicalism, the idea is that when hiring out labor, a wage contract is replaced by contract granting temporary stock in the product. This means the labor isn't paid a wage, but rather receives a dividend. Investors still get a return on their investment for providing all the risk, but the labor actually collectively owns the majority of the company. The entire share system would need to be adjusted so if an employee leaves the company, they're shares dissolve back into the labor and they're bought out. Likewise, the investors, if they aren't actually contributing to the company, should be bought out as well. The labor force forms a community and this community collectively enriches itself from its production, so if you're building a factory, you're doing it to enrich your community, not just yourself. This community is not some centralized, abstract idea though, it's your neighbors.

And by the way, the land that the investor buys to put a factory on is also technically won by force, as the ownership itself is only validated through the society that legitimizes it, and they ultimately legitimize it using guns and uniforms. That's why I say capitalism isn't actually natural. It's forced upon us.

I am all for the use of force to defend your own property. You say you believe workers should own the means of production, so you believe in ownership. What's wrong with owning land if it's paid for in a mutually agreed upon deal? That's completely fair. It is theft that is not fair.

As for this contract and stock system for factory workers, how does it end up happening if the creator and land owner of the factory does not want it? If he says, "I own this land, I own the parts that were used to put the factory together, I paid to have the factory built through consensual contracts with builders, and I will pay $10 to $20 per hour to people who work in the factory. Come in for an interview if you want to make the deal," what makes it where that has to be called off and he has to make stock contracts with the employees instead?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Depends on which side you're on. Personally I didn't expect their protest to amount to much, certainly not anywhere near 30 million (or even 3 million, or 300,000) in terms of actual turnout. I'm not sure how effectively they would convey their message either. Dressing up with tricornes and waving Gadsden flags is a little overdone. Makes them look more loony than serious.

So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.

I was asking what side you are on. All I ever see you posting in regard to opposing big government are insults against the people who oppose it. What do you support, and how do you think it could be achieved?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was asking what side you are on. All I ever see you posting in regard to opposing big government are insults against the people who oppose it. What do you support, and how do you think it could be achieved?

We should be most critical of ourselves. I highly identify with the Bastiat quote in my signature. I know what "the opposition" will argue for in most cases, so recently I've been more interested in how "our side" presents itself.

Anyway, I didn't read it as you specifically asking me, but I answered it that way at the end of my post anyway ("So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.").

I'm not a practicing activist, so I'm not in the business of active marketing, but I have some friends in D.C. who are. I'm confident most of them would agree with me that this mock American Revolution style of activism ("BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION" language, the flags, the militiamen outfits, etc.) probably isn't as effective as these protestors think it is, and that trying to educate others in a reasoned manner while working in policy changes through the political process is more effective in producing real change.

So that's what I support. A mature, reasoned stance in producing maximal freedom, with minimal theatrics. Read less Lew Rockwell, more Steve Horwitz. More Bleeding Heart Libertarians. More Reason Mag. More Cato.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

We should be most critical of ourselves. I highly identify with the Bastiat quote in my signature. I know what "the opposition" will argue for in most cases, so recently I've been more interested in how "our side" presents itself.

Anyway, I didn't read it as you specifically asking me, but I answered it that way at the end of my post anyway ("So if their beliefs are anything like mine, it's good news that this failed miserably.").

I'm not a practicing activist, so I'm not in the business of active marketing, but I have some friends in D.C. who are. I'm confident most of them would agree with me that this mock American Revolution style of activism ("BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION" language, the flags, the militiamen outfits, etc.) probably isn't as effective as these protestors think it is, and that trying to educate others in a reasoned manner while working in policy changes through the political process is more effective in producing real change.

So that's what I support. A mature, reasoned stance in producing maximal freedom, with minimal theatrics. Read less Lew Rockwell, more Steve Horwitz. More Bleeding Heart Libertarians. More Reason Mag. More Cato.

Wow, you're a lot of help. Thank you for putting your energy into trying to make us look bad instead of big government. Hmmm...

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Sarah Palin is what you'd call a strong fascist. Currently, the democrats are medium fascists, and the reason they're medium fascists is because it's become the new center in American politics, so any left leaning people are forced to support medium fascism in order to defend themselves against strong fascism like Sarah Palin and the entire republican party. The republicans are throwing all their chips in with corporatism, the democrats, while compromised, are still at least bringing up legislation to overturn Citizens United and keeping it on the agenda and in the conversation. Your belief the democrats are trying to destroy the republican party by employing extremist shill is not only unfounded but reveals just how unreasonable your level of thinking is. In fact, it practically renders reasonable conversation with you impossible because you're not capable of looking at the reality of the situation. You seem stuck on your principles, perhaps inherited by reading too much Ayn Rand, that sit in natural conflict with reality. Any evidence that contradicts these principles, such as that it's corporate tampering which has twisted the Tea Party, not DNC tampering, can't compute to you because unregulated corporations can apparently do no wrong and the system, from your perspective, does not appear inherently designed for those with influence to use that influence to deregulate themselves and exploit others.

Aw, are my points upsetting your feelings? You are lashing out personally like a little school boy once again.

Your idea that fascism must be fought with fascism is hysterical. There is no excuse for fascism. Stop drinking your hate cult's Kool-Aid. You are drunk on it.

All major organizations have shills. It's too much a disadvantage not to have them. You can identify who is sending them by who the goof nut characters are helping. Sarah Palin seems like she came straight out of a comic book about an idiot with super political powers, and it is the Democratic Party that she has helped tremendously. I am not positive that Palin is a shill, but as I said, I am very suspicious. You can save your butt hurt cream money.

I have a piece of information that you need to make either a mantra or koan for yourself. It has not penetrated your mind yet. I think there should be laws against victimization, even for corporations. Did you catch it that time? Now stop lashing out at people for being successful. If success means so much to you, go get some for yourself. Have you ever thought about that?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow, you're a lot of help. Thank you for putting your energy into trying to make us look bad instead of big government. Hmmm...

Not sure how you managed to glean that out of my post; in fact my message is the opposite. I want us to look better, more attractive, both in outward style and in the actual message we send. I think people already hold a generally negative view of the government, even if they aren't libertarians. I also think that the general public does a face-value comparison when looking at two groups. I think if they see a net negative message coming from people dressed up like a Continental Congressman (something about our impending economic doom, the constitution being shred to pieces, etc.), they'll ignore it, maybe even call it crazy. The government may look better in comparison to them. That is not what we want.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you have proof that the Koch Brothers are derailing libertarianism with imposters? I know it's happening, but how do you know it's the Koch Brothers? I believe Sarah Palin might be working for the Democrats because it's the Republican Party she represented and hurt severely. She cost John McCain the 2008 election. She hurt the Tea Party too, but a lot of Republicans support it, especially now that it's pro-theocratic and pro-war.

I didn't say internet companies that pull the internet shenanigans aren't assholes. I just said that what they are trying to do is fair game because they are manipulating their own property. Hopefully they will lose tons of customers over it.



I am all for the use of force to defend your own property. You say you believe workers should own the means of production, so you believe in ownership. What's wrong with owning land if it's paid for in a mutually agreed upon deal? That's completely fair. It is theft that is not fair.

As for this contract and stock system for factory workers, how does it end up happening if the creator and land owner of the factory does not want it? If he says, "I own this land, I own the parts that were used to put the factory together, I paid to have the factory built through consensual contracts with builders, and I will pay $10 to $20 per hour to people who work in the factory. Come in for an interview if you want to make the deal," what makes it where that has to be called off and he has to make stock contracts with the employees instead?



I was asking what side you are on. All I ever see you posting in regard to opposing big government are insults against the people who oppose it. What do you support, and how do you think it could be achieved?

Sarah Palin is what you'd call a strong fascist. Currently, the democrats are medium fascists, and the reason they're medium fascists is because it's become the new center in American politics, so any left leaning people are forced to support medium fascism in order to defend themselves against strong fascism like Sarah Palin and the entire republican party. The republicans are throwing all their chips in with corporatism, the democrats, while compromised, are still at least bringing up legislation to overturn Citizens United and keeping it on the agenda and in the conversation. Your belief the democrats are trying to destroy the republican party by employing extremist shill is not only unfounded but reveals just how unreasonable your level of thinking is. In fact, it practically renders reasonable conversation with you impossible because you're not capable of looking at the reality of the situation. You seem stuck on your principles, perhaps inherited by reading too much Ayn Rand, that sit in natural conflict with reality. Any evidence that contradicts these principles, such as that it's corporate tampering which has twisted the Tea Party, not DNC tampering, can't compute to you because unregulated corporations can apparently do no wrong and the system, from your perspective, does not appear inherently designed for those with influence to use that influence to deregulate themselves and exploit others.