Amid US gas boom, split over environment risks

Access to inexpensive energy means more freedom for more people.

Environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) hate freedom.

How would a less expensive fuel source increase freedoms which are outlined in a constitution.
Are you serious Environmentalist hate freedom thats so insulting not to environmentalist but to yourself for using such pathetic generic conservative rhetoric.

Environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) hate freedom.

Well said. Environmentalists can't see 1 foot ahead of them with their low perception. Cheap energy mean bigger profits(evil word right?), therefore more tax revenue to fund government energy R&D.

How would a less expensive fuel source increase freedoms which are outlined in a constitution.
Are you serious Environmentalist hate freedom thats so insulting not to environmentalist but to yourself for using such pathetic generic conservative rhetoric.

Conservatives have no shame (i.e. too ignorant to be shamed).

How would a less expensive fuel source increase freedoms which are outlined in a constitution.
Are you serious Environmentalist hate freedom thats so insulting not to environmentalist but to yourself for using such pathetic generic conservative rhetoric.

And the Green Party, ALF, ELF and Greenpeace isn't Marxist and/or Collectivist?

Why are Socialists around the world, 'green'?

Why are all the respectable Communists around the world, 'green'?

The environmental movement is the last, best hope, of controlling the means of production. And, so far, they have done a right smart job of it too.

Socialists seek to tear down the current hierarchy where natural monopolies are used to control the people with no regard to the environment. Whats so wrong with that they are not sneaky about their intentions unlike Capitalist. You are protecting gas companys that are pumping carcinogens in to a well that could rupture and contaminate the water supply. They protect them self by claiming intellectual property rights over the fracturing fluid.
I understand that if the FRAC Act where to be introduced It would have negative effects on the economy. This would not be necessary if gas companys would work with and for the people by disclosing the chemicals they currently use. There are times where you have to draw a line and unregulated hydraulic fracturing is one such case.
Your view of socialism is greatly skewed.

Socialists seek to tear down the current hierarchy where natural monopolies are used to control the people with no regard to the environment. Whats so wrong with that they are not sneaky about their intentions unlike Capitalist. You are protecting gas companys that are pumping carcinogens in to a well that could rupture and contaminate the water supply. They protect them self by claiming intellectual property rights over the fracturing fluid.
I understand that if the FRAC Act where to be introduced It would have negative effects on the economy. This would not be necessary if gas companys would work with and for the people by disclosing the chemicals they currently use. There are times where you have to draw a line and unregulated hydraulic fracturing is one such case.
Your view of socialism is greatly skewed.

My view of socialism is crystal clear: socialists want to reduce the human population to 500 million people. Have they changed their mind?

Aha- again on dazzling display we find the party-line Conservative Willful "Ignorance". which is to say, not really ignorance at all -at least, not from the mouths of the commenters here- but rather the unshakeable, Church of Ayn Rand conviction that they will somehow be able to ammass enough wealth through the gaming of the "freimarket" system and the ferocious rape of their fellow humans, to be able to buy themselves insulation from the consequences of their profit-at-any-cost religion.

Understanding that the consequences of fracking -regulated or no- are the contamination of drinking water, air, and soils with a rich, savory cocktail of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and carcinogens is not dependent upon political philosophy, but upon recognition of the facts as they present themselves in the real, actual world in which we live, and not the sociopathic, megalomaniac nightmare-place in which Shootist, CapPre, and Argon apparently reside.

@Caliban

People who don't like profit shouldn't be allowed to work! It is an insult to reason.

People who don't like fossil fuels should be deported to third world countries: seeing as how we who live in largely populated developed countries would all be living in third world countries without them or more than likely would have starved to death a long time ago: no fuel = no food for large cities = starvation of the masses! How do you not get that? Or perhaps you do get that and simply possess the world population under 500,000,000 million point of view.

A robust and prosperous economy is what creates the wealth that enables protection of the environment.
A robust and prosperous economy needs energy.
People living at subsistence levels can't afford running water and flush toilets.
Wealth from capitalism provides the resources for people to keep their environment clean.

@Caliban

Furthermore, if drinking water is really your issue and you get the chance to do something about it, please tell them to stop putting fluoride into the water while you're at it. Thank you so very much!

@ Argon
Your statement about the Georgia Guidestones if that is what you are referring to. Was phrased in such a way that I dont know what you are implying exactly. If your view of socialism comes from Ten commandments totaling 109 words. Then yes your view of socialism is skewed.

Yes many socialist interpret reproduction differently than traditional christian teachings. Thing have changed medical advancements have prolonged life and reduced infant death. We are in no way prepared for a large scale food shortage. The energy consumption of the population drives humanity to mine entire mountains, deforest jungles, pollute the air, and in this case possibly pump toxins in to the water supply.

@Caliban
People who don't like profit shouldn't be allowed to work! It is an insult to reason.

Confirmed Cretin status: Check.

"People who don't like fossil fuels should be deported to third world countries: seeing as how we who live in largely populated developed countries would all be living in third world countries without them or more than likely would have starved to death a long time ago: no fuel = no food for large cities = starvation of the masses! How do you not get that? Or perhaps you do get that and simply possess the world population under 500,000,000 million point of view.

Confirmed Total Lack of any historical consciousness or understanding: Check.

Goner- how do you think all the millions of city-dwellers survived to reproduce prior to the Fossil Fuel Age? And just how long do you think it has been since the world population was only 500 million?

A word of advice: be absolutely certain to stay indoors during a rain storm -your life depends on it!

@Caliban

It is my historical understanding that refridgeration is greatly resposible for making modern city populations possible. Refridgeration = Electricity = the burning of a fossil fuel in the vast majority of cases; Not only refridgeration but also transportation has made food stuff available from several sources at a relativly affordable price. A price by the way that is directly proportional to the cost of the fuel that transports it to were it is sold.

I don't wish for wildlife to suffer for human activities, but neither do I like the idea of viewing mankind as somekind of parasite to the planet. I value human kind above the wildlife, I would not sacrifice a single soul for the sake of some birds on a beach. On the other hand if there is a safer, cleaner way of getting food to our childrens mouths than by all means, but it should not be at the cost of goodwill towards all of mankind.

In other words, avoid taking positions that make mankind out to be the enemy!

It is my historical understanding that refridgeration is greatly resposible for making modern city populations possible. Refridgeration = Electricity = the burning of a fossil fuel

You've obviously never heard of iceboxes (literally, that's what they were). Iceboxes were in common use up to the 1940s. I'm reliably informed that modern city populations were in existence at and before those days.

Or perhaps you do get that and simply possess the world population under 500,000,000 million point of view.

In words, that's five hundred billion million or five hundred trillion.

@Deesky

Iceboxes were part of the refridgeration revolution; Please see the NOVA TV special: Absolute Zero: http://www.youtub...Sv8PDDwA for more information about the history of our mastery of cold and its impact on society. It covers the devolopement of ideas about what cold is, the developement of thermometers, synthetic cooling, the ice industry, refridgeration, flash freezing of food, air conditioning (which made the building of skyscrapers practical), and of course the "race to achieve the ultimate goal of absolute zero" temperature; a good show and well done.

@Javinator

Sorry for any confusion, I meant to type either 500 million or 500,000,000 but I seem to have combined the two forms!

It's ok. I was wrong anyways.

It would be either five hundred million million or five hundred trillion.

Progressive Environmentalists would have the US import all its energy from third world crazies who want to destroy the US. Makes sense to me! Then the US would become a third world country run by progressives.

Remeber this folks! Environmentalists have NO engery source that they are happy with. Solar - Bad, because solar pannels take away light from lizards. Wind - Bad, kills birds and bats, looks awful and makes a lot of noise. Hydro - bad, kills fish. Nuclear - bad, just very bad. Coal - bad, super bad. Oil - bad, evil oil companies. Biofuel - bad takes more energy to make and increases food prices.

My question to environmentalists is, what energy source are all environmentalist groups ok with, and can it supply our power needs.

Emphasis is mine:

My question to environmentalists is, what energy source are ALL ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS ok with, and can it supply our power needs.

Why do you expect all environmentalists to agree? I doubt the Amish are okay with nuclear. Should we hold this against conservatives?

@Deesky

Iceboxes were part of the refridgeration revolution; Please see the NOVA TV special: Absolute Zero: http://www.youtub...Sv8PDDwA for more information about the history of our mastery of cold and its impact on society.

I know it well - excellent programs. As are most BBC4 documentaries.

@Caliban

It is my historical understanding that refridgeration is greatly resposible for making modern city populations possible.

Again, Total Lack of {Historical} Understanding is CONFIRMED.
Industrialized agriculture is far anad away the primary cause for exploding populations, and not only urban ones.
ReFRIGeration only plays a contributing role.

In other words, avoid taking positions that make mankind out to be the enemy!

Take whatever position you want, Goner, but your pie-eyed assertions are meaningless without a factual basis, and will therefore be REJECTED by those who didn't partake of your master's kool-aid.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15

@Caliban

Is your name in the book of life or are you headed for the lake of fire?

You're a fucking moron Argon. All your posts have been reported for abuse (of intellect).

So you're blatantly picking apart the sections of the bible you like to serve your own purpose. Wow that sounds familiar.

Your argument is that, if you believe what an old book and people tell you without question, you'll go to heaven because the book tells you to? Circular logic at its best.

By your reasoning, worshipers of Satan must believe in God and, thus, have a free pass to heaven.

Damn my logical reasoning... I'm screwed.

Atheists try to use science to pick apart sections of the Bible to prove their faith.

Whoa how have those post not been taken down yet.

It would be so awesome if productive conversations regarding enviro/social policy or AGW could ever take place here...

It would be so awesome if productive conversations regarding enviro/social policy or AGW could ever take place here...

How can this happen when AGW must be taken on faith and the only policies promoted require govts to take over the world economy?

There are a lot of things that you can do to help like take cold showers, become vegetarian, use mass transportation or car pool, Recycle/Reuse, if you are in the position to dont buy a inefficient vehicle and the list goes on and on. Dont support wars for oil no matter how appealing the crying screaming eagle may appear to you. Get involved with you local community find out where your power comes from so that you can make a more informed decision. I have Two old Jacobs Wind turbines, solar panels and geothermal heating I make way more power than I use.

Atheists try to use science to pick apart sections of the Bible to prove their faith.

You're not actually addressing anything I said with that point. You're introducing a non-sequitur and an illogical one at that.

Again you're addressing atheists as some kind of single entity and generalizing as you do with any one of the "belief groups" you use to generalize peoples' beliefs (leftists, statists, atheists, progressives, liberals, socialists, etc...).

If anything, all you're saying is that the Bible is not useful for proving anything. If an atheist uses the Bible to "prove" anything then that atheist is an idiot.

Some atheists attempt to disprove sections of the Bible using science. This is completely different from what you're suggesting and has nothing to do with faith.

These people are putting the Bible or claims of its followers under the same scientific scrutiny that they would any other observation or claim made by anyone. The 6000 year old Earth comes to mind.

How can this happen when AGW must be taken on faith and the only policies promoted require govts to take over the world economy?

There's plenty of facts and data to both sides, no faith or principle required on either side to have a logical discussion towards a reasoned. There's plenty of things to be said that don't involve the words "conservative" or "socialist/progressive/liberal". There's also plenty of people who want to have these conversations.

Unfortunately there seems to be even more people who fall under one or the other of those labels that don't allow any other conversation to be had except ones that involve those words. The result is political nihilism; these individuals don't care about the actual issue or determining how it can best be resolved for the benefit of the People, only that it not fall in the broadly defined purview of their opposing party.

There's plenty of facts and data to both sides,

That' is not what the AGW faithful claim.

here's plenty of things to be said that don't involve the words "conservative" or "socialist/progressive/liberal"

But the 'solutions' to AGW all require socialist policies: more state control of the economies of the world.

This sounds like many here, which is why I call them 'progressives'.
""We the people..."

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way -- and that includes many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs -- find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us."
"More than a hundred years ago, so-called "Progressives" began a campaign to undermine the Constitution's strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on all the rest of us. "
http://www.realcl...381.html
Grand schemes like Kyoto,Cap and 'Trade' and carbon credits.

determining how it can best be resolved for the benefit of the People,

Why not let the people decide for themselves what is of benefit to them?
Does 'emsquared' know what is best for the People?

Some atheists attempt to disprove sections of the Bible using science. This is completely different from what you're suggesting and has nothing to do with faith.

It has everything to do with faith. The central theme of the Bible is all about faith.
If atheists don't have faith, why should they waste their time trying to disprove something that cannot be proven? They do so to support the atheist faith.

Argon, Argon, Argon....wherefore art thou, Brother? Does this mean that you don't love me? Well -can we at least still be friends? No?

Don't sweat it, buddy -those were just rhetorical questions, anyway. I don't make a habit of embracing the two-faced, and I've gotta say that the foul reek of the Hypocrite is very strong upon you...you'll wanna check that, too-- last I heard the Lord Your God wasn't down with His sheep appropriating His sovereign Powers-- you know, "Judge not lest Ye be Judged," and all...

contd

contd

Still, I'd have been touched by your concern for the welfare of my Immortal Soul, were it not for your very obvious judgement of it, smarmily masquerading as brotherly love, all of which makes it so much easier to say this next:

Supposing that there is a Hell, you may rest assured that my residency there will be made actually enjoyable, becase I'll be able to see -as you are mounted by the barbed-penis Devil-Dog- the incomprhending look of surprised betrayal upon your face resulting from your mistaken belief that a lifetime's worth of mere lip service to your most Jealous God was going to prevent the Gaping Jaws of Fiery Hell from snapping shut upon your spotty ass...

Instant Xian Flambe, anyone?

Ryggesogn2, how do you simultaneously find anarchy and the US constitution to be desirable?

This thread resembles the day a meth head smoked a blow of meth while taking acid.

@"Supposing that there is a Hell, you may rest assured that my residency there will be made actually enjoyable, becase I'll be able to see -as you are mounted by the barbed-penis Devil-Dog- the incomprhending look of surprised betrayal upon your face resulting from your mistaken belief that a lifetime's worth of mere lip service to your most Jealous God was going to prevent the Gaping Jaws of Fiery Hell from snapping shut upon your spotty ass..."

Did you even read my posts? Salvation is not a matter of works or we wouldn't stand a chance. With God there is forgiveness or else no one would bother with him and he wouldn't bother with us. If it really is to hell with everyone then what is God waiting for on the other hand I hope you will be saved. I really do value all of you; I would not want you to miss out on reaching all your potential: not much to do in a lake of fire but flounder around for eternity wondering if it will ever end!

Come on you clever minds, think on God awhile!

Ryggesogn2, how do you simultaneously find anarchy and the US constitution to be desirable?

Either are better alternatives to the 'progressive' paradise of North Korea.
"This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[a] and donkeys he will take for his own use..." 1Samuel8:11-20

Christians think they can make up for anything they ever say with this:

If it really is to hell with everyone then what is God waiting for on the other hand I hope you will be saved. I really do value all of you; I would not want you to miss out on reaching all your potential: not much to do in a lake of fire but flounder around for eternity wondering if it will ever end!

No sorry. Just because you slap that disclaimer on the end of your hate speech doesn't mean you believe it or that it would even make up for your hateful words if you believed it.

How mentally broken do you have to be to believe those that disagree with you will suffer an eternity of torture for doing so? How evil do you have to be to think they deserve it?

@FrankHerbert

"How mentally broken do you have to be to believe those that disagree with you will suffer an eternity of torture for doing so? How evil do you have to be to think they deserve it?"

How mentally broken do you have to be to NOT believe that those who willfully reject God's free gift of salvation through his son the Lord Jesus will suffer an eternity of torture for doing so?

How evil do you have to be to NOT think they deserve it?

Our time here is short, eternity is long: the choice is yours and so are the consequences or rewards.

To me the choice is clear: I choose to believe!

Is it so hard to imagine that people who are given free will are ultimately responsible for the choices they make? You see, there are no valid excuses, those who willfully reject their Saviour stand condemned already and the wrath of God abides on them: first a great white throne where the books will be opened, and then a lake of fire for ever and ever.

Again the choice is yours!

http://www.youtub...W91Iv8D8

:)

Why not let the people decide for themselves what is of benefit to them?

Does 'emsquared' know what is best for the People?

I would like to see this happen, assuming the public is fully informed of course, of both sides of the argument and the anticipated reasoned results of each sides approach to resolving the problem(s).

So, yes I would like to see a resolution or policy that reflects the stance of a well informed public.

I certainly know what I believe to be best for the People, which is to say, what I believe to be best for the combined futures of environmental quality, National security and economy. Is that going to differ from a lot of people? No doubt. But as it stands no one is having (or able to have) this conversation. Only, is this socialist or is this blind capitalism? And why each side thinks the other is going to be the end of America.

How about, no more talk of why X fits into the enemies idealism only what are the merits of each argument in and of themselves?

How about, no more talk of why X fits into the enemies idealism only what are the merits of each argument in and of themselves?

The biggest problem with this is it can be a trap that misses the underlying objectives motivating support for the ideas. In order to have an effective argument on the merits of an idea you have to trust in the full disclosure and honesty of the opposing party. I'm afraid that on most issues I don't trust either side to enter into an honest open debate. Underlying motivations aren't disclosed. Conflicts of interest abound.

In this debate over "fracking" the moneyed interests have overwhelmed the discussion and have done very little to participate in an honest debate of the practice. But then again maybe I am just not listening.

Wouldn't it be great if Palin verbally acknowledged how much in contributions she has received from oil and gas companies and related interests before immediately before before advocating oil exploration?
"Oil and gas interested donated $XX million dollars to my campaign. Drill baby drill!"

Or if Scott Walker told us what percentage of his campaign financing came from the Koch brothers before advocating privatization of local utilities.
"The Koch brothers gave me X% of my campaign funds and I think we should sell local utilities to them."

I realize this is absurd on its face, but my point is simply that honest debate takes a lot of work and is difficult when one side has so many more concentrated resources and so little willingness to disclose how they are being used to influence outcomes.

Underlying motivations aren't disclosed.

The underlying motivation should be determinable by a fully disclosed argument. A generally defined mutually agreed upon goal would need to be settled upon first, but this should be totally doable. And whichever argument stands up to reasoned, objective criticism as being the best (least risk most reward?) way to achieve that mutually agreed upon goal, then it should be the one pursued.

For instance, to me this debate should be about, how we can arrive at a policy that minimizes threats to environmental quality, with minimal negative impact on national security and the economy.

That seems like a pretty agreeable goal, no?

The onus of both sides then is to demonstrate they are minimizing threats to the environment with minimal detriment to national security and economy.

All of these aspects should be measurable without any mention of underlying objective, except as that IS the argument in and of itself.

I would like to see a resolution or policy that reflects the stance of a well informed public.

In the 'progressive's' world, a 'well informed public' is one that agrees with those elite few 'progressives', like an Obama czar, that know what's best for everyone.

I realize this is absurd on its face

I don't think an only slightly lesser form of that is absurd. Unfortunately the supreme court has all but f*ed our hopes for campaign finance reform, and therefore IMHO, about all our hopes for an open and honest govt.

honest debate... is difficult when one side has so many more concentrated resources and so little willingness to disclose how they are being used to influence outcomes.

As evidenced by Obama upholding, at least by-proxy of not doing anything, many of Bush's policies, I'm pretty sure neither party we have in power has any interest in honesty nor the People's interests at heart, both parties have -if not concentrated- extensive resources and neither demonstrates a willingness towards full disclosure.

I bet emsquared would never join a tea party, yet they are doing exactly what he claims to want, holding politicians accountable.

Checkout the message to the GOP:
http://www.facebo...patriots

Right, ryggesogn2. Because the tea party movement has been very forward about the source of the funding mobilizing their organization. Oh wait. No they haven't.

That isn't to say that there aren't people in the tea party movement who have good intentions, but there are many people in the movement whose true motivations and agendas aren't being disclosed and are in fact quite contrary to other member's ultimate desires. Take what that idiot in Florida is doing as an example. The people who voted that duplicitous tea-bagger into office are regretting their decision now.

In the 'progressive's' world...

Which, of course, is only the world you (and people like you, who seek to prevent productive discourse) impose upon reality. "Well informed public" is not an indefinite term and no-one should stand for it being portrayed as such. Which means that anyone who would try to obfuscate that term should be excluded from the discourse.

How do we achieve a well informed public? By allowing both arguments to be presented without one shouting down the other out of hand.

I bet emsquared would never join a tea party, yet they are doing exactly what he claims to want, holding politicians accountable.

I wouldn't, because I'm a social liberal and the tea party is a party of bigotry and intolerance. However if they prove to be more than just talk (which is far from proven), then I will applaud them for that. Unfortunately, indicators already abound that they are no different from the 80s conservatives they sprang from.

I bet emsquared would never join a tea party, yet they are claiming exactly what he wants to do, holding politicians accountable.

Fixed that for you.

Unfortunately, indicators already abound that they are no different from the 80s conservatives they sprang from.

Or the John Birch society they sprang from.

I believe that all sides and groups should be held accountable and held to to same standard as the next. Problem is progressives and progressive groups dont. How much money would taxpayers save if progressive groups such as ACORN, PP, etc, would be treated the same way as Concerned Women for America, Crisis Pregnancy center. Progressives groups however are unable to fund and support themselves.

the tea party is a party of bigotry and intolerance.

So why are tea parties supporting minority candidates (women, blacks, Hispanics) across the country?

I believe that all sides and groups should be held accountable and held to to same standard as the next. Problem is progressives and progressive groups dont. How much money would taxpayers save if progressive groups such as ACORN, PP, etc, would be treated the same way as Concerned Women for America, Crisis Pregnancy center. Progressives groups however are unable to fund and support themselves.

That's because the 'progressive' groups you listed actually exist to help people, rather than exist as front groups for paleoconservative nonsense.

So why are tea parties supporting minority candidates (women, blacks, Hispanics) across the country?

Women are not a minority.

Women are not a minority.

Shame on you FH. Women are a minority in political and leadership positions despite their demographic majority. Don't get all semant-icky.

Regarding bigotry and intolerance, they can be found in almost any organization. That the tea party may attract more bigots is telling though.

The real problem I see with the tea party is that the masses in the movement are ignorant of the effect the party's policies will have on them. Conservatives have a history of adopting the religious right's social agenda to force through an economic agenda that is detrimental to the vast majority of the people supporting the conservative candidates. A great example is the red herring of abortion in the budget discussions a couple of months ago.

because I'm a social liberal and the tea party is a party of bigotry and intolerance.

This really says it all does it not? Tea parties support limited, constitutional govt and the unalienable and inherent rights of every individual citizen.
Instead of admitting they don't support the Constitution or the inherent rights of every individual, 'progressives' make false accusations against the those who do. Quite telling.

Women are not a minority.

Careful, NOW will not be happy with you.

That the tea party may attract more bigots is telling though.

Let those without sin cast the first stone.
FDR, a democrat, herded all the Japanese into internment camps. He appointed segregationists to the Supreme Court. One a former KKK member. Then there is Byrd, a former KKK member.
Jesse Jackson is anti-Jewish.
"Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks."
http://gopcapital...ord.html

the masses in the movement are ignorant of the effect the party's policies will have on them.

No, they are not.
Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. The people in the tea parties understand that the govt has made promises it cannot keep. Union members and democrats don't get it. Neither do the Greeks.

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

[Casting of stones]

Really?

"But it got even more blatant when Congressmen Andre Carson and John Lewis and other Congressional Black Caucus members staged a walk through the Tea Party crowd in front of the capitol the day before the health care vote. They claimed they were threatened by a violent mob and were subjected to the vile N word slur fifteen times. "
"When the media chose to ignore that Representatives Lewis and Carsons story was falling apart, we dug deeper. We found four videos from the moment Rep. Carson claimed the racist Tea Party incident occurred. The four videos, which include audio, show beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident was a manufactured lie."
http://biggovernm...ism2010/

"We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesnt do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from one of his own kind. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrods racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. "
http://biggovernm...19/video

And from the Koch brothers:

"A new Web video from the Charles Koch Foundation draws a direct parallel between economic freedom and the quality of peoples lives."
"The video says that economic freedom means that your property protected under an impartial rule of law, youre free to trade with others for what you need and want, your money keeps its value because your national currency is stable and government stays small compared to the size of the economy.

Read more: http://dailycalle...QiOtxLCx
"
Imagine, data showing how political and economic liberty leads to prosperity.

And from the World Bank, more data:
"These results tend to support earlier
findings that beyond core functions of government
responsibilityincluding the protection of liberty
itselfthe expansion of the state to provide for various
entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and
cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long
run and may even make them poorer."
WPS5660
Tea party members understand this. Obama and his supporters do not.

And from the World Bank, more data:

And from the mangyhole, more cherry-picked fringe and factoid flim-flammery...as if the Mangy one thinks that anyone with any critical thinking skills will swallow this tissue of lies, out-of-context quotes, and ideologigal distortions by the whole cloth--maybe even following it with a refreshing draught of Argon's Instant Xian Hypocritical Koolaid...when in fact it is well understood by any all independent thinkers here that you are performing the function demanded of you by your corporocrat masters, which is to open the hose of mangynoise in a vain attempt to drown out the opposition.

Careful you don't slip up and end seated upon the spewing hose of your own noise...

Did you even read my posts? Salvation is not a matter of works or we wouldn't stand a chance. With God there is forgiveness or else no one would bother with him and he wouldn't bother with us. [...]

Come on you clever minds, think on God awhile!

Goner,
"He" is your "God" -not mine- so you go ahead and you think upon him, even though I know that will be difficult, given your intellect. You may entirely forego the effort of trying to relate his wishes(as YOU interpret them) for me.

If "He" has anything to say to me, I'm sure that my two ears -since they function properly- will suffice for "Him" to impart "His" concerns. In the meantime, I COULD NOT BE less concerned with your thoughts in that regard.

Unfortunately the supreme court has all but f*ed our hopes for campaign finance reform, and therefore IMHO, about all our hopes for an open and honest govt.

"The Obama campaign appears to be signaling that its fundraising totals for the second quarter of the year the first since President Obama announced for reelection will not be as robust as the campaign would like."
http://www.whiteh...ng-fail/
Market forces at work. No one wants to buy what Obama is selling.

"Secular fundamentalists indeed have an unhealthy need to feel intellectually superior to conservatives, and no one works harder to satisfy that need than Bill Maher {or Vendy or Cali or..}. His methods are intellectually dishonest. He selects targets that he thinks are easy such as the Tea Baggers, and ridicules their intelligence as a way of ridiculing conservatism. But if the Tea Baggers are so stupid, then why do so many really smart people completely agree with them on the issues they champion i.e., the need to restore fiscal sanity and limit the role of government?

Read more: http://dailycalle...QizAzgj2
"

National Organization of Women (a progressive group)couldn't survive without the government. Concerned Women of America a conservative group survives with donation.

Progressives are hypocrites. For them its ok to know the classes, marks, every email or document ever sent or received, hold accountable for the actions of anyone they may have met even briefly, and have litmus tests of any conservative who even thinks about being president. But demean anyone who dares ask the same about a Progressive President.

Its Ok for Obama to use religious references (perhaps because progressives know he isnt a Christian, but just wants to fool people into believing he is.), but if a conservative uses religious references they are branded religious cooks.

For my edification are there any progressive organizations that are not funded by government, but rather by grassroots normal people?

Its Ok for Obama to use religious references ... but if a conservative uses religious references they are branded religious cooks.

There's a vast difference between Obama saying, "he felt God's spirit beckoning him" or the like, and Michelle Bachmann saying 'she gives more credence to the Bible than her own mind' and using the bible as a basis for her bigoted anti-gay rhetoric, or Palin saying American Law should be Bible-based, which sounds pretty much the opposite of separation of church and state.

Market forces at work. No one wants to buy what Obama is selling.

Or the corporate masters are afraid that Obama is going to do what he promised to and fight for the American people rather than multinational corporations and billionaires.
(I really am hopeful, given what was accomplished, that Obama will deliver in his second term.)

Tea parties support limited, constitutional govt and the unalienable and inherent rights of every individual citizen.

Take a look at this link, and tell me what it says to you about who in modern history is the real party of fiscal responsibility/limited govt.
http://en.wikiped...al_terms

Not to mention Tea Party wants the govt to dictate who can(not) marry.

The pursuit of happiness is on of those unalienable rights mentioned in the Constitution, no? However, the Tea Party would deny this right to anyone who loves someone of the same gender, in their "protection of marriage" agenda.

that Obama will deliver in his second term.)

Obama is currently delivering socialism. Is that what you want him to deliver? The United Socialist States of America?

As for marriage, EM^2, should the govt decide if adults can marry children?

If the govt is going to grant a privilege for marriage, the govt is obligated to define the term. Many states have done so with constitutional amendments.

Obama is going to do what he promised to and fight for the American people

He has been doing a lot of fighting out on the golf course every weekend.
How many of 'the American people' have taken an African vacation at govt expense, $500K, lately?

First of all, NEVER pollute economic debate with social issues. Conservatives have done this to bring in the religious to support their hijacking of the economy. Marriage, gay rights, abortion, etc. should not be mentioned in the same debate or in ANY way linked to economic issues. When discussing a candidate, sure, when discussing an issue, NEVER. My feelings on marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the merits of my arguments on economic policy.

Regarding the Socialist states: What do you think is better? Government should get out of the way of the billionaires and multinational corporations so they can save the world? The government should have a military and maybe some police and that's it? The rest should be for profit ruled by the free market? Because this has worked where? Ever? In the history of the world? NOWHERE! It is a pipe dream. Fantasy.
Lower taxes on the rich = bigger piles for the rich.
Higher taxes = reinvestment and new jobs to avoid paying taxes.

Because this has worked where?

Everywhere it has been tried.
Free market capitalism was so successful in the USA the 'progressives' had to stop it by creating the federal reserve.

should the govt decide if adults can marry children?

C'mon, rygg, minors are not capable of giving legal consent under American law, therefore they can't legally enter into such an agreement. It's not a moral judgement so much as a protection for a group that has no legal standing. Did you honestly never understand that difference?

NEVER pollute economic debate with social issues.
...
My feelings on marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the merits of my arguments on economic policy.

Agreed. I opened the flood-gates with my response to why I'd never go to a Tea Party. My apologies (not that the thread hadn't been de-railed before, with the sermon).

a protection for a group that has no legal standing

That's one reason why heterosexual marriage is granted privilege by the govt, to protect a group, the children from that marriage, that have no legal standing.

That's one reason why heterosexual marriage is granted privilege by the govt, to protect a group, the children from that marriage, that have no legal standing.

I'm not going to de-rail this thread any further, I'd like to continue our discussion via PM if you'd like to. PM sent.

Jeez, another religionist erupts like a natural gas drill site. See what happens when you piss these guys off? They threaten your immortal soul. And sometimes (usually, eventually) when holy retribution isnt fast enough they take matters into their own hands. Because theyre SUPPOSED to.
http://www.adnkro...662.html

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15"

-What happened, did another holding pond catch on fire?
http://www.epa.go...r760.htm
http://www.youtub...ZkhnnhJ8
http://www.youtub...=related

Free market capitalism was so successful in the USA the 'progressives' had to stop it by creating the federal reserve.

You know that 'progressives' didn't create the fed because of free market capitalism's success. The fed was created in response to a series of financial panics. It was never that successful because it is a flawed concept and it contributed to the Great Depression and more recently the Great Conservative Recession. Don't lie.

to protect a group, the children from that marriage, that have no legal standing.

Enough of this nonsense. Take it to an article about gay parenting or something near topical. We'll grant you your opinion. I hate these tangents. (Note I am guilty of starting and perpetuating them as well. I'll wear the hypocrite badge here.) (Thanks emc for the thought to PM him.)

It was never that successful because it is a flawed concept and it contributed to the Great Depression and more recently the Great Conservative Recession.

Yes, the Federal Reserve is a flawed concept and prolonged the Great Depression as it is doing with this recession.
"what actually happened was that business became increasingly competitive during the late 19th century, and that various big-business interests, led by the powerful financial house of J. P. Morgan and Company, tried desperately to establish successful cartels"
http://mises.org/daily/3823
What is so amusing is people like Pyle rail against corporate interests yet it WAS the corporate interests that colluded with the govt to create the Fed, the FDA and other govt agencies to control the competition of those in cahoots with the govt.

"During the 1890s, in the new field of large-scale industrial corporations, big-business interests tried to establish high prices and reduced production via mergers, and again, in every case, the merger collapsed from the winds of new competition. "
"It then became clear to these big-business interests that the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion, in other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized, coordinated statism."
"In return for their serving as apologists for the new statism, the State was prepared to offer not only cartelized occupations, but also ever-increasing and cushier jobs in the bureaucracy to plan and propagandize for the newly statized society. And the intellectuals were ready for it"
http://mises.org/daily/3823

Obama is currently delivering socialism. Is that what you want him to deliver? The United Socialist States of America?

No, I think something more like this:
http://en.wikiped...cy_union

-If he doesnt deliver in 15 mins does that mean we get it for free?

"The spectacular crash of 1929 followed five years of reckless credit expansion by the Federal Reserve System under the Coolidge administration. In 1924, after a sharp decline in business, the Reserve banks suddenly created some $500 million in new credit, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. "
{Sounds familiar.}
"Social and economic decline is facilitated by moral decay. Surely, the Great Depression would be inconceivable without the growth of covetousness and envy of great personal wealth and income, the mounting desire for public assistance and favors. It would be inconceivable without an ominous decline of individual independence and self-reliance, and above all, the burning desire to be free from man's bondage and to be responsible to God alone."
{Sounds familiar.}
http://mises.org/daily/3515
This was written in 1969.

ryggesogn2: Do you not see how you two most recent comments (not the last bit of nonsense) support the progressive, anti big business position??? That is hilarious.

First you say progressives created the fed. Then you immediately turn around and say big business colluded with the government to create the fed. Which is it?

btw, This would be the same big business that you think today would work so well when unfettered from regulation. The same big business buying politicians and elections so they can privatize the profits from government provided services while leaving the cost with the governed.
Market forces would work, but only after the market was bled dry. Free market correction mechanisms resulting from cataclysmic business model failures are unacceptable means for regulating society. Find a better religion than libertarian-ism.

Marjon, your free market capitalism has all but destroyed the American middle class and now the corporate masters and billionaires are looking for new markets in China and India to exploit. We need to rebuild the American middle class that made this country great before our market isn't needed by big business and we are left plundered and abused.

The robber barons of the late 19th century didn't make this country great. They rode this country's rise on the backs of the American workers they abused. This country only got better with unionization and the growth of the middle class. It all turned around with Reagan and the great conservative experiment. The Great Conservative Recession has proven to everyone that it doesn't work.

Unless you think ignitable tap water is a good thing that is.

Big business LIKES regulation as they control their competitors.

'Progressives' need to read The Tar Baby. Enron was four square for the Kyoto Protocol as they were planning make big profits on natural gas. GE and BP support all the 'green' govt regulations as they will be in position to profit ahead of their competitors.

Did the govt sponsored 'enterprises' benefit the homeowner or those politically connected to Fanny and Freddie?

How about tap water contaminated with MTBE, mandated by regulators and produced by Chevron? It was one of two oxygenates required by the govt. Ethanol was another. Brazil produced and exported cheap ethanol, but the US govt would not allow its importation. Who benefited? ADM?
The more power govt has the more power corporate interests will have to control their competition and raise prices.

Unless you think ignitable tap water is a good thing that is.

"Before (Rockefeller) came along, gasoline was considered a useless by-product that petroleum refineries often simply dumped into the nearest river. But Rockefeller decided to use it as a fuel in the refining process, which made it valuable, even before automobiles came along."
"Before Rockefeller's innovations reduced the price of kerosene to a fraction of what it had once been, there wasn't a lot for poor people to do when nightfall came, other than go to bed. But the advent of cheap kerosene added hours of light and activity to each day for people with low or moderate incomes."
http://www.freedo...ich.html
"Due in large part to Standard Oil, over these decades the price of kerosene dropped from 30 cents to 6 cents a gallon, while production increased astronomically and the quality of the product steadily improved."
http://blogs.forb...he-man-w

"Through Rockefellers work, kerosene became both cheaper and safer to use than whale oil, and quickly began to replace it in the marketplace. By 1890 the American whaling fleet had already dropped from a peak of 735 ships to just 200, and was still falling, in large part due to low cost kerosene produced by Rockefellers Standard Oil."
"The irony was that at the time of the breakup, Standard Oil was already losing its market position. Succesful companies often become senescent and lose vitality, and such was the case at Standard. It missed a number of key market shifts, most especially the Texas oil boom. By the time it was broken up by the government, its market share had already fallen under competitive pressures from 90% to 60%. As would be the case many times in history, the government acted on the economic threat of Standard Oil at the very time the market was already doing the job."
http://blogs.forb...-whales/

Hmmmm. I don't disagree with any of your three previous comments. You give too much credit to one man, Rockefeller, but good points. If you re-read my points you should find a similar vein of truth to them as well. I am bracing myself for the inflammatory follow-up.

(btw, the practice of dumping gasoline into rivers before it was found to be useful is exactly the type of thing the EPA is needed for to prevent form happening in the first place. Great example of how market forces won't work effectively.)

Please note that it was the lure of profit and an abhorrence to waste that prompted Rockefeller to not dump gasoline in the river.
Why didn't the local govts protect the riparian rights of the owners and stop the pollution of the river?
"Told in greater detail, the story of the Cuyahoga casts doubt on the conventional justifications for the federal environmental controls enacted in the fires wake."
"One problem Cleveland faced was that the Cuyahoga was treated as an industrial stream, and state permits inhibited local clean up efforts. Public nuisance actions and enforcement of local pollution ordinances, in particular, were precluded by state regulation, while federal laws protecting commercially navigable waterways went largely unenforced."
"the federal government would not utilize its statutory authority to protect rivers and harbors until the 1960s, and would not bring any actions against companies along the Cuyahoga until months after the 1969 fire"
http://law.case.edu/faculty/a

"The states water pollution control board licensed industrial facilities along the river, providing potential immunity from suit. We have no jurisdiction over what is dumped in the river, explained Utilities Director Ben. S. Stefanski II. The state licenses the industries and gives them legal authority to dump in the river. Actually, the state gives them a license to pollute.147"
"The history of the Cuyahoga River suggests that the
inherent limitations of the common law were exacerbated by government
policy. Specifically, there is reason to believe that common
law actions, in particular municipal actions to abate public nuisances, could have played a more substantial role in curtailing pollution along the Cuyahoga..."
"Measures to reinforce property rights, ensure the vitality of private and public nuisance actions, and perhaps to provide scientific, technical and financial support to state and local agencies may have been a viable alternative.278"
http://law.case.edu/faculty/ad

"Measures to reinforce property rights, ensure the vitality of private and public nuisance actions, and perhaps to provide scientific, technical and financial support to state and local agencies may have been a viable alternative.278"

I am eager to see where you are headed with this. I am not sure how this supports your libertarian ideals. It seems this is a rather progressive position.
Reinforcing property rights is an application and interpretation of law. The rest is pretty progressive.

I might argue that a properly tooth-ed EPA would be better to achieve consistency. Small locally controlled regulatory agencies are more vulnerable to corruption. Technology may make them a viable option to the EPA, but the coordination of such agencies seems quite a task. I am not sure there is an alternative to the large federal institution yet that can address the problems consistently and proactively, before environmental disasters. Environmental protection is difficult.

You give too much credit to one man, Rockefeller,

The market gave the credit, and profit to Rockefeller.

The point of the previous article was to demonstrate that local, state and federal govts failed to protect the owners of the river.
This seems to happen quite often: federally controlled rivers are flooding all across the US, the dikes around New Orleans are controlled by the federal govt.
The pollution in Love Canal would have remained contained if local school board did not force Hooker Chemical to sell the land to the school district to build houses and a school.

'Progressives' always lay blame of the failure regulatory agencies to everything but the system itself.

Market solutions are most effective and profitable. International standards like ISO 14000 can be used instead of capricious edits from agencies that have NO concern for the economic impacts of their decisions.

What you don't seem to get is that Rockefeller only stopped dumping gasoline into the river because he could make a profit off of it. Not because he wanted to protect the river for the use of the people.
That the local, state and federal govts failed to protect the owners of the river (sounds like an argument for the commons to me...) doesn't say anything to the ability of the free market to protect those owners. All it says to me is that the agencies need to be improved to prevent failures like this in the future.

Market solutions work for some things. But there is no way they will protect people from the effects of "fracking" and the like. What market forces are going to protect the people? Their aren't any. It is going to take government intervention.

Plunder the local treasure, sell it abroad, and fatten the piggy bank. Where are the market forces going to intercede? Dream on.

What you don't seem to get is that Rockefeller only stopped dumping gasoline into the river because he could make a profit off of it. Not because he wanted to protect the river for the use of the people.

So?

doesn't say anything to the ability of the free market to protect those owners.

There were no private owners. The govt 'owned' the river.

the agencies need to be improved

Who regulates the regulators?
"a more troubling precedent has quietly lurked in the background; as OIRAs duties have been expanded, and its importance emphasized by presidential administrations past and present, its staff has continually diminished since its inception 30 years ago.

Read more: http://dailycalle...QoTmjNpD

What market forces are going to protect the people? Their aren't any.

It was a more affluent local public that demand the river be cleaned. What local business wants to be killing its customers?

Who regulates the regulators?

A well informed populace. Hence the problem with the corporate media.

It was a more affluent local public that demand the river be cleaned.

So the wealthy deserve clean rivers but the poor who can't afford to fight don't? The poor who likely provide the cheap labor that fattens the more affluent's pocket books?

What local business wants to be killing its customers?

Its a global economy. Wake up marjon. Local businesses probably wouldn't kill their customers, but international corporations are known to kill the people in the regions they strip bare to maximize profits when they sell the plunder abroad.

I loved your "So?" I nearly wet myself when I read that.

You are arguing that the robber barons are going to save the world and then reply "So?" when I say they aren't. That's rich. Ignore the points you can't win and twist the argument another way.

@Pyle,

So, it appears you've made the acquaintance of the troll
ryqqesoqn2-->formerly "marjon"--> hence "Mangy" in derision-->and finally, "mangynoise", as a descriptor of his cut'n'paste comments/links that rarely make any sense, and are frequently self-contradictory -AS IF THEIR POSTER DIDN'T EVEN READ THEM PRIOR TO POSTING THEM.

Don't expect anything even approaching rational thought or argument from the likes of this shill, known to his corporate masters as Mr. Swenson.

I am quite familiar with marjon, and have addressed him as such to point out that fact. I just had the time today and the discussion has actually been better than most I have participated in or read through with him.
Thanks though Cali.

A well informed populace.

How?
Agencies have lives of their own and are rewarded for failure. Agencies that fail use the excuse they don't have enough money. Agency heads are rewarded with budget increases and more staff, so they can be rewarded for more failures.

the wealthy deserve clean rivers

Usually it is the wealthy that use their wealth to buy land for conservation. Many parks around the country were donated to the state, if they will maintain them.

It is socialist economies around the world that have little use for environmental conservation. USSR and China and Eastern Europe attest to this.

but international corporations are known to kill the people in the regions they strip bare to maximize profits when they sell the plunder abroad.

Zimbabwe destroyed private property rights and their people are starving.
The USSR eventually allowed their farmers to sell produce to the public to help end starvation.

@Pyle,

Wasn't sure if you were attempting to debate mangy, or tempting mangy with "de bait".

Carry on!

Robber barons like Castro, Mugabe, lil Kim, etc won't do anything to save the world.
Entrepreneurs like Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller (who saved the sperm whales), Thomas Edison, Paul Allen, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Ray Kroc, Koch brothers, etc., have done and will do more to save the world by increasing their wealth, the wealth of their investors and the wealth of their employees by providing products and services they persuade people to buy.

"In resource economics, we can now see that a negative externality is really only an uncaptured benefit--in other words, an entrepreneur can capture the benefits from what would otherwise have been a tragedy of the commons. "
"The problems from lack of resources stem from tyrannical dictators who don't allow ownership of land in their country and prevent their people from having access to development and food. But this is a political problem, not a market failure."
http://www.hoover...cle/7331

The process of science is to propose theories and collect data to test their hypotheses.
"ANDERSON I'm definitely an optimist about the future of the environment and of free market environmentalism because the evidence is on our side. We're demonstrating more and more that markets can help the environment and that political solutions often give us the antithesis of what we need.

I find that students and other people are generally receptive to my approach. It's mostly the bureaucrats in Washington who resist the market approach."
http://www.physor...firstCmt
As noted earlier by Rothbard, the 'progressives' co-opted the 'scientists' to support the state.
The AGWite first response was the Kyoto Treaty, a political response, not a market based approach. What a surprise!
Instead of banning 100W incandescent bulbs, incentivize efficient replacements. Edison put Rockefeller out of the kerosene lighting business.

Back to the main article, the US govt owns the mineral rights to the gas, oil and everything else.
We now that the technology to measure the property under your land and over your head.
If you owned the 1/2 acre of land your house sits on, and all the stuff under it to the earth's core and the air above out to space, they you, the owner has a way to profit from the wealth and a means to sue for damages.
How would the landowners in NY and PA feel if they were paid royalties for the gas under their land?

"Robber barons like Castro, Mugabe, lil Kim, etc won't do anything to save the world."
All created by imperialism seems like you never take that in to consideration.
I find it hard to believe that the rich would have helped the victims of the dust bowl.

Of course the 'rich' helped those in the dust bowl 1930s.
At least those who had money left after Hoover and FDR destroyed the economy.
My grandfather drove 9 days in a model T to WA state to do logging work. The Oakies migrated to California to find work. Who was creating those jobs? Those that had the money to build the factories and pay the wages.
I bet there would be a few in Zimbabwe who would welcome a return to the 'imperialism' of John Rhodes.

The rich didnt do anything to help the dust bowl victims they only took advantage of a displaced work force that where willing to work for food. With out regulation from the federal government by the creation of the department of agriculture the dust bowl stood a greater chance of happening again.

Colonialism and imperialism are never justifiable. A attempt to justify either would be interesting to hear with out sounding like a racist or a bigot.

Land ownership is interesting. Why is it people who own their own land take care of it and improve it, and those that rent do not.

Colonialism and imperialism are never justifiable.

Can't change history. So you think Zimbabwe is better off under Mugabe's socialism?
The Chinese have not dismantled the colony of Hong Kong and just about every former British colony is quite prosperous and successful.
Can't say the same for former Spanish colonies.

Your view of capitalism lends its self to the creation of a imperialist infrastructure. You can't change history but you can learn from it. The leaders that you referenced to Castro, Mugabe, lil Kim where created by capitalism and imperialism. To ignore how the dysfunctional countrys where created is to take it out of contexts. While contrasting them against Entrepreneurs with in the imperialistic countrys that benefited by existing within the empire further takes it out of contexts. With the creation of new empires whether they be capitalist or not will create new Mugabe's, lil Kims and Castors.

But to answer your question its not up to you or me to decide whether Mugabe's rule is good or bad for their people. All we can do is set a example for them and help the people in a way that does not compromise are peoples values.

Do you see any correlation between japans embracing capitalism and their transformation in to a imperialistic country?

We have some very radical progressives yet not one could answer the honest question I had yesterday which was are there any progressive organizations that are not funded by government, but rather by grassroots normal people?

I know most progressive organizations cannot survive without taking money from the government or being paid for by by billionairs? But there must be at least one that does survive by getting a majority of their donations from ordinary people.

I bet there would be a few in Zimbabwe who would welcome a return to the 'imperialism' of John Rhodes.

You don't mean CECIL Rhodes, part of the international Cabal which divided Africa and exploited it's resources in preparation for the world wars by enslaving and killing and displacing millions do you?

Brits were enslaving Africans even as they were taking moral credit for ending it elsewhere. Typical misdirection, a useful Tactic. Rhodes' legacy lives on; he made your buddy bill Clinton a scholar, taught him a lot about human Husbandry.
http://en.wikiped...r_Africa

I know most progressive organizations cannot survive without taking money from the government or being paid for by by billionairs? But there must be at least one that does survive by getting a majority of their donations from ordinary people.

Aw that's too easy. The communist party USA and the American Nazi party. And I for one am no progressive.

freethinking
Your question was not a honest one you first brought your religious belief in to the fore front of your discussion. In order to ascertain a supposed morel superiority over the finale out come of the discussion. This is the reason no one paid any attention to your post. It would be a frivolous endeavor to enter a discussion with you when you have no other intention but to undermine their credibility by accusing them of inferiority.

Your view of capitalism lends its self to the creation of a imperialist infrastructure.

No, it does not.

But to answer your question its not up to you or me to decide whether Mugabe's rule is good or bad for their people.

Yes, it is.

Do you see any correlation between japans embracing capitalism and their transformation in to a imperialistic country?

No.
They were imperialistic before they began down the capitalist path. I would not go so far to say they have embraced capitalism.

Until 1854 they where essentially isolationist it took until the 1890s to build the capitalist frame work. After that capitalism facilitated the rapid expanse of the Japanese empire. My point in bring this up is to point out a main problem with a system that you would have me believe to be flawless.

Until 1854 they where essentially isolationist it took until the 1890s to build the capitalist frame work. After that capitalism facilitated the rapid expanse of the Japanese empire. My point in bring this up is to point out a main problem with a system that you would have me believe to be flawless.

Japan has always been an empire.
But your use of 'capitalism' is not accurate.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), "
The Japanese Empire controlled the economy, not the people.
Socialism is a better description of their economy.

They where a mixed economy with a heavy bias towards capitalism as is the contemporary United States due to the military industrial complex. The Japanese gov setup up the first factorys but after that it was dependent on privately owned businesses. They where also granted privet ownership of property with the Establishment of land bonds in 1889. I had no idea that I was going to be getting in to debates like this on a science site. I would have never used the screen name theredcomet which is a reference to a Japanese amine not communism but whats done is done.

Japan was not capitalist, period. They industrialized, but that does not mean they were capitalist.
They have been essentially fascist, even today, as the govt has significant control over all their industries and protects many markets from competition.
A 'mixed' economy is essentially socialist as the govt has significant control over 'private' property.

Your Market fundamentalism is absurd. The reason why there are no pure capitalisms is because they are out dated and inherently flawed.

Your Market fundamentalism is absurd. The reason why there are no pure capitalisms is because they are out dated and inherently flawed.

What is the flaw?
Socialism is failing around the world. The closer an economy is to a market based system, the more prosperous and free the people are.
Liberty and prosperity is a flaw?

Financial liberty and prosperity within the capitalist system is a illustration. In reality capitalism creates a unequal distribution of wealth and power. When you speak of a economy that is closer to a pure capitalistic state produces more liberty and prosperity is to neglect the social situation that made it necessary to turn away from that system. Your statement is analogous to your interpretation of Zimbabwe void of historic context.

Sorry Otto, The US communist party was funded by USSR and the FBI. I agree with you that Nazi party is progressive.

In reality capitalism creates a unequal distribution of wealth and power.

Where is the flaw in a market based system?

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill"

Where is the flaw in a market based system?

It's in the same place as your head.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Typical of mangy to be quoting statements he doesn't even understand the meaning of.

The irony inherent in the use of this quote -given the context of that use- is particularly delicious, yet not entirely unexpected, coming from the fruit of the Moron Tree.

Winston Churchill"

The flaw with a non regulated market based system. Is that the wealth gets accumulated with in a few peoples control do to monopoles and corporations in cahoots. Most have no aspiration to help the people which they profit from.

The problem with your view is that you polarize the issue because your a extremist. There is only right and wrong with no compromise. Nationalism typically encompass your particular perspective.
Capitalism plus Nationalism=Imperialism

non regulated market based system

This does not exist. Market based economies are regulated by competition and customers.
Monopolies require the power of a state to control competitors with onerous regulations. Which is precisely why large meat packing companies supported the 'progressive' FDA.

There is only right and wrong with no compromise.

Why compromise with socialism that fails to increase liberty and prosperity? It is the socialists that have had to compromise with market base systems to survive.

Monopolies require the power of a state to control competitors with onerous regulations.

No, monopolies can be established in markets with high barriers to entry as well. And the problem now is that there are many such markets.

Which is precisely why large meat packing companies supported the 'progressive' FDA.

Interesting. Develop this. My guess with meat packing is economies of scale, especially with respect to meeting FDA guidelines. Probably corrupt too. But we digress.

Why compromise with socialism that fails to increase liberty and prosperity?

It doesn't. It increases liberty and prosperity for the downtrodden worker.

It is the socialists that have had to compromise with market base systems to survive.

YES!!! And the capitalists that have to compromise with the socialists. Progressives don't want socialism with controlled markets. We want intelligent controls on business and a social safety net. Capitalism is good. Free market anarchy isn't.

You can spend all day arguing about the existence of monopolies with Marjon, but assuming you can get him to concede on their existence, you won't get him to concede that they are harmful.

He claims they drive prices down. Obviously there is a mechanism for this (killing any remaining competition), but I believe I am safely assuming Marjon believes such price drops would be permanent.

I don't argue with him to get him to concede on anything. Everywhere he is reasonable, I acknowledge. When the other side wins a point he changes topic.

My dialogue is for my own benefit. Hopefully others find valid points in my responses, but I won't pretend to be an expert on any subject.

Back to monopolies. Competition drives prices down. While marjon has lots of valid points on the government/corruption/collusion with business side, he leaps off the deep end by thinking monopolies would in any way benefit consumers. There has to be balance, but it is unreasonable to expect an unbalanced person to understand that.

No, monopolies can be established in markets with high barriers to entry as well. And the problem now is that there are many such markets.

What barriers? Examples please.

It doesn't. It increases liberty and prosperity for the downtrodden worker.

Where is the liberty and prosperity living on welfare? The govt is now preventing jobs from being created while it also increases the welfare for unemployment 'benefits'. Minimum wage laws limit opportunities for jobs. The govt is preventing workers in SC from working for Boeing.

Progressives don't want socialism with controlled markets.

Of course you do. Actions speak louder than words.

Develop this.

It's history:
"Meanwhile, as Congress went through the time-consuming process of investigating Sinclairs fictions, the free market was regulating the meat packing industry in its own harsh way. Meat sales plummeted.

This led the meat packing industry to lobby Congress for increased regulation!

The industry actually wanted the government to protect them from the consumer backlash by imposing regulations that would restore consumer confidence, even though new regulations were totally unneeded! The result was the passage of the Meat Inspection Act of 1906.

But this was not a triumph for the idea of government regulation. Instead, it was a victory for corporate welfare . . .

* Taxpayers picked up the $3 million price tag for the new regulations
* Big meat packers benefited because small packers had a more difficult time complying with the new regulations"
http://libertymav...ir/9929/

monopolies would in any way benefit consumers.

What I have said is monopolies cannot exist without support of the state.
Anti-trust laws do not improve competition, they protect other businesses FROM competition using the power of the state.

"The antitrust suit against Microsoft brought on by the U.S. Department of Justice and 20 state attorneys general will only hurt consumers and help its politically favored rivals, according to several leading economists."
"There is a long history of firms that have lost out in the marketplace seeking a different outcome through the courts. Microsoft is the latest victim of such political entrepreneurship. Its products are standards in the PC industry because it has persistently pursued a vision of low-cost computing that meets the demands of large numbers of consumers. This is not a crime, but rather the way that the market works.
http://www.indepe...ewsID=27

but assuming you can get him to concede on their existence, you won't get him to concede that they are harmful.

He claims they drive prices down.

Monopolies exists. All my electricity is from a monopoly utility and govt owned nuclear power plant. Monopolies exist.
"The claim that Microsoft is an anti-consumer monopoly is false. Although Microsoft enjoys a 90% market share in PC operating systems, it hardly qualifies as a monopolist or exploiter of monopoly power because it has not used its market position to restrict output and increase its prices and profitsthe generally accepted criterion of monopoly behavior used by economists."
"Instead, Microsoft has kept the price it charges computer makers for its operating system the same for yearsapproximately $45while at the same time increasing output and adding new features. And it has given away copies of Internet Explorer, its web browser, to consumersthe same strategy that Netscape also employs."
http://www.independen

"Why has antitrust legislation not lived up to its promise of promoting free-market competition and protecting consumers? Assessing 100 years of antitrust policy in the United States, this book shows that while the antitrust laws claim to serve the public good, they are as vulnerable to the influence of special interest groups as are agricultural, welfare, or health care policies. Presenting classic studies and new empirical research, the authors explain how antitrust caters to self-serving business interests at the expense of the consumer.
"
http://www.press....637.html
'Progressives' don't seem to care to examine the efficacy of their socialist policies. But then the goal of the 'progressive' is not to increase liberty and prosperity. Their goal is more govt control over the people and their wealth. Their goal is power. Judged by that criteria, 'progressive' policies are effective at increasing the power of the state.

That was quite a dump. Must've been something you ate.

Hey marjon I went to buy gas yesterday and I noticed that prices all jumped about 25 cents a gal to $3.79. I tried shopping around like you said, but everywhere I went the price was $3.79 whereas a few days earlier it was all over the place, $3.45 - $3.60 or so.

Why is this? You think theres some sort of communication going on among these freemarketeers? Some kind of collusion maybe? To maximize profits at the expense of the consumer a little bit maybe?

You think this happens a LOT, that it's not in fact the norm among individuals who share a common goal, including Leaders at the very highest Levels of society and throughout history? I do.

Holy shit, even Upton Sinclair is a bad guy in Marjon's reality. I shouldn't be surprised, but damn.

Holy shit, even Upton Sinclair is a bad guy in Marjon's reality. I shouldn't be surprised, but damn.

Upton Sinclair was a socialist.


I buy my gas at Costco.

The gasoline market is highly regulated. The govt has not allowed a new refinery to be built in the US for over 30 years. EPA mandates multiple formulations all across the country.
How much of that 3.79 is tax? A weak dollar, created by the Fed also increases fuel prices.

You think theres some sort of communication going on among these freemarketeers?

Of course. The language is call 'market price'. You do realize that most gasoline stations get their gasoline from the same tank farm? Brands then add special additives at their station.

Costco was not the lowest price I've been seeing - better shop around.

Organized crime runs the world! Obviously. But they're the Good Guys.
http://www.youtub...a_player
http://m.cbs.com/FullEpisodeWatchPage.rbml?
shownameAsId=star_trek_original&fullEpisode=a_piece_of_the_action&urlEncodedShowTitle=Star%2BTrek%2BOriginal

Link don't work? Oh well

Organized crime runs the world!

Yes, they are called nation-states.

You know I always thought the name 'Costco' had a definite communist ring to it; something like 'collective'. Co-op. ComIntern. Like that. (Uncle) Sams Club is definitely more amerrikan.

Nation-states

Correct! You're catching on. Britain against Spain, France against Germany, US against Iraq and the Taliban. And above a certain Level they're all on the same Side.

US against the USSR. Forgot that. That's an important one.

And all done in order to Manage the people, who are the true enemies of Leaders everywhere. What pests. You give them everything they want and before you know it there's too many of them, they're starving again, and now they're blaming YOU for it.

Humans. Can't live with them, can't live without them.

Humans. Can't live with them, can't live without them.

At least, not yet. But soon. Soon enough. Every Plan has the hope of Fruition. Every tribe wants to supplant all the rest, every species wants to secure it's niche.

The Tribe of Leaders owns you marjon. They gave you your fantasy of free markets and rugged individualism. But They could care less about your relative well-being, except as it pertains to Their own self-interests. Nothing personal - its all biological. One Tribe was bound to win out, just as homo sapians sapians itself did. Hail Empire.

Enjoy your delusions.

Nice copy and paste job ryggesogn2 was that the most efficacy means of production. You seem to try and blur the distinguishable line between Socialisms Failure to solve the economic calculation problem. With necessary antitrust laws in place to prevent Coercive monopolys. Your analogy of your electrical grid emphasizes both sides. Californias failure to effectively deal with the California electricity crisis gives credence to your statement. On the other hand Enron exposed a flaw with capitalism. Enrons capitalist nature was not for the good of the people it was for the good of the share holders. Lobbing and manipulation are the tactics of capitalist your view that some day we could exist with out a functioning federal government is a pipe dream. Capitalist will always distort and divert the public for their own gain as Enron lent prof to.

How would a less expensive fuel source increase freedoms which are outlined in a constitution.
Are you serious Environmentalist hate freedom thats so insulting not to environmentalist but to yourself for using such pathetic generic conservative rhetoric.

And the Green Party, ALF, ELF and Greenpeace isn't Marxist and/or Collectivist?

Why are Socialists around the world, 'green'?

Why are all the respectable Communists around the world, 'green'?

The environmental movement is the last, best hope, of controlling the means of production. And, so far, they have done a right smart job of it too.

Go cry how china is more powerful than us now, and admit you are just a little gossip baby who doesn't even know if what he says is true because its just parroted bullshit from the mouths of spin artists who are paid millions to keep you drinking the benzene in your tap water.

Asshole.

On the other hand Enron exposed a flaw with capitalism.

You have it backwards. Enron was just another example of the failure of the Regulatory State.
Enron was hand in glove with Clinton-Gore pushing Kyoto as Enron had significant natural gas interests.
Why should any govt favor one company over another? We have this now with GE's Imelt on the Obama team and there is a cushy arrangement with a solar glass company Sloyndra.
http://latimesblo...d8ce970d
"One of Solyndra's biggest stakeholders is Argonaut Ventures I. Its majority owner is Oklahoma oil billionaire George Kaiser, who was a "bundler"of campaign funds for the Obama-Biden campaign."
http://online.bar...348.html
The govt has the real power which is why the politicians prostitute it for their personal power and wealth.

Lobbing and manipulation are the tactics of capitalist

Unions are now capitalists?

any power that is not regulated corrupts, too much regulation and it becomes powerless, a middleground mustr be found, anyway all of the Netherlands is sitting right on top of a latrge shale gas basin, but drilling rules/regulation is somewhat tighter than in the states so we don't get much of those incidents like depicted in gasland, thats just a technical/financial matter of how much safety do you want to invest in the well, only the longterm impact of the drilling cemicals deserve further study / action imho

I addressed that issue with a compromise accepting partial blame for the California energy crises. You then pushed back with out a attempt to justify Enrons manipulation of their dept and their dysfunctional corporate culture.

You then took a quote from me out of contexts I thought we all ready discussed not taking things out of context. By stating Lobbing and manipulation are the tactics of capitalist - Unions are now capitalists? Denotes my assertion by implying it to organizations that where not a interlingual part of are immediate discussion in other words manipulation.

Lobbing and manipulation are the tactics of capitalist

Unions are now capitalists?

A sphincter says what.

The entire CA energy problem was the fault of California, period. They screwed up there re-regulation.
A Standford study documents the failure.
Lobbying and manipulation are the tactics of everyone who wants the govt to give them special treatment or to leave them alone. Unions lobby and donate quite heavily to politicians, too.
Why not condemn everyone who tries to pressure their politicians?
'Progressives' don't want to limit the power of the state. They want to limit the influence of everyone who is NOT a 'progressive'.
I want to limit the power of the state which will limit any desire for anyone to bribe politicians.

You would most likely criticize communist for aspirations of a utopian society. Yet your aspirations are parallel to a utopian society quite ironic. So good by OSHA Workers no longer have a voice.

You would most likely criticize communist for aspirations of a utopian society.

Ahhh....yes.
Implementation of the communist fantasy REQUIRES the use of violent force.
For the communist, the means, murder, justifies the ends, Utopia.

I am continuously reminded this is supposed to be site based upon science. Yet the 'progressives'/socialists/communists...here refuse to apply any objective measure to justify their quest for power.

So good by OSHA Workers no longer have a voice.

What BS!
An unsafe work environment does not contribute to profits if the employees are suing for damages or if they can't find people willing to work for them.

Implementation of the communist fantasy REQUIRES the use of violent force.
For the communist, the means, murder, justifies the ends, Utopia.

"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no Vice!" -John Q. Public

Chisso Corporation dumping methyl mercury in to into to Minamata Bay. The dust bowl created by improper farming techniques future episodes being prevented by the department of agriculture. Dirty dairying in New Zealand reconciled by the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. Dryden Chemical Company the Ontario provincial government ordered Dryden Chemical Company to cease dumping mercury into the river system. The Sydney Tar Ponds being dealt with by Canadian citizens.

Where not communist you again polarize the issue in order to pervert the issue at hand. I have not allowed my self to be drug into your petty slander. You have ignored several query put forth against your ideology yet you can not sacrifice anything in order to have a productive discussion. I would typically classify this as narcissism and your most recent out burst to be Narcissistic rage.

"Why didnt the socialist property owner care who picnicked there? Why didnt kids learn to respect socialist property, and clean up after themselves? The answer was that people didnt think of those woods as socialist property, even though nominally, they were. Instead, they were seen as nichia sobstvennostno ones property. As such, no one took responsibility for them, and no one felt bad about abusing them. Extend the same attitude to Lake Baikal, the Aral Sea, and the Chernobyl nuclear station, and what you get is Ecocide in the USSR."
http://oilprice.c...ism.html

"In the 1960s, the Soviet Union undertook a major water diversion project on the arid plains of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. The regions two major rivers, fed from snowmelt and precipitation in faraway mountains, were used to transform the desert into fields for cotton and other crops. Before the project, the two rivers left the mountains, cut northwest through the Kyzylkum Desertthe Syr Darya to the north and the Amu Darya in parallel to the southand finally pooled together in the lowest part of the desert basin. The lake they made, the Aral Sea, was once the fourth largest lake in the world.

Although irrigation made the desert bloom, it devastated the Aral Sea. "http://earthobser..._sea.php
Govts have much more power to destroy the environment then private enterprise.

"if the profit motive is the primary cause of pollution, one would not expect to find much pollution in socialist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, China, and in the former Communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe. That is, in theory. In reality exactly the opposite is true: The socialist world suffers from the worst pollution on earth. Could it be that free enterprise is not so incompatible with environmental protection after all? "
"Water pollution is catastrophic. Effluent from a chemical plant killed almost all the fish in the Oka River in 1965, and similar fish kills have occurred in the Volga, Ob, Yenesei, Ural, and Northern Dvina rivers. Most Russian factories discharge their waste without cleaning it at all. Mines, oil wells, and ships freely dump waste and ballast into any available body of water, since it is all one big (and tragic) "commons." "
http://www.thefre...llution/

"The heart of the problem lies with the failure of our legal institutions, not the free enterprise system. Specifically, American laws were weakened more than a century ago by Progressive Era courts that believed economic progress was in the public interest and should therefore supersede individual rights.

The English common law tradition of the protection of private property rights including the right to be free from pollution was slowly overturned. In other words, many environmental problems are not caused by "market failure" but by governments failure to enforce property rights. It is a travesty of justice when downstream residents, for example, cannot hold an upstream polluter responsible for damaging their properties."
http://www.thefre...llution/

"Japan's Supreme Court said the government shares responsibility for the spread of Minamata mercury-poisoning disease in the 1950s and 1960s, closing years of litigation in the environmental contamination case.

It was the first Supreme Court judgment on the government's responsibility in the 48-year history of the disease. Judge Hiroharu Kitagawa upheld a 2001 high court ruling that the central government and a local government must compensate victims, along with chemical maker Chisso Corp."
http://www.vaccin...mata.htm
This is another example of how a govt failed to protect property rights.

"In June, the manufacturing lobby pushed hard in both chambers of Congress for the preservation and expansion of a federal corporate welfare agency - the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The lobbyists don't have to apply too much pressure, though, because both parties love the subsidies.

Ex-Im is a federal agency that subsidizes U.S. exports by issuing or guaranteeing loans to foreign buyers of U.S. goods. Originally created by Franklin Roosevelt, the agency comes up for renewal every few years."
http://washington...vernment
Yes, end the Ex-Im Bank.

Great lakes
"In the 1960s Ohios Cuyahoga River (or more precisely a combination of oil, chemicals and trash floating atop it in Cleveland, which created a very flammable brown, oily film) ignited and smoldered, creating international headlines. Witnesses claimed that there was not much that could have stopped the fire, the only thing that could have prevented would have been for these companies to not dump toxic waste[...]The Cuyahoga, and a TIME Magazine cover story about the "death" of Lake Erie, helped focus public and policymaker attention and inspire the first Earth Day events in 1970.

"The ongoing discharge of toxic substances has also been sharply reduced thanks to federal and state bans of substances like PCBs and DDT, though historic toxics remain embedded in harbor and rivermouth sediments in dozens of "Great Lakes Areas of Concern".

"A prime example of a very harmful chemical that comprises the majority of pollutants in the water is the metal, mercury."

Et cetera

Ya, so? That has already been discussed.
It was once again a failure of city, state and federal govts to protect private property.

Righto marjon! So to prevent it in the future we should strengthen the city, state and federal govts to protect private and public property!

We knew you would get there!

Righto marjon! So to prevent it in the future we should strengthen the city, state and federal govts to protect private and public property!

We knew you would get there!

The Regulatory State does not protect private property rights. It infringes on everyone's private property rights.

I love the continuous copy and past in response to a rhetorical list I will admit I giggled a little bit. You would be right many of those environmental disasters involved the government. Laissez-faire economics are out dated for several reasons the pivotal point it history being the industrial revolution. Before then we didnt have to worry about a kid falling in to a Textile mill. Hey everyone ryggesogn2 wants to throw kids in to Textile mills see how easy slander is.

Where before kings/Queens and dictators where able to have mass amounts of wealth by the transfer of power through hereditary and marriage. Capitalism was a better economic system than a monarchy and I would be right with you if it was not for the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution allowed for mass amounts of wealth to be accumulated very rapidly. The effects of this rapid accumulation was a direct link to the US civil war. As capitalism was unable to properly self regulate the industrial revolution it was ineffective in modern environmental issues. I would appreciate it if you stopped copying and pasting I would rather hear your opinion.

throw kids in to Textile mills see how easy slander is.

It was the British orphanages that provided much child labor in factories.
Most parents wanted their children to go to school.

mass amounts of wealth to be accumulated very rapidly.

And that is a problem, how? Because everyone acquired the wealth.

I would rather hear your opinion.

Who cares about opinion? I cut and past to show you facts that prove your opinions to be false.

capitalism was unable to properly self regulate the industrial revolution

Another opinion not based upon facts, which have been provided above.

ryggesogn2 - I appreciate the information you provide. It boils down to, people take care of their property, if people don't own something, they don't take care of it. Governments job is to make sure everyone deals honestly with eachother. Unfortunately government is now taking sides, helping some, hurting others, stopping others.

FYI, it cost you and I over $250K for the government to creat or save a single job http://www.weekly...014.html

If private enterprise created the job, government would make money!

Ya, so? That has already been discussed

Ya, so? I dont much follow most of what you post. But essplain this please:

It was once again a failure of city, state and federal govts to protect private property.

vs

The Regulatory State does not protect private property rights. It infringes on everyone's private property rights.

Is this the dichotomy it seems to be or are you selling some kind of state that protects without using regulations?

Auto:
http://law.case.e...hoga.pdf

If private enterprise created the job, government would make money!

But the govt would loose power. Power is more important to the state than the prosperity of its subjects.

"The administrative
state is not without its problems and there are many aspects of the
common law framework that make it well suited to address certain
aspects of environmental problems.277 Measures to reinforce property
rights, ensure the vitality of private and public nuisance actions,
and perhaps to provide scientific, technical and financial support to
state and local agencies may have been a viable alternative.278 As
the fables of the Cuyahoga River fires illustrate, policymakers may
have been too quick to dismiss the potential of such alternatives."
http://law.case.e...hoga.pdf

I miss used the word opinion thanks for setting me strait but most likely you new what I meant. You still took something I said out of context mass amounts of wealth to be accumulated very rapidly. And that is a problem, how? Because everyone acquired the wealth. The problem with the rapid accumulation not to everyone but to only a few as what happened during the industrial revolution. Goes against the original reason it establish a capitalism.

Auto:
http://law.case.e...hoga.pdf

If private enterprise created the job, government would make money!

But the govt would loose power. Power is more important to the state than the prosperity of its subjects.

Sorry didnt see an answer here.

How does a state protect without regulations which stipulate exactly HOW and under what circumstances it is going to protect? Thanks in advance-

The problem with the rapid accumulation not to everyone but to only a few

Still an opinion without facts.

Yes that is my opinion but not one based on opinion alone the factual interpretation of history. Is the basses of my argument to speak of capitalism with out colonialism or Marxism without revolution is to distort for personal gain. I believe if I where to hear your unbridled opinion their would most certainly be a invisible hand guiding your thoughts null of any Romanticism.

factual interpretation of history

What 'factual' interpretation of history?

"But the closer we look at public-sector economic initiatives, the more difficult it becomes to defend government as a wellspring of progress. Indeed, an honest examination of our economic historygoing back long before the twentieth centuryreveals that, more often than not, when government programs and individual enterprise have gone head to head, the private sector has achieved more progress at less cost with greater benefit to consumers and the economy at large."
http://www.fee.or...-barons/
Vanderbuilt, unsubsidized, competed and won out against a subsidized steamship line.
"Carnegie was an eager innovator. ...applied a merit-pay system to reward his workers, and implemented many employee-suggested ideas. "
"Rockefeller, the first billionaire in U.S. history, made a fraction of a cent on each gallon of oil his company sold. He had the foresight to say that his goal was to make it for six cents, sell it for eight cents, and use the two cents for R&D".

"Time and again, experience has shown that while private enterprise, carried on in an environment of open competition, delivers the best products and services at the best price, government intervention stifles initiative, subsidizes inefficiency, and raises costs. But if we have difficulty learning from history, it is often because our true economic history is largely hidden from us. We would be hard pressed to find anything about Vanderbilts success or Collinss government-backed failure in the steamship business by examining the conventional history textbooks or taking a history course at most colleges or universities. The information simply isnt included."
http://www.fee.or...-barons/

The robber baron myth, Milton Friedman:
http://www.youtub...Z8lCLhlk

You spoke of Capitalism without Colonialism again. For the Rockefeller period that would mean the SpanishAmerican War which was fueled by Capitalist interest.

Red, you need to study history a bit more.

The Spanish American war was not fueled by capitalism but by a desire for political world power.

"Andrew Carnegie wrote to a friend who favored expansion: "It is a matter of congratulation that you have about finished your work of civilizing the Fillipinos [sic]. It is thought that about 8000 of them have been completely civilized and sent to Heaven. I hope you like it.""
"Teddy Roosevelt described the anti-imperialists as "simply unhung traitors, and liars, slanderers and scandalmongers to boot.""

http://mises.org/daily/2408

Your beloved Capitalist where the reason for the expansion of the American Empire. If America had been a Anarcho-Capitalism they would have gained control of the privet defense force by military monopoly in the prostitute of prophet. You are a Anarcho-Capitalist?

Your beloved Capitalist where the reason for the expansion of the American Empire.

That's an opinion.

Note the comment by Teddy Roosevelt above. TR was a 'progressive' that supported corporate welfare like the FDA.

But you are a Anarcho-Capitalist?

About 14 or so post back I said that you took something I said out of context after rereading my post I realize that you did not I apologize. But to be fare thats what I came to expect.

Call me whatever you want, but you need to brush up on history.

Um not really all my points have merit you just seem to have alternative motives. A persons stance on the military is very integral to their political ideology. If you believe that the military needs to be regulated you would have to admit to some form of Hypocrisy. If you are a Anarcho-Capitalist you would have to address the down side to using private defense agencys. Or maybe you can't copy and past your way out of this one.

Um not really all my points have merit

Then why do you try to make a point that has no merit?
So you agree all your previous attacks on capitalism have no merit? Did you start reading some history?

I support the US Constitution. It would be a great start for the US to begin following it again. One function of the federal govt is national defense. Yet, now, the federal govt is failing to enforce the law protecting the borders. Personally, I support allowing anyone with a valid passport and no criminal record to enter the USA for work or start a business. Just as the US did in the late 1800s.
What is the downside of private security? The police are not required to protect anyone in the USA. That is the responsibility of the individual.

Looks like Japan did have a great market based culture prior to 1860s.
"The founders and teachers of the Kaitokudo argued that hard work, skill, craftsmanship, and physical labor were virtuous and forms of human excellence. More dramatically, given the traditional hostility toward it in much Confucian thought, they argued that profit was itself virtuous and that its pursuit was not only compatible with a moral life but moral in itself. The deeper argument was that there was no contradiction between the traditional virtues of restraint, loyalty, honor, and magnanimity and the life of labor and commerce. Instead all these virtues were both necessary for success in that kind of life and embodied in the successful living of such a life. What was wrong was dishonest and predatory behavior in any way of life."
http://www.thefre...m-japan/

You have a tendency to leave out inconvenient facts of history like Stander Oil developing markets in the east immediately before the Spanish American war ironic is it. How ever far capitalist interest extends it self the government follows. You make a compelling argument but your view of capitalist interest is naive.

So civilian free markets can self regulate through competition but military based free markets can't. Sounds like a contradiction to your Market fundamentalism. A private defense agency can also be a military thats funded through capitalism I was not referring to the policing aspect of its function.

Your Japaneses article was not about capitalism it was about a morel system. Was it a analogy to the Third Great Awakening.

I support the US Constitution.

No you don't. You've said something along the lines of "it's preferable to socialism," but you have been very unequivocal about your dislike for government, and the US Constitution is a government charter. When pressed, you've admitted so.

If you ever managed to get the "limited government" you claim to want when you're not in full-on anarchist mode, you would fight such a "constitutional" government just as tooth and nail as the government you hate so much today.

You fundamentally disagree with the concept of government and you are fundamentally dishonest when you try to claim otherwise.

Capitalism IS a moral system of individual property rights.

You fundamentally disagree with the concept of government

Sure, don't you?
Govt is PURE FORCE. Why would anyone think of this as a tool to create a better society.
At BEST, govt is a necessary evil and the less needed, the better for everyone.
So I will settle for returning to limited Constitutional govt and then keep working to limit that.
The 'liberals' oppose an armed citizen because he is a threat to their desire for increased govt power. So 'liberals' do understand govt is FORCE. Why do 'liberals' lust for such power?

Liberals have a lust for power because either they feel too stupid to run their lives and want someone to protect them, or they think they are smarter than everyone and have a right to rule.
Then add to it their ego, sense of entitlement, you have the makings of hitler, Stalin, and Mao

'Progressives' are sooo much smarter than everyone else. Just ask them. That's why they are 'progressive'.

Your intentions are not as pure as you lead on. You just polarize the issue in order to use it as a platform for your intertwined beliefs its highly counter productive and unethical.

My intentions are quite clear, Red, as are yours: promote govt power to restrict an individual's liberty and prosperity.

Your intentions are not as pure as you lead on. You just polarize the issue in order to use it as a platform for your intertwined beliefs its highly counter productive and unethical.

This is a pretty good description of what's going on.

'Intertwined beliefs'

Science, politics, economics, religion intersect, or intertwine, and can't be seriously discussed in isolation.

Science used to be called 'natural philosophy'.

You just polarize the issue in order to use it as a platform for your intertwined beliefs its highly counter productive and unethical.

How is polarizing an issue unethical? Marjon's problem is that he seemingly ignores facts and arguments that "complicate" his viewpoint. He chooses not to hear things that disagree with his fantasy of how people and corporations would act in his libertarian dystopia. Many of his points are valid, but many of the opposing points are equally valid.
The unethical part is that he really knows better, making him a liar with his feigned, willful ignorance.
I agree that polarizing issues can be counter productive, but it can also be illuminating and helpful. Hyperbole has its uses.

My intentions are quite clear, Red, as are yours: promote govt power to restrict an individual's liberty and prosperity.

His slander is definitely unethical.

'Progressives' are sooo much smarter than everyone else. Just ask them. That's why they are 'progressive'.

Follow this link and ponder why ryggy and lackofthinking have their opinions:
http://www.common.../30/9310
I consider myself a progressive and almost agree with 3 of the 25 bullets there. Apparently, Progressives can be just as naive as Capitalist Anarchists.

opposing points are equally valid.

Many socialists opinions were offered. None were validated.

What slander?

I consider myself a progressive and almost agree with 3 of the 25 bullets there.

Maybe your not as 'progressive' as you think you are.

Pyle, 'common dreams' are way behind the power curve. Bastiat had socialists (aka 'progressives') pegged over 150 years ago.
Mises piled on in the 1920s and Hayek in the mid 1940s.
Some wise Jew (if you are atheist) beat them all thousands of years ago in 1 Samuel 8:11-20.
"The Lord, through the prophet Samuel, is giving fair warning. Most kings are takers, not givers, and they come to be served, not to serve. If Israel wants a king, they must realize he will be a taker, not a giver, and they will be his servants."
http://www.enduri...0908.htm

An intention is a consciously formed purpose behind someone's actions or speech. Nowhere has Red shared with us a conscious desire as you have stated. Your statement, which is presented as a fact, is purposely defamatory and paints Red in a bad light: a.k.a. slander.

You could have stated something like "the policies Red promotes will lead to increased govt power that will restrict an individual's liberty and prosperity." Instead you slandered. (But hey, I'm the pot.)

Pyle, 'common dreams' are way behind the power curve. Bastiat had socialists (aka 'progressives')...

The link was just to show that I think some progressives are nuts too.

Progressives aren't socialists. (The author of the article I linked appears to be though.)

progressive = favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are
(stole that from dictionary.reference.com)

"TheRedComet
Jul 02, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
The flaw with a non regulated market based system. Is that the wealth gets accumulated with in a few peoples control do to monopoles and corporations in cahoots. Most have no aspiration to help the people which they profit from.

The problem with your view is that you polarize the issue because your a extremist. There is only right and wrong with no compromise. Nationalism typically encompass your particular perspective.
Capitalism plus Nationalism=Imperialism "

"TheRedComet
Jul 02, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Your Market fundamentalism is absurd. The reason why there are no pure capitalisms is because they are out dated and inherently flawed. " {no supporting data, though}

"TheRedComet
Jun 28, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Whoa how have those post not been taken down yet. "
{Censorship}
RED:"Socialists seek to tear down the current hierarchy where natural monopolies are used to control the people with no regard to the environment. "
Seems sympathetic.

progressive = favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are

Liberty, by Pyle's definition, is then quite progressive under the current 'progressive' regime.
Unless Pyle doesn't believe individual liberty and prosperity is progress.
What do you want to 'progress' to, Pyle? You did not say.

@ ryggesogn2
A discussion of Science, politics, economics, religion yes your right. But thats not quite what I meant by intertwined. Your economic and political system can't stand alone. You are a stone's throw away from breaching the first amendment. In order to prop up your economic and political views.

@ Pyle
The reason way polarizing a issue is unethical is that in invokes a strong emotional responses in preparation for manipulation. Not to say that either side is innocent in this respect.

You are a stone's throw away from breaching the first amendment. In order to prop up your economic and political views.

How? For reference:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Your economic and political system can't stand alone.

Stand alone from what?

Liberty, by Pyle's definition, is then quite progressive under the current 'progressive' regime.

Um, no. I think we are at liberty to do quite a lot today in the US. For instance, large corporations can "frack" away and contaminate drinking water. But seriously, there are some personal freedoms that I feel are infringed upon and could be fixed.

Unless Pyle doesn't believe individual liberty and prosperity is progress.

Increasing liberty and prosperity would be progress. I think where you and I differ is that I think more people should have their prosperity increased than just the moneyed few who'd benefit from your libertarian dystopia.

What do you want to 'progress' to, Pyle? You did not say.

Where I think we could "progress" is to properly assess the costs associated with amassing wealth to the people and corporations doing so. We could "progress" in education, protecting the environment, fair elections, the list could go on, but I reached the char limit.

And I stand by those past post I understand Whoa how have those post not been taken down yet would be a form of censorship but this is a privately owned site for profit and Argon's post where quite offensive to a large group of people. I have my flaws I acknowledge them where on the other hand you do not.

You would have privet organizations typically religious ones be the provider of services not the government thats asking for discrimination and corruption.

Um, no. I think we are at liberty to do quite a lot today in the US. For instance, large corporations can "frack" away and contaminate drinking water.

Umm, noo, fracking does not appreciably contaminate drinking water. I would implore you to read the article.

I don't follow you otto. From article:

A Duke University study in May prompted claims of vindication on both sides of the debate.
The study found methane in 85 percent of the samples, but levels were 17 times higher at sites within a kilometer (0.6 mile) of active hydraulic-fracturing operations.

Were you being facetious? My take was that the jury is still out. Fracking has relatively weaker regulations so there is no telling what is going on. They haven't found other contaminants, but the methane is there.

It may have been a goof on me earlier I said Um no in a rebuttal where I should have used hard facts but didnt. Also I think I made a grammar error which makes it funnier since Tea Party Activist always get crap for grammar errors. I can take a joke if thats the case H Aha.

On a side note I had a lot of fun with this debate despite how frustrating it became for me. I realize I didnt have a lot of facts just speculation but that wont last for long. At some point I will be able to fully articulate my views with facts thanks physorg.com.

hanks physorg.com.

I wouldn't depend upon the editors of phys.org for information.

more people should have their prosperity increased

How? Should the govt steal money from the rich to make others more 'prosperous'? All that does is make everyone more poor. It has been tried many times before, and fails every time.
If you are really serious about increasing prosperity you will have to suppress your envy and allow some to get rich. The best the govt can do is stay out of the way of opportunities and stop trying to guarantee outcomes.

Access to inexpensive energy means more freedom for more people.

Environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) hate freedom.

We have come such a long way.

"Forget left and right, monarchist or fascist, progressive or libertarian. There are two types of people in the world; those who wish to control the actions of others, and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein

@ ryggesogn2
I wasnt thanking physorg.com for the information in the article. I usually use physorg for providing initial curiosity on a subject to be researched in depth. I was thanking them for providing a forum of discussion.

I most definitely disagree with you. I would be willing to enter a debate with you again but we have strayed off topic a lot. There will be other articles that are more appropriate for that discussion. Besides I have some research that I need to do.

If you are really serious about increasing prosperity you will have to suppress your envy and allow some to get rich.

Um, that is a rather twisted statement. I recognize envy is something that needs to be addressed and is a problem in that it can motivate some to prefer socialist policies. However, just because it can be a motivator doesn't mean it is the only factor or that some socialist policies aren't the best answer. Private fire departments?

The best the govt can do is stay out of the way of opportunities and stop trying to guarantee outcomes.

No. I disagree. Here is a sports analogy for you to manipulate. In the NFL there are rules to prevent injuries to players. They, arguably, make it less exciting to watch, but the league is still better for it.
Government protections and regulation are necessary. Free markets don't self regulate effectively to protect consumers or the planet at an acceptable level. We could kill everything before they auto-correct.

Sports leagues are rife with socialism. Why not let the Yankees buy all the best players every draft? If they can afford it, isn't that their right? MLB knows no one will watch if the Yankees always win.

Free markets never are.

Sports leagues are rife with socialism. Why not let the Yankees buy all the best players every draft? If they can afford it, isn't that their right? MLB knows no one will watch if the Yankees always win.

Free markets never are.

As we are never without government.

You do understand that the Supreme Court ruled that MLB is a legal monopoly. By that very definition, it is not, nor hasn't been, a Free Market.

The Supreme Court declaring MLB a legal monopoly affects the liberty of the market of baseball itself, but MLB is not baseball itself and the decision doesn't affect per se the internal workings of the MLB. Just because it is a monopoly doesn't mean it can't conduct its inner workings in a free manner. Why isn't there a free market draft?

My point was, wouldn't MLB operate better as a free market? Why regulate what franchises can do?

Private fire departments?

They work great in many parts of the country. One is called Rural Metro. Other communities have volunteer fire departments.

Free markets don't self regulate effectively to protect consumers or the planet at an acceptable level.

Yes, they do. Much faster than any govt responds and has been documented.
Professional sports is an entertainment business. Losing expensive players is not good for long term business.
It's a free market decision for the owners to protect their investments.
Although the NFL is not a govt protected monopoly, rival leagues have had limited success, so the fans have little choice but to go along if they like professional football.

My point was, wouldn't MLB operate better as a free market? Why regulate what franchises can do?

A franchise agrees to follow the franchisor rules or loose its franchise. Quite free market. It's MLB that has the monopoly protection.

"Historians with an ideological axe to grind against the market usually ignore an authoritative 1906 report of the Department of Agricultures Bureau of Animal Husbandry. Its investigators provided a point-by-point refutation of the worst of Sinclairs allegations, some of which they labeled as willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact, atrocious exaggeration, and not at all characteristic. [7]"
"Gabriel Kolko, a socialist but nonetheless an historian with a respect for facts, dismisses Sinclair as a propagandist and assails Neill and Reynolds as two inexperienced Washington bureaucrats who freely admitted they knew nothing [8] of the meatpacking process."
"The big packers got the taxpayers to pick up the entire $3 million price tag for its implementation as well as new regulations on their smaller competitors, and another myth entered the annals of anti-market dogma."
http://ciel.fi/en...nd-myth/