American Hero

[gibran]

it's not a democratic form of capitalism that is feared ..as much as a free market dominated by those who want to impose a totalitarian view of justice that we should fear...

[ccbatson]

Madoff is a raging corrupt liberal...the antithesis of what John Galt represents.

[Omaha]

gibran, a democratic form of capitalism? How would that work? Like in Germany where half of the board of directors are elected by the company's ordinary employees? Or in the land of OZ where company policies on everything from what to make and how to market it are voted on by those involved in those departments? Or in the U.S. where there’s some form of democratic government involvement in the running of a car company like General Motors?

Come on every Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist knows that capitalism works best when relying on senior decision makers to make unilateral decisions based on how to compete in the market for customers. Will they use quality, quantity, price or some other edge for gaining and expanding their niche? You either grow or you die in this dog-eat-dog economy.

The need for quick changes to match market swings is critical to be a successful competitor. In is using this means of top down command and control, senior managers are really killing two birds with one stone: they are maximizing profits to stay in business and by doing so are really looking out for the well being and job security of all employees. Anything that slows down that process like having to consult a collective bargaining agreement is just WRONG!

Now, let's be honest, the job of senior managers is really to maximize profits in order to keep the stockholders they currently have and to attract others. That is a 24/7 job. And this is where it can get complicated.

Senior corporate decision makers keep labor costs down by hiring the best employees they can at the lowest wages possible. There are lots of tricks to do this but "divide and conquer" combined with a "reverse auction" process has stood the test of time.

Then upper management keeps other operating costs down by subcontracting cheap cleaning and other services whenever possible. Unions are an anathema to this process. If a move overseas will help, then by all means employers should do it.

The social costs of such profit-driven policies may lead to cries of “economic injustice� or “environmental degradation.� But these by-products of profit-driven decisions should NEVER enter into business decisions EXCEPT for the need to keep governmental regulation costs down. So for a senior decision maker it becomes an economic necessity to have as many politicians and their staffers [[at all levels of government) in your pocket as possible so that pro-worker and pro-environment legislation is stifled, weakened AND the enforcement agencies are starved of funds.

So, as I see it, your worry about totalitarian control of justice is not a problem as long as the “just us� you are talking about are the major stockholders and senior decision makers in our economy.

[vetalalumni]

Come on Omaha. Give us here on DYes a break. You can't just provide us compelling arguments like this and expect us to respond comprehensively. That is not SOP here on DYes. After all, this is just an amateur, ad-hoc forum you know? You've got a lot of nerve bringing your highfalutin ideas around here. Your kind ain't welcome round here. Scoot boy.

"Your kind ain't welcome round here" and "Scoot boy" are not uncommon soft reactions in the real world. Soft meaning discrete. Affective and entrenched, and therefore most weighty. A nondescript ninja cave man who is most effective when not illuminated.

Props once again on construction.

Is it immoral to take satisfaction from an unworthy opponent? How flat must they be squished?

[ccbatson]

Again, the sarcasm aside, the fact is that individual achievement is not a collective [[ie democratically voted upon) process. No need to for political corruption if it is government for the people [[as opposed to people for the government).

[Omaha]

Cc, thanks for dropping yet another pearl. But sarcasm? Hardly! Personal freedom to do what an individual wants is the highest form of liberty. You say stuff like that all the time.


Of course, there are some of us who think that our freedom to exceed speed limits trumps that state’s right to regulate speed. Government regulation of speed is not a voluntary thing. There are consequences for those who get caught violating the law. [[That's why they sell radar detectors and the like. Isn't capitalism great?) But it is such an arbitrary law. Speed limits vary from year to year and from state to state. Are they in place to help with safety or to save gas?



State regulation of speed is right up there with wearing seat belts and regulating smoking in offices and restaurants. Nebraska outlawed cigarettes in places that serve alcohol but not cigars in “cigar bars.� All these arbitrary and unfair rules impinge on personal rights.

Government regulation interferes with the free market as well. Regulating who should have a license to be an electrician or plumber is ridiculous. Likewise with regulating the cleanliness of restaurants…or insuring that cosmetologists, doctors, lawyers, and therapists can pass some test in order to practice their line of work. .

The market can decide who is deserving of plying such trades. If you put out a bad product or service word gets around. There is no repeat business. You shape up, get out of the business or starve. Simple logic.

The freedom or liberty to act in ways that benefit yourself, i.e., acting selfishly, is a rational thing to do in a capitalist economic system. NO state should have the right to limit personal freedom. Let the “invisible hand of God� look out for any ills that might befall society from all this selfish behavior.

Now ethical or moral behavior is another matter. It's prescribed by many religions. But following any religious tenet is optional. So while, say the 10 Commandments, are highly regarded by some, practicing Christianity should NOT be imposed on anyone. If it were, that too would be an unfair imposition on personal liberty.

And besides, have you really looked at the 10 Commandments? I assume they were written in order of importance. The first four are ALL about how to practice religion and then #5 deals with children obeying their parents. You have to wait until #6 [[in the second half of the grouping) to get to “Thou shall not kill.�

Well I have to go now. I’m training for my next marathon so I can be sure to maintain my fitness. I will be listening to pod casts of all the current events as reported on FOX and as related by the great thinkers on TownHall as I train. If I don’t stay physically and mentally sharp, I can’t survive as a practicing Social Darwinist.

BTW, it’s so great that my personal hero Stephen Colbert will be broadcasting from Iraq all next week. Please listen in and appreciate the sacrifices of all those who are serving to protect this nation as they will appreciate the great Stephen Colbert.

[Flanders]

Madoff is a raging corrupt liberal...the antithesis of what John Galt represents.

What did his political ideology have to do with it?

John Galt, Joe Blow, whatever, that person and what he allegedly represented in that fairy tale of a novel, has not and never will exist IRL, But Madoff and all of the other get richer much quicker charlatans certainly have.

Apparently it did not matter to those of any political stripe, who invested in Madoff's scheme that he was a "raging corrupt liberal", their greed apparently overcame any misgivings that they might have had...

[Lorax]

Ever hear the phrase..."when making an omelette, eggs will be broken"?

Yeah, but we're not talking about your brains here.

Why is it always about you?

[ccbatson]

Individual freedom balanced against infringing on other's rights and arbitrated/enforced by government....Example speeding [[within some practical limits).

BTW Omaha, criticizing your position by describing it as sarcasm is, by no means, a restriction on your freedom of expression.

How is championing capitalism and individual freedom "all about me"?

[Omaha]

Doctor, you are oh so sensitive! That must make for great patient/physician communication. However, any misunderstanding of what your patients are feeling or experiencing can be a problem.

Cc, I DIDN'T say that belittling another DY poster in any way limits the freedom of that poster. Your freedom to drop pearls of wisdom that are treasured as deep and insightful observations by conservatives and liberals alike are jealously protected here as long as you don’t do it too often or go on personal attacks.

Same goes for me. So my evaluative observation of your choice of descriptive wording was just that an evaluative observation. It happens on DY all the time. Get over it, and keep exercising your freedom to continue dropping your many pearls of wisdom...it seems to be a critical part of how you define who you are.

[vetalalumni]

[ccbatson]

DId you bother to read your own post #33 on this thread Omaha?

[Omaha]

Cc, I understand your confusion. My sincerity is also often confused as either sarcasm or irony. Maybe my long poorly-punctuated run-on sentences are difficult to read and comprehend. Or maybe it is my placement of those funny little faces that are available to us DY posters. But alas, whatever the cause…that is my plight…to be often misinterpreted. Something that never happens to you with your short, terse and enlightened pearls of wisdom.

Gee, I guess being sincere in my advocacy for an unregulated free market and all that flows from it is confusing to some of the other DY posters. I have been welcomed back by you and attacked by others. But neither has restricted my liberty to post as I will.

As I understand capitalism [[Smith, Hayek, Friedman, et. al) it is all about profit maximization. It is all about being motivated by individual self interest [[acting selfishly). To quote Adam Smith, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.�

If everyone acts selfishly, in the macro picture, things work out for the best [[Invisible Hand of God and all that).

Now when individual rights come into conflict, the government and court system is there to smooth things out. Adam Smith’s comments I cited earlier are perfectly consistent with those of our Founding Fathers about who is to control government and by extension who government is to look after.

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people…Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.� Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury, major author of the Federalist Papers and advocate of a strong central government

“The people who own this country ought to govern it.� John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

The first court case in the U.S. that put the interests of owners up against the interest of their employees was pretty clear in its findings. Employers acting in concert to protect their economic self-interest by trying to smash the employees’ union were judged to be acting in a legal manner. Employees who united to act in their own self-interest by collectively bargaining with their employers to earn what similarly situated employees in the same industry [[in other cities) were earning had, according to the judge, formed an illegal criminal conspiracy. This was a common law decision. It wasn’t a matter of the judge interpreting any piece of legislation. It pretty much stayed in place until 1935 with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. Thank goodness the NLRA has been so watered down over the years that it is nearly useless. I am doing everything I can to insure that the Employee Free Choice Act is not passed. If that happens, it would restore the NLRA to it's original intent and, from my POV, that would be bad form profit maximization.

That early anti-union decision is the kind of “equal justice under the law� that is consistent with the fact that employers had the vote and employees didn’t. It is consistent with the ways our founding fathers set up our government. Self-interest and Social Darwinism worked well in other European countries and even in the broadly democratic [[at least by comparison) early U.S. as well.

I have often said that the whole thing went to “Hell in a hand basket� when states first let anyone, other than white property-owing males, get the right to vote.

Although not technically accurate, I love the irony in this quote form Anatole France, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.� It kind of captures the difference in penalties that were meted out for cocaine and crack cocaine during the end of the last century. Social Darwinism at its finest!

This is a great land where our [[legislated and judge-made) laws apply to everyone. Their application may be seen by those who run afoul of them as unfair…but that’s life. And no liberal "empathetic" Supreme Court judge should ever be allowed to alter that.

Cc, I particularly like your analysis that in the U.S. today there is no need to level any playing field. They are level enough. If even one person can make it out of whatever ghetto they are in, then everyone can. The advantages that a Cranbrook education may have over a Detroit public school grad are meaningless. Likewise the kind of social capital that may arise from “choosing your parents well� so as to learn social graces at an early age, or belonging to the “right� clubs and mixing with those already privileged mean nothing. There are no exceptions: Success is always a matter of individual discipline and initiative. If at first you don’t succeed: try, try again. Failure is just another way of learning how to succeed. That philosophy has worked wonders for many well respected successful people; just look at President George W. Bush for gosh sakes.

[ccbatson]

You mean that the libs here had you wrong? Interesting.

[Omaha]

The kid in the amazing video may well become an American Hero.

[ccbatson]

So long as liberals don't get a hold and corrupt him.