Poverty & Power

[gnome]

BSX, your premise is interesting that humans are afraid of the truth and it is that fear that holds us back; I'd offer the counterpoint that it is the fear of fear that drives us forward.

And as far as lies go, without a full half dozen I'd never get out of bed. Lies are the small accommodations we grant to ourselves, and others, just to get through the day.

"It's ok being bald."
"The bride's ass isn't getting huge."
"You look nice today."
"thank you, you're welcome"

Lies are the social grease that keep the wheels moving and it's the fear those wheels will grind to a halt that keeps us on the hamster wheel.

[Sstashmoo]

And they accuse me of being "negative".

"It's ok being bald." If that is a lie you're telling yourself, then do something about it. There are alternatives.

"The bride's ass isn't getting huge." If it bothers you, tell the bride.

"You look nice today." Only say that if it's the truth, if it isn't, don't say anything. :See the above:

"thank you, you're welcome" And each of those cost how much to say and mean?

[gnome]

Gnome: "Honey, I've been meaning to tell you, your ass is taking up more of the chair then in years past."

Mrs. Gnome: "Thank you so much for ruining my day, and for insuring that any nooky is off the menu for, hmm, how does fooooorevvvver sound?"

goofball. I dare you to get through the next week without lying -or rationalizing- about anything. Rationalizing is more necessary than sex, want proof? Ever go a month without rationalizing?

[ccbatson]

Look deeper at the meaning of those words. Power..whose power? Power to do what? To whom?

If power in the evil sense is the power over an individual pertaining to their ownership of the products of their own efforts, then yes, that is the root of evil [[and money is just an instrument to these evildoers).

Bringing it home, the root of evil is collectivism justified by altruism. The opposite, and the antidote, is liberty and capitalism.

[Lorax]

So-called liberty and altruism are only achievable when one has an open heart.

Poverty and power have nothing to do with it. Some people are just so blinded by greed, and drag their mommy complex around like old luggage for the entirety of their lives, that they are incapable of being human.

The rich throughout history never learn their lessons. The French Revolution, the British aristrocracy, the gilded age robber barons, the list goes on and on.

[ccbatson]

All of those examples are illustrations of tyrants [[dictators, royalty, aristocracy) using government based oppression to do evil. Not the result of free individuals participating in a just capitalist system.

[elganned]

You sound like the apolgists for communism, Cc. "The Soviet system revolution wasn't the result of real communism. Real communism would look different."

The Soviet Union was the true and inevitable expression of unbridled Marxism, just as the dictatorships you decry are the true and inevitable expression of unbridled capitalism. All power concentrated at the top, with everyone else living at the sufferance of the Bigs.

The "just capitalism" you envision is a mirage if the principle is followed strictly; who's going to mind the store to ensure that it remains "just"? Anyone put in charge will use their authority to further their own selfish ends [[a positive good, in your world view). Justice without altruism isn't possible.

[rb336]

All of those examples are illustrations of tyrants [[dictators, royalty, aristocracy) using government based oppression to do evil. Not the result of free individuals participating in a just capitalist system.

guess what? the robber barons were an example of a totally hands-off attitude in government. I know history isn't your strong suit, but even YOU should understand that. plutocracy, which marked the robber baron era, and is quickly becoming our system, is the inevitable result of a hands-off attitude towards business. it was broken down systematically, first by anti-trust regulations, then by unionization. is it any wonder that the golden age of America occured when unions were strongest and the rich actually footed the bill in proportion to their wealth?

[Lorax]

guess what? the robber barons were an example of a totally hands-off attitude in government. I know history isn't your strong suit, but even YOU should understand that. plutocracy, which marked the robber baron era, and is quickly becoming our system, is the inevitable result of a hands-off attitude towards business. it was broken down systematically, first by anti-trust regulations, then by unionization. is it any wonder that the golden age of America occured when unions were strongest and the rich actually footed the bill in proportion to their wealth?

Hear, hear!

May I add that the current crop of wealthy health care corporations are the only corporations exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust laws?

That's why some of these monopolistic firms represent 75% of the written health care policies in certain states? Arizona and New Mexcio come to mind immediately.

Rather like ClusterFuxed Noise Channel and Fearchannel Communications are allowed to own all media in certain states- that's why we have neocons, Lush Bimbao, the bubbleheaded Saracuda Failin, Sean Insannity, Bill Orally, etc.

Time to smash the "too big to fail" crowd, yet again.

[ccbatson]

Once again, I/we [[by this I mean American constitutional conservatives) are not in favor of anarchy. We, like the founders, believe in constitutionally limited government that protects just contractual and fiscal relationships.

[elganned]

But you would have to find "altruists" to serve in that government, people who believe in "public service". And that's a Mortal Sin in the eyes of the Objectivist Church. Unless of course you expect them to plunder the public coffers for their own selfish gain. Which, come to think of it, wouldn't be all that different than now in Detroit's case...

[ccbatson]

Not at all....The few [[as you would not need very many) public servants would receive market based pay for the limited time in office in exchange for their service. That, in addition to the establishment and maintenance of a system that allows them the opportunity to prosper before and after their terms in office.

[elganned]

But what incentive would there possibly be for any such "public servants" [[God, how it must have hurt your fingers to even type the words...) to work in government?

If selfishness is the greatest good, then why would anyone give up their current "opportunity to prosper" to take a government job?

[Lorax]

He's hoping for a repeal of the 13th amendment. Nothing like a return to the good old days of indentured servitude/slavery to make sure there's a permanent underclass of workers to polish the brass and clean the chamber pots.

Sadly, the dictates of fascism under the Bush Crime Family have brought our nation back to such a state, as slaves to the corporate master.

[oladub]

Lorax: "He's hoping for a repeal of the 13th amendment. Nothing like a return to the good old days of indentured servitude/slavery to make sure there's a permanent underclass of workers to polish the brass and clean the chamber pots."

Consider the lax enforcement policies of Democrats and Republicans regarding illegal aliens to serve as a caste of "permanent underclass of workers to polish the brass and clean the chamber pots."

The 13th amendment, by the way, does not forbid indentured servitude. It forbids involuntary servitude.

[Lorax]

Kind of the same thing, isn't it?

Yeah, the rich always want the cheap labor, especially as a great visual- separating the classes by income and labor helps define the line between rich and poor, and somehow justifies in their minds the value of being rich in the first place.

A friend many years ago worked for decades in the fur industry. He mentioned that when everyone started coming out with what he termed "poor people's furs", when every secretary in town had one, then the idea that having a fur coat meant you were truly rich, was meaningless.

So the rich sought other ways to spend their money in a way that separated them from everyone else. Blue chip health care, Bentleys, constant travel, living on private roads, having servants, etc., became benchmarks to wealth. It certainly is true here in Florida, and is apparently true elsewhere as well.

Even those of modest means can afford something from Tiffany's or Gucci these days, so branded luxury is more affordable than it once was.

The wealthy aren't interested in Democracy with a capital "D". A lowercase "d" perhaps, but as the economy worsens, many of my clients are stashing the 10 carat diamond rings when out in public, fearful of apperaing "too rich" in such times.

[oladub]

Lorax: "Kind of the same thing, isn't it? "

It depends how broadly you want to define 'kind of'.

An indentured servant is indentured. "An Indenture is a legal contract between two parties, particularly for indentured labour or a term of apprenticeship but also for certain land transactions.""In the early history of the United States, many European immigrants served a period of indentured labour in order to pay the cost of their transportation. This practice was common during the 17th and 18th centuries, where over half of immigrants worked off an average of three years servitude."-Wikipedia

I would add that some immigrants are still coming over with indentured obligations to whomever paid for their ticket. They typically work it off in sweatshops upon arrival. A voluntary military enlistment contract also trades some civilian civil rights and freedoms for training, health care, educational opportunities, and whatever else is in the enlistment contract.

Involuntary servitude is, on the other hand, does not involve a voluntary legal contact between two parties. I would lump the draft into this category if someone is forced to serve involuntarily.

Whereas, indenturing is a trade agreement where both sides gain something, involuntary service usually trades what one party wants to offset what the other party fears - for instance, jail time or beatings for refusing to serve someone or something.

There is a bit of a grey area. Sometimes, people have to indenture themselves because it seems like their best option but that's also why most people work and some get married.

[Lorax]

I appreciate the clarifications, but such subtle definitions, especially as it relates to this discussion are lost on most people.

Servitude in general should be the discussion. Arguably, indentured servitude has more in common with modern day contract law, where such a contract benefits both parties.

In the 18th century it could be argued that the slave owner, or "employer" in the case of non-African workers provided shelter, food, and position in exchange for the individual's labor and lifelong obedience. One provided a contract, whether written or understood, the other was outright ownership. Little difference in the level of expectation from the owner/employer.

Today that could be loosely translated into labor/service in exchange for pay. Only today we are buying our own shelter and food, and are "free" to leave, or break the existing contract, with penalties, of course- however this line is being blurred as we speak.

Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol, as a standout amongst his other works, explores this relationship, and it's perceived value between both parties.

What is particularly disturbing about the tradition of this relationship in America of the last 70 years or so, is how today the economic climate is changing to favor the employer as it hasn't done in as many years.

There are those who believe this shift in how employer/employee relationships are formed and progress is working against the individual, and the freedom to change jobs when necessary.

The employee has less and less control over his employment since union busting took an accelerated turn in recent years, as well as non-portable health insurance, and now the scarcity of jobs in general.

All of this is working against the individual in ways that won't be apparent for a few years, but suffice to say it will be negative.

Within my own years of employment, both at will, and self employed, the changes are really staggering. Even down to the hardening of the language and how employees are treated more as consumers rather than assets within the company.

Remember when we used to have "Personnel" departments? Now we have "Human Resources." Which is really an oxymoron in most corporations.

Big box retailers squeezed out individual mom & pop establishments with sweetners such as "benefits" packages which may or may not include some limited form of health care, 401k "encouraged" savings, automatic debits, and in the case of really large corporations, their own in-house banking system.

The idea has been to turn employees into consumers first.

We have allowed our nation to be taken over by this kind of "capitalism". Corporations that are all encompassing in an individual worker's life are no different than a large government.

Those on the right are fearful that we are headed into what we already have, liberals are fearful that we will never get what we already have.

Until substantive changes are made, and made soon, our economy and our body politic will forever be intertwined in this death spiral.

[ccbatson]

I clearly explained the selfish attraction...payment and securing the environment in which these office holders could continue to be free and prosper.

[elganned]

So would "securing the environment in which these office holders could continue to be free and prosper" encompass passing laws or awarding contracts that favored, say, their private employment opportunities over someone else's? Like for a hypothetical example Dick Cheney tweaking the legal system to favor Haliburton over its competitors, in anticipation of Cheney's return to Haliburton following his term in office? Hypothetically speaking, of course...

And let's look at this "market based pay" idea...What market? Government is a monopoly; it has no competitors. Who would set the pay scale, and what mechanism would keep government small and its spending low?

[Lorax]

Elganned, your arguments are too deep and thoughtful for Batts to comprehend and respond to in one line.

Give him the Cliff Notes version next time.

[ccbatson]

If Cheney did that [[it is not clear that he did), then this would fall outside of what would be considered just capitalist behavior. The Bush administration was not innocent of that abuse.

[Lorax]

Actually it's clear he did- it's called a no-bid contract, which is illegal. The Rethuglican congress approved it, since there was no chance of challenging the legality of it.

That goes for the entire agenda of the Bush Crime Family- the illegal parliamentry maneuvers, no bid contracting, illegal wars, profiteering, all sanctioned by the Tushies.

[ccbatson]

"He" didn't as he had resigned ad distanced himself from Haliburton when the conflict existed.

[Lorax]

Yes he did, as he still had a monetary investment in Halliburton- he wasn't required to divest himself of his holdings, which is also illegal as a conflict of interest.

Of course illegalities never stopped the Bush Crime Family from getting what they wanted.