corporatizing your life

[vetalalumni]

You must pay very close attention for the detector to function properly. The quality of this humorous and polite mockery deserves kudos - in fact it fooled someone.

[ccbatson]

Of course Adam Smith, as one of the founding fathers of american capitalism, has it right. Your interpretation is what is off. Civil society is accomplished via government, in its' constitutionally limited role, establishing laws to protect all parties in any contractual relationship/commerce related interactions. It protects rich and poor alike, however, the poor are more vulnerable to the consequences of unlawful and unjust trade, so, practically speaking, they are the ones being protected more.

[jams]

Of course Adam Smith, as one of the founding fathers of american capitalism...

????

I find no reference to any visit by Smith to the colonies in his lifetime.

[mjs]

Batson's actually right on this one. "Wealth of Nations" was a large influence at the time and economic considerations were a fairly big argument for the Revolution as discussed in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". Our founder's were influenced by a great number of writers that never stepped foot into the US.

The Wealth of Nations was first published on March 9, 1776, during the Age of Enlightenment. It influenced not only authors and economists, but governments and organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

[jams]

I wouldn't disagree with influence of his philosophy upon the American experiment, in fact, it was profound, but it was based upon a European viewpoint, Cc's comment implied a direct American link.

[Omaha]

Let’s be clear that Adam Smith and our Founding Fathers had at least one thing in common: the proper role of government…protect those "with" from those "without."

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence [sic] of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.�

That idea fits perfectly with the sentiments about the societal divide and who should be in charge.

“The most common and durable sources of factions [divisions in society] has been based upon the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those without property have [forever] formed distinct interests in society.� James Madison, 4th President of the United States in the Tenth Federalist Paper.

“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

And because government is rightfully run by the propertied well-born, it's assured that it will usually respond to calls by owners to dismantle the combinations of workers into labor unions. In the past and on other threads, I’ve noted the ability of the American court system to use common law to label the combination of two or more workers into a labor union as an “illegal criminal conspiracy.� That is also in accordance with the observations of that great Scottish political economist Adam Smith.

“When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, laborers, and journeymen.�

Adam Smith didn’t promise that unrestricted free market capitalism would result in an utopian ideal. He just said that when small merchants compete with one another to make a profit, good things would generally result. I believe that it is true especially for the hard working disciplined owners who care enough to learn how to work the "system."

[vetalalumni]

Regarding Omaha's post # 81, any critical and comprehensive response ccbatson? Can you handle Omaha?

ccbatson, here is a golden opportunity for you to elaborate much more fully on much of what you've said already here on DYes. The floor is yours and we are all ears.

[ccbatson]

Sooo easy...it isn't protecting those who have veersus those who do not, it is PROTECTING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE by virtue of the fruits of their labor [[intellectual property, actual manual labor, etc).

[Omaha]

Gee, please don’t get the impression that I am challenging the Oracle of DY’s Non-Detroit board. There is a lot that Cc and I agree as I explained in post #81. And there’s more.

For instance the only proper reason for government to use our nation’s tax money is to protect our lives and our property with the military, the police and the court system. Well, that and to make sure there is an infrastructure needed to make the free enterprise system work in a fair way: banking oversight, stock exchange regulation, currency, legal system for enforcing contracts, interstate highway system, and anything else that is needed to allow corporations and their investors to grow and accumulate wealth [[which is then protected by the military, police and court systems).

Cc and I believe in an “ownership society� where everyone is responsible for her or himself. You are on your own [[YOYO) and you sink or swim because of what you bring to the party. Well maybe we do disagree a little about the advantage of those who chose their parents well have over those who didn’t. But for the sake of this board, I will go with Cc’s concept that the playing field is even enough. After all, if Barak Obama can become POTUS, any one can.

Geeze, all this stuff about government giving folks a hand out is bunk. Cc and I, when it comes to the kind of work done by bleeding heart social workers and sociologists, believe that just one exception to the so-called rule about the poor and underprivileged needing help proves that rule is WRONG. Go look at the real life story of Chris Gardner in the movie the Pursuit of Happiness. Anyone can make it on his or her own.

In an ownership society any government program that helps the less well off is bad because it just robs people of the discipline they need to succeed. Empathy is OK as long as it is exercised by individuals but not by government. Social Security and Medicare need to end.

People can invest in Wall Street and use the returns on their investments to pay for their health care and retirement. If they don’t have the spare money to invest for their future now, start saving tomorrow or they can update your skills and get a better job. If they don’t have the smarts to know what to invest in, start reading.

Investing in stocks can, of course, be a gamble…especially these days. I mean how would you have liked to invested your retirement funds in Enron on the advice of its admired CEO? I know of people from Omaha, who became Enron employees when Omaha's Northern Natural Gas merged with Enron. They followed what they thought was good advice and lost everything. But it could be worse, you could have been Elie Wiesel who invested with Bernie Madeoff…but I digress.

In unregulated free-market system, if people fall through the cracks or make bad decisions, that is what the United Way and other charities are for to bail them out temporarily. It is not the government's job to help anyone other than those with what it takes to make capitalism work. I agree with Joseph Allbaugh, first director of FEMA under George W. Bush. Mr. Allbaugh thought that FEMA was in reality an oversized entitlement program for the victims of natural disasters. He isn't being heartless he's just telling it like it is.

That's enough ranting for now, but let me repeat, I don’t want others to think that I am for starting a war with the Oracle, or anyone else for that matter. I, like Joseph Allbaugh, just call them as I see them.

And please let me remind you to watch the great Stephen Colbert as he broadcasts from Iraq tonight and the rest of the week.

[Lorax]

Be advised you guys, that despite the great history lesson, ideas only work when in practice.

And they only work well when the playing field is level, and opportunity exists for everyone to have a chance to become middle class, or possibly wealthy.

No one here, super-libs like myself included, deny the desire to reap the rewards of one's labor.

However, that said, Roosevelt had it over on Adam Smith's later devotees, in realizing the world had changed, but that our government hadn't changed with it.

If we were to proceed as a civilized upwardly mobile society, unfettered, unregulated capitalism had to be reined in.

Taxation needed overhauling, so what happened? We got a 90% tax rate on all personal income over 2 million dollars per year through Eisenhower, a beloved Republican, which discouraged legacy wealth, so we wouldn't end up back in the times of the robber barons, where inherited wealth did nothing but pollute public policy, allowing too much control over politics and too much influence over how and if the rest of us were to have that level playing field.

We enforced the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, upheld Glass- Stegall, and embraced the Fairness Doctrine, all while having strong unions.

It was Reagan, who was a lousy president, and a criminal- actually a low-rent version of Tush/Cheney, who began dismantling the advances we made under Roosevelt

With Roosevelt we had the safety net of Social Security for the promise of an old age with dignity instead of poverty, we had millions put back to work through the WPA, built the Hoover Dam, the TVA, thousands of post offices, armories, military installations, public parks, lodges, highways, infrastructure including some of our greatest monuments including the Golden Gate Bridge.

We could still be doing it if it hadn't been for intermittent decades of Repugnican rule which favored the private sector over the public one.

When the public sector is run as well as it was under a Roosevelt, it works just fine. When Repugnicans get their hands on government, they purposely break it, then point to it and shout "look, it's broken, it doesn't work!! Let's get rid of it"

I personally have had enough of the Repugnican Reich's influence on our society, and as progressive liberals, we have a duty to drive a stake in the heart of this slimy succubus, and consign it to the ash can of history.

[Lorax]

Oh, and by the way, for those of you who didn't get the witticisms of my earlier post-

I refer to Rush Limbaugh as "Brush Lintball" and label him as the "Caftan Warlord of the Repugnican Reich" as a direct slam to his having to wear a caftan due to his enormous....you fill in the blank.

It just happily rhymes with "Afghan."

[Jimaz]

When the public sector is run as well as it was under a Roosevelt, it works just fine. When Repugnicans get their hands on government, they purposely break it, then point to it and shout "look, it's broken, it doesn't work!! Let's get rid of it"

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Why that kind of deliberate sabotage is tolerated is a mystery to me.

[Detroitej72]

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Why that kind of deliberate sabotage is tolerated is a mystery to me.

Their tactics are reminiscent of the Black Hand, in days long passed. They would create a problem, then rush onto the scene and offer to "help resolve the issue".

[Lorax]

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Why that kind of deliberate sabotage is tolerated is a mystery to me.

It's tolerated because too many Americans have decided that Democracy is a spectator sport.

Until people start electing people smarter that they are [[Obama's a good start), then we'll have nothing more than the government we deserve. Look to Detroit as an example to avoid.

What amazes me is the continued fascination with Saracuda Palin- what does this dingbat bring to the table? Well, maybe dinner, but nothing politically substantive or remotely intelligent.

[Detroitej72]

What amazes me is the continued fascination with Saracuda Palin- what does this dingbat bring to the table? Well, maybe dinner, but nothing politically substantive or remotely intelligent.

Well, she can see Russia from her house....

[Lorax]

Their tactics are reminiscent of the Black Hand, in days long passed. They would create a problem, then rush onto the scene and offer to "help resolve the issue".

It's now called the "New World Order" part of the PNAC group of fascists still determined to take over the planet.

They allow Obama to serve thus far, because even they knew the road we were headed down was disastrous, and not good for business, which is all they really care about.

[Omaha]

The GOP leadership understands the importance of new media and is all aTWITTER about using it. The conservative youth who are following Glen Beck are starting 912 clubs across this great land. They understand that politics is no longer a spectator sport.

Unfortunately, Conservatives are alienating Hispanic voters with their attack on that empathetic Supreme Court nominee. That won't help in 2010 or 2012. The need is to attack anyone who promotes empathy in government and in turn promote ruthless adherence to a conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

Now that's a strategy to build a viable majority party.

BTW, what's the left doing? Whining on DY. Better get moving and organizing from the ground up...or else.

Gotta go, Colbert is on...from Iraq.

[Pam]

What amazes me is the continued fascination with Saracuda Palin- what does this dingbat bring to the table?

She's "hot". She's a "MILF". How did you miss hearing that over and over during the campaign?

[vetalalumni]

What amazes me is the continued fascination with Saracuda Palin- what does this dingbat bring to the table?

If this were professional football, Palin would be like the handsome Montana, Brady, or Quinn, minus the requisite skills.

[rb336]

She's "hot". She's a "MILF". How did you miss hearing that over and over during the campaign?

I consider her more of a HFAD type

[ccbatson]

And liberals believe conservatives are immature and hateful??

[Omaha]

Cc you’re right Conservatives would never reduce a human being to some sort of sexual object. That is dehumanizing. It’s not consistent with the conservative ethos of treating all human beings with the innate dignity with which God endowed them.

Where those damn libs attack us is not for the objectification of people as sex objects. No true conservative would ever do that. No, where libs attack us is in our understanding of human nature.

We know that if some human beings don’t live up to their God-given capabilities, they will not prosper in our dog-eat-dog free market. True conservatives are advocates for letting losers suffer, until they learn to improve on their poor dedication and discipline. Suffering builds character. Everyone knows that! Conservatives know that “personal freedom� extends to the freedom to starve. In fact starving bodies along the road side can prove a great lesson to those who might consider squandering their talents.

But liberals [[those who make demeaning MILF and HFAD jokes) somehow think advocating for losers to learn from their failures is somehow also dehumanizing. I find it just the opposite, invigorating and somehow consistent with the Social Darwinist philosophy that I hold so dear. I know people can learn from their mistakes…and if they don’t, too bad.

[Pam]

And liberals believe conservatives are immature and hateful??

Conservatives were the ones droning on about Palin's supposed hotness vs. what an ugly bitch with fat legs Hillary was. Yes, even on this very forum. Where were you?

[Detroitej72]

Conservatives were the ones droning on about Palin's supposed hotness vs. what an ugly bitch with fat legs Hillary was. Yes, even on this very forum. Where were you?

I recall they were making the same conclusion. I also remember a certain right wing poster saying Ann Coulter was correct when she labeled the 911 widows "harpies" and conservatives were dead on when they used to criticize Janet Reno's looks.

But when the tables are turned, they pretend to be holier than thou.

[Jimaz]

Life, Incorporated