# Choose Cotton Carefully



## Cottonshirt (Mar 15, 2009)

Not, strictly speaking, about clothes, but something I think members will be intersted in. I'm not going to soapbox this because I think the site speaks for itself. If you do nothing else, go to the left-hand navigation panel and choose Cotton, Films then watch the short video:

"White Gold - The True Cost of Cotton".

It's being fronted by:


----------



## Serenus (Jun 19, 2009)

Interesting post...

Concerning the environmental impact of cotton, drying time makes a difference. As I understand it, the energy typically used in washing clothes is mostly expended during the drying process, and drying cotton consumes much more energy than, say, drying polyester. If one wants to be more environmentally conscious while wearing cotton, one can simply dry shirts on a line; but for those of use who live in apartments in cities, that can, unfortunately, be impossible. Also, many suburban subdivisions have outlawed drying clothes on a line because it is "unsightly".

If you ask me, it is far more unsightly to behold the industrial waste associated with producing electricity to power clothes dryers than it is to see a few nice shirts drying on a line IN BACK of somebody's house.


----------



## Cottonshirt (Mar 15, 2009)

I'm sorry? I just invited you to watch a video showing that the world's fourth-largest lake has been siphoned off destroying a complete fishing industry that once supported a population of 100,000 people. The lost water is equivalent to the contents of Lakes Erie and Ontario combined, and the fish it used to support constituted one sixth of Russias entire fish consumption per year. Gone.

A once-thriving port city now lies some 30 miles from the nearest water.

In addition, a whole poulation including a generation of children have been virtually forced into slavery for state run cotton production. Windblown salt and toxic chemicals exposed by the dried up sea bed are causing widespread health problems including high levels of cancer and lung diseases and are also destroying what few crops can be grown without sufficient irrigation and your response is to contemplate the difference between tumble drying cotton and polyester and to question the correctness of being prevented from drying shirts in your back garden?

There just doesn't seem to be any ethical, moral, empathetic or compassionate connection between my post and your response to it. Did you even see the same video I saw?


----------



## Mapleton (Sep 6, 2009)

I watched the video, that's terrible.

It's hard to believe we have these international organizations such as the UN and EU and they do nothing to boycott the trade and declare economic warfare on these savage leaders.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Excellent post but, it seems to me more appropriately cited on the Interchange to allow more vigorous discussion of the relevant issues. The referenced video does grab ones attention and very graphically makes the sponsoring groups point!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The commies started draining the sea on purpose 40 years ago. Blaming it on cotton is just ridiculous.


----------



## Cottonshirt (Mar 15, 2009)

The "commies" as you so eloquently put it, started draining the waters that supplied the Aral Sea forty years ago, correct. They did that to irrigate land for the production of... cotton. In case you hadn't noticed, Uzbekistan where the video was filmed was, forty years ago, in the Soviet Union, which is where "commies" come from.

If you want to blame it on something blame money, blame greed, blame despotic regimes where state-sponsored slavery survives. My point in posting it in a clothing forum was not to "blame it on the cotton", it was to help our more enlightened readers understand that they can do something about it by being more discriminatory in their cotton purchases.

I apologise if that's a little too complex for you.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Trust me, you can't do anything about it. Even if you were to somehow arrange a worldwide boycott (because it'd take that to stop them from growing a commodity like cotton), they'd just start growing something else.

The people there are going to use that water for something--they're not likely to condemn themselves to abject poverty for half a century so you can feel better about refilling a lake on the other side of the world.


----------



## Cottonshirt (Mar 15, 2009)

*1st Point*
This is not about re-filling a lake; its about the health and welfare of the population that live on and used to depend for their livelihood on the lake. They have had their industry snatched away from under their feet and given nothing in return. Not all fishermen can go to the big city and re-train as IT specialists.

Its also about the human rights abuse of state enforced slavery, and about the health of a population who live every day with dust storms of toxic chemicals not just to breathe but landing on their food crops.

Forget about the lake and think instead of the people.

*2nd Point*
I think we are long past the point where the objective is to stop them from growing cotton. What we have to do at this point is use the power of "world opinion" to let the leaders know that their chosen methods are not acceptable. North Korea has recently begun to realise that the consequences of "world opinion" cannot be ignored with impunity and we, as individual consumers, have the power to inform the Uzbek govenment what we, the citizens of the world think of their programme.

Look at the example of sweatshop labour in the third world. When individual consumers started boycotting goods made in conditions they found abhorrent then governments realised that this was an issue requiring action. Look at the green revolution, when individual consumers started boycotting companies that use business practices that have no regard for the environment, then governments started taking action. We have not obliterated either of these problems, but we, as individual consumers, have the power to make governments sit up and take notice, and do something.

My point is that in some cases we not only have the power to do so, we have a moral responsibility to at least try.

*3rd Point*
Your "trust me, you can't do anything about it" response, even if it were true, is no excuse for not trying, is no excuse for not at least showing some sympathy for the tragedy of the situation. The flippancy of your replies does you no credit whatsoever.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

Interesting video Cottonshirt, although I kind of lost the sensibility with so many "documentaries" on the network, looks like we somehow became addicted to whiners overnight.

Anyway, I couldn't agree more with your statements, I try not to buy stuff I know are obtained in disregard of workers, environment and local economy. On the other hand, we must understand that economies don't reach a point of sustainability that consider all these points overnight. I live in a 3rd world country, and before we became the most stable economy in Latin America, we had to see how vulnerable the workers' rights were, or how we destroyed our natural resources; But we reached a point on which our incomes are high enough to afford decent environmental policies and to give our workers better benefits and safer working environments. Take the mining industry for instance, we're the largest copper producer worldwide, and 30 years ago the reality wasn't too different from the video you posted, but right now mining companies are liable for their waste and its proper disposal, they must provide for the local community, pay additional taxes which are supposed to be spent in better education and health, guarantee the workers safer environments, etc....
The only way to avoid what your video shows, is through the tutelage of a developed country against a royalty in the future, or tax benefits. For instance the US could provide a couple billions to improve the process and to benefit the workers, in exchange of a tax reduction for a determined period of time in raw cotton imports. But that's not gonna happen.

One last thing, we used to have a very powerful group of fabric manufacturers in Chile, and all they broke when the "fancy brands" made with 3rd world fabrics arrived. I'm not blaming anyone, but we must not forget that american brands are the main consumers of the cotton shown in the video, which we buy and enjoy. 10 years ago, everything was made in Mexico, Perú or other Latin American countries, now almost everything come from Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Malaysia, etc.

When France wanted to perform nuclear bomb trials on the Pacific, in front of our country, we started to boycott not buying french stuff, it sounded quite good, but at the end of the day, French companies in Chile didn't lose a penny, in fact they gained free advertising thanks to the boycotters...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

If your concern really is the people and not the stupid lake, why is the draining of the sea always the centerpoint of these protests? It seems like the enivro-nuts care more about fish than people.

And making kids pick cotton? Coming from the deep south, I find it hard to get too worked up about that. They were doing it here less than a hundred years ago--now everybody just sits around collecting welfare and/or using drugs. Not much of an improvement if you ask me.

And if you want to make it about government, it's hard to get worked up about socialism over there when it's on the march here at home. If the people there won't stand up and demand a better government, I'm not going to do it for them.

Sorry if this all sounds harsh.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*merely boorish and ignorant*



PedanticTurkey said:


> If your concern really is the people and not the stupid lake, why is the draining of the sea always the centerpoint of these protests? It seems like the enivro-nuts care more about fish than people.
> 
> And making kids pick cotton? Coming from the deep south, I find it hard to get too worked up about that. They were doing it here less than a hundred years ago--now everybody just sits around collecting welfare and/or using drugs. Not much of an improvement if you ask me.
> 
> ...


It sounds boorish and ignorant.

There is a connection between fish and people. Sustainable fisheries feed people and provide a living for those employed in them.

Cotton is now picked by machine. Are you suggesting that growers should go employ children in the cotton fields to get people off the dole and off drugs? I imagine mechanical picking is cheaper than hand picking at even the minimum wage.

It isn't socialism, it is post-communist capitalism. And of course I don't expect you to do anything to help anybody but yourself, out of a narrow, and IMHO wrong-headed view of self-interest.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> It sounds boorish and ignorant.


You've got a lot of nerve calling me "ignorant," when that's the best you can come up with in response.

The fish are all gone, long gone. If they could afford machines, they would have them already--that's why they're growing the cotton, because they need money. But this is the gem...



> It isn't socialism, it is post-communist capitalism. And of course I don't expect you to do anything to help anybody but yourself, out of a narrow, and IMHO wrong-headed view of self-interest.


Let's see, the government owns the crops. Check. The government controls the workers. Check. The government takes the product. Check. The government spends the proceeds how it likes. Check.

Isn't that the textbook definition of socialism?


----------



## Cottonshirt (Mar 15, 2009)

Pedantic Turkey said:


> If the people there won't stand up and demand a better government, I'm not going to do it for them.


You obviously missed that part of the video where the people did stand up and demand a better government, and were gunned down in the street for doing so.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> the government owns the crops. Check. The government controls the workers. Check. The government takes the product. Check. The government spends the proceeds how it likes. Check.
> 
> Isn't that the textbook definition of socialism?


With all due respect, and I apologize if answer in someone else's stead. But that's not socialism, that is Communism, socialism is when a private owns the land but the government regulates how much land he can have, a progressist socialism would be when the government doesn't care how much land do you have as long as you pay the taxes calculated to your incomes (the more you earn, the more % of your net utilities you pay). In Socialism, the government doesn't crop or take the product, the owner does, but it ensures the workers and the process comply with all local regulations (health, environment, social responsibility, etc.). In a socialism government the money is spent in health and education.

In a capitalist system, the private owns as much as he can afford, he exploits the human and natural resources as much as he possibly can, the government doesn't give a crap about the workers, etc.... it uses the money to pile it up in the treasury and use it to gain domain over poorer countries or communities. In this system, the most notorious effect is the huge gap between classes.

Honestly, communism and capitalism are extinguished dinosaurs, socialism per se too. Progressive socialism regimes has proven to be very effective in European countries and some places in Latin America, but again, that's not something you get overnight. The big problem is that globalization has been used so far for each countries' own benefit, whereas it should be reciprocal.

I remember when Chile begun to do business with the States, we started to consume a lot of their products and they got raw materials at ridiculous prices, but when we started to succeed in the export of grapes and salmon, and the American producers saw their sales affected, we were accused of dumping, and there was a fuss for some grapes that were poisoned in the States.

If the countries that are doing good buy the cotton from the video, and do nothing about their situation, I'm afraid that the we should start looking who must be blamed.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

No, it's definitely socialism. Farmer, you'll grow this on your land. Worker, student, you'll pick cotton for x number of days and you'll be paid x amount per day for your labor. Farmer, here's how much you'll get per bale for the cotton. That's what socialism is--the government directing the economy.

This is not to say that there's only one kind of socialism. For example, there's Obama's--"You _can_ do whatever you want, but I'll make sure that the tax system bankrupts you if you don't do what I say you should."


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> No, it's definitely socialism. Farmer, you'll grow this on your land. Worker, student, you'll pick cotton for x number of days and you'll be paid x amount per day for your labor. Farmer, here's how much you'll get per bale for the cotton. That's what socialism is--the government directing the economy.
> 
> *This is not to say that there's only one kind of socialism*. For example, there's Obama's--"You _can_ do whatever you want, but I'll make sure that the tax system bankrupts you if you don't do what I say you should."


Ahá!... that's the thing, the socialism you depict is as utopic as the Communism. There are nonetheless, socialism systems that have worked out really fine. I lived, worked, paid taxes and lived out the system in Europe and Chile, and let me tell you that not everything is bad on the socialist side, you just need to keep in control the narcissist idealists and the pragmatic economists....


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You mean a mixed economy. Obviously most states we call "socialist" have mixed economies, to one degree or another (including the US and Europe).

Europe has more urbanized, homogeneous populations, and they have had the benefit of the US paying for their defense for the last 50 years. And yet they're relatively much poorer than we are. 'Course our present government is doing everything it can to "close the gap" with the socialist(er) European states.

Regardless, the example of the government ordering people to grow cotton, ordering students to pick it, and ordering the farmers to sell it to the government is naked authoritarian socialism. Calling it capitalism (presumably because the government is selling it on the world market instead of using it to make a single style of jumpsuits for all the workers like a good commie state would do with cotton) is just absurd.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Mapleton said:


> I watched the video, that's terrible.
> 
> It's hard to believe we have these international organizations such as the UN and EU and they do nothing to boycott the trade and declare economic warfare on these savage leaders.


The UN exists to protect it's member states and seldom comments on their internal affairs, to the point of ignoring genocide. Why do people think that organizations that consist of representatives of government are there to protect the rights of citizens?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Cottonshirt said:


> *1st Point*
> This is not about re-filling a lake; its about the health and welfare of the population that live on and used to depend for their livelihood on the lake. They have had their industry snatched away from under their feet and given nothing in return. Not all fishermen can go to the big city and re-train as IT specialists.
> 
> Its also about the human rights abuse of state enforced slavery, and about the health of a population who live every day with dust storms of toxic chemicals not just to breathe but landing on their food crops.
> ...


*1st point*

You posted this as an environmental concern; now it has suddenly become about the workers?
*
2nd point*

Why does the government need to take action? If companies change their policy due to consumer demand, doesn't mean that no further action is needed? You keep talking about the slavery of these workers, but isn't government regulation nothing more than veiled-slavery? Allowing people to be free to choose to make the economic transactions they want, with who they want, when they want is essential to liberty. If you don't want to buy non-organic, non-handpicked, non-labor-free cotton that is your right. I don't try to impose my beliefs on you. I don't see why the governments need to get involved in this situation.

*3rd Point*

Turkey is right, there is almost nothing you can do because if they don't grow cotton, they'll grow something. But try if you like. Again, that is just my belief in liberty. As for me, I'll start buying cotton that doesn't contribute to global warming when everyone goes back to claiming we're in a period of global cooling, like the 80's.


----------



## Cottonshirt (Mar 15, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> You posted this as an environmental concern; now it has suddenly become about the workers?


Not quite. I posted this in a clothing forum to alert members to the possibility that they can make choices about where their cotton products are sourced. I will freely admit that I implied an invite not to buy cotton from Uzbekistan or Russia, but I left the particular motivation up to them, as free thinking individuals.

*Pedantic Turkey* replied in a vein that emphasised the loss of the lake and completely ignored the degree of human suffering involved, almost as though it could only be about the lake. I attempted to encourage him to see it in a different light. I think I failed.



brokencycle said:


> You keep talking about the slavery of these workers, but isn't government regulation nothing more than veiled-slavery?


To imply that being subject to the regulations of a democratic government is equivalent to being told that you must work for nothing in fields picking cotton instead of earning a wage to support your family is inhumane and crass ignorance of an order I would not have expected to see in an adult. Please tell me you are five years old.



brokencycle said:


> I don't try to impose my beliefs on you.


I don't try to impose my beliefs on you either. All I have done is alert you to the possibility that you might be able to do some good by choosing to buy your cotton products carefully.



brokencycle said:


> I don't see why the governments need to get involved in this situation.


When Prime Minister of country-x tells Prime Minister of country-y, "we are not buying any more of your slave-produced cotton," Prime Minister of country-y pays more attention than if you or I told him the same thing. It is called an economy of scale. It doesn't *have* to happen, but it works.



brokencycle said:


> As for me, I'll start buying cotton that doesn't contribute to global warming when everyone goes back to claiming we're in a period of global cooling, like the 80's.


Who said anything about global warming?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You offered a link to the , so what was I supposed to think?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Cottonshirt said:


> To imply that being subject to the regulations of a democratic government is equivalent to being told that you must work for nothing in fields picking cotton instead of earning a wage to support your family is inhumane and crass ignorance of an order I would not have expected to see in an adult. Please tell me you are five years old.
> 
> I don't try to impose my beliefs on you either. All I have done is alert you to the possibility that you might be able to do some good by choosing to buy your cotton products carefully.
> 
> When Prime Minister of country-x tells Prime Minister of country-y, "we are not buying any more of your slave-produced cotton," Prime Minister of country-y pays more attention than if you or I told him the same thing. It is called an economy of scale. It doesn't *have* to happen, but it works.


I don't think you tried to impose your beliefs on me. I was making the point though that I believe a government banning the importation of cotton from entire regions of the world (or several countries) is imposing people's beliefs on me. By using prohibitory tariffs or outright bans, I believe that undermines the free market, and as a consumer I should be allowed to make economic decisions in my best interest.

Secondly, I don't support slavery or the results of communistic or socialistic government. Is being forced to work in a field the same as not allowing consumers to make any economic transaction they want the same? No - not in magnitude anyway.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

It is indeed a large planet we all live on requiring all to play their roles and allow for a wide range of perspectives.

Your post speaks for itself far stronger than anything that could be said about it,...And I don't think you should be chastised or ridiculed. You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs.

You simply believe that the "Free market" is sacred and a citizen's "Freedom" reigns supreme.

And your second paragraph might well be an entire Quarter's work at The Wharton School.

I too see no connection between purchasing and wearing cotton clothing that was produced by people who are "Being forced to work in a field," and supporting the people or system that is forcing others to work in those fields. (Man alive friend your wit is like a scalpel!)

I've got to admit it is a bit, shall we say, unpleasant to think about all those black people that used to be forced to work in fields of ahhhh, well, (long pause) ic12337:*cotton!*

Rest easy BrokenCycle, no one will try to impose their beliefs on you. After all, you're a free man and the free market rules.

Best wishes,

Bill Woodward
Portland, Oregon



brokencycle said:


> I don't think you tried to impose your beliefs on me. I was making the point though that I believe a government banning the importation of cotton from entire regions of the world (or several countries) is imposing people's beliefs on me. By using prohibitory tariffs or outright bans, I believe that undermines the free market, and as a consumer I should be allowed to make economic decisions in my best interest.
> 
> Secondly, I don't support slavery or the results of communistic or socialistic government. Is being forced to work in a field the same as not allowing consumers to make any economic transaction they want the same? No - not in magnitude anyway.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

you know, polyester never caused this many problems ...


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

*CottonShirt,* you are throwing pearls to swine. (purely figurative)

You cannot reason with this level of stone cold dead ignorance.

I do love reading about Winston Churchill. I like many of his quotations but perhaps my favorite is: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."



Cottonshirt said:


> Not quite. I posted this in a clothing forum to alert members to the possibility that they can make choices about where their cotton products are sourced. I will freely admit that I implied an invite not to buy cotton from Uzbekistan or Russia, but I left the particular motivation up to them, as free thinking individuals.
> 
> *Pedantic Turkey* replied in a vein that emphasised the loss of the lake and completely ignored the degree of human suffering involved, almost as though it could only be about the lake. I attempted to encourage him to see it in a different light. I think I failed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Let's see, the government owns the crops. Check. The government controls the workers. Check. The government takes the product. Check. The government spends the proceeds how it likes. Check.
> 
> Isn't that the textbook definition of socialism?


Lets see, armed thugs force people under their control to produce a commodity which the thugs sell on the world market. Sounds like capitalism to me.

Perhaps you consider pre Civil War plantations to have been socialist enterprises?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*potatoes too*

he don't plant taters,
he don't plant cotton,
'cause dem dat plants 'em
is soon forgotten,
but old man river
he just keeps rolling along.


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Cotton clothes and human rights*

1. In a forum for clothes, I would expect for example research about the cotton sources of various shirtmakers.

2. Swiss are astonished to hear how some Americans object to the wishes of the federal government that all citizens and even other human beings living in the US have health insurance.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> 2. Swiss are astonished to hear how some Americans object to the wishes of the federal government that all citizens and even other human beings living in the US have health insurance.


And I thought the Swiss were smarter than that.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Naive said:


> 2. Swiss are astonished to hear how some Americans object to the wishes of the federal government that all citizens and even other human beings living in the US have health insurance.


So are some Americans. Residents of those states most in need of health care continue to elect representatives who oppose it.

From what one reads we might wind up with something like the Swiss system of universal private insurance, as opposed to a real national health system, but less well administered, and tilted more in favor of the companies, than in Switzerland.

MfG,
Gurdon


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> Lets see, armed thugs force people under their control to produce a commodity which the thugs sell on the world market. Sounds like capitalism to me.


When the "armed thugs" are the government, it's socialism. This isn't rocket science.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> It is indeed a large planet we all live on requiring all to play their roles and allow for a wide range of perspectives.
> 
> Your post speaks for itself far stronger than anything that could be said about it,...And I don't think you should be chastised or ridiculed. You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the kind words.


----------



## CC3 (Apr 18, 2009)

*Wrong Venue*

This website is the wrong venue for this type of debate. Notwithstanding the interesting socio-political-economic issues (and no one knowledgeably discussed fabric differences based on hygiene, full energy chain balance, etc. Suggest you take this offline. I'm certain members aren't oblivious to global issues or their own life choices that affect those issues but I question exploring that on Ask Andy.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

CC3 said:


> This website is the wrong venue for this type of debate. Notwithstanding the interesting socio-political-economic issues (and no one knowledgeably discussed fabric differences based on hygiene, full energy chain balance, etc. Suggest you take this offline. I'm certain members aren't oblivious to global issues or their own life choices that affect those issues but I question exploring that on Ask Andy.


Then don't participate in the debate.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I did enjoy where the lefties made the "socialism is slavery" argument _for _me.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I did enjoy where the lefties made the "socialism is slavery" argument _for _me.


Socialism is not necessarily slavery, although the marxian version certainly is, or was. My refernece to plantations was to suggest that an instution of which you spoke positively fitted your somewhat idiosyncratic definition of socialism.

This is a discussion I used to have years ago with my Communist friends. (I capitalized communist in this case as they really were members of the CPUSA.) Capitalism can be understood as wage slavery.

FWIW, my view of a practical basis for governance is that of a mixed economy, somewhat along the lines of the arrangements in, for example, France, Germany, or India, where the policies are intended to actually benefit the citizens as well as the oligarchy. I imagine on your planet, ideology and idealism trump reality and everybody benefits when the market rules.

In my ideal universe we'd all be socially responsible anarchists and everybody would have pubically funded health care.

BTW, how can a lake be stupid?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

> In my ideal universe we'd all be socially responsible anarchists and everybody would have pubically funded health care.


So how would a world of anarchists pay for socialized medicine? With magical happy anarchodollars?

The problem with a government that gives things away is that it has to get them from somewhere. The government can't give you healthcare for "free" without either forcing the doctor to work without compensation (slavery!) or taxing other people (forcing them to work to pay the tax, this being *gasp* slavery!).

And "stupid" is a versatile word--

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid



> *4 a* *:* lacking interest or point <a _stupid_ event>


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> So how would a world of anarchists pay for socialized medicine? With magical happy anarchodollars?
> 
> The problem with a government that gives things away is that it has to get them from somewhere. The government can't give you healthcare for "free" without either forcing the doctor to work without compensation (slavery!) or taxing other people (forcing them to work to pay the tax, this being *gasp* slavery!).
> 
> ...


Sorry. Taxation is not slavery. It is what we pay collectively for the social goods everyone needs.

If you consider the health care systems of Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland examples of socialized medicine, then we practical anarchists pay for it with tax revenues, same as governments everywhere pay the bills. You no doubt recall that I suggested a mixed economic system as the best practical means of distributing goods and services in large complex nations.

The demise of a lake is not an uninteresting event. Nor is it unimportant. Perhaps your somewhat limiting reliance on the capitalist belief system does not permit you to think about anything (clothing excepted) in other than economic terms.

Gurdon


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

My concern is that the lake is gone. G o n e, gone, It ain't coming back, boycotts notwithstanding. Never, ever. There's nothing that can be done for it now. Punishing the Uzbeks won't bring it back.

And you're some kind of anarchist, arguing for a heavily socialist "mixed" economy. Some kind I've never heard of.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> Sorry. Taxation is not slavery. It is what we pay collectively for the social goods everyone needs.
> 
> If you consider the health care systems of Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland examples of socialized medicine, then we practical anarchists pay for it with tax revenues, same as governments everywhere pay the bills. You no doubt recall that I suggested a mixed economic system as the best practical means of distributing goods and services in large complex nations.
> 
> ...


I can see how thinking in other than economic terms certainly frees one from the limiting reliances that are incompatible with the social goods hypothesis of vertical demand curves.

May I ask you what all responsible social engineers must ask themselves, suppose you are wrong; then what happens?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> My concern is that the lake is gone. G o n e, gone, It ain't coming back, boycotts notwithstanding. Never, ever. There's nothing that can be done for it now. Punishing the Uzbeks won't bring it back.
> 
> And you're some kind of anarchist, arguing for a heavily socialist "mixed" economy. Some kind I've never heard of.


That's the new _parasitic-anarchists_. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> I imagine on your planet, ideology and idealism trump reality and everybody benefits when the market rules.
> 
> In my ideal universe we'd all be socially responsible anarchists and everybody would have pubically funded health care.
> 
> ...


Try reading _Free to Choose_ by Milton Friedman. While it is 30 years old, it still applies well, I think.

When you look at countries in Africa, the ones that have escaped or have begun escaping poverty are the ones with capitalistic societies.

As for health care, 40 years ago, most people didn't have health insurance. Why is it that all the sudden it is the government's responsibility to give everyone it? I currently have made a choice not to have health insurance - so now we have a plan being proposed to force me getting it?

What about auto insurance? Home owners insurance? Renter's insurance? Life insurance? Should these all be given to us by the government so we don't go broke in case of a car accident or a catastrophic accident in the home? Mandating health care won't reduce costs: quite the opposite in fact. Look at states that have mandated extra coverages for health care. Look at states that mandate auto insurance. You will find in both cases those states have higher insurance premiums.

And yes, taxation is slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day You will find that this year, we worked until April to pay off the federal government. Do I believe taxes are unnecessary? No. There are certain services we need to pay for: those services are enumerated in the Constitution.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> Sorry. Taxation is not slavery. It is what we pay collectively for the social goods everyone needs.
> 
> If you consider the health care systems of Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland examples of socialized medicine, then we practical anarchists pay for it with tax revenues, same as governments everywhere pay the bills. You no doubt recall that I suggested a mixed economic system as the best practical means of distributing goods and services in large complex nations.
> 
> Gurdon


So, like if taxation isn't slavery is it, like, voluntary?

And how's that socialism thing working out in Sweden? https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024554.php

Everything the government does has an economic cost. You, anarchist that you are, are just willing to pay more than I.


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> -snip-
> As for health care, 40 years ago, most people didn't have health insurance. Why is it that all the sudden it is the government's responsibility to give everyone it? I currently have made a choice not to have health insurance - so now we have a plan being proposed to force me getting it?
> -snip-


I just spent some time on the Census Bureau's web site, looking at the health insurance statistics. They haven't kept coverage statistics for 40 years - the earliest were from 1987 - but your insurance coverage claim isn't well supported.

In 1987, 12.9% of the population was uninsured. Today, the figure is 15.4%. Unless there was an incredible increase in the amount of health insurance provided to the U.S. population during the Reagan administration (and I was around back then and don't recall it), then it is not true that "40 years ago, most people didn't have health insurance". Most people did.

As for the government "giving" everyone health coverage, where is that in the bills and proposals being considered? I seem to have foolishly thought that people were to BUY health coverage, not be given it for free. Maybe you can help me here.

The reason you will be forced to have insurance is that insurance companies will be required to cover everyone - they can't refuse people coverage because of their claim history, or drop people who are hospitalized and either make large claims or lose their jobs because of that hospitalization. If they had to take everyone, but people could go without coverage, there would be an incentive to go without coverage and sign up on the way to the hospital. As Friedman and all clear-sighted economists agree(d), incentives matter.

This issue hasn't come up "all of a sudden". It has been on the agenda for many years. It's just that it is now being seriously discussed, and change seriously considered. There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate, and in fact I do not support the House bill that has been the focus of that debate. But I do believe that leaving things as they are is not a responsible approach, and that the only institution capable of forcing change is indeed the government. Let's hope the demagogues do not prevail, and that a sensible plan emerges.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The "everyone will have to buy insurance" thing is bogus, because it won't be insurance at all.

The "insurance" plans will all have to be government approved, i.e., they will be required to offer overly broad coverage, and they won't be able to charge high-risk people more or turn anyone away who is already sick.

If someone came into an insurance office today and said, "I've just been diagnosed with cancer, and I'd like to buy your insurance" would they go along with it? No, of course not. Or if your insurance company said, hey, we're going to double your premiums so we can give away free medical care to people who haven't been paying for it. Would you go along with it, or would you change carriers?

It's a great big cynical scheme to force young, healthy people to subsidize expanding coverage. Obamacare isn't insurance--it's socialized medicine.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

coynedj said:


> I just spent some time on the Census Bureau's web site, looking at the health insurance statistics. They haven't kept coverage statistics for 40 years - the earliest were from 1987 - but your insurance coverage claim isn't well supported.
> 
> In 1987, 12.9% of the population was uninsured. Today, the figure is 15.4%. Unless there was an incredible increase in the amount of health insurance provided to the U.S. population during the Reagan administration (and I was around back then and don't recall it), then it is not true that "40 years ago, most people didn't have health insurance". Most people did.
> 
> ...


People will be given insurance. We're talking universal coverage, and the main "reason" for doing it is because some people "can't afford' insurance. So if they can't afford it, the government will be giving it to them....

And I, as a young healthy individual (knock on wood), don't need health insurance.

I agree incentives matter and that if you can't discriminate against pre-existing conditions, people would only get it when they need it. My point is still valid. You're saying that I should pay for other people's health care though. Would you like me to pay your car insurance bill too?


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> - more snipping -
> And yes, taxation is slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day You will find that this year, we worked until April to pay off the federal government. Do I believe taxes are unnecessary? No. There are certain services we need to pay for: those services are enumerated in the Constitution.


Are mortgages slavery? Are grocery bills slavery? One can make the same type of calculations with them as you can with taxes. The average household grocery expense, according to the Food Marketing Institute, was $4,852 per year in 2006, the last year I quickly found data for. So, with average household income (according to the Census Bureau for the same year) of $49,588, Grocery Freedom Day was February 5.

The point is, that we get something for our grocery expenditures, and for our taxes. We get national defense, Social Security, Medicare, schools, a legal system, a "safety net" for those who fall through the cracks, and many other things. We can debate whether the things we get from the government are worth getting or worth the cost, but calling the payment for these things "slavery" only shows a lack of awareness of what true slavery actually is. When the government can sell us to other nations' governments for the taxes we're able to pay, and can beat us for not paying as much as they expected no matter the reason, I will indeed call it slavery. We are far from that point.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

coynedj said:


> Are mortgages slavery? Are grocery bills slavery? One can make the same type of calculations with them as you can with taxes. The average household grocery expense, according to the Food Marketing Institute, was $4,852 per year in 2006, the last year I quickly found data for. So, with average household income (according to the Census Bureau for the same year) of $49,588, Grocery Freedom Day was February 5.
> 
> The point is, that we get something for our grocery expenditures, and for our taxes. We get national defense, Social Security, Medicare, schools, a legal system, a "safety net" for those who fall through the cracks, and many other things. We can debate whether the things we get from the government are worth getting or worth the cost, but calling the payment for these things "slavery" only shows a lack of awareness of what true slavery actually is. When the government can sell us to other nations' governments for the taxes we're able to pay, and can beat us for not paying as much as they expected no matter the reason, I will indeed call it slavery. We are far from that point.


You really can't differentiate between taxes and a mortgage that a person chooses to take out or chooses not pay? HINT: there is no law making you take out a mortgage nor is it a crime to not pay your mortgage.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between public goods and social goods; or are you intentionally mixing things like national defense and schools for nefarious purposes? Perhaps this is something picked up in the media as it implied earlier as well by another poster.

Frankly, I would say these errors go far beyond a "lack of awareness" and border on ignorance and hope instead of reality. It'd be nice if one apple could feed 1,000 people for the rest of their lives too.

If these are the best arguments the pro-Obamacare side has in the debate it's no wonder they are calling opponents racists - this isn't even a sporting contest.

Just when I wonder if the media could possibly be in the tank any more for Obama https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59523-obama-open-to-newspaper-bailout-bill


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

CC3 said:


> This website is the wrong venue for this type of debate. Notwithstanding the interesting socio-political-economic issues (and no one knowledgeably discussed fabric differences based on hygiene, full energy chain balance, etc. Suggest you take this offline. I'm certain members aren't oblivious to global issues or their own life choices that affect those issues but I question exploring that on Ask Andy.


This isn't the go-to forum for political discussion, no doubt, but members are free to post about it if they want to. That's what The Interchange was meant for -- everything that doesn't fit into the other forums on this website.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

coynedj said:


> Are mortgages slavery? Are grocery bills slavery? One can make the same type of calculations with them as you can with taxes. The average household grocery expense, according to the Food Marketing Institute, was $4,852 per year in 2006, the last year I quickly found data for. So, with average household income (according to the Census Bureau for the same year) of $49,588, Grocery Freedom Day was February 5.
> 
> The point is, that we get something for our grocery expenditures, and for our taxes. We get national defense, Social Security, Medicare, schools, a legal system, a "safety net" for those who fall through the cracks, and many other things. We can debate whether the things we get from the government are worth getting or worth the cost, but calling the payment for these things "slavery" only shows a lack of awareness of what true slavery actually is. When the government can sell us to other nations' governments for the taxes we're able to pay, and can beat us for not paying as much as they expected no matter the reason, I will indeed call it slavery. We are far from that point.


The difference is that I can choose the mortgage I want. I don't have to buy a house - I could choose to rent. Again. There are certain services I believe only the government can provide - such as the national defense or the interstate system (history has shown private roads don't work because motorists find ways to avoid the tolls). Social security, medicare, the federal involvement in elementary and secondary education.... all of these things are not the role of the federal government. I could argue this forever; however, we have lost any semblance to the original topic/


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

ksinc said:


> You really can't differentiate between taxes and a mortgage that a person chooses to take out or chooses not pay? HINT: there is no law making you take out a mortgage nor is it a crime to not pay your mortgage.
> 
> You also don't seem to understand the difference between public goods and social goods; or are you intentionally mixing things like national defense and schools for nefarious purposes? Perhaps this is something picked up in the media as it implied earlier as well by another poster.
> 
> ...


I find it curious that you talk of food and shelter as if they were discretionary expenses that one can do without. That aside, I made absolutely no claim that they are the same as taxation. I only aimed to show that they do share one common trait - neither is slavery. The fact that one can compute a "Tax Freedom Day" does not mean that taxation is slavery, and Tax Freedom Day was the only evidence put forward supporting that argument. I also find it curious that you consider my statement that taxation is not slavery to be an argument in favor of Obamacare. They are completely unrelated; in fact, if you look back at my two posts here, you'll discover that I oppose the health care bill as it stands. 

What I do not oppose is precision in language, and that was the actual point of the post you responded to. Taxation is taxation and slavery is slavery; let us not confuse the two. In fact, the Constitution bans slavery, so if they are indeed the same then we should take legal action to declare taxation unconstitutional. It would go nowhere, because of the obvious fact already mentioned. When we use odious terms to describe what we do not like, regardless of whether they truly share anything in common, it debases the meaning of those terms. The health care bill is not socialism, and Obama does not share anything meaningful with Hitler. Bush is not a war criminal or a murderer, and did not steal the election. And the Detroit Lions are not a professional football team. All right, I made that last one up. Kind of.

My inclusion of both national defense and schools in the list of things we get for our taxes involved no "nefarious purpose", and I fail to see what nefarious purpose could possibly have been intended. Taxes do support both, and if federal taxation is slavery then state and local taxation (which provides the bulk of school funding)should be considered slavery as well. I could just as easily have added police and fire protection. Tax Freedom Day includes state and local taxes, so why should schools not be on the list? The distinction between public and social goods has no relevance to this point (and yes, despite your twice stating that I'm ignorant, I am quite aware of the distinction, but again it is not germane). If you're going to argue against my point, please distinguish what my point is before doing so. And the apple statement makes no sense at all - maybe you could help ignorant me understand what the heck that was about. With a mere three degrees I'm sure I am too slow-witted to figure it out.

But, as has been said, we have veered far from the original topic. I do find the practices highlighted in the video disgusting, and worthy of condemnation and action. Actions taken now will not change the "facts on the ground", as the saying goes and as has been pointed out, and they may prove ineffectual in changing behavior. But throwing our hands up and saying "we can't change it, so it's not worth bothering to do anything at all" hardly seems right. Punishing criminals after the fact serves a deterrent purpose, and raising a ruckus about this issue can do some degree of the same, even if the two deterrents are far apart in many ways. Silence signals acceptance.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

coynedj said:


> I find it curious that you talk of food and shelter as if they were discretionary expenses that one can do without. That aside, I made absolutely no claim that they are the same as taxation. I only aimed to show that they do share one common trait - neither is slavery. The fact that one can compute a "Tax Freedom Day" does not mean that taxation is slavery, and Tax Freedom Day was the only evidence put forward supporting that argument. I also find it curious that you consider my statement that taxation is not slavery to be an argument in favor of Obamacare. They are completely unrelated; in fact, if you look back at my two posts here, you'll discover that I oppose the health care bill as it stands.
> 
> What I do not oppose is precision in language, and that was the actual point of the post you responded to. Taxation is taxation and slavery is slavery; let us not confuse the two. In fact, the Constitution bans slavery, so if they are indeed the same then we should take legal action to declare taxation unconstitutional. It would go nowhere, because of the obvious fact already mentioned. When we use odious terms to describe what we do not like, regardless of whether they truly share anything in common, it debases the meaning of those terms. The health care bill is not socialism, and Obama does not share anything meaningful with Hitler. Bush is not a war criminal or a murderer, and did not steal the election. And the Detroit Lions are not a professional football team. All right, I made that last one up. Kind of.
> 
> ...


1.) A mortgage is not shelter, nor is it the only way to acquire shelter for oneself or provide shelter for another. You find what you misrepresent that I said curious perhaps because I didn't say it.

2.) No, taxation is not slavery. You are right. However, taxation has evolved into theft; or legalized plunder when it is spent on non-public goods. The question would be why can't you simply knock a softball like "taxation is slavery" out of the park in few words or a couple of sentences however precise or not? I don't mean that as a critic of your intellect as you assumed or of your ability to communicate. I'm asking philosophically. It seems you can make any argument except the obvious one. Why is that a compromise of something you also believe?

3.) Not supporting the Bill as written is not one and the same as not supporting Obamacare.

4.) Health care can be either a private good or a social good; it cannot by definition be a public good. Systemic government health care therefore is Socialism. As a previous poster stated the argument only works if we choose to ignore thinking in economic terms. I'm candid enough to admit that I'm totally unwilling to embrace the relativism required; limiting or not.

As to the OP, there is nothing in the information provided that helps me as a consumer actually choose cotton carefully; even if I want to do so.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

coynedj said:


> I find it curious that you talk of food and shelter as if they were discretionary expenses that one can do without. That aside, I made absolutely no claim that they are the same as taxation. I only aimed to show that they do share one common trait - neither is slavery. The fact that one can compute a "Tax Freedom Day" does not mean that taxation is slavery, and Tax Freedom Day was the only evidence put forward supporting that argument. I also find it curious that you consider my statement that taxation is not slavery to be an argument in favor of Obamacare. They are completely unrelated; in fact, if you look back at my two posts here, you'll discover that I oppose the health care bill as it stands.
> 
> What I do not oppose is precision in language, and that was the actual point of the post you responded to. Taxation is taxation and slavery is slavery; let us not confuse the two. In fact, the Constitution bans slavery, so if they are indeed the same then we should take legal action to declare taxation unconstitutional. It would go nowhere, because of the obvious fact already mentioned. When we use odious terms to describe what we do not like, regardless of whether they truly share anything in common, it debases the meaning of those terms. The health care bill is not socialism, and Obama does not share anything meaningful with Hitler. Bush is not a war criminal or a murderer, and did not steal the election. And the Detroit Lions are not a professional football team. All right, I made that last one up. Kind of.
> 
> ...


My whole argument was based on the original topic because I believe it to be a mild form of slavery to prevent people from entering into private economic dealings. It was extended into taxation was because we're talking about increasing taxes to force people into purchasing health insurance they may not want or need.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> My concern is that the lake is gone. G o n e, gone, It ain't coming back, boycotts notwithstanding. Never, ever. There's nothing that can be done for it now. Punishing the Uzbeks won't bring it back.
> 
> And you're some kind of anarchist, arguing for a heavily socialist "mixed" economy. Some kind I've never heard of.


As I've tried to indicate, anarchism is for me a utopian ideal against which one measures what it is possible to attain. I don't think any theoretical construct is a practical basis for organizing society.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I can see how thinking in other than economic terms certainly frees one from the limiting reliances that are incompatible with the social goods hypothesis of vertical demand curves.
> 
> May I ask you what all responsible social engineers must ask themselves, suppose you are wrong; then what happens?


I think you are using econospeak to ask how to pay for national health care, as though finance is necessarily tied to liberal (neocon) economics. It isn't. And the answer is that you do a budget.

I think "social engineers" is suposed to be a pejorative reference to individuals who do not adhere to your belief in the market system.

Wrong about what?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> People will be given insurance. We're talking universal coverage, and the main "reason" for doing it is because some people "can't afford' insurance. So if they can't afford it, the government will be giving it to them....
> 
> And I, as a young healthy individual (knock on wood), don't need health insurance.
> 
> I agree incentives matter and that if you can't discriminate against pre-existing conditions, people would only get it when they need it. My point is still valid. You're saying that I should pay for other people's health care though. Would you like me to pay your car insurance bill too?


Actually, you do need health insurance. And, as with other kinds of insurance, it works because most policy holders don't need to file major claims. And yes, I do pay for part of your auto insurance, in that your participation in the insurance pool affects everyone's rates. More directly, that is what assigned risk is about. It spreads the cost of insuring high risk individuals among the insurers.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> Actually, you do need health insurance. And, as with other kinds of insurance, it works because most policy holders don't need to file major claims. And yes, I do pay for part of your auto insurance, in that your participation in the insurance pool affects everyone's rates. More directly, that is what assigned risk is about. It spreads the cost of insuring high risk individuals among the insurers.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Explain to me why I *need *health insurance. If I need to go to the doctor, I pay my bills, and I actually get a discount for not having insurance because they don't have to go through all the paperwork. Next time you go, try asking for an itemized bill along with what your bill would be without insurance.

I am very aware of how insurance works. Insurance companies make money because they take in more premiums for people than they pay out to people making claims. It is because they have spread their risk out over a large group of people that can make it a good decision to have for the individuals and the insurance company. We could also talk about reinsurance if you want.

As for my auto insurance, you would be paying for my insurance if I had a bad driving record and couldn't get insurance normally and was in a high risk pool. But if you actually want to pay it, I can give you my paypal account. Because the proposed health care bill is much the same.

As for being an anarchist and socialist at the same time. I'm affixed this little political compass, and you explain to me how you can be at two separate ends of the compass at once. (Ignore the "you are here", I got this off google images)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> I think you are using econospeak to ask how to pay for national health care, as though finance is necessarily tied to liberal (neocon) economics. It isn't. And the answer is that you do a budget.
> 
> I think "social engineers" is suposed to be a pejorative reference to individuals who do not adhere to your belief in the market system.
> 
> ...


I think you could only say "responsible social engineers" is a pejorative if you believed that there was no such thing as "responsible" social engineers.

If you want to create a system that provides social goods; that is social engineering.

Facts are: You can't make a budget. There is not enough money to pay for it and there will never be enough money to pay for it. It is not a self-sustaining system it is a vertical demand curve.

If you understand the nature of social goods you know this. It is not based on a belief. It is based on a social science called Economics. Economics is not a belief of markets or determined by whether one prefers capitalism or not. And it appears you do know this, because you stated the economic reality is limiting and your post exercises a belief that you can somehow choose to escape it through some comination of hope and group think (or mind control.)

My question is; what if you are wrong? What if you cannot in fact create the system you think you can create - a better system, a fairer system, a more humane system than the capitalist private goods system for health care? What are the consequences? Do you intend to ignore them too?


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> As for being an anarchist and socialist at the same time. I'm affixed this little political compass, and you explain to me how you can be at two separate ends of the compass at once. (Ignore the "you are here", I got this off google images)


The diagram you show mixes things up somewhat. I have a different diagram that I think is clearer and provides more information than the one you got from Google, and which I will describe in hopes that you will be able to visualize it.

(1) draw a square. (2) Lable the sides Left and right at the respective upper corners. (3) Lable the top Authoritarian and the bottom Individualistic. (5) Put Communist in the upper left corner. (5) Put Fasciast/Nazi in the upper right corner. (6) Put anarchist in the lower left corner. (7) Put Libertarian in the lower right corner. You can then distribute the various systems of republic or democratic states and their mixes of socialist and capitalist economies according to where you think they belong. You can also situate yourself on the chart according to your preferences.

Hope I've at least made my position a bit clearer that it may have been. I sometimes suggest that a major difference between anarchists and libertarians in that the former have health insurance (preferably publically funded).

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> The diagram you show mixes things up somewhat. I have a different diagram that I think is clearer and provides more information than the one you got from Google, and which I will describe in hopes that you will be able to visualize it.
> 
> *(1) draw a square. (2) Lable the sides Left and right at the respective upper corners. (3) Lable the top Authoritarian and the bottom Individualistic. (5) Put Communist in the upper left corner. (5) Put Fasciast/Nazi in the upper right corner. (6) Put anarchist in the lower left corner. (7) Put Libertarian in the lower right corner. You can then distribute the various systems of republic or democratic states and their mixes of socialist and capitalist economies according to where you think they belong. You can also situate yourself on the chart according to your preferences.*
> 
> ...


So, using that explain Lenin and Trotsky?

Do you suggest that is a major difference with a straight face?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

You can suggest whatever you like; it is a free country. But I went ahead and copied and pasted this here from dictionary.com:

*an⋅ar⋅chy*

  /ˈænərki/ https://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-er-kee] https://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html Show IPA
-noun 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. *a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

* So explain to me how anarchists are pro-government programs.
Are you talking about something like this:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah. Placing fascist and communist on opposite sides is seriously wrong. Do you think the Nazis called themselves "national _socialists_" for nothing? In both systems the good (and the freedoms) of the individual are subservient to the state. The idea that it's "just to the right of the GOP" is just absurd.

Of course most "anarchists" are just idiots, thugs who are happy to use violence and coersion any time they think it meets their ends. Look at what the so-called anarchists did in Spain, for example.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah. Placing fascist and communist on opposite sides is seriously wrong. Do you think the Nazis called themselves "national _socialists_" for nothing? In both systems the good (and the freedoms) of the individual are subservient to the state. The idea that it's "just to the right of the GOP" is just absurd.
> 
> Of course most "anarchists" are just idiots, thugs who are happy to use violence and coersion any time they think it meets their ends. Look at what the so-called anarchists did in Spain, for example.


I group fascists and communists together as totalitarian. One is right wing one is left wing. The idea is from Hannah Arandt's book On Totalitarianism. Likewise the Libertarians are right wing individualists and anarchists are left wing individualists.

I can't figure out what you mean by the "just to the right of the GOP ... absurd." Try drawing the diagram.

I am concerned with personal liberty. The anarchist emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual is what initially got me interested in reading what anarchists had to say, rather than what their enemies (including Marx) wrote about them. Try reading what Emma Goldman wrote in the 1920's about the Soviet Union. Or read the transcription of Kropotkin's discussion of agricultural reform with Lenin. Or, look into the history of the IWW here in the US.

Our nation is becoming increasingly authoritarian. There is a good deal of legally enforced coerciveness in today's America compared with what I remember from the 50's and 60's. We have lots of people in jail, we have lots of laws with hefty sentences for violations. We spend, in California, $100,000/year per prisoner verses $5,000/year per school pupil. Traffic cameras generate automatic tickets, etc.

As to what the anarchists did in Spain, it depends on where you get your history.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> I group fascists and communists together as totalitarian. One is right wing one is left wing. The idea is from Hannah Arandt's book On Totalitarianism. Likewise the Libertarians are right wing individualists and anarchists are left wing individualists.
> 
> I can't figure out what you mean by the "just to the right of the GOP ... absurd." Try drawing the diagram.
> 
> ...


Hanna Arendt's use of the term "totalitarianism" is an umbrella term noting similarities and does not distinguish authoritarian from totalitarian. Yes; Stalin and Hitler would be grouped together, but to broaden that as saying fascists and communists can be grouped together as totalitarian is not accurate. Lenin was a communist and Trotsky was by today's definition a fascist although he hated the label and fought them; and both were authoritarian. This was the power of Arendt's observation grouping Hitler and Stalin together and by exclusion explained what Trotsky was trying to say and found so appalling with other fascists and with Stalinism in his book _Revolution Betrayed_. Many communists and fascists are correctly classified as authoritarian and not totalitarian - Franco, Tito, Chiang Kai-shek, Castro ...

The reason you were asked by me and others to attempt to use your diagram is it is a two-axis solution to a three-dimensional problem and it doesn't work. You have to classify political, economic, and social ideologies separately. There are not enough variables in your model.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> Our nation is becoming increasingly authoritarian. There is a good deal of legally enforced coerciveness in today's America compared with what I remember from the 50's and 60's. We have lots of people in jail, we have lots of laws with hefty sentences for violations. We spend, in California, $100,000/year per prisoner verses $5,000/year per school pupil. Traffic cameras generate automatic tickets, etc.


You're right, we should take away more rights and privileges of those in prison to decrease cost. And there are plenty of nations who spend less on education than we do and have better results. Let's stop looking to Europe and trying to emulate failing systems when the Far East is destroying us in rankings.


----------



## Bernard T. McManus (Sep 23, 2009)

Cottonshirt said:


> I'm sorry? I just invited you to watch a video showing that the world's fourth-largest lake has been siphoned off destroying a complete fishing industry that once supported a population of 100,000 people. The lost water is equivalent to the contents of Lakes Erie and Ontario combined, and the fish it used to support constituted one sixth of Russias entire fish consumption per year. Gone.
> 
> A once-thriving port city now lies some 30 miles from the nearest water.
> 
> ...


So what would you like to see happen next?


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*The "Austrian" who thought the Swiss were smarter*



ksinc said:


> And I thought the Swiss were smarter than that.


Have you asked the Austrians what they think about millions of Americans who are medically uninsured and if ill, can't pay for treatment? I mention this because of your motto, which I earlier pointed out doesn't fit reality and should be changed to adequately express what you mean (for example: "I only read what is available for purchase from Amazon".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> Have you asked the Austrians what they thinkabout millions of Americans who are medically uninsured and if ill, can't pay for treatment? I mention this because of your motto, which I earlier pointed out doesn't fit reality and should be changed to adequately express what you mean (for example: "I only read what is available for purchase from Amazon".


Why would I care what the Austrians or Swiss think about American healthcare (or anything else for that matter?)

I only care about the substantiated opinions of individuals; and I do not consider the flawed premise.

Only a group of fools have a singular opinion on any matter; and only a fool would think he could report what an entire group think about any matter.

I will ignore your self-serving revisionism about my signature so that you can save some face. Cheers!


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*"We are all human brings now"*



ksinc said:


> Why would I care what the Austrians or Swiss think about American healthcare (or anything else for that matter?)
> 
> I only care about the substantiated opinions of individuals; and I do not consider the flawed premise.
> 
> ...


I only replied to you because you made a comment about the Swiss persons about whom I reported. If you care about opinion or not, is your concern - as far as science is concerned, opinions are frivolous. Any kind of premise - "flawed" (?) or otherwise, is only half reality - you are not only a thinker, you also have sense perception. Furthermore, premises in general are too late - what is necessary to understand self consciousness is the origin of premise in intuition of thought. What an entire group thinks is not necessary to report in this case of medical care for citizens because common sense suffices to realize your fellow human being needs medical care. To what extent this is possible is a special question, in principle it should be clear to you. I have no "self-serving revisionism" about your "signature" nor do I need "to save face". I remember you very well from our discussion about Austrian economics and philosophy - you are the person who believes if something is not available at Amazon internet book order, it is not important enough to read. This is a quite naive attitude, but I do not think I can nor do I want to change you. I also pointed out to you that your signature is simply superficial polemical propaganda for what you imagine "Austrians" are. Greetings from Central Europe, which has much more spiritual depth than you presently imagine. I have also read what you wrote during the debate about Obama and the police incident with that Harvard professor, so I am aware of your legal training. Unfortunately, this training in law is only a preliminary intellectual discipline. Law must be created by intuitive thinking, and you do not show that you are competent to create new law which is necessary for a just human society.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Naive said:


> I only replied to you because you made a comment about the Swiss persons about whom I reported. If you care about opinion or not, is your concern - as far as science is concerned, opinions are frivolous. Any kind of premise - "flawed" (?) or otherwise, is only half reality - you are not only a thinker, you also have sense perception. Furthermore, premises in general are too late - what is necessary to understand self consciousness is the origin of premise in intuition of thought. What an entire group thinks is not necessary to report in this case of medical care for citizens because common sense suffices to realize your fellow human being needs medical care. To what extent this is possible is a special question, in principle it should be clear to you. I have no "self-serving revisionism" about your "signature" nor do I need "to save face". I remember you very well from our discussion about Austrian economics and philosophy - you are the person who believes if something is not available at Amazon internet book order, it is not important enough to read. This is a quite naive attitude, but I do not think I can nor do I want to change you. I also pointed out to you that your signature is simply superficial polemical propaganda for what you imagine "Austrians" are. Greetings from Central Europe, which has much more spiritual depth than you presently imagine. I have also read what you wrote during the debate about Obama and the police incident with that Harvard professor, so I am aware of your legal training. Unfortunately, this training in law is only a preliminary intellectual discipline. Law must be created by intuitive thinking, and you do not show that you are competent to create new law which is necessary for a just human society.


Greetings.

You are not able to understand and you therefore continue to misrepresent what I said. What I said I believe is Economics Drive Process. If Hegge's opinion of Hayek was perceived as being of value, then it would be on Amazon in English. There are many things that are important to someone for which economic value cannot be easily estimated, often because there is no primary market, but for books and information this is not the case. You seem offended by the distribution model. I believe markets have no human traits and therefore they do not judge those perceptions, but merely faciliate the transactions they represent.

As a matter of fact, I cannot imagine the spiritual depth that would combine such individual arrogance with a total lack of self-esteem and individual moral courage that is demonstrated by continually stepping out to throw a single stone then running back to the group. I have observed it in other groups, but you are correct that I cannot imagine the depravity required to find virtue in it.

I'm mildly curious how you were programmed to emulate that which you purport to oppose without also despising youself. It's like a form of stockholm syndrome. Can you not simply ask to be released by your captors or yourself?

"Aware" is not a word I would associate with you. You project only self-awareness. You have no idea about, and I'm sure many are laughing at your expose' of, my "legal training."

No matter. My spiritual depth allows me to understand humans are not just; therefore I focus on achievable goals.

Your providence betrays your true needs.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Naive said:


> I only replied to you because you made a comment about the Swiss persons about whom I reported. If you care about opinion or not, is your concern - as far as science is concerned, opinions are frivolous. Any kind of premise - "flawed" (?) or otherwise, is only half reality - you are not only a thinker, you also have sense perception. Furthermore, premises in general are too late - what is necessary to understand self consciousness is the origin of premise in intuition of thought. What an entire group thinks is not necessary to report in this case of medical care for citizens because common sense suffices to realize your fellow human being needs medical care. To what extent this is possible is a special question, in principle it should be clear to you. I have no "self-serving revisionism" about your "signature" nor do I need "to save face". I remember you very well from our discussion about Austrian economics and philosophy - you are the person who believes if something is not available at Amazon internet book order, it is not important enough to read. This is a quite naive attitude, but I do not think I can nor do I want to change you. I also pointed out to you that your signature is simply superficial polemical propaganda for what you imagine "Austrians" are. Greetings from Central Europe, which has much more spiritual depth than you presently imagine. I have also read what you wrote during the debate about Obama and the police incident with that Harvard professor, so I am aware of your legal training. Unfortunately, this training in law is only a preliminary intellectual discipline. Law must be created by intuitive thinking, and you do not show that you are competent to create new law which is necessary for a just human society.


Wow! That was very good, Mr. Swiss Man. I always enjoy it when K is made to turn livid. My Orville Redenbacher's ready; will there be more?​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wow! That was very good, Mr. Swiss Man. I always enjoy it when K is made to turn livid. My Orville Redenbacher's ready; will there be more?​


Too old to get laid anymore, huh? :icon_smile_wink:

WATCH IT.

-Jovan

You mistake my state of mind and the source of it. I am not livid. While I agree with the stated societal norm "_willful stupidity makes me absolutely livid." _That is not me. I am not co-dependent. I prefer sternly rejecting intellectual dishonesty and group think that calls itself elite thinking for oneself; just as I usually do when you post something. It's not surprising you recognize the tactics of your intellectual ally and this is exactly the behavior I am describing when I say jumping out to throw a stone then running back to the group.

Naive contradicts himself at every opportunity. The basis of his argument was a flawed premise presented as group consensus. Rather than hold himself accountable for this intellectual failing he resorts to his self-created strawman and pretends the fault in his position is only that it is so superior it is the result of spiritual enlightenment.

I can't relate, but I can sympathize with your co-dependent nature and having to rely on others expressing your sense of victimization to receive joy. That must be really frustating for you.

I receive joy by being a self-reliant, self-made individual. The only co-dependent relationship I have that influences my happiness is by choice with my Wife. Therefore only She can also make me livid.

Of course, there will be more. He's still trying to save face for being ignorant of historical context when he attacked my signature. The frequency, unity, and purpose of his postings betrays his words. As do yours. I might become a bit flattered by the attention, but to-date I remain immune.

I apologize for contributing to your growing self-awareness of a complete lack of empowerment. However, you should blame the failed constructs you defend, not me.

Happy buttering.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

ksinc

Man, I wish I could write like that.:icon_hailthee:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

norton said:


> Man, I wish I could write like that.:icon_hailthee:


You can. You just have to make yourself the centerpiece of every thought, use the word _I_ a lot and pepper it with corn-ball utterances of self reliance.

As to the post itself, addressed to me, I choose not to reply, but instead have read it aloud, yes aloud, and in the manner to which I believe it was written, i.e., I stood up and I pounded my fists and I yelped and I whined and I actually caught myself drooling on the keyboard. You might say I was livid.​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> You can. You just have to make yourself the centerpiece of every thought, use the word _I_ a lot and pepper it with corn-ball utterances of self reliance.
> 
> As to the post itself, addressed to me, I choose not to reply, but instead have read it aloud, yes aloud, and in the manner to which I believe it was written, i.e., I stood up and I pounded my fists and I yelped and I whined and I actually caught myself drooling on the keyboard. You might say I was livid.​


----------



## Naive. Jr. (Dec 4, 2008)

*Mr. Ksinc in FL (Florida, not Fürstentum Liechtenstein)*

Very good you remembered my recommendation you read H. Hegge in reply to your request for advice on how to learn to correct what Hayek didn't understand.

In a quiet moment perhaps you can think about yourself better.

You remember your difficulty was that as response to your request for help the book to which I referred about human society - in which the problem with Hayek is treated - was published in German, which presumably you haven't yet learned, although you do seem to devote very much attention to your own use of words. I'm sorry you can't read other important writings published in German, for example, Herbert Witzenmann's books on money and just price, until you learn German - but you might take some initiative and order them along with Hegge and an English-German dictionary from your beloved Amazon and begin.

I seemed to have touched a nerve when I mentioned your lack of imagination for spiritual depth in Central Europe, but that can change, too.

You didn't bother to correct the misimpression above: "Mr. Swiss" - I'm not Swiss. If I were, I would have said so.

If you do visit Austria and live there awhile, instead of misusing the nameof its inhabiltants with that silly and inaccurate "We are Austrians now", you could develop some valuable insight in yourself and in reality in general to deepen your _own_ thinking - instead of propagating thought of others which isn't really transparent for you. The epic may fail, but you can swim against the stream.


----------

