Political Crossfire Forums

[Robin Hood]

Fido wrote: Absolutely, democracy is control of our own affairs

But it's not is it? Control over your own affairs is no government. A total Democracy, in a country with 60 million voters, is 1/60 millionth control over your affairs and the same over everyone else's.

Fido wrote: Tell me how having fewer representatives per person than when this country was formed is as democratic as the democracy they enjoyed?

So you want more politicians? I don't care about representation - I'll be dictator in my own life and allow you to be the say over yours. You don't want me to have self-government because you want all our money to be taken by the state.

Fido wrote: Capital has a free hand

Capital has no hands, it's what we use to produce things.

Fido wrote: Democracy is no guarantee of justice for all unless it involves all the people.

Why would it guarantee justice simply because everyone votes. Justice is not 6 men being able to do what they want to 5 men. Democracy is not justice, it is a structure of government.

Fido wrote: Have you ever voted on minimum wage, or health care with government support. What is your vote on war or on closing the border. We vote for a fraction of our first government, and seldom get what we want. Tell me there is no way we could vote on these issues.

If I had voted then so what? The end result would be roughly the same, and there's certainly no guarantee that the outcome would be correct. My wage is not a matter for you, or anyone, to vote on. My wage is the result of mutual consent between me and my employer. Frankly it's none of yours or 'the people's business'.


Fido wrote: Ultimately the nation holds title to all property, or else imminent domain, and the emancipation of our slaves would have been impossible,

Why would I want eminent domain? The nation doesn't own my stuff, the nation didn't create it, or gain it through consensual means. Your concept of the nation sounds more like the mafia than some protector of people's rights. Slavery was wrong because slavery was stolen property, so ultimately you should stop confusing issues.

Fido wrote: but through control of government, the property class has consistently reduced its burden of the support of government, and loaded it onto the backs of labor.

Lucky them...now if they could just stop supporting it completely and aid everyone else in their efforts for liberty then we might be getting somewhere.

Fido wrote: Property is getting a free ride, and has become a bank of wealth. This does not make realestate and homes cheaper. It actually reduces the supply of property at any time looking for a price, and that raises the price. And because it is cheap to hold onto, it becomes an object of speculation.

Speculation is merely a gamble where there's no bookies (or often the government wheedles it's greedy way into that role through tax). A commodity has a price, but that price may be mistaken due to a lack of information. A speculator corrects the mistaken value, or if they don't then they lose money their money and the commodity becomes cheaper. Speculator's not only make accurate the valuations of stuff, but they also provide liquidity. We'd all be much poorer without them.

Fido wrote: The need to literally work for months to pay taxes makes people slaves to a government that will not support their needs or rights, and slaves as well to those trying to maximize profits at the expense of the larger community.

You are correct int he first part. Taxation does make us slaves to the state, but unlike you I want no-one (including the rich) to be slaves to the state. Nor do I want the government to support my needs, I may be quite young and thus still somewhat dependent on my family but ultimately I want to support my own needs, and I certainly don't want to force other's (rich or poor) to support me against their individual will.

Fido wrote: Since labor creates all value, how can this situation last?

So if labour creates all value then how my friend's Bob Dylan LP went up in value during a period when he put absolutely no work into it (he left it on a shelf)?

Fido wrote: Should this wealth remain hereditary even if it destroys with its influence the democracy that has been our strength?

Democracy hasn't been America's strength, but limited democracy has. Ghana has been a stellar example of a democracy for 50 years, but it's dirt poor. Hong Kong has not come close to democracy but it is extremely wealthy. The limited part denotes the lack of state involvement in people's affairs, including their economic ones. Stopping people from choosing who their own wealth goes to is a particularly unpleasant form of this, and no I don't care if Bill gate's heirs (although he's giving it away) get far richer than me without doing any work. It's Bill Gates's choice what happens with his wealth not mine.

Fido wrote: Take control of your own affairs. Demand equality and justice for your self and others.

If by 'equality' you mean taking from those who have more than me then I refuse, I rpize my sense of self and my responsibility for it too highly. I do plan on taking control of my own affairs, but I suspect what that means would be an anathema to you.

[Fido]

Reason wrote: Fido wrote: Quote: Absolutely, democracy is control of our own affairs

But it's not is it? Control over your own affairs is no government. A total Democracy, in a country with 60 million voters, is 1/60 millionth control over your affairs and the same over everyone else's.

First, that person who practices self control needs no law, and 1/60 millionth of a defense of rights is enough if people are willing to stand for themselves. The constitution calls for not more than one representative for thirty thousand, and we have how many less representatives today? Can one man represent 20 people with the same fidelity as he could represent 10. We have a president for expedience, and a congress for deliberation. The house has modified the intent of the constitution to be a seller's market, and the quality of our democracy represents that sale.

Quote: Fido wrote: Tell me how having fewer representatives per person than when this country was formed is as democratic as the democracy they enjoyed?

So you want more politicians? I don't care about representation - I'll be dictator in my own life and allow you to be the say over yours. You don't want me to have self-government because you want all our money to be taken by the state.

I want a direct democracy such as our technology has allowed. First, our government is our responsibility. Second, we know best at any moment what we want and need from government, and the government as designed was meant to be responsive to small numbers, and this intent was betrayed for expedience. Justice is not expediency.Tell me the difference between the state and simple government. As a government, the state is all the money, all the property, and all the people. If your actions or wealth are contrary to the best interests of all the people, who protect and defend your wealth and actions, then your wealth should be limited.

Quote: Fido wrote: Capital has a free hand

Capital has no hands, it's what we use to produce things.

Labor produces things. Capital is invested, and not spend as Bush said. But where does capital come from? It is all labor, expropriated. If society desires capital, it should also control it, in the public interest.

Quote: Fido wrote: Democracy is no guarantee of justice for all unless it involves all the people.

Why would it guarantee justice simply because everyone votes. Justice is not 6 men being able to do what they want to 5 men. Democracy is not justice, it is a structure of government.

Democracy is justice, especially when it seeks consensus. But have it your way, and see what kind of nation you have if 2 percent turn the rest into slaves. The nation will fold if attacked or cave into revolution, and then what will the greatness and wealth of America mean to you.

Quote: Fido wrote: Have you ever voted on minimum wage, or health care with government support. What is your vote on war or on closing the border. We vote for a fraction of our first government, and seldom get what we want. Tell me there is no way we could vote on these issues.

If I had voted then so what? The end result would be roughly the same, and there's certainly no guarantee that the outcome would be correct. My wage is not a matter for you, or anyone, to vote on. My wage is the result of mutual consent between me and my employer. Frankly it's none of yours or 'the people's business'.

Debs said: I'd rather vote for something and not get it then not vote for something and get it. The government is ours, and an extension of our will. But the more that situation leads to the frustration of our will, or to a denial of our will, as when half of hundreds of thousands elect a representative who votes half the time for what we want; the more our democracy will seem contrived and unresponsive to our needs. The only reason we don't vote on the issues that will affect us is that we are not democratic. Your wages are not mutual. In setting them your boss has the upper hand, even against unions of workers. What happened to the preamble of the constitution? Is not justice inside the country essential to our well being and success as a country?


Quote: Fido wrote: Ultimately the nation holds title to all property, or else imminent domain, and the emancipation of our slaves would have been impossible,

Why would I want eminent domain? The nation doesn't own my stuff, the nation didn't create it, or gain it through consensual means. Your concept of the nation sounds more like the mafia than some protector of people's rights. Slavery was wrong because slavery was stolen property, so ultimately you should stop confusing issues.

The nation is your stuff, protected by us all and held by trust in you. Much of our property is owned by foreigners who pledge no allegiances to this nation, and who avoid taxes just like you, yet no different from you in being loyal to themselves alone. Join the country. It is a common wealth.

Quote: Fido wrote: but through control of government, the property class has consistently reduced its burden of the support of government, and loaded it onto the backs of labor.

Lucky them...now if they could just stop supporting it completely and aid everyone else in their efforts for liberty then we might be getting somewhere.

Sure, let the government fall. It is all about you and protecting your wealth. It never was about liberty, except as an afterthought.

Quote: Fido wrote: Property is getting a free ride, and has become a bank of wealth. This does not make real-estate and homes cheaper. It actually reduces the supply of property at any time looking for a price, and that raises the price. And because it is cheap to hold onto, it becomes an object of speculation.

Speculation is merely a gamble where there's no bookies (or often the government wheedles it's greedy way into that role through tax). A commodity has a price, but that price may be mistaken due to a lack of information. A speculator corrects the mistaken value, or if they don't then they lose money their money and the commodity becomes cheaper. Speculator's not only make accurate the valuations of stuff, but they also provide liquidity. We'd all be much poorer without them.

Property once supported the country, and for that it received special protection. Now it receives protection, but only a token tax. Speculation only raises the price by controlling the supply. What if it were gasoline or toilet paper? would speculation be a virtue then?

Quote: Fido wrote: The need to literally work for months to pay taxes makes people slaves to a government that will not support their needs or rights, and slaves as well to those trying to maximize profits at the expense of the larger community.

You are correct int he first part. Taxation does make us slaves to the state, but unlike you I want no-one (including the rich) to be slaves to the state. Nor do I want the government to support my needs, I may be quite young and thus still somewhat dependent on my family but ultimately I want to support my own needs, and I certainly don't want to force other's (rich or poor) to support me against their individual will.

Government should support your rights against any corporation or collusion or any foreign country or individual who would deprive you of your rights. Property has human rights at your expense. If you want to produce a product and hire individuals, then fine; but do not expect you have the right of a person in doing so. Business should always have a positive defense of their actions, and not hide behind the bill of rights.

Quote: Fido wrote: Since labor creates all value, how can this situation last?

So if labor creates all value then how my friend's Bob Dylan LP went up in value during a period when he put absolutely no work into it (he left it on a shelf)?

The value has changed little and the price has changed some. Storing the lp counts as labor, but in the main the labor used to create the lp and distribute it gave it what value it has.

Quote: Fido wrote: Should this wealth remain hereditary even if it destroys with its influence the democracy that has been our strength?

Democracy hasn't been America's strength, but limited democracy has. Ghana has been a stellar example of a democracy for 50 years, but it's dirt poor. Hong Kong has not come close to democracy but it is extremely wealthy. The limited part denotes the lack of state involvement in people's affairs, including their economic ones. Stopping people from choosing who their own wealth goes to is a particularly unpleasant form of this, and no I don't care if Bill gate's heirs (although he's giving it away) get far richer than me without doing any work. It's Bill Gates's choice what happens with his wealth not mine.

The greatest threat this country faces because it is not democratic is the difference between wealth and poverty. You want to make money legally, fine! Do not think or your family will enjoy that wealth into perpetuity. The government, and the people defend that property around the clock. Intimately it is ours. So make money with it or lose it to taxes.

Quote: Fido wrote: Take control of your own affairs. Demand equality and justice for your self and others.

If by 'equality' you mean taking from those who have more than me then I refuse, I prizer my sense of self and my responsibility for it too highly. I do plan on taking control of my own affairs, but I suspect what that means would be an anathema to you.

Political equality is impossible to maintain in the face of economic inequality. If you wish to protect property, really, then make certain all people have equal rights, and make property a burden, and not a key to special rights. Your property has no rights, and you have no rights because of your property. Your property I respect because I respect you, and your property is like your government in being an extension of you.

Going to Florida, see ya in a week or so.