angelofdeath Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Okay guys in unleashing the truth bombs..why not use your paint bombs to paint anti corruption logos or slogans such as PEACE signs, or http://www.infowars.com or anything else like "Did you see the gray plane on 911" the list is endless so anyone can do something..I hate those that say we can not do anything... Paint something anti establishment..there that would be a great mission for graffiti vandals.. this guy has to be a LE agent of some kind inciting this type of thing... but i could be wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Nah, it looks like he's a photographer/truther/genuine old guy who has stumbled upon 12oz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Julian Assange interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/31/julian_assange_on_wikileaks_war_and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 As the U.S. Department of Justice considers charging WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917, we speak with Robert Meeropol, the son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg—the only U.S. citizens to be executed under the Espionage Act, in what’s been described as the most controversial death sentence in U.S. history. This week, Meeropol released a widely read statement in support of WikiLeaks called, "My Parents Were Executed Under the Unconstitutional Espionage Act—Here’s Why We Must Fight to Protect Julian Assange." http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/30/son_of_julius_and_ethel_rosenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 In response to the accusation somewhere in this thread that Assange had a nefarious deal with Israel and personally destroyed any cables that may damage Israeli national security: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-exposes-israels-plans-for-war-20110103-19dw9.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 And just to put that in context (as this shit is by no means secret at all) everyone in the M/E has been preparing for the second round with Hizballah since 2006 and with Iran getting closer to a weaponised nuclear device over time that threat comes closer. Israel didn't beat HZ in 2006 for any number of reasons and that is why the IDF is making sure it is ready to rock the fuck out of everyone as soon as it kicks again. Also because if Israel does start crushing HZ Israel it now has to seriously consider either or both Iran and Syria kicking in as well. That gets to a level close to 1967 again and that's pretty serious so Israel must plan that way. This is not to conflict with or support the point that Yumone is making, just to pre-empt the predictable "OMGZOR, Israel is teh w4rm0ngerZ0r!!11!" bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearekilluminati Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 shut the toilet seat down dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPS Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 http://213.251.145.96/cable/2006/05/06TASHKENT902.html Reference ID: 06TASHKENT902 Classified By: AMB. JON R. PURNELL, FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (S) Summary: A well connected Embassy contact described a mafia chieftain's role in helping businessmen to secure GOU tenders and job applicants to "buy" government jobs. Crime boss Salim Abduvaliyev puts bidders for tenders in touch with an Iranian businessman holding British citizenship, who submits the paperwork to First Daughter Gulnora Karimova for approval. Salim works with the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs responsible for personnel issues to arrange government jobs, agreeing on a price and then adding his own fee before selling the position. Salim has reportedly sold a wide range of Government positions, including regional Hokim, police chief, and Ministry of Internal Affairs jobs. A Presidential Adviser and a former Minister of the Interior also reportedly worked closely with Salim on job placement transactions. End summary. ¶2. (S) An Embassy contact with close connections to the families of senior GOU officials, XXXXXXXXXXXX, told Poloff that Salim often serves as a middleman in fixing GOU tenders and helping applicants obtain government jobs. Foreign investors can "win" GOU tenders by arranging them through Salim, who charges a percentage of revenues as a fee. Many job applicants have approached the contact, XXXXXXXXXXXX, asking for introductions to Salim in order to "purchase" a GOU job. (Note: Both public and private sector jobs are routinely "bought" in Uzbekistan. End note.) CONTRACT AND TENDER GRAFT ------------------------- ¶3. (S) According to the contact, Salim locates foreign and other investors interested in GOU tenders, putting them in touch with an Iranian businessman holding British citizenship. The Iranian prepares the paperwork, submitting the tender to First Daughter Gulnora Karimova for approval. (Note: According to the contact, former Deputy PM Dilbar Gulomova's son works for this Iranian. End note.) Tenders arranged through this process reportedly include the Dutch Gemka (ph) firm's railway investment in Bukhara, which required paying Salim a $700,000 fee, a Swiss/Israeli company's water project in the Tashkent region, and a Korean company's large-scale contract to provide computers to schools. GOU JOBS FOR SALE! ------------------ ¶4. (S) A man named "Abror hoja" brings job applicants to Salim, who discusses the price of the purchase and facilitates the transaction. The contact said that Salim has sold a wide range of government positions, including regional Hokim, regional police chief, and high and mid-ranking jobs at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Salim works closely with Tursinkhan Hudaibergenov, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs for personnel issues, to facilitate GOU job placements. Salim agrees on a price with Hudaibergenov, before adding his own fee, and selling the position at the higher price. (Note: The contact said that Salim closely cooperated in the past on such job purchase transactions with State Adviser to the President Ismail Jurabekov, and former Minister of Interior Zokir Almatov. End note.) ¶5. (S) In one example of Salim's sway over GOU personnel decisions, a regional mayor appealed to him for help retaining his job after he came under pressure to resign. The wife of Maksim Teshebaev, the mayor of Tashkent's region's Orta Chirchik district, approached Salim's wife asking for Salim's support. For the right price, Salim promised that Teshebaev would be able to retain his job. According to the contact, Salim instructed Teshebaev to make a payment to his brother, Azamjon Abduvaliyev, in order to retain the job. But after the payment was made, Salim reportedly mocked the amount of money Teshebaev offered, TASHKENT 00000902 002.2 OF 002 saying he "couldn't eat a meal" for that amount. ¶6. (S) Comment: Salim's role in securing GOU tenders and jobs sheds further light on the close connections between organized crime and the GOU (reftel). Corruption is rampant in the GOU. Tenders and government positions can be fairly easily secured by paying the right amount of money to the appropriate individual, leading to a situation in which unqualified individuals have every incentive to engage in further corrupt activity to pay off the large debts they usually incur making down payments on the jobs. PURNELL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 "In one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy." http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 "WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%" http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks?INTCMP=SRCH Better buy a bicycle and learn how to garden within the next 20 years fuckers. Oil be runnin' out quicker than imagined and our entire food and transportation system is extremely dependent upon that precious resource. It would appear that we could be losing a lot of ally's in the Middle East from all this revolutionary anti-west spirit too boys, and you know what that means: higher fuel prices, more invasions (think Iraq), more offshore drilling etc. With all these Conservatives in office, you know we aren't going to "clean" energy anytime soon either. EDIT: In addition, "Clean" energy isn't a real solution nor is it truly clean. Almost all of the electrical components such as copper, arsenic, cadmium etc have to be strip mined (highly noxious process), do not regenerate on a human time scale (so it's unsustainable) and require the same old emissions laden transportation process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPS Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 "WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%" http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks?INTCMP=SRCH Better buy a bicycle and learn how to garden within the next 20 years fuckers. Oil be runnin' out quicker than imagined and our entire food and transportation system is extremely dependent upon that precious resource. It would appear that we could be losing a lot of ally's in the Middle East from all this revolutionary anti-west spirit too boys, and you know what that means: higher fuel prices, more invasions (think Iraq), more offshore drilling etc. With all these Conservatives in office, you know we aren't going to "clean" energy anytime soon either. EDIT: In addition, "Clean" energy isn't a real solution nor is it truly clean. Almost all of the electrical components such as copper, arsenic, cadmium etc have to be strip mined (highly noxious process), do not regenerate on a human time scale (so it's unsustainable) and require the same old emissions laden transportation process. i think oil will be much much much more expensive in the future but i dont think it will be gone. i think it is possible in certain circumstances for it to be priced so high that you could think 'there is no more oil.' in fact its probably 'cheap' right now. since people started using oil in the late 1800's they have been predicting we would exhaust all oil supplies in 10 years. they have been saying that since atleast 1890. what people dont take into consideration in their predictions is the price system which is constantly guiding people to do certain things. they dont take into account the subjective nature of human action. if oil supplies are considered scarce, the price goes high and this reduces oil consumption, leads to alternative energy, etc. you have a lot of people that dont grasp economics that bemoan high gas prices yet bemoan the use of gas its self. the market has a mechanism built in, the price system, to steer the market to alternative energy. this is common on the left. they cry about 'greedy capitalists!' charging 'high prices' for oil/gas/diesel, etc, yet they dont want any oil used. its a hypocritical position. the best way to allow a real market in energy is to abolish the dept of energy and get the government out of the way. let prices operate, stop subsidizing non viable energy sources and let everyone compete and let the price system figure it all out. when you have the govt putting its might behind certain efforts its guaranteed to create distortions and exhaust tremendous resources in a non productive boondoggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I don't know why you always bash the left, when they are no worse than the right. All politicians in this country are pieces of shit. Industry says they want "free markets", but they cannot sustain themselves without protectionism. Conservatives like James Inhofe and even Ron Paul (and the vast majority of others) consistently vote to subsidize the big energy companies and work to destroy small scale local community agriculture. read what I said: "do not regenerate on a human time scale" and apply it to coal, nat gas and oil. It is not sustainable bruh, and no matter how you look at it our (civilized humanity's) way of living has to be changed. We can either try to build a new way, and have a cushioned fall, our we can craaaaaashh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I don't know why you always bash the left, when they are no worse than the right. All politicians in this country are pieces of shit. Industry says they want "free markets", but they cannot sustain themselves without protectionism. Conservatives like James Inhofe and even Ron Paul (and the vast majority of others) consistently vote to subsidize the big energy companies and work to destroy small scale local community agriculture. read what I said: "do not regenerate on a human time scale" and apply it to coal, nat gas and oil. It is not sustainable bruh, and no matter how you look at it our (civilized humanity's) way of living has to be changed. We can either try to build a new way, and have a cushioned fall, our we can craaaaaashh.... i agree that 99% of the politicians arent my cup of tea ideologically, but the biggest proponent of economic fallacy and marxism is the left. the main stream right is a close second. if we were talking about a pet project of the right, i'd be bashing the right. maybe its also because for some reason in conversation i still consider myself on the super far right and anyone to the left of me to be 'the left.' i seriously dont know where you are getting ron paul voting to subsidize big energy and destroy local agriculture. i'd love to hear your explanation on this. ron paul has called for repeal of the damn price anderson act which limits the liability of nuclear plants. i really dont know what policies you are claiming RP has supported that subsidizes big energy. no doubt that oil is not able to regenerate on a human time scale. but the problem i see is that it is usually the people who are stifling the action of market forces which solve the problem through regulation and intervention, bashing greedy capitalists when the prices rise which in turn is what you want if you want other energy forms to develop and calling for throwing price gougers in jail, (republicans were big on throwing 'price gougers' in jail during the katrina price hikes as well) and then when the policies they support have totally distorted the market and created a huge catastrophe, they blame 'free market capitalism laissez faire ron paul adam smith unregulated blah blah blah.' there are other examples of things that dont regenerate on a human time scale. look at diamonds and gold. for our purposes we might as well say they are as fixed as coal, oil or whatever. yet there is no crisis in these materials and the market its self does very well in preserving them. the reason why i think its not a problem is because the price system will figure everything out. it will steer innovation in viable alternatives. anything the government backs has always been a boondoggle and a failure. the latest alternative energy 'fix' being ethanol. which further resulted in the subsidization of corn. you are right, big business as a rule is for keynesian and marxist style interventions in the market. they dont like the free market at all. they want to cripple competition and they want their hand outs. they love government. which is why all these interventions should be abolished. however if the government gets further behind 'alternative' energy schemes the energy market will be in shambles. the government has tried to 'protect' the sugar industry in america from cheap imported sugar since the time of the ratification of the constitution. which is part of the reason coupled with corn subsidies why we have corn syrup in everything. high sugar tariff, cheap corn. but i digress. if we protect alternative energy sources we would have the same situation, a non viable business that is inefficient and doesnt solve any of the problems we attempted to solve. the government cant deliver mail with a postal monopoly and make a profit or run amtrack and local county abc boards lose money every year on their monopoly of hard liquor sales, the government cant catch a couple hundred al quaeda... there is no way they will be able to develop a viable competitive alternative energy source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 First I will start off with saying biofuel like ethanol is not plausible because it requires more petroleum to grow (with petroleum based pesticides and fertilizers) and harvest (with gas-operated combines) than it offsets. Second, Yes you are right, my bad Ron Paul isn't quite thaaaat bad when compared with other Conservatives when it comes to Big Oil, he is against Big oil subsidies. Thanks for pointing that out to me. But he did Vote NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007 http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm#Energy_+_Oil) I think most of our disagreements arise from the fact that we have different philosophies regarding what the function of the economy should be. I agree with you that the freemarket capitalist economy is the most efficient at generating profits. But Environmental destruction -- deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. -- actually fall during recessions when production falls. That tells you that moments when the capitalist system is "healthy" and profits are surging are precisely the most unhealthy moments for human beings and the natural world. A particularly cynical right-wing talking point is that the recession requires environmental rules to be rolled back because they are killing jobs. Our economy turns things like living rivers into hot stagnant ponds converting moving water into hydroelectric power. Our economy turns living forest communities into two by fours. Our economy values the generation of something as unreal as money over living things. And that is where our differences arise because what I have gathered from your posts in the past is that profits are more important than these thing that I hold dear. I am not going to even get started on workers rights and union rights to collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. I think you have to keep in mind when you come to debate with me, you are debating with a goodwill clothes wearing, haven't had a haircut in 9 months havin, holes in his shoes, haven't showered in a week stinky mother fucker that would rather see green tree frogs hoppin around and Karner Blue butterflies suckin up wild blue lupine nectar than have a bunch of extra pieces of green paper with presidents on them in his wallet. I think you trying to argue with me about the concept of sustainability is like me trying to argue with you on what assault rifle would be most effective at a range of 1000 meters. I think we should use our time to work on common goals rather than debate our ideological differences, when we know we aren't going to change each others minds because we are both far to arrogant and stubborn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Rep. Peter King Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Espionage Bill http://www.thestatecolumn.com/state_politics/new-york/rep-peter-king-re-introduces-bill-aimed-at-wikileaks-julian-assange/ and if you prefer video: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/16/headlines/rep_king_introduces_anti_wikileaks_espionage_bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Second, Yes you are right, my bad Ron Paul isn't quite thaaaat bad when compared with other Conservatives when it comes to Big Oil, he is against Big oil subsidies. Thanks for pointing that out to me. But he did Vote NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007 http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm#Energy_+_Oil) those 'how did the candidates vote' pages are not really good sources of info in my opinion. i'd like to see the actual bill in question. for instance, RP introduced legislation to declare war on a'stan and iraq. and said he was voting against it but it never made it to a vote and we all know he is one of the, if not the most anti war person in congress. why did he do this? because he was following the constitution and wanted a debate about whether the US should be at war. there are many other cases of this. most notably how congress log rolls all the bills and attaches totally irrelevant stuff to bills going up for a vote. a no vote could of meant 99% the right way, but there maybe was 1 provision attached that allows those sites to say those things. its really a bad thing the way congress does this. but i digress I think most of our disagreements arise from the fact that we have different philosophies regarding what the function of the economy should be. But Environmental destruction -- deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. -- actually fall during recessions when production falls. That tells you that moments when the capitalist system is "healthy" and profits are surging are precisely the most unhealthy moments for human beings and the natural world. A particularly cynical right-wing talking point is that the recession requires environmental rules to be rolled back because they are killing jobs. but we must recognize these externalities are not properly held accountable in our current system. why? because courts and the gov. dont adequately enforce private property rights. if we had true property rights, no company would be able to pollute water you have rights to. no company or person would be able to pollute other peoples property. it would be treated as a trespass. a few years back a harvard professor detailed this. story goes back in the early 1800's there used to be a lot of 'nuisance' cases (environmental cases) and the courts generally ruled in favor of property rights and against polluters. along came the late 1800's and big industrialization. the courts started to rule against our stinking sniveling property rights in favor of companies that wanted to pollute in order to compete with britain to be #1. courts started ruling that companies have a right to trespass pollutants onto others property. another example of govt intervention which steered the market wrong was subsidization of bituminous coal. this led to the people who were using anthracite or clean burning (and smoke arresting systems started to develop) coal to use the cheaper stuff and since courts werent enforcing property rights they didnt care about pollution. so in my view its pretty disingenuous to blame all those things you listed on the market when the government has distorted the workings of the markets and not enforced private property rights when they control the solely arbitration process to enforce said property rights. Our economy turns things like living rivers into hot stagnant ponds converting moving water into hydroelectric power. Our economy turns living forest communities into two by fours. Our economy values the generation of something as unreal as money over living things. And that is where our differences arise because what I have gathered from your posts in the past is that profits are more important than these thing that I hold dear. I am not going to even get started on workers rights and union rights to collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. i think its mostly governments that turn rivers into stagnant ponds because more likely than not they own the dams and plants or if they dont they grant monopoly power to a favored company to run them. i mean the TVA has what, 59 coal fired plants? and all the families displaced by damning the cumberland and other rivers. what about all the families displaced by creating national forests and parks? yes, trees are cut down. but i'd argue that a state of nature has never existed. you need disturbance. take the forests of the eastern US before the white man came. indians were using controlled burning of forests to clear up dead wood in order to spur regeneration and make wild fire less likely. herds of thousands of buffalo were trampling down all the wild grasses. you need disturbance in order to keep the cycle going. wilderness areas largely never existed as what we consider 'wilderness' today. in fact the government with all the wilderness lands that it owns has turned those lands into a tug of war between logging interests, recreationists and naturalists. by the mere fact of govt's holding those tracts of land and allowing limited logging at below market prices it has created the incentive for private land owners to NOT steward their forests because they are not worth as much. if the government followed sound management practices wild fires out west would not happen if they stewarded their forests properly but the non realistic environmental movement who doesnt understand nature wont let it happen. profits are only legitimate if they dont violate property rights. i cannot cut down your trees nor can i pollute a river you have water rights to or that you own nor can perdue or a logging company. and about the buffalo i mentioned earlier, we hear much about the wanton destruction of buffalo by white hunters which was a travesty. but we dont hear about how the indians used to kill them... running the whole herd off a cliff. the economics of it are simple. the indians considered the buffalo their property, they stewarded the herds much better than whites. to the whites, no one owned them, so the cost was nothing. to the indians if you shot a buffalo today, you didnt have one tomorrow. because the buffalo 'cost' nothing to the whites and they didnt own them..it meant if they dont shoot it today someone else will shoot it tomorrow. its sort of crazy to consider that privatization is the main reason we even still have buffalo today. I think you trying to argue with me about the concept of sustainability is like me trying to argue with you on what assault rifle would be most effective at a range of 1000 meters. I think we should use our time to work on common goals rather than debate our ideological differences, when we know we aren't going to change each others minds because we are both far to arrogant and stubborn. i really think you would enjoy reading joel salatin's 'everything i want to do is illegal' book and you'll get an 'environmental' viewpoint from a guy who is held in high regard in your community but comes to his conclusions from a freedom based perspective and not a collectivist / marxist type perspective. i think it will really change your view point. if this guy basically turned me into a grass finished beef / pastured poultry nut it will easily turn you into a radical libertarian and still allow you to hold the same beliefs you currently do, accept you'll realize its not capitalism's fault, its the governments fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I find your statements about the great plains indigenous not only offensive, but downright ignorant. They did not treat them as property. Your post clearly demonstrates why I don't want to come on here and debate with you anymore. I am not even going to dignify the rest of that post with a response and I am going to take my thoughts regarding these matters to other places from now on because there is no purpose in sharing my thoughts with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 wow, well, to each their own i guess. but i will recommend one more work that might challenge your world view on these issues and show that people are just a mandatory part of the environment as anything: http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 if we had true property rights, no company would be able to pollute water you have rights to. Hypothetically speaking, would a company/factory be allowed to offer property owners incentives (rebates on products, committing to build town infrastructure, etc.) if they are granted permission to pollute their property? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 The Free Market principle relies on rational decision making. Humans are emotional beings who's cognitive capacity precludes us from understanding all possible contingencies and we certainly can't tell the future. Apart from that, we make mistakes because we are simply fallible beings. We allow ego, ideology, theology, greed, love and all other non-rational concepts (not to mention those with b-polar, ADHD, mild schizophrenia, low mental capacity and other challenges are part of society and permitted to take part in the market economy) to guide our decisions in daily life, including our financial transactions. The Free Market society theory works based that everyone wants to make money, that and an impartial judicial system (another fallacy) will create a society that efficiently manages itself whilst allowing what people think is true freedom. Only problem is that we are not rational beings and we do not make rational decisions, not even the majority of the time. Without rational beings making all the decisions in the world the Free Market principle doesn't even make it off the starting blocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Hypothetically speaking, would a company/factory be allowed to offer property owners incentives (rebates on products, committing to build town infrastructure, etc.) if they are granted permission to pollute their property? people grant permission to use property all the time. although i think if the local nuclear power plant wanted to start dumping waste in peoples back yards they would object out right or atleast charge them trillions of $ per ounce dumped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Only problem is that we are not rational beings and we do not make rational decisions, not even the majority of the time. Without rational beings making all the decisions in the world the Free Market principle doesn't even make it off the starting blocks. we are denied perfection on this side of the garden of eden. one mans mistake might be what another man wants to do. the free market is not perfect, but it respects natural rights, every other system does NOT. if your last statement was true, everyone who lives under a free market system would be eating dirt or dead. your solution is to have the government which you consider rational to centrally plan everyones life and activities. where as a free society, everyone plans their own lives and deals with the mistakes they make. governments never have done anything right and never will to satisfy, say its 310 million tax cattle in the US. it cannot allocate resources as all central planning has shown. while even a broken clock may be right twice a day, i dont think this is even true of the government. one thing is for sure, if someone in the market makes a bad decision, he is punished and goes broke. when the government makes bad mistakes they not only DONT go broke, they continue to do the same thing, extort more money, their budget doubles, they continue the charade and then blame everything on something else. the incentives are backwards. the markets incentives are geared towards innovation, competition and satisfying customers. if you do this you succeed. the governments incentives are to do the worse job possible in order to keep getting more and more funding. in govt failure is success because you dont have to please anyone, your revenue is extracted by force. imagine how much different the world would be if walmart extracted all their revenue by force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.