People need affordable housing.
People need clean water.
People need clean air.
People need clean food.
People need jobs that pay a living wage.
People need to know that their representatives in government are working to improve things for the benefit of all.
People need education.
People need healthcare.
People need functioning infrastructures in their cities. Gas, electricity, water and sewer, telephone, public transportation, all need to be up to date and providing the service as required at all times.

I don't think anyone can argue against this list, other than to add things I may have not included.

So give it to them.

What are you waiting for? Nothing is stopping you from doing so. There are no laws preventing you from doing so. Get all those former UAW types off their asses with all that labor they have so much of and provide it for people.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What I find even more interesting is the apparent no-problemo attitude about the information I posted about Lockheed Martin and their continuing drive to profit from every aspect of the war.

Lockheed Martin cannot declare war, nor can it force anyone to buy it's products. Very few people indeed can afford an F-22 Raptor.

It profits because the gov't you want meddling in the lives of others continues to do so.

There's the rub

War was entered into for the sake of profiteers like Lockheed Martin, Blackwater and Haliburton.
There's no reason for invading the likes of Iraq or Iran. They haven't done squat to the American people, besides protesting your government's involvement in their internal politics.

This is about creating profit from destruction and chaos, nothing more.

If good ol' George Bush was honest about seeking vengence over Sept 11 you'd be building bases in Saudi Arabia right now after overthrowing the Saudi royal family.

Rush, are you arguing against gov't defense budgets? I thought I understood your position to be one in favor of minimal gov't (emergency services, armies, courts, perhaps prisons too), but a gov't of some form. Am I wrong?

No, of course not. There are rational roles for gov't, some of which you mentioned.

All the stuff that Robert W. wants because he feels people "need" them, he can provide himself if he so wishes. I certainly won't ever do so, not by force, and in fact will remove as many assets from his reaches as I can.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

People need affordable housing.
People need clean water.
People need clean air.
People need clean food.
People need jobs that pay a living wage.
People need to know that their representatives in government are working to improve things for the benefit of all.
People need education.
People need healthcare.
People need functioning infrastructures in their cities. Gas, electricity, water and sewer, telephone, public transportation, all need to be up to date and providing the service as required at all times.

I don't think anyone can argue against this list, other than to add things I may have not included.

So give it to them.

What are you waiting for? Nothing is stopping you from doing so. There are no laws preventing you from doing so. Get all those former UAW types off their asses with all that labor they have so much of and provide it for people.

C'mon Rush...let's try and keep it real.
I'm just short a couple of billion on getting this going.

What are the 'needs of the people?'

See, you cannot make vague statements like this without elaboration and be taken seriously, R.Waite. I have very different ideas about what the 'needs of the people' are than you do....and people like Jeffrey have different ideas as well.....and the little right wing religious guys got their ideas.....and the socialists have theirs.........and the unionists...........and so on.

Do you see now why you cannot rationally discuss politics without a proper ethical foundation in theory?

People need affordable housing.
People need clean water.
People need clean air.
People need clean food.
People need jobs that pay a living wage.
People need to know that their representatives in government are working to improve things for the benefit of all.
People need education.
People need healthcare.
People need functioning infrastructures in their cities. Gas, electricity, water and sewer, telephone, public transportation, all need to be up to date and providing the service as required at all times.

I don't think anyone can argue against this list, other than to add things I may have not included.

If you genuinely care about these issues then you would support whole heartedly the capitalist system. It's the only one that can provide what you wish for.

However, as usual, I suspect you have ulterior motives that are rooted in your altruist ethos whereby man does not have a right to exist for himself. It's time to fess up and be honest, Robert.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

There's the rub

War was entered into for the sake of profiteers like Lockheed Martin, Blackwater and Haliburton.

Why is that? Because there are other people, people just like you, that think that it's OK to use force against others when they agree with it. That means they get the gov't to do their bidding--which is exactly what you want to do. Get the gov't to do your bidding, no matter what I think.

Since the only standard is convincing the gov't of the dire need of a silly program, sometimes you get a bit of what you want, sometimes you get a bit of what they want.

There's no reason for invading the likes of Iraq or Iran. They haven't done squat to the American people, besides protesting your government's involvement in their internal politics.

Yep, but you want the power to convince gov't to enforce your silly programs. You can't have it both ways. You see, this isn't about "reason," it's just about getting your way enforced on others.

This is about creating profit from destruction and chaos, nothing more.

So what? They managed to get the gov't to do as they wish. Just as you want to get the gov't to do as you wish. Both sides need massive taxes to support their stupidity, so you just disagree on what to spend what you took from your precious "working people," on.

If good ol' George Bush was honest about seeking vengence over Sept 11 you'd be building bases in Saudi Arabia right now after overthrowing the Saudi royal family.

Nice. So you're prefer he was honest and started swatting that little hornets nest too? That's another smart plan.

You seem full of them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

kook

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

C'mon Rush...let's try and keep it real.
I'm just short a couple of billion on getting this going.

Then maybe you should be getting George Soros to quit wasting money on MoveOn.org and actually help people with your money.

Or make your own company. Be like Sesame Workshop or Newman's Own and give 100% of your profits to programs like you wish the gov't would ram down everyone else's throat.

But you'd have to earn profits first. And that's a real rub.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

kook

I realize there's a point being made by this on another level.

But, I thought we'd gone beyond this and buried that hatchet.

There's the rub

War was entered into for the sake of profiteers like Lockheed Martin, Blackwater and Haliburton.

Why is that? Because there are other people, people just like you, that think that it's OK to use force against others when they agree with it. That means they get the gov't to do their bidding--which is exactly what you want to do. Get the gov't to do your bidding, no matter what I think.

Since the only standard is convincing the gov't of the dire need of a silly program, sometimes you get a bit of what you want, sometimes you get a bit of what they want.

There's no reason for invading the likes of Iraq or Iran. They haven't done squat to the American people, besides protesting your government's involvement in their internal politics.

Yep, but you want the power to convince gov't to enforce your silly programs. You can't have it both ways. You see, this isn't about "reason," it's just about getting your way enforced on others.

This is about creating profit from destruction and chaos, nothing more.

So what? They managed to get the gov't to do as they wish. Just as you want to get the gov't to do as you wish. Both sides need massive taxes to support their stupidity, so you just disagree on what to spend what you took from your precious "working people," on.

If good ol' George Bush was honest about seeking vengence over Sept 11 you'd be building bases in Saudi Arabia right now after overthrowing the Saudi royal family.

Nice. So you're prefer he was honest and started swatting that little hornets nest too? That's another smart plan.

You seem full of them.

I refuse to fall into speaking in terms of force when it comes to government programs to benefit it's people.

Government evolved as a means of structuring the lives and business of the people, not as a power to be used to force ideas onto other soveriegn peoples.

As for your implication that I would like to see the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia, I think you must really be stretching the levels of credibility.

I used that example as part of my argument that invasions of other countries under the pretext Bush used is immoral.

There were no Iraqis or Iranians involved in the attacks against America.
There were Saudis involved.

Does this mean that I believe that an entire country is guilty by association?
NO.

Does that mean I approve of invading Saudi Arabia because of the actions of some Saudi nationals?
NO.

What are the 'needs of the people?'

See, you cannot make vague statements like this without elaboration and be taken seriously, R.Waite. I have very different ideas about what the 'needs of the people' are than you do....and people like Jeffrey have different ideas as well.....and the little right wing religious guys got their ideas.....and the socialists have theirs.........and the unionists...........and so on.

Do you see now why you cannot rationally discuss politics without a proper ethical foundation in theory?

People need affordable housing.
People need clean water.
People need clean air.
People need clean food.
People need jobs that pay a living wage.
People need to know that their representatives in government are working to improve things for the benefit of all.
People need education.
People need healthcare.
People need functioning infrastructures in their cities. Gas, electricity, water and sewer, telephone, public transportation, all need to be up to date and providing the service as required at all times.

I don't think anyone can argue against this list, other than to add things I may have not included.

If you genuinely care about these issues then you would support whole heartedly the capitalist system. It's the only one that can provide what you wish for.

However, as usual, I suspect you have ulterior motives that are rooted in your altruist ethos whereby man does not have a right to exist for himself. It's time to fess up and be honest, Robert.

There's only one problem with the capitalist system and that problem is the capitalists.

Everyone needs money to get by in this world, no argument from me there, but the accumulation of great wealth for the sake of simply having it is probably rooted in some form of mental illness.

How many generations of one's family joining the ranks of the idle rich does it take before these people will be satisfied?

A more fair distribution of a nation's wealth is in order which is why there was a progressive tax system until Reagan tore it apart at the behest of the super wealthy.

If one prospers within a system that provides security, stability and an educated workforce, doesn't that person owe a debt back to the nation that provided that system?

I refuse to fall into speaking in terms of force when it comes to government programs to benefit it's people.

No one cares whether you wish to use the term or not. Before even 1 gov't program "benefits" ANYONE, first someone was skrewed. The gov't took from them by force, to pay for someone else's silly program. Why? Because gov't does not create wealth, it destroys wealth.

Should you disagree, you should begin by noting which gov't programs would "benefit" anyone without first having used force to obtain the money to do so...

Government evolved as a means of structuring the lives and business of the people, not as a power to be used to force ideas onto other soveriegn peoples.

Gov't is nothing but force, because without force, individuals will not do as it says. Sometimes that force is directed at other sovereign people, overwhelmingly it is directed at it's own people. That's still just gov't force. That it is sometimes directed at other sovereign people is just a result of some people getting their stupid policies enacted. Which is what you want to do, get your stupid policies enacted, against individuals in this country, to do what you want to do, against their wishes.

As for your implication that I would like to see the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia, I think you must really be stretching the levels of credibility.

I used that example as part of my argument that invasions of other countries under the pretext Bush used is immoral.

Ummmm, you said "If good ol' George Bush was honest about seeking vengence over Sept 11 you'd be building bases in Saudi Arabia right now after overthrowing the Saudi royal family." To which I replied, "Nice. So you're prefer he was honest and started swatting that little hornets nest too? That's another smart plan."

I'm not stretching credibility, I was noting how stupid that point actually was. And whether it's immoral or not is a perfect example of my point. Those that advocate such policies do not care whether they are moral or not, they just want to see them enacted. The want gov't force used against others who won't come along quietly.

Which, of course, is exactly the same thing that you want. You want gov't force used against others who won't support your stupid policies. You don't care whether they agree with you or not, you don't care what they would rather do with their life or their time. You just want to force them to play along, because you aren't willing to pay for, or provide these programs that you want.

There were no Iraqis or Iranians involved in the attacks against America.
There were Saudis involved.

Does this mean that I believe that an entire country is guilty by association?
NO.

Does that mean I approve of invading Saudi Arabia because of the actions of some Saudi nationals?
NO.

How evasive. There's a larger discussion going on here.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yay, more because I sez so's.

There's only one problem with the capitalist system and that problem is the capitalists.

There's only one problem with the union system and that problem is the unionists.

Everyone needs money to get by in this world, no argument from me there, but the accumulation of great wealth for the sake of simply having it is probably rooted in some form of mental illness.

Everyone needs money to get by in this world, no argument from me there, but the accumulation of great collectives for the sake of simply taking private property from others is probably rooted in some form of mental illness.

How many generations of one's family joining the ranks of the idle rich does it take before these people will be satisfied?

How many generations of one's family joining the ranks of the unemployed unionist does it take before the unionist will be satisfied?

A more fair distribution of a nation's wealth is in order which is why there was a progressive tax system until Reagan tore it apart at the behest of the super wealthy.

A more fair distribution of a nation's wealth is in order which is why there should be a flat tax system, which would take a super popular politician like Reagan to install it at the behest of the super majority of people.

If one prospers within a system that provides security, stability and an educated workforce, doesn't that person owe a debt back to the nation that provided that system?

If one prospers within a system that provides force, punishment, taxation, instability and a poorly educated workforce, doesn't that person owe a himself an extra bonus back to himself for avoiding the pitfalls of that system?

I hereby proclaim that all of the statements I made above, and their implications are true because I sez so!

All hail!

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I hereby proclaim that all of the statements I made above, and their implications are true because I sez so!

Actually, they were nothing more than a collection of cheap imitations demonstrating my heckling style... ;)

(CopyCat!)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I hereby proclaim that all of the statements I made above, and their implications are true because I sez so!

Actually, they were nothing more than a collection of cheap imitations demonstrating my heckling style... ;)

(CopyCat!)

Your heckling style is nothing more than a collection of cheap imitations?

---

me@rescam.org

Hey now! Thou shalt not heckle the heckler... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Yay, more because I sez so's.

There's only one problem with the capitalist system and that problem is the capitalists.

There's only one problem with the union system and that problem is the unionists.

Everyone needs money to get by in this world, no argument from me there, but the accumulation of great wealth for the sake of simply having it is probably rooted in some form of mental illness.

Everyone needs money to get by in this world, no argument from me there, but the accumulation of great collectives for the sake of simply taking private property from others is probably rooted in some form of mental illness.

How many generations of one's family joining the ranks of the idle rich does it take before these people will be satisfied?

How many generations of one's family joining the ranks of the unemployed unionist does it take before the unionist will be satisfied?

A more fair distribution of a nation's wealth is in order which is why there was a progressive tax system until Reagan tore it apart at the behest of the super wealthy.

A more fair distribution of a nation's wealth is in order which is why there should be a flat tax system, which would take a super popular politician like Reagan to install it at the behest of the super majority of people.

If one prospers within a system that provides security, stability and an educated workforce, doesn't that person owe a debt back to the nation that provided that system?

If one prospers within a system that provides force, punishment, taxation, instability and a poorly educated workforce, doesn't that person owe a himself an extra bonus back to himself for avoiding the pitfalls of that system?

I hereby proclaim that all of the statements I made above, and their implications are true because I sez so!

All hail!

Running out of steam Rush?

No counter-arguments to offer beyond this lame assed mockery?


As to your contention that government = force.

In your crude, simplistic way I guess you're correct.

Now that we sort of agree on that premise the question becomes, who should control that force?

Would you trust the many common working people or the few elites to best wield the force of government?

Should government be a force for the common good, as agreed upon by the democratic process or a force for profit driven corporate interests?

Would you prefer living under Roosevelts "New Deal" or Mussolini's corporate/fascist state?

You love extremes, so pick one dude.

Forgive me for butting in with my rather uneducated thoughts here.....

Robert....you said...

Would you trust the many common working people or the few elites to best wield the force of government?

What exactly makes you think that the " working people " wouldn't be just as bad as the current crop of people running things??

The idea that government = force may seem rudimentary....but in all honesty..I happen to agree with Rush on that point ( not something that I can honestly say all that often ).

Now keep one thing in mind. EVERYONE has to pay taxes. How does the government collect those taxes?? By using the threat of prison for those who refuse. Does that not seem like forcing someone to do something to you??

Another thing to consider....

You imply that the " common man " wouldn't start wars for profit. However, if you read up on your US History, you will see that wars ( in almost every case ) have been good for the United States economy. Can you seriously think that, if the economy was in the tank, that the " common man " wouldn't realize that??

It's possible that the " common man ", if put in charge, would make absolutely sure that his fellow man was taken care of...but it's more likely that the " common man " would do nothing more than use the power given to him to make sure that he HIMSELF is taken care of.

In my humble, uneducated opinion...you put FAR too much faith in your fellow man.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Just the core part:

It's possible that the " common man ", if put in charge, would make absolutely sure that his fellow man was taken care of...but it's more likely that the " common man " would do nothing more than use the power given to him to make sure that he HIMSELF is taken care of.

Remember the saying: "Power corrupts."

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

Running out of steam Rush?

No counter-arguments to offer beyond this lame assed mockery?

No, I'm not running out of steam. I just thought I would post like you do, and once again illustrate the nature of your posts. You seem to think things are true because you say they are, because that's all you do--make self-serving statements of what you feel. I responded with the same thing. Are the statements I made true simply because I said them? If they aren't, that means that statements aren't true simply because people say them. If statements aren't true simply because people say them, then the statements you made aren't true simply because you said them. If they aren't true because you said them, then the only way to make them true is to demonstrate the reasoning behind them.

If you can understand why the statement "There's only one problem with the union system and that problem is the unionists," is stupid, you can understand why the statement "there's only one problem with the capitalist system and that problem is the capitalists," is just as stupid.

As to your contention that government = force. In your crude, simplistic way I guess you're correct.

Ummmm, that you added "crude, simplistic" to the point, doesn't mean that's true because you said so either. If you happen to believe that gov't is anything other than force, make an argument. "Gov't isn't coercive force based on the threat of punishment and prison because..." or "gov't doesn't need the threat of force because everyone always obeys all laws and...."

Now that we sort of agree on that premise the question becomes, who should control that force?

Would you trust the many common working people or the few elites to best wield the force of government?

I don't want either. That's the point. Besides, whatever weasels from the "common working people" (which is EVERYONE that isn't born very wealthy) make it to high gov't office instantly become one of the "few elites" because of the nature of that position.

An effective and responsible gov't could be had if it were limited by principle, so that that no matter who is responsible for the day to day operation, their actions are severely limited because if the guiding principle are rational and limited, gov't could not exploit nor go beyond it's power.

Should government be a force for the common good, as agreed upon by the democratic process or a force for profit driven corporate interests?

That depends on the definition of "the common good," and who is defining it. By no means should it be the result of pure democracy or for "profit-driven corporate interests" whatever the hell those are. Gov't should prevent the initiation of force and fraud, and defend against foreign invaders and that's about it.

Would you prefer living under Roosevelts "New Deal" or Mussolini's corporate/fascist state?

You love extremes, so pick one dude.

Ah, the false dichotomy. Lovely. I don't want to live under either because both involve the use of massive gov't force against others. How about a system where no one (not the gov't, not other people, not Nike, not anyone) can control what you do, except where you initiate force or fraud against others?

Besides the inability to read carefully, you seem to labor under the misconception that Nike (insert any corporation here) can force you to do things. They can't. They can't even gouge you for shoes because you can go to the other big names. Or the mall. Or the discount stores. Or thrift stores. Or eBay. Or the Salvation Army. Nike can't make you do ANYTHING, nor can it prevent you from having shoes.

Furthermore, the more expensive their product is, the less likely it is that they can force you to buy it, even with gov't force. It doesn't matter how many guns they point in my face, or if they threaten me with death--I can't afford an F-22 Raptor. I simply don't have 2 billion dollars to throw away on a whim like that. However, with the use of gov't force, they can get me to pay for their crap, incrementally. But that's no different than what you want me to do--pay for your crap, incrementally. Since you want the right to be able to do that, you can understand why they want that same right to do the same thing to you. And the only way that can be done is through gov't force.

So, like I said, you should be thrilled.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...