shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

Uncommon Knowledge: Fox and More with Roger Ailes

12
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
4,756 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Page 1 of 2 1 2
TheFrankFactor Avatar
TheFrankFactor
Posts: 1
Posted: 10.10.10, 07:22 PM
balthazar, I've really enjoyed your posts on this thread. Join me! TheFrankFactor.com
Permalink
Jace301 Avatar
Jace301
Posts: 2
Posted: 07.06.10, 09:09 AM
To me, him and his channel is an absolutist realist world view. In other words, "The world I live in is based on my grim world view and it is absolutely right no matter where and how you live". That is how I can see them as keeping up such a corrupt channel and hiring such people. In the long run, I could see fox news like channels as becoming the new cult of the generations.
Permalink
nickwolf Avatar
nickwolf
Posts: 3
Posted: 04.13.10, 11:58 AM
Roger Ailes is for Dialog??? WHAT AN HYSTERICAL LAUGH. Then give a mike to the guests and equal time! Of Course he doesn't. What other Fake news station sponcers radical extremist Anti American Rallies and Group think.
George Washington said
"this is not a tax convened in England by the King, this is a tax voted on by representatives in Virginia..." It is the Law of the Land " (referring to the Whiskey Rebellion and their use of the Boston Tea Party sloggon)
He then proptly raised a militia of 1200 men, marched to Pennsyvania and put down the treason at the point of bayonnet! Ailes would have sponcered the Traitorous Anti Democratic, scum of the Whiskey Rebellion...He would have his hosts appear with them and called them "True Americans" like he does now!
FAUX AND AILES STAND REBBUKED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GEORGE WASHINGTON...THEY ARE PROVEN TRAITORS WHO GEORGE WOULD HAVE SURROUNDED AND PUT IN PRISON.
THIS FROM THE MAN WHO ACTUALLY WON THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED AMERICA....AILES AND FAUX ARE CLEARLY HIS ENEMY! READ ABOUT THE WHISKEY REBELLION!

Taken to a court of law, Faux Spews, can easily be proven to be a propaganda station! Roger decides the end he wants , then works backwards to show it, leaving out any scraps of truth that would get in the way of his desired outcome.
Take them to court, take their license and Deport Murdoch for Treason...Jail Ailes for attempting to overthrow the U.S. Government and Corrupt it's political bodies. Fox now is a political party!
I just wish his co-workers, could see his future when he was at Ch 8 in Cleveland, he would have been thrown into lake Erie with the rest of the pollution!
AS FAR AS DIALOG, PLATO WOULD NEVER SIT DOWN WITH A FOX NEWS SOPHIST! THEY DON'T TRY TO FIND THE TRUTH , THE ALREADY KNOW THE TRUTH AND CHARGE COMPANIES TO PROMOTE IT!
NO TRUE DEBATE
BIASED COVERAGE
SHUTTING DOWN COVERAGE THAT GOES AGAINST THEIR IDEALS
FAKE EDITING OF NEWS
NO FACT CHECKING
CONSTANT RIDICULE OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BODY POLITIC
CONSTANT LAUDING OF RADICAL REPUBLICANS.
SOFT SOAP INTERVIEWS WITH NO REFUTTING QUESTIONS OR FACT GIVING WHEN GUEST ARE NOT ONLY ALLOWED TO FACTUALLY LIE, BUT INCOURAGE TO LIE...TO THE POINT OF FEEDING THEM ANSWERS!
THESE ARE ANTI AMERICAN FASCIST SEEKING NEO CONS.
ASK THEM WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT THEY WILL ESTABLISH, NOW THAT THEY HAVE REFFUTED DEMOCRACY?
Permalink
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posts: 70
Posted: 04.10.10, 04:49 PM
Mark Sullivan, "Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it has produced far more prosperity and a higher quality of life for the common man than any other system. That is a fact."

Capitalism, requires no talent, no knowledge, no special ability. Idiots can inherit capital. Capitalism requires only one thing: Capital. Without capital one cannot be a capitalist. The only way a capitalist will have debt is through ownership of the debt, not through being indebted.

Capitalism in America has bought legislation which allows the capitalists to pay wages of poverty. That there are tens of millions of Americans working to live in poverty in this modern society belies your claim regarding the 'common man'. No other thing (system) in America can claim slavery and legislated poverty but capitalism. You cannot get around that fact. Nor have you provided anything to support that which you claim to be fact.

That capitalists were able to have a legislated wage of poverty enacted in this nation merely demonstrates that the law is not applied equally, contrary to the claims of the Constitution regarding "due process".

Of course, you can respond that those living in poverty should buy new legislation.

The capitalist's position is adequately expressed by Lily Tomlin's character in The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe, when she posted signs instructing, "Homeless Go Home".

Your expressed Judeo-Christian view of man shows your unwillingness to evolve your self. Between capitalism and the expressed false idols and superstitious practices such as you embrace, America is destined to failure.

You would equate the welfare of the nation, which is the welfare of the people, with charity. I will suggest that if the economic and moral values which you embrace were successful, charity would not be necessary to the health of the nation. But that which you embrace denies opportunity through legislation.

Mark Sullivan, "I believe in Capitalism, free trade and private property because history has shown it to be the most compassionate."

Bull Docky. Tens of millions of Americans in legislated poverty and you offer compassion, not a change of legislation.

Once again, capitalism and free trade are not to be found in that one thing which Americans hold in common, The Constitution. What can be found there are the purposes of our government (which includes to "promote the general Welfare") and, in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3, we find that Congress "shall have Power To" "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

And it can be argued that the Congress has regulated the commerce of the common working man among the several states through legislation of poverty.

What Congress has not done is demonstrate how that legislation promotes the general welfare of the nation.
Permalink
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posts: 160
Posted: 03.16.10, 11:56 PM
balthazar,

Boy. . . you have a sad view of life and the world. Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it has produced far more prosperity and a higher quality of life for the common man than any other system. That is a fact. I see human nature as fixed - we are all fallen and incapable of divine character traits, which would be the traits necessary to create the utopia you long for. I hate to tell you this, but you are not the first person to believe utopia is possible on earth. You are also not the first to see that it will never happen. All attempts to create it have lead to the most unimagiunable violence we have ever perpetrated upon ourselves. Further attempts at creating it will end in the same way.

Why the ad hominem attacks at me? Why are you so presumptuous to think I dumped my kids with a babysitter? Do you think I am a wealthy, uncaring man because I believe in individual liberty and economic freedom? Why am I shallow or mean if I see myself as the best person to decide how my hard earned money should be spent, saved or given to others?

I am by no means a wealthy person. I am solidly middle class and I have worked very hard throughout my life. I believe in Capitalism not because of greed or to protect some pile of gold I have accumulated by screwing people. I believe in Capitalism, free trade and private property because history has shown it to be the most compassionate, just means of organizing a society. Capitalism and free trade happen because of voluntary cooperation among people all over the world. If I take risks and succeed, I benefit. If I take risks and fail, I lose. All of it is my choice. (Unless "we the people" decide to bail out losers, creating serious moral hazard and a distortion of the market which harms us all) I rise or fall based on my own actions. In the poorest societies, none of which are Capitalist, my poverty is imposed upon me by a government deliberately, despite high minded notions of "social justice" or good intentions. It never seems to be the goal of egalitarians and collectivists to help those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder rise to the top - they seem to want to bring those at the top down, due to an unjust assumption that the wealth of those at the top are always ill gotten gains. In poor, non capitalist societies, I have no chance of improving my circumstances, regardless of how virtuous, honest, hard working, educated or talented I may be. Our history is overflowing with stories of uneducated immigrants from tyrannical societies coming to the United States, sometimes risking death and danger to do so. They rise through the ranks by their own initiative and the benevolence and honesty of the market. My great grandfather came from Cork, Ireland to New York with nothing. He worked at the docks like a beast. He managed to purchase a home, raise a family, save a little money and retire with dignity. He had no formal education. There was no Social Security. No Medicare. No Food Stamps. No rent controlled apartments. No college grants. He often got meals at the local Catholic Church or from other charitable Irish immigrants. His son was also a longshoreman and a local Democrat politician and an opera singer for fun. He taught my Father, God rest his soul, that anything was possible in the United States with hard work, education, honesty, Faith and devotion to his Christian values. My Father entered the Air Force. Worked to pay all of his expenses for college and completed degrees in Divinity and Political Science. Went to Law School (while working two jobs, raising 6 children.) He raised all of us believing we would have a better life than he did. He worked his fingers to the bone to send us to private schools and he paid for my college tuition, while requiring me to work full time at the same time. He later became a judge and died 3 years into retirement. He lived simply and was among the most generous men I have ever had the honor of knowing as was my Mother, God rest her soul.

I am married and have two children. My wife did not work until our children were out of high school. We lived in an apartment until our kids were in High School, because it took years to save up a down payment for our home - a modest home in a modest, working class neighborhood. The only person to watch our children on the rare occassions we had a few extra bucks to go for a meal or a movie was my Wife's Mother.

You have broken life down into a mathematical, zero sum game. I do not see it that way. I believe the impersonal forces of the market determine what a job is worth, what a product should cost and how our precious resources should be allocated. My own views of cosmic or metaphysical justice are irrelevant. As are yours. Do I think my time is more valuable than another person's? That is an irrelevant question. If I am capable of providing a service at price "X," and another person's skill, education or experience to offer the same service is less, then the market will reward me. Do I believe as a strawberry picker I should be paid the same as the man who owned the farm? No, I do not. I do not see how you could. The owner of that farm doesn't hire people at $10 per hour because he does not want to do the work. Nor does he force anyone to take the jobs he offers at the wages he offers. He hires them because he cannot do all of the things necessary to run a farm. Hopefully, this is because he made prudent decisions and built his business in size and scope so that it is too much for one person to do. Your opinion seems to be that the earnings from the farm should be divided equally by the number of employees, with the owner as just another employee. This is irrational. It may make sense to your notions of "social justice" or sooth your egalitarian spirit, but it is not the way the world works or should work. It can work on a very small scale, where all involved voluntarily agree to it, like a kibbutz, or a commune, but if it was legislated, farms and productivity would disappear and we would all be starving soon. Every employer offers a wage for a job and the person voluntarily accepts it or goes elsewhere. If a "living wage" (whatever that is) was legislated for farm workers, the prices would rise dramatically and consumption of those products would decrease, causing many of those workers to lose their jobs, and causing us to look for cheaper imports.

Do I see a professional athelete or actor's work as worth more than a strawberry picker's work? It is irrelevant what you or I think. If I like a musician and wish to hear him perform live, I see how much the tickets are and voluntarily pay or decide not to pay. I decide if my money is worth more to me than hearing this musician perform. No one is forced to pay anything for entertainment. By the way, my favorite form of entertainment is reading - a hobby I picked up from my Father. I do see an inconsistency in those who become outraged by a factory worker making $50K per year when the CEO makes $25 Million, AND complain when the basketball player's salary and the owner of the basketball team's salary are much closer. The only concerts I see are jazz and classical. I do not watch professional sports. I think the market should decide what things cost. Should the government (we the people) decide how much Tiger Woods should earn through the coercive power of our elected representatives and the force they can use exclusively? I am wondering, however why "we the people" keep voting to subsidize stadiums for billionaire team owners.

Lastly, I am genuinely saddened by your wife's passing.

To give you a better idea of my views, here are some of my favorite quotations from some of our nation's Founders. These are on Economics Professsor Walter E. Williams' website.

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government." James Madison

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin

"I can find no warrent for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." President Grover Cleveland veto statement

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole idea upon which the United States was founded." President Franklin Pierce (his veto of a bill to aid the mentally ill)

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." Thomas Jefferson's letter to Albert Gallatin 1817

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government." James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society." Thomas Jefferson
Permalink
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posts: 70
Posted: 03.16.10, 12:46 PM
Mark Sullivan,

Thank you for that reply. Clearly you understand that you could not afford to undertake that task for the wages offered. And just as clearly you have no argument which makes clear how a legislated wage of poverty promotes the general welfare since you have provided no such argument.

As I wrote yesterday, I was preparing a response to your questions of yesterday. I offer that below.

Mark Sullivan wrote, Let me ask some pointed questions, because I still have no idea what you believe.

Mark Sullivan, I believe the entire Constitution and its Amendments are the basis of our society, the law of the land. From my observation I have concluded the majority of Americans are linguistically semi-literate, politically illiterate, economically misinformed and incapable of critical thinking. I hope that clears it up for you.

--

Do you believe in private property? May it be taken by the Federal Government and given to someone to whom it does not belong without just compensation (market value, in-kind compensation, provision of a service an individual is incapable of providing on his own, like a canal or a B52 Bomber)?

I believe the Constitution is clear on the due process of a takings. Evidence shows examples of poor decisions in some instances. Do you believe in ownership? Or is it really just a borrowing, given the final result in one's life. Has your view of living one's life become limited and narrowed to the acquisition of capital and property? Consider then the junkie who has the ability to kick his self-destructive addiction and hold that example to your addiction.

---

You have also stated in another thread that you are for a "not for profit, single payer system for the provision of medical care. Who would manage this? Will everyone contribute?

Did I also include 'regulated monopoly with strict oversight of the regulations' in describing the not for profit option? I believe I provided one (admittedly limited) mathematical suggestion of how the insurance fee could be annually derived. I suggest the model shows that with all Americans included there will be a lowering of premiums for those now paying for the enrichment of a few, (the cause for the denial of the claims of insured individuals), while providing affordable health insurance for those now uninsured, i.e., promoting the general welfare of the nation, that which for-profit insurance companies are not structured to handle because of their fiduciary obligations to a few.

Another option than a non-profit, regulated monopoly is to eliminate the uninsured by requiring capitalists to pay their hirelings a wage which allows the non-capitalist hireling to have sufficient income to afford the basic necessities of modern American society, which includes health care, as well as sufficient capital above and beyond the basic necessities to allow the non-capitalist hireling opportunity to participate in the national economic as a capitalist. As it is now operating, tens of millions of Americans working to live in poverty are denied that by the capitalists who hire them, and as I have described the mechanism elsewhere. And if capitalism cannot provide sufficient jobs leading to capital opportunity, then it becomes the responsibility of the government to grow large enough to provide employment for those whom capitalists exclude from opportunity. Or do you have another suggestion which will bring those economically disadvantaged by capitalism into the mainstream and therefore promote the general welfare of the nation (the people are the nation)? One cannot be a capitalist without capital. It's that simple.

Is your argument based in personal greed or the Constitutional goal 'to promote the general welfare' of the nation? People are the nation. Aside from those who have been convicted of crime and are excluded from society during incarceration, whom do you want to exclude amongst the people and why? And how does that exclusion promote the welfare and defense of the nation?

--

What if I am capable of providing for my own health care and would prefer to do so?

Why would you choose to pay high premiums to a for-profit corporation, obligated under court order to a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders and not the insured if you could get the same coverage, or better, for less money? Any claim you make is subject to denial. And if the mathematic model I recall suggesting is correct, monthly premiums would be significantly lower than what you are 'capable of paying'. Please explain your logic.

--

Who will determine how much a medial miniscus tear repair will cost? Who will determine how much a dose of penicillin costs?

Who determines that cost now?

We know for a fact that liability-insurance company lawyers require many unnecessary procedures that affect cost and that 50% of the doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class. We also know that for-profit hospitals are the source of thousands of infectious disease deaths annually.

--

If my 85 year old Mother, who is in otherwise excellent health, would like both hips and knees replaced to improve her quality of life, will she get it? How long will she have to wait?

Have you and your mother prepared Living Wills and executed Medical Powers of Attorney?

Do private insurers guarantee that which you are asking? Do they ever deny such claims? How long would your mother have to wait under the private insurer system? Would a private insurer ask if she can get by with a wheelchair since she is in otherwise good health? The wheelchair is likely to be the private insurers choice since it is obligated to its stockholders and not your insured mother. Quality of life is just vain opinion not indicative of medical necessity. You are proposing only medical necessity, it seems, from your following questions.

--

Will abortion be covered? Will a sex change surgery be covered? Tatoo removal?

Does private insurance cover abortions now that abortions are not done in back alley settings of the past but in medical settings as medical procedures? If not, why not? Are abortion and the other individual choices you mention medical procedures? Are those procedures medical necessities or personal vanities? What is the position of for-profits regarding artificial insemination to satisfy the vanity of couples nature has said cannot reproduce? Is it your position to deny their claims? What about the vanity of circumcision? Is your position to deny the claims? What about the vanity of plastic surgery, ya know, like for someone who has suffered in a fire. Hell, they can be scarred and be healthy. Is your position to deny their claims?

Do you support the American practice of criminalizing mental illness?

If you have a moral conflict regarding abortion, keep it to yourself and don't have an abortion. You have no right to impose your religious beliefs on others through the denial of services. Do people have the right to determine their doctors and medical regimens? Of course they do (Amendment IX). When it comes to abortion, the person is the woman. The fetus is not a person and has no guarantee that it will ever be a person, i.e. come to full term and be a live birth. Abortions are natural as well as induced. The Constitution was not written by “We the fetus” any more than it was written by “We the capitalists” or “We the special interest”. I am clear regarding your expressed personal difficulty with “We the people”.

--

Where are the philosopher-kings with the wisdom, virtue and incorruptibility that can be trusted with decisions of such gravity?

There are no philosopher-kings in America, as you are well aware. Cute. Demeaning to your own argument (or lack thereof) but cute.

--

Who could possibly have all of the information necessary to make these decisions on behalf of the parties involved?

To make decisions to what end? To subsidize the property of a few and limited group of stockholders of the for-profit insurance company who accepted risk without guarantee? To providing medical care as a way of fulfilling a stated goal of the Constitution, i.e., to promote the general welfare? Different ends require different solutions.

--

Certainly not the ones running Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, Amtrak, the FAA, the FDA?

Yeah, those entitlements (government agencies that we pay for). (Speaking of entitlement, as I've asked you before, what ever false sense of entitlement do you have that makes you think your time is any more valuable than anyone else's? Such a question must embarrass you since you have avoided answering.)

So who rips off medicare? From what I've seen reported it is capitalist opportunists filing false claims of services not performed and goods not provided. Yes, a non-profit, single payer monopoly should budget for fraud prevention.

So who rips off Social Security and SSI? Years ago my wife, a juvenile on-set diabetic that no for-profit insurer would touch, became so incapacitated by the disease that she could not hold a job and so she applied for and got SSI, which she (and I) paid into. She had that for several years, with reviews. The day after Thanksgiving, 1981, she received a notice in the mail that someone in SSI's bureaucracy had determined that she was not impaired, but fit enough to work. Fortunately for her there was no disappointment as she never got to read that denial, having died the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving, 1981. Those running the SS Administration were president Ronald Reagan and Republicans. Are you suggesting my late wife was ripping off SSI? My retirement income consists solely of Social Security, which I paid into throughout my working life. And the amount I receive is based on wages which were well below the American median income. Are you suggesting I am ripping off that which I paid into, Social Security?

So who rips off Public Education? Are you suggesting that an American educated citizenry on the local boards of education, those who 'run public education', are ripping off America? Maybe the children are ripping off Public Education according to your standards. And who is ripping off Amtrak, the FAA, the FDA? Again, evidence suggests that the biggest culprits are capitalists who represent themselves as service/product providers. Those are not 'the ones running' the agencies, they are the ones 'ruining' the agencies.

--

Who could possible run the medical care for 300+ Million people?

Who does it now? Oh, that's right, no one. That's in part why your private premiums are so high and demonstrates that for-profit insurers are not equipped to the task.

--

Would those here illegally be covered?

Illegally here from the point of view of Native Americans?

--

What incentive will a Doctor have to perfect new techniques, instruments, drugs?

Why isn't the doctor you profile providing health care to patients? Oh, he is employed by a drug company or an instruments company. So as an employee the doctor you suggest is getting a salary or an hourly wage. I suppose the incentive is that the doctor would rather do that which interests him/her rather than that which does not, like cleaning and sanitizing the operating rooms and examination rooms.

So please inform me why a performing doctor's time is any more valuable than the time of the person who has responsibility for performing that which creates the sanitary conditions of the setting necessary to a healthy outcome of that which occurs in that setting? For-profit hospitals are notoriously unhealthy places, ya know. And they pay low wages, ya know, for things like sanitation services.

And let's take a look at Charles Darwin. He had income for which he never worked. What was the incentive that caused him to travel, collect, take copious noted, gather specimens, inform himself, study, communicate with others and publish a book which changed the way man thinks? It clearly was not a desire to profit from book sales since he sat on his book for two decades and did not publish until he realized someone else was about to publish a similar book.

--

The nations who currently have this system are not innovative, are not just and are not efficient.

But do they have healthy populations with the people receiving health care?

I wonder upon what you base your claim. American medical care is not efficient in that liability-insurance company lawyers decide upon so many of the procedures which are performed and not because they are necessary to the individual patient. Of course liability insurance is necessary since, let me remind you, so many doctors were at the bottoms of their classes.

What was the last pharmaceutical breakthrough from Cuba? How much will Doctors be paid?

I am not an historian of pharmaceutical breakthroughs, not that the instance you inquire about has any relativity or significance to promoting the general welfare of America. As to doctors' pay, the likely answer is “too much”.

"It is not the benevolence of the butcher or grocer that you have your dinner." -Adam Smith

Adam Smith was a stingy, selfish Scot and an economic theorist. He probably wore kilts because sheep can hear a zipper be pulled from a quarter mile away. Did the butcher sell you that sheep?

How many drinks had he consumed when he uttered, “We will die for Market Freedom!!”? Did he walk that walk or just talk the talk? Oh never mind. He was not a political theorist, just a selfish sot operating on a false premise.

--

Our Federal Government has done NOTHING efficiently, justly, effectively or of a quality that a private party, motivated by profit could provide.

Duh.

What you here suggest is not the purpose of government. Government is not a for-profit proposition! Where the heck did you ever gain that misconception. Who did that disservice of misinformation to you? Please refer to the raison d'etre for American government. It is the very beginning of the Constitution. You can find several sites providing a copy of it for free (where's the profit in that), just by searching 'constitution'.


I guess in your mind you think I am saying "We the People" can do NOTHING efficiently, justly, effectively or of a quality that a private party. I am saying I can do far better for my family, my community and those in need everywhere when I am free to use my Capital as I see fit and so can you.

Hogwash. One first must have capital to be a capitalist. The capitalists have enacted legislation which deprives American people the opportunity to become capitalists. Capitalists who own the jobs cannot provide full employment and are not required to pay a living wage. You have not refuted the ugly facts about capitalism. Nor have you apparently done anything to cause your representatives to change that which you have said it is poor legislation. That poor legislation has no doubt worked to your advantage. Correct me if I am wrong.

Do you no longer wish to be free?

This question is from a person so addicted to capital and property and their burdens that he cannot be free. If you wish to be a slave to capital and property, go ahead. Just don't impose your slavish desires on those who want them no more than they want the religious values of your false idol.

Do you have any duties or obligations as a citizen, or do you see the citizen as entitled to split the property of others for largess and charity?

As far as I know, one's duties as a citizen are to adhere to the laws, whether the law of the land or subordinate legislations, to be informed in one's vote, to serve on juries and to stand prepared to defend the nation should it be attacked.

What obligations does capital have to the nation? As I've said before, and as you have failed to refute, capital is fungible and has no national obligations. Capitalism in its structure is anti-democratic. I know why you don't refute that. Corporations, devices of capitalism, and undemocratic in their structure. I know why you don't refute that. According to SCOTUS, corporations have a right to free speech. When ever have you heard a corporation exercise its free speech right and recite the Pledge of Allegiance? You know the Pledge which children are forced by teachers to recite.

As far as do I work for whatever a Capitalist pays - yes, I do. My employment, as is all employment, a voluntary contract.
When one is under the duress of trying to survive and acting out of necessity in a capitalist economic which denies opportunity of capital through restrictive legislation, a voluntary contract cannot occur. Further, the minimum wage law is an impediment to the ability to contract. Finally, the national economic, while capitalism at the moment, is not necessarily the national economic at some future time for the national economic is not written into the law of the land.

As to the contract which is dictated by (as opposed to negotiated with) the capitalist along with the hubris of 'take it or leave it', I too have abided under such work contract conditions. In those situations I was always sure to give the capitalist just what he was paying me for, which was not innovation.

I am not forced to accept the wage my employer is offering, nor are the migrant farm workers.

I pass on responding further to this statement other than my first paragraph which addresses your more 'elaborate' evasion of the question posited.

You make it sound as if people are victim for accepting a job, knowing the wages and benefits up front.

As long as capitalists have legislation which allows them to pay a wage of poverty (the minimum wage is just the lowest poverty wage a capitalist can pay without running afoul of the law, and there are wages which, while greater than the minimum wage, are wages of poverty) then people are victims of that legislation.

I picked strawberries in the summer as a young boy. The wages were low. I had no skills to offer and I knew it would not be my career. How much should a person picking tomatoes make? Should I as a 14 year old boy have made enough to support a family for part time summer work? Should a student working part time at McDonald's while in high school be paid $25 per hour? Says who?

You are the one “who said” so (be paid $25 per hour), Mark. I said a living wage. Is that your definition of a living wage? Ok. I'll go with that figure if it pleases you.

But why should the living wage for a family man or woman be greater than for a single person (your example above)? Family is a choice, not a requirement of living in a modern society. Why should the single person (regardless of age such as the 14 yo boy you mention) be discriminated against by being denied the same wage for the same job?

I agree you were victimized as a 14 year-old boy. In spite of your denial of skills, you had the skill to work in the strawberry field. Why do you claim you had no skill? Do you think that doing something for which you are over-qualified and underpaid does not take skill? You really are naïve if you do.

A person picking tomatoes should make at least a living wage. You have not told me why anyone should be denied a living wage for doing the job the capitalist does not want to do. A living wage is in the interest of society for it promotes the general welfare and reduces the need for government services and the necessary taxes, borne across society, to pay for those services. The minimum wage is a subsidy of business that everyone pays for, the impoverished more than others. The 'wage of poverty' subsidy of business does not promote the general welfare of the nation, it promotes the welfare of a few. Show me the error in that. Justify paying wages of poverty, please, and include in your justification how that promotes the general welfare of the nation. Of course, I understand that you have no intention of refuting anything I have said for you have nothing to support your argument except emotions and superstitions.

Wage fixing and other regulations by government have always failed.

In the history of the nation we find that the government at its inception fixed the low end of wages to the slavery of persons. It took a war, a proclamation and Amendment XIII to change that. Women were considered chattel well into the 20th century. Southern Baptist men still consider women as chattel.

Slavery and the 13th Amendment have been gotten around with the legislated wage of poverty. Profits over people, the capitalist mantra.

Union measures to make us all pay more for what we buy to support the lifestyle of their members has been a disaster.

Yes, that old saw. Unions act as agents for those greedy workers (never people). Why, in their complaint of agency, do capitalist apologists always point to the unions and the people they represent as a negative when they support as positive the excessive salaries of sports icons, talking heads and hollywood actors, among others, who have agency representations?

In California, there was a long supermarket union strike. They demanded more wages, more benefits and no changes in the pay or benefits of new workers. They were off work for over a year. They eventually settled for a little more money and they caved on the pay for future employees, but guess what appeared at the supermarkets? Self Check out. Now one employee in effect works at 4 check stands and the work force shrinks. A thing or service is worth what a consumer is willing to pay. No More.

And self-service (free labor aka slavery) is very profitable for the capitalists who did not lower costs to consumers with the cost reduction they received in labor by employing consumers at no cost. Your point is??? Oh yeah, the capitalist mantra profit over people.

Ok. So that makes it clear that your argument is not about benefits for the consumer. Nor is it about benefits for the workers. Nor is it about the price of the seat in the stadium or the cable bill at home that is affected by agency since you ignore the costs of agency on your entertainments. I bet you paid baby-sitters as little as you could when you went out to ballgames and movies and other expensive entertainments. And you claimed, no doubt, how precious and special your babies were -> precious enough to be entrusted to and whom you paid less than minimum wage and no contribution to FICA or their future.

You really have mixed up values to justify the prices you are willing to pay to be entertained by sports or media icons and unwilling to pay for services, products and foods produced by workers who make your life better through their honest labors in jobs you would never consider doing because you have a false sense of ENTITLEMENT to YOUR CAREER and YOUR PROPERTY and YOUR ADDICTION TO CAPITAL.

In one of my incarnations in my life I encountered more than one person with a piece of jewelry which was damaged or missing a stone. They would be quoted a price to repair the item. They then would describe how they really liked the piece and how they had got it at 'such a deal' in some foreign country, and golly gosh but the price of the repair was way too much considering how little the product cost. Of course they never included the cost of transportation to the place where they made the purchase and to back home. Nor the cost of the hotels and food while in that foreign land. All of which should have been included in their economic understanding. It is fair to say, being products of American education, those people were far from sophisticated in understanding economics since they clearly could not understand the basic concepts of the actual cost of their piece of jewelry. So I would always make it a point to suggest that they go back to the country of origin and get it repaired there.

Similarly I recall hearing someone akin to Warren Buffet in terms of wealth bemoaning that he could not buy Argentinian beef because of America's import restrictions. Well pardon me, but given the wealth of the gentleman making the argument, there was no restriction (aside from passport , visa and a desire to make a false argument) to keep him from travelling to Argentina and eating enough Argentinian beef to choke him on his false argument.

Perhaps you would like to argue, as a capitalist, for cheap imported beef and screw the American farmer's family needs the same as you willingly screw the migrant laborer and the baby sitter of your precious children and American society for your personal addictions.

Or rather than present an argument which refutes what I have said about capitalism, would you rather go to the issue of the Federalist Papers and the right's false argument concerning them?
Permalink
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posts: 160
Posted: 03.16.10, 11:42 AM
Well. . .

I am not a migrant farm worker, so I cannot answer your question literally. This is not evasion, it is truth. Why would I leave my home and "material comforts" to begin with? Is there truly nothing I can do in my home town?

AS we sit today, yes, I can afford to move where I may need to if a better job existed somewhere other than in my home town. If the job did not pay what I thought I was worth, I would not take the job. I would not expect anyone to take a job he or she did not willingly accept. Of course, living in a prosperous, modern, Western, Capitalist society, I have options that this desperate, poor person in your hypothetical situation with few or no options has. His govenment should be ashamed and removed for not providing the framework of a rule of law, private property rights and free markets necessary to create a prosperous, diverse economy and the opportunities that abound in societies like ours.

Balthazar, I have been poor. When I finished college and lived on my own, I did not have a pot to piss in. I have "worked my way up" from dishwasher, to strawberry picker, to cook, to periods of unemployment and even sleeping in my car for a week ot two. I am under no illusions, however. I did not grow up in a third world country. I have opportunities most will never have. I have gone to bed hungry, but I always knew that if I worked hard enough, was honest, law abiding and motivated, that I would "make it." I have lived in 6 different cities in 4 different states, leaving behind much, in search of the next stage of prosperity as I became an adult. This is the essence of life in the United States and Capitalist countries in general. I have worked for minimum wage - voluntarily - (when minimum wage was $1.35!), but I never wanted a career that paid minimum wage. It was a step on the economic ladder. Do you believe McDonald's hires people with a belief they will work there until retirement? They plan for 200%+ turnover, because their employees are on the ladder up as well.

I will tell you this. If I lived in Mexico. Was uneducated, impoverished, with nothing but my body to work and a family to support, I would find a way to make that trip to the Salinas Valley to work for my family. I admire those people greatly and support guest worker programs. I would prefer seeing reforms in poor countries so this migration was unnecessary.
Permalink
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posts: 70
Posted: 03.15.10, 04:03 PM
Mark Sullivan, I will be glad to respond to your post of today. But before I do, would you kindly answer the questions I posited to you in the post immediately preceding yours of today.

In your post of today you allude to
Now it is fair for me to ask if you can afford to travel from your home and family and work in the fields of capitalist farmers for the wages they are willing to pay? You will need to spend money to get to the fields. You will need to spend money for food. You will need to spend money for shelter. You will need to spend money for health insurance. You will need to maintain the house, family and material comforts you have left behind. If you honestly cannot afford to do that, why would you expect any other person, American or otherwise, to do that? Notice I did not ask if you were qualified to do the job.

I look forward to your clear, non-evasive answer to those two simple questions which I have bold-faced here. Meanwhile I am preparing answers to that which you have raised in your post of today.

Kindest regards,
balthazar
Permalink
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posts: 160
Posted: 03.14.10, 07:04 PM
balthazar,

Let me ask some pointed questions, because I still have no idea what you believe.

Do you believe in private property? May it be taken by the Federal Government and given to someone to whom it does not belong without just compensation (market value, in-kind compensation, provision of a service an individual is incapable of providing on his own, like a canal or a B52 Bomber)?

You have also stated in another thread that you are for a "not for profit, single payer system for the provision of medical care. Who would manage this? Will everyone contribute? What if I am capable of providing for my own health care and would prefer to do so? Who will determine how much a medial miniscus tear repair will cost? Who will determine how much a dose of penicillin costs? If my 85 year old Mother, who is in otherwise excellent health, would like both hips and knees replaced to improve her quality of life, will she get it? How long will she have to wait? Will abortion be covered? Will a sex change surgery be covered? Tatoo removal? Where are the philosopher-kings with the wisdom, virtue and incorruptibility that can be trusted with decisions of such gravity? Who could possibly have all of the information necessary to make these decisions on behalf of the parties involved? Certainly not the ones running Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, Amtrak, the FAA, the FDA? Who could possible run the medical care for 300+ Million people? Would those here illegally be covered? What incentive will a Doctor have to perfect new techniques, instruments, drugs? The nations who currently have this system are not innovative, are not just and are not efficient. What was the last pharmaceutical breakthrough from Cuba? How much will Doctors be paid?

"It is not the benevolence of the butcher or grocer that you have your dinner." -Adam Smith

Our Federal Government has done NOTHING efficiently, justly, effectively or of a quality that a private party, motivated by profit could provide. I guess in your mind you think I am saying "We the People" can do NOTHING efficiently, justly, effectively or of a quality that a private party. I am saying I can do far better for my family, my community and those in need everywhere when I am free to use my Capital as I see fit and so can you.

Do you no longer wish to be free? Do you have any duties or obligations as a citizen, or do you see the citizen as entitled to split the property of others for largess and charity?

As far as do I work for whatever a Capitalist pays - yes, I do. My employment, as is all employment, a voluntary contract. I am not forced to accept the wage my employer is offering, nor are the migrant farm workers. You make it sound as if people are victim for accepting a job, knowing the wages and benefits up front. I picked strawberries in the summer as a young boy. The wages were low. I had no skills to offer and I knew it would not be my career. How much should a person picking tomatoes make? Should I as a 14 year old boy have made enough to support a family for part time summer work? Should a student working part time at McDonald's while in high school be paid $25 per hour? Says who?

Wage fixing and other regulations by government have always failed. Union measures to make us all pay more for what we buy to support the lifestyle of their members has been a disaster. In California, there was a long supermarket union strike. They demanded more wages, more benefits and no changes in the pay or benefits of new workers. They were off work for over a year. They eventually settled for a little more money and they caved on the pay for future employees, but guess what appeared at the supermarkets? Self Check out. Now one employee in effect works at 4 check stands and the work force shrinks. A thing or service is worth what a consumer is willing to pay. No More.
Permalink
balthazarF Avatar
balthazarF
Posts: 70
Posted: 03.11.10, 03:05 PM
Mark Sullivan writes,

balthazar,

I think you and I may have different things in mind when we say "democracy." "We the People" is anthropomorphism. It implies a "general will" (where have we heard that?), that the 300 million+ American citizens are in lockstep with respect to economics and what freedom means.

Mark Sullivan,

Anthropomorphism is not what I intend when I say 'democracy'.

As to “We the People” I take that phrase from the Constitution. The people of the time of framing the Constitution had been colonists, but now they were a new nation from from the colonial power. An earlier attempt at nationhood with Articles of Confederation was a failure. Clearly the people at the time of framing the Constitution were varied in their allegiances. Many were loyalists to the monarchy of England. Many were Christian extremists who were willing to ignore the earliest failures of Christianity to form a theocracy in the colonies. but still adhered to the idea of theocracy, as they do today. Some people were Islamists, others Jews and still others the quaintly named free thinkers. And the Constitution's drafters were white male property owners, some of whom practiced the ownership of people (slavery) as if people were property. And those people agreed to the Constitution and the nation.

What I mean by democracy is the people agreeing to live with the results derived from the election of their representatives and executives with each person having one vote, as found in the Constitution and its Amendments. Yes the Bill of Rights and other Amendments “lay out the rights of the INDIVIDUAL”. And those individuals are people who are the We of We the people, again see the Constitution.

You write, “As a Constituitonal believer, you must know that the Fifth Ammendment's "takings" clause underscores the notion of several property and states that, " . . .nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compehnsation." I see my hard earned wages, my land , my home, my investments, stocks, bonds, my business, etc., as my private property, which cannot be taken "without just compensation."

You fail to observe that what constitutes 'just compensation' is not set out in the Constitution. If you will pursue further you will find, however, in Amendment XIV the guarantee of the 'due process of law' as well as 'equal protection of the laws'.

Now let me remind you of my original post which you called “rambling, incoherent and factually incorrect” wherein I observed, “Capitalists are especially good at political misdirection. Capital, capitalism, profit, free market and economic theory are absent from the Constitution, the sole thing Americans hold in common.” Let me point out to you that in a takings one is not guaranteed a profit or even a cost equivalent, one is guaranteed “just compensation” [otherwise undefined] and “due process of the law” and without regard to how YOU (a vaunted INDIVIDUAL) view YOUR property.

You write, “You seem to imply my property and the property of others is just more booty to be plundered by the wishes of a disaffected "People," and redistributed. I simply do not see how this is just.”

I did not imply that, you inferred incorrectly.

I do not see how to use 'my land , my home, my investments, stocks, bonds, my business,' to bring economic harm to another is just, defends the nation or promotes the general welfare. And you have not enlightened me to that.

You write, “As far as the minimum wage goes, I believe it is one of the worst economic policies ever enacted and should be abolished. The Federal government has no place enetering into the contracting of labor between two individuals.”

I agree with that insofar as Article I, Section 10, clause 1 clearly states, “No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ...” and recognizing the Federal government is the Nation State.

But then you say, “It is not, either in intent or practice, 'legislated poverty,' as very few people earn the minimum wage as their sole means of support.”

One is one too many for the welfare of the people, since those adversely affected by the legislation are people; one is sufficient to prove as false your claim concerning practice, and you did provide more than one in your example.

The minimum wage, observe, is well below the poverty level and it merely allows other wages which are greater than the minimum wage to also be wages of poverty. There is no crime greater than the theft of a man's labor and wages of poverty are evidence of such theft.

You claim, “Age, work experience, skills and education matter. You seem to ignore them.” A lack of 'work experience' cannot justify a wage of poverty. 'Age' cannot justify a wage of poverty. 'Skills' cannot justify a wage of poverty. 'Education' cannot justify a wage of poverty. My reward for the hard work of earning a college degree was a notice to be cannon fodder colonizing Southeast Asians. The phrase 'reward for hard work' is a capitalist lie, not an aphorism.

I now speak to your investments, for investments by Americans is why the US was engaged in Vietnam. It was not to spread democracy, for democracy cannot be forced on an unwilling people. When an American invests in America I will defend that American's right to do so and to be rewarded as the law allows and to be protected in that investment through law, including bankruptcy law.

But when an American invests overseas he or she loses my defense, for he or she has subjected that investment to the laws and foibles of that foreign state and the risks attendant thereto. And if a result of that investment is it goes belly up through a change in the government leading to a nationalization, I must presume that the investor has willingly assumed that risk possibility.

While I did not serve in the military because I had been denied employment for a back condition which made me 1Y, I died with every soldier who died from being forced into this capitalist misadventure under the lie of protecting democracy.

You ask, “If the KIng for a Day, would you require a "Living Wage?" (whatever that means)

While your question as posited is absurd, I will answer you this way.

It is often said that American capitalists hire illegal aliens because Americans won't do that job. What the capitalists who make that claim are failing to do is complete the sentence they have started. The sentence in completion is, American capitalists hire illegal alien workers because Americans won't do the job for the wages the capitalist is willing to pay.

Now it is fair for me to ask if you can afford to travel from your home and family and work in the fields of capitalist farmers for the wages they are willing to pay? You will need to spend money to get to the fields. You will need to spend money for food. You will need to spend money for shelter. You will need to spend money for health insurance. You will need to maintain the house, family and material comforts you have left behind. If you honestly cannot afford to do that, why would you expect any other person, American or otherwise, to do that? Notice I did not ask if you were qualified to do the job.

You write, “The United States Constitution is a concervative, limited, short, frustratingly general document.”. Yet I have said that it is liberal. And I hold that it is liberal, as evidenced by its acceptance by the people who formed the nation and by the fact of its amendability, evidenced through 27 Amendments. It is a founding document. It establishes anew. It conserves not the monarchy which preceded. What evidence have you of its concervativeness. You have offered only an unsubstantiated opinion.

You conclude “I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what the Constitution means and what the relationship between the citizen and the State ought to be. Isn't America great?”

America is great and your argument is quite disagreeable.
Permalink
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

The Hunt for the Newsroom of Tomorrow The Hunt for the Newsroom of Tomorrow
01:12:59 min | 6,452 Views
Democracy Now's Amy Goodman in Conversation Democracy Now's Amy Goodman in Conversation
01:12:13 min | 11,870 Views
Social Media and Journalism Social Media and Journalism
00:35:12 min | 4,851 Views
Roxana Saberi: My Life and Captivity in Iran Roxana Saberi: My Life and Captivity in Iran
01:06:40 min | 7,905 Views
Real Tales: Education of the Entrepreneurial Journalist Real Tales: Education of the Entrepreneurial Journalist
01:08:13 min | 6,048 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement