I suspect that my libertarian views will never agree with your liberal ones. Let's leave it at that, shall we? /Lonnie Courtney Clay
We can leave it anywhere you like....but I enjoy talking to anyone.....I like to think I have an open-(enough) mind... and as you see, I like to look at matters in a purposely "adversarial" way... not to pick fights ... but to try to get an understanding by "defining" any problem, also, by contrasting it with "what it (the problem) is not"... I hope you see that.... I like to look at all the sides or options...at least the ones that I can think of.... and if you or anyone else can think of a disagreement, side or anything I missed.... I say, "Thank-you" for educating me (even though I may not like it for being shown up to be wrong at the surface level -HAR)..... Nice to meet you, LC.... On Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:02:17 PM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/talk.politics.misc/QHC5EmTCysc > > Let's move over to where this is on topic. I didn't really expect > discussion to follow my post. Most of the things I post get few if any > replies. You can point back to this thread if you like, but it might bring > in a bunch of yahoos to epistemology if you do. > > I suspect that my libertarian views will never agree with your liberal > ones. Let's leave it at that, shall we? > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > On Saturday, March 23, 2013 9:35:44 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: >> >> Thank you for your reply (Mr. ) Lonnie Clay...... >> I am not trying to "bait" you....I suggest to you that some of your >> "concepts" or proposed ways of reasoning may themselves be of a >> "totalitarian" bent or direction or leaning (all metaphors) to say that, in >> their abstract sense or definition, maybe you do not see that they are >> Preferential to one or some and Restrictive against the others or many.... >> >> (under the fixed term electoral system) the representatives are elected >> by those motivated to steal the fruits of other's work / LC >> >> See?.... now "factually" in any close-to-democratic system.... the >> representatives are elected by the "majority" of the popular votes of the >> citizen voters....By your claim, LC, the majority of "individual voters" >> here in the U.S. are motivated by "greed" and bent on "stealing" ... If >> that were actually so.... then the majority of voters would be in >> prison.... but prisoners don't get to vote... I know, that's a >> statistically "minor" effect argument... but the true factual contrary to >> your point is that .... for all this supposed "thievery".... the majority >> of voters do not seem to be getting very rich off it....To the contrary, it >> is the actual "rich" that seem to benefit the most from the way the >> politically disbursed money pie is cut up....Cases in point.... Wall Street >> bailouts... too big to fail....Military Industrial Complex...Oil and Energy >> subsidies..... Agriculture subsidies.... Business Tax subsidies and >> Deregulation... and on and on.... >> >> In another sense.... it would seem to me that you want to somehow further >> negate or nullify the "majority vote" of the "little guy" voters even >> more.....as degraded and economically ineffective as it actually is. >> >> Entitlements blossom into a burden on society that gobbles up all excess >> capital through sales of government debt with deficit budgets. / LC >> >> >> Well, again, factually the governmental "burden on society" economically >> stems a lot more from the "woes" that the Wall Street-Banking, >> Military-Industrial Complex, Business-Industrial-Energy-Agricultural >> subsidies an deregulation, etc. that the so-called "private entrprise" >> corporate sector have imposed and caused.... not on what the actual >> "worker" little folks get and pay for (income tax, FICA, etc.).... >> >> >> Business investments and research decline leading to stagnation of the >> economy. /LC >> >> Business investments are "hoarded".... they say that money is >> fungible.... it can be kept in the "pocket" just as easily as spent or >> invested.... the rich just stow it away or let it stagnate, as gold or >> durable commodities and such.... that's the stagnation.... and that's the >> actual "trigger" for what the Federal Reserve(s) and the Treasury (s) world >> wide have been forced to do.... "create" new money to replace >> that"pocketed" moneythe rich took out of circulation (Wall Street / Banks >> didn't Crash.... they stole the money that was there to begin with.... and >> they get first dibs on the "new" money coming in).... As for the >> research.....most of that is "public sector"....what little of it there is >> left, in actual "research"......the "private sector" doesn't "do" >> research... at least not here in the U.S. >> >> >> http://www.locomotive-project.org/cms/Content/download/The_Global_View_on_Outsourcing_of_RandD.pdf >> >> >> Anyway... Lonnie.... it's obvious that you and I are miles apart....on >> the facts.... I think you are mistaken (I can go that far, for sure.....) >> >> >> >> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:13:39 AM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: >>> >>> I never encountered the term "Communal Modesty" before and there are >>> only 189 google hits on it, so it is probably NOT something of which I am >>> guilty. I am quite familiar with personal greed both as work and steal. The >>> problem assaulting governments worldwide is that (under the fixed term >>> electoral system) the representatives are elected by those motivated to >>> steal the fruits of other's work. Entitlements blossom into a burden on >>> society that gobbles up all excess capital through sales of government debt >>> with deficit budgets. Business investments and research decline leading to >>> stagnation of the economy. >>> http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock >>> >>> With government debt growing faster than economic expansion there is a >>> ticking bomb which will go off within the next decade or two. At what point >>> will government debt be downgraded to junk status, wiping out the >>> accumulated wealth of debt holders? What is a way to fix the system so that >>> there is no debt, and entitlements are under control? That is the question >>> which I was trying to answer in 1997... >>> >>> You can assign your proxy to yourself and spend all your time reading >>> proposed legislation, but unless you are a billionaire it probably would be >>> better to find a compatible professional representative to whom you assign >>> a proxy voting right. >>> >>> Business stockholders meetings operate on one voting share one vote >>> which is not strictly one dollar one vote because some types of stock are >>> not allowed to vote, receiving a dividend instead. >>> >>> I loathe all forms of totalitarianism, but since you seem to be fond of >>> jumping to conclusions on little evidence, I'll keep in mind that you are >>> probably trying to bait me rather than meaning your accusation seriously. >>> >>> Lonnie Courtney Clay >>> >>> >>> On Friday, March 22, 2013 8:20:31 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: >>>> >>>> Believe me, (Mr. ) Lonnie Clay.... I read your whole linked article (or >>>> blog).... considering how far it goes back (1990s) you were very >>>> intelligent then and probably still are.... but I'm not here to stroke >>>> egos, yours or my own.....My point is that when anyone chooses one >>>> "approach" (in all walks -fields-or senses) they deny others.....The >>>> options to your own approach to the "politcal-economic" questions you >>>> raise >>>> embodies certain "ways and mans" that automatically negate others.... >>>> Let's >>>> assume that for purposes of argument each "variation" is doable (which may >>>> well NOT be the case, depending on the math or base assumptions >>>> involved..... but let's assume that they are... doable). The next question >>>> is... which is "ethically better"?.....let me propose the same overall >>>> social-economic quandary in another way to you >>>> >>>> Personal Greed / Steal....... Communal Modesty / Work >>>> >>>> Personal Greed / Work........Communal Modesty / Steal >>>> >>>> This is a bit lower down the "taxonomic " scale...... So... (Mr.) >>>> Lonnie Clay.... can I assume that you opt for the Communal Modesty / Steal >>>> pole of the opposition? >>>> >>>> BY the way, from your article.... Why "proxy".... and not direct >>>> personal vote... in politics?..... you do know that "stockholders" operate >>>> on the principle... One dollar One vote.... not One stockholder One Vote >>>> (proxy has nothing to do with the "power" relationship)......Capitalism is >>>> not a "shared" authority environment.... Frankly, I believe that your >>>> "tendency" is toward a totalitarian politics..... by your >>>> suggestion.....not a democratic politics.... >>>> >>>> On Friday, March 22, 2013 10:31:25 AM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's a very simple minded two dimensional view of reality. You know >>>>> that the real world is much more complex. I'm not going to get into an >>>>> argument except on the contents of my posting. Debate my propositions and >>>>> facts, not some academic mumbo-jumbo catch phrases. To answer, I prefer >>>>> capitalism democracy but not in its purest form. >>>>> >>>>> Lonnie Courtney Clay >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:38:03 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Democracy = One Person, One Vote. >>>>>> Totalitarianism = One Person, All the Votes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Socialism = One Person, One Dollar. >>>>>> Capitalism = One Person, All the Dollars. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Democratic / Socialism...........Totalitarian / Capitalism >>>>>> >>>>>> Democratic / Capitalism..........Totalitarian / Socialism >>>>>> >>>>>> Where do you stand, Lonnie... "governmentally' and >>>>>> "economically".... combined? >>>>>> >>>>>> Choose one and you oppose the others... either in part or in the >>>>>> whole.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Totalitarian / Capitalism is usually referred to as "Fascism".... >>>>>> Totalitarian / Socialism.......Communism.... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:24:56 PM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lonniecourtneyclay.blogspot.com/2011/07/blast-from-halloween-1997.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lonnie Courtney Clay >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
