Bruno, even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in the US, leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the population. I am not talking Marxism. The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments) just made it worse. The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of one's acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of others.* Within such all subchapters are viable.
(About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is not even paying for susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.) JM On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno: > could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms? > Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote: > > "*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "* > > > > Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition. > > Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure the > respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract. > > > > where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'? > > > Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people doing > false advertisement in the matter of health. > > I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some > important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on that > disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious example. I > think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against humanity, given > that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits have been proved (in > the sense of having been able to be repeated in all laboratories which are > not dependent of a big lucrative organization. > > > > > Is a 'regulating system a power? > > > Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power, OK. > > > > (I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the > Supremes' > "MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking. > It would > undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality. > > > That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the law > of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible genuine > competition. > > > > The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it in > EU. > And so on. > > > I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean virtue", > which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when asserted on > people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads to more hidden > dogma, or free-exam, etc. > But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state does > not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions (perhaps) > like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be problematic > (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not political propaganda). > If you study the case of cannabis, all statements on its danger comes from > paper which have not been made available to the public, and was > contradicted by all papers available to the public. The cannabis set-up was > gross, immense, obvious, and nobody was failed, except the general public > and the physicians. Many doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of > marijuana, said that they were not aware that marijuana was cannabis, at > that time, and took some time to realize the maneuver. We had to wait 10 > years before the paper by Nahas gave the protocols used to prove that > cannabis demolish brain cells, and indeed, now we have them, and it is just > ridiculous (the rabbit were smoking ten joints simultaneously for seven > days 24/24, and the neurons have been shown since dying from asphyxia, just > to give one example among many). > > Bruno > > > > > John Mikes > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote: >> >> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary >> witness >> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas. >> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what >> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure. >> >> >> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can >> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that >> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not >> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another >> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of >> lies). >> >> >> >> >> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority >> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for >> less than what they may have produced. >> >> >> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market, >> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like >> defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We must avoid >> mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only a few minority >> makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering. >> >> >> >> Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond the >> effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership of the so >> called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition - making the >> advanced society an *economical inequality* of haves and have-nots, the >> latter being forced to work FOR the former for their mere survival. >> >> >> Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is >> everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the money of >> the less rich. It is not free-market, it is organized banditism. >> >> >> >> >> Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the >> have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. >> It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of >> wars) of the system are called heros. >> >> Just to vent off >> >> >> I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is faulty, >> but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the founders of America >> were quite aware of the possibility. >> >> They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US >> Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is virtually >> dead with the NDAA 2012, actually). >> >> It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad >> people. The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives the >> lies. >> >> The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in principle) >> is still governed by the "the boss is right" principle. People are still >> discouraged to make the thinking and take the responsibility. Only in >> movies. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> John Mikes >> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote: >>> >>> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, >>>> it takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they >>>> need to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some >>>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its >>>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the >>>> war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm. >>>> >>>> But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when Gorbachov >>>> was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, it took us a >>>> very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never engaged with >>>> the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan. >>>> >>>> The Soviets were willing to withdraw from Afghanistan, even before >>>> Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind a >>>> stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that, >>>> because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the >>>> Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the Jihadists. >>>> >>>> Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous. We >>>> knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan, their >>>> communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population would be able >>>> to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this that we never >>>> critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made here. >>>> >>>> It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were right, >>>> not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of Jihadism that >>>> we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the dangers of having failed >>>> states. Our ideology at the time was that a failed state would quickly get >>>> itself organized into a flourishing democracy if you could only keep the >>>> evil communists out. >>>> >>>> Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was >>>> weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his nationalist opposition who >>>> were critical of the West politically stronger. When Yeltsin took over he >>>> had to deal with an economically weak Russia while in the background there >>>> were forces lurking who were extremely critical of the West. In any country >>>> you'll have the opposition that tends to question the government's policy >>>> especially if things are not going well economically and especially when >>>> there has been a recent radical change. In the years after the collapse of >>>> communism that move was democratization, liberalization of the economy etc. >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> It's easy for us to say that the Russians who were critical at the time >>>> were stupid, just look at the opposition in the US against a universal >>>> health care system. Now, if we could turn back the clock and had dealt with >>>> Afghanistan differently, then the outcome of that might not just have >>>> prevented the rise of international Jihadism, you would also have had the >>>> pro-Western reformists in Russia to be in a politically far stronger >>>> position. Likely you would not have had Putin in power today, or Putin may >>>> not have become that anti-Western (he wasn't when came into power). >>>> >>>> Another thing is that we would have improved the UN Security Council >>>> System to deal with complex problems. As it currently functions, the UNSC >>>> is a panel of prosecutors who are the World's policemen, prosecutor, jury >>>> and judge at the same time without a requirement for members to recuse >>>> themselves when they are involved. >>>> >>>> The system works fine in emergency situations, like when Iraq invaded >>>> Kuwait, just like a police can intervene effectively when there is a bank >>>> robbery going on. But when the emergency situation is dealt with, we all >>>> know that you need a proper justice system to deal with the problem on the >>>> longer term. We know that what cannot work is a system where the local >>>> police can have a caucus with other police officers from neighboring areas >>>> to deal with that. Even if you assume that police officers can be 100% >>>> objective, you would still not have much faith in a system where the police >>>> officers could be the prosecutors juries, judges, appeals judges and >>>> Supreme Court judges all at the same time. >>>> >>>> This i.m.o. is the reason why Iraq was invaded. Iraq under Saddam >>>> Hussein (supported by both superpowers in the 1980s) could never prove that >>>> it had no WMD within the current system once some prosecutors decided to >>>> throw the book at him. >>>> >>>> Had instead the Western powers thought critically about how to improve >>>> the international institutions instead of seeing the collapse of the Soviet >>>> Union as a big gain in their power within the current system, the UNSC >>>> could have been reformed. You can think of a system where the UNSC >>>> continues to exist in its present form but that it creates a new >>>> institution where judges rule on contentious fundings of facts. The UNSC >>>> could then have referred difficult dossiers like the Iraq WMD case, Iran's >>>> nuclear program etc. to such an institution where decisions are made on the >>>> basis of real evidence instead of political rhetoric. >>>> >>> >>> I think I agree with your analysis, but I think there is much more, >>> which is the disparition/erosion of the separation of power, which is part >>> of the making of the rhetoric. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> So, I put most of the blame of the current situation on the West's >>>> failures to just think about the long term during the late stages of the >>>> Cold War. >>>> >>> >>> >>> As long as prohibitionist are not all in jail, or amnestied perhaps, >>> some corporatism will will continue to make huge profits in diseases and >>> war selling. >>> >>> The war on terror is fake, because if that was genuine, the most urgent >>> thing which would have been done is to stop prohibition, which is the fuel, >>> even the main engine of international crimes and terrorism, and it is know >>> today that whatever drug is prohibited, the consumption of it is multiplied >>> by a large factor (which is normal as you offer the market to the >>> criminals). >>> >>> I mean that it is not just our incompetence, there is a part of >>> unwillingness. We tolerate the lies on important things, like on cancers, >>> indeed we tolerate that people think for us about what is good or bad to >>> us, but that's contradict already the intent of most of the founders of >>> America. >>> >>> As long as prohibitionism is not abolished, I think we must remain >>> skeptical about any *official* theory by default. Liars lie rarely only >>> once. Prohibition rotten everything. International prohibition can only >>> lead to international chaos, mafia wars, well disguised. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Saibal >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30-08-2015 22:34, meekerdb wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/30/2015 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> - the governments know that prohibition is the main fuel of >>>>>> criminality and terrorism. >>>>>> >>>>> So Muslims flew planes into buildings government (which one?) >>>>> prohibited something (what?). >>>>> Brent >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list >>>>> [1]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]. >>>>> Links: >>>>> ------ >>>>> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>>>> [2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" 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/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" 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/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" 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/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" 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/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
