Sphene Community Tools

Community

Copyright © 2007-2018 by Herbert Poul

You are not logged in.
Login
Register

A Django site.

priligy after alcohol

Sandbox

[ Edit ]

Back to Snip

Warning: You are editing an old version: By Anonymous at 2014-02-18 16:08:22

Title:
Body:	Tom Hickey:Yes, the point being that when a private inetserts are in control of the money they are in control period. And there is no recourse but revolt.In a liberal democracy with govt in control of the money, the govt can be changed periodically through elections.What's so hard to understand about this?You're confused. An individual has far more control over his own life when dealing with private business firms than with the state. With the state, no matter who is in charge, taxation and obedience to laws, however unjust, are mandatory. The state's courts, their police, and in many instances their schooling, are mandatory "services." You cannot abstain from dealing with them no matter how bad they get.With private businesses on the other hand, you can abstain from giving them your money and your solicitation. Their goods and services are not mandatory by force. You can choose not to deal with a businessman who does a bad job. You can instantly "fire" a seller by simply walking out of their store.4 year elections pale in comparison to instant "No, I will not pay you and I will not accept your goods/services" that exists in the market. You are so utterly clueless that you actually believe decentralization, and economic competition, give you less options than state control, where it is the only one. What about the 49% minority? At least in the market, if 51% of the people pay to buy iPhones, it doesn't mean the remaining 49% have to pay to buy them too. With the state, that freedom does not exist. If 51% of the people want X, it is made mandatory on the remaining 49% even if they don't want it.If you are so adamant that state control gives you more freedom through the 51% election process, then why not advocate that the state control ALL production, so that "society" can elect those who own the means of production through majority vote, rather than on an individual, case by case basis as in the market?What is so difficult to comprehend that your worldview is utterly contradictory? That while you say state control over money is better than private control because there are majority elections, but you do a 180 and believe that the means of producing food should not be under state control, but rather under private control? Food is more important than money.It is baffling how you can claim the things you do, and you can't even see how absurd they are. You are truly uninformed about the market and of life. Your claims are that of a communist, not a free society individual.
Tags:	Comma separated list of tags.
Captcha:	Please enter the result of the above calculation.
Change Message:

*

See WikiDocumentation on how to format your input.