tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post1591317632643626516..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: Elizabeth Warren: The indecent exposure of a ravenous D.O.B.Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-26045062469023304532011-09-28T08:21:28.871-05:002011-09-28T08:21:28.871-05:00aninnymouse said “You can't have it both ways....aninnymouse said “You can't have it both ways."<br /><br />Correct. You can’t pretend you mean one thing by a term and mean something else at the same time (see Aristotle for reference).<br /><br />“Presumably you would object to any form of government run or funded health care as "socialized medicine"."<br /><br />And yet you want to just run along waving words about as if they mean anything you want them to. Good thing they’re words, not scissors, or you’d put an eye out... as it is you are still in danger of putting an I out, but I intend to see that that remains your problem, and not mine.<br /><br />In this last little tiff, you want to use government, as if it’s just the concept in general, rather than the specific government we have here. Well, sorry aninny, but the government we have in the United States of America is a very specific one, deliberately formed upon <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/preamble.html" rel="nofollow">a written constitution</a> which has very particular rules of operation, specific enumerated powers, and is designed to uphold and protect the individual rights, contracts and property of its citizens.<br /><br />A government of that nature and for those purposes, cannot engage in socialized anything. It cannot spread the wealth around, it cannot dictate or break the legitimate contracts made between its citizens, it cannot determine the education of its citizens, it cannot dictate that its citizens must abandon their property for the sake of an obscure fish, insect or rodent.<br /><br />That we have allowed it to do these things for numerous decades now doesn’t change the fact that this (federal) government is one of limited and enumerated powers, it only illustrates that there have been far too many people such as yourself who want to use words for the feelings they connote, rather than the meaning they have.<br /><br />There are a number of us who have had enough of such idiocy and intend to put an end to it. Time will tell which side will succeed.<br /><br />"socialized police forces"<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that you are too stupid to figure out that you’re using the terms improperly, it’s far more likely that you just do not care. You’re a leftist. The two go hand in hand. I get it.<br /><br />By that same document, the U.S. Constitution, the states are required to have <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_4.html" rel="nofollow"> a Republican Form of Government</a>, so on that score, socialism – the real meaning of the term, not the dull wistfulness which you want to attach to it - is out of the question. But the states do have great latitude in how they form them and what powers they will exert, and can do so as their people decide – within the bounds of the 14th Amendment which guarantees the <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm" rel="nofollow">Privileges and Immunities</a> of U.S. Citizens to all citizens of the several states – they can do what they want; IOW, Bachman was wrong, as long as it didn’t violate the Massachusetts constitution, abolish contracts or force service from doctors, nurses, etc – then Massachusetts can have govt funded healthcare if they want it. I think it’s stupid to, I think the resulting economy and mess in Massachusetts proves it is a stupid thing to do... but, thankfully, I do not and would not live in Massachusetts under any condition – my relatives can have their utopia all to themselves. That’s Federalism. Also a word that has meaning.<br /><br />“...I guess you are just trolling now."<br /><br />Dude, don’t look now, but you’re the one commenting as an anonymous aninnymouse twisting the meaning of words and casting insults about – words mean something... you really ought to pay attention to the ones which you’ve been chosen to be identified by.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-50912508025528262062011-09-28T00:29:15.391-05:002011-09-28T00:29:15.391-05:00You can't have it both ways. Presumably you wo...You can't have it both ways. Presumably you would object to any form of government run or funded health care as "socialized medicine". Well, then we are currently suffering from "socialized schools" and "socialized police forces" and "socialized roads". <br /><br />You can of course argue on each of these that the gov should or should not be involved, but they remain the same sort of arrangement.<br /><br /><i>Neither a transaction, nor a contract to perform a service, establishes a partnership...</i><br /><br />I find it hard to believe that you are too stupid to figure out what that I meant by "partnership", so I guess you are just trolling now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-72141332954905850502011-09-27T23:28:48.887-05:002011-09-27T23:28:48.887-05:00Actually, the one system which – with some stretch...Actually, the one system which – with some stretching – you describe, is Fascism, the system where some people are allowed to retain title to some property, with the understanding that the govt has first claim to controlling the use of that property, and it’s assets, as needed.<br /><br />Or, if you prefer the experts definition, <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html" rel="nofollow">here is how</a> “Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:<br />“The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)”<br /><br />Or maybe Hitler is closer to your liking (he’s got a few ideas to offer you on how to get rid of pesky people like Tea Partiers & Conservatives), he adapted “fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:<br /><br />The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)"<br /><br />Learn the meaning of the words you are throwing around, and while you're at it, apply what you learn to the words your 'leaders' like Elizabeth Warren are busy mouthing as well.<br /><br />It matters.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-3901764188831463982011-09-27T23:26:43.192-05:002011-09-27T23:26:43.192-05:00aninnymouse squeaked “I have no idea what your poi...aninnymouse squeaked “I have no idea what your point is”<br /><br />That’s because, as you’ve demonstrated, you have no idea what your own words mean, let alone the ones I'm using.<br /><br />“...rave on and on like a crazy person.”<br /><br />Calling me crazy won’t help you understand what you are talking about. You seem like another typical example of a smart person who’s been told what to believe, while never being educated as to the meaning of those beliefs, or even the buzzwords they rely upon. Certainly you have no ability to integrate them into coherent ideas which don’t contradict themselves.<br /><br />Very sad. <br /><br />“And yes, of course government services military, roads, and schools are example of socialized provision. “<br /><br />Do you realize that there is a difference between social, society and socialism? Do you seriously think that any instance of govt making a purchase or providing a service is an example of some form of socialism? <br /><br />So... Policemen hired to apprehend bank robbers, are examples of socialism? Jefferson’s plan to provide public schools funded through <b>property</b> taxes, was socialism? So... when the first U.S. Congress rented out a hall to meet in, that was an example of socialism? The first U.S. Army, the Army of the Republic of France under Napoleon, the British Navy under Nelson, these were all examples of socialism or ‘socialized provision’? <br /><br />Using words in such a way as the can mean anything, means that they mean nothing... which, not surprisingly, is the sum total of what you’ve had to say so far.<br /><br />“My point was that the very thing you are pointing to (road building and the contractual agreements that make it happen) is a perfect example of government/industry partnership”<br /><br />Neither a transaction, nor a contract to perform a service, establishes a partnership, but that’s the very least of your problems here. You seemingly have no hint of understanding the words you are stringing together, what you say is as contradictory and meaningless as if you were to say you’d like to heat your pool with ice cubes and then walk to the moon – your words and their meaning simply do not go together.<br /><br />For instance:<br />Contract: (see above)<br /><br />Partnership: “An association of two or more persons engaged in a business enterprise in which the profits and losses are shared proportionally.”<br /><br />Socialism: A centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production, and distribution of capital, land, etc.<br /><br />Marx grasped the idea much better than existing socialist ideas, taking them to their logical fundamental in communism, which he himself summed up in one sentence as: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "<br /><br />Now with that in mind read what you’ve written here again.<br /><br />In no way is it possible to have a contract, or a partnership or even a ‘mixed economy’ (which is simply a transition to socialism, and then to communism), under a socialist or communist system – since there is nothing that is yours to contribute to the process – the govt owns it all - and as the Gulag’s demonstrated, that includes your life. Under the system you apparently are mooning over, not only your property, but your life itself is under the full and complete control of those in power in the govt.<br /><br />(break)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-63075454844198014462011-09-27T18:41:18.821-05:002011-09-27T18:41:18.821-05:00I have no idea what your point is, you rave on and...I have no idea what your point is, you rave on and on like a crazy person. <br /><br />My point was that the very thing you are pointing to (road building and the contractual agreements that make it happen) is a perfect example of government/industry partnership, reflecting the mixed economy that we actually have.<br /><br />And yes, of course government services military, roads, and schools are example of socialized provision. Whether that makes us "socialist" or means Bob's Laundry will be nationalized and Bob sent to the gulag is another proposition.<br /><br />And what this has to do with Elizabeth Warren is beyond me. Her point is perfectly valid and untouched by your reams of gibberish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-8492105412932724552011-09-27T14:55:05.744-05:002011-09-27T14:55:05.744-05:00aninnymouse said "Genius, I was referring to ...aninnymouse said "Genius, I was referring to the fact that the contractors you are idolizing are contracting with the government." <br /> <br />LOL. I'll drop the 'genius' part, it obviously doesn't apply. In terms of the contract, it doesn't matter one whit's worth of difference who the party of the first part, or the party of second or third part are.<br /> <br />Or... considering your inability to make your point clear, is it that you're trying to make a point that govt providing services makes the process somehow 'socialistic'? Or maybe your 'point' is about whether govt either does, or doesn't have the right to build those roads? <br /> <br />If you're trying to make the uber-feeble claim that '<i>Military, fire depts and roads are examples of socialism!</i>', then I can't do much for you, that sort of idiocy can't be corrected in a blog comment. I'll just point out what should be obvious, that government created and organized around a constitution and laws, is in no way made socialistic by exercising its proper functions under those laws - upholding and defending the rights and lives and property of its citizens - there is nothing that is in any way socialistic in nature about that. Obviously any govt will have to make purchases, contract for services, etc, assuming that the contracts are for proper and authorized purchases, there is nothing that is in any way socialistic about their doing so.<br /> <br />If your point was about whether or not govt should be involved in 'roads', etc, then it depends upon whether you're talking about local govt (state and on down to township), or Federal. The local govt's should (as I think is defined in all of their constitution's or charter's), the Federal Govt should not.<br /> <br />To answer the probable first knee jerk response to that, see Madison's Veto of just such a 'roads bill' (which I happen to have handy <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/p/presidential-messages.html#James%20Madison" rel="nofollow">right here</a>), and what he suggested congress do to remedy the problem - which he hoped they would, since he thought such a roads bill would be a good idea - and <i>why</i> he so clearly saw that it was (and is) a problem.<br /> <br />Eisenhower <i>might</i> have had a valid reason for Federal involvement in building the Interstates - as a defense issue - but it had far too much the air of a pretext about it, and that has become the free pass for all that has piggy-backed upon it ever since, cementing Wilson's first unconstitutional roads bill, and it has been nearly all bad.<br /> <br />Strange, that a guy so worried about a 'military/industrial complex', didn't see the far worse implications of a 'corporate/govt complex' which has grown into such an albatross around our neck today.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-73720124600151820382011-09-27T12:22:02.947-05:002011-09-27T12:22:02.947-05:00Genius, I was referring to the fact that the contr...Genius, I was referring to the fact that the contractors you are idolizing are <i>contracting with the government</i>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-39795153141280447782011-09-27T08:33:38.850-05:002011-09-27T08:33:38.850-05:00aninnymouse said "Um, who do you think was on...aninnymouse said "Um, who do you think was on the other side of those contracts, genius?"<br /><br />Do you understand what a contract is? If you speak of people being 'on the other side' of them, probably not; the people on 'the other side' of a contract, aren't involved in it - the people who are parties to a contract are <i>within</i> the contract, they are involved in it.<br /><br />A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, voluntarily entered into, and obligating each to do, or not do, something for the purpose of the contract.<br /><br />The purpose of the contract is to accomplish something that could not be accomplished without all of the parties involved. You get that? Those roads could not have been built without both the employer and the employee. To talk of the free market, workers and employers, as if either could do something without the other, or that one owes something more to the other after accomplishing their purpose, which was voluntarily agreed to, is pure ignorance. Genius.<br /><br />A 'social contract', btw, requires something from all parties as well, and in America it relies upon all parties expecting and seeing that the individual rights of all parties are respected and defended - <i>Equally</i> under the law - and that cannot be done unless each persons right to their property is respected and defended - equally. <br /><br /><i>That</i> means that there can be no right to not pay for the institution charged with defending those rights, govt, which means that everyone must pay their taxes - but the notion that one person owes more than anyone else, is reprehensible; the attempt to force another party to pay more than others is criminal, IMHO, and those of you calling for one party or the other to 'pay their fair share' by which you mean they should be penalized into paying exorbitantly more than another party, is at the very least a violation of the so-called social contract; you and your fellows are attempting to use that contract compel favorable actions from another, against their will, which violates the terms of any contract.<br /><br />A tax info page picked at random <a href="http://jaschilz.com/tax-center/tax-rates" rel="nofollow">shows that</a> those earning between,<br /><br />$16,750 - $68,000 pay $1,675 plus 15% of the amount over $16,750<br />, while those earning between,<br />$209,250 - $373,650 pay $46,833.50 <b>plus 33%</b> of the amount over $209,250<br /> <br /><i>You</i> and your class warfare thugs are the ones in violation of the 'social contract', fairness, and simple human decency.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-40038296571573345152011-09-27T02:00:44.249-05:002011-09-27T02:00:44.249-05:00those 'roads' didn't magically appear ...<i>those 'roads' didn't magically appear by socialist-govt decree, they were contracted for and built by contractors in the Free Market</i><br /><br />Um, who do you think was on the other side of those contracts, genius?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com