# The Very Best Form of Socialism?: The Pro-Slavery Roots of the Modern Left



## bdad (Aug 7, 2013)

The left has been waging a decades-long smear campaign against conservatives, painting them as bigots who have been on the wrong side of history on every issue, including America?s greatest sin ? slavery. Vice President Joe Biden even went as far as to suggest during the 2012 election that a Republican victory would re-enslave African-Americans.



Leftist academics and historians have gone to great lengths to bury and distort the names and legacies of the men who defended the ugliest of American institutions; men whose philosophy on government, rights, and liberty, as it turns out, is uncomfortably close to their own. A modified but nonetheless similar tendency to subjugate continues to run through liberal policies today, replacing slavery with a cradle-to-grave entitlement system that trades liberty for material security, and the plantation master for government itself.
Ann Coulter,Kevin D. Williamson, Sean Trende, and others have pushed back on the idea that the modern Republican Party is primarily built on racism. However, a further examination of what makes the modern parties, and more importantly, the modern philosophies of conservatism and progressivism, is essential. Little attention has been paid to the thinkers who _made_ Democrats the party of slavery in the lead-up to the Civil War, and their influence on modern liberal ideas.
Conservatives and liberals alike may be surprised to find that in reality John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina antebellum statesman and political theorist, and his pro-slavery allies, stand firmly as the intellectual forebears of the political philosophy of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the modern left. Calhoun and the antebellum thinkers behind the positive defense of slavery in the nineteenth century represent the first major criticism of American founding principles ? principles the American conservative movement seeks to preserve ? as well as the intellectual seed for the later Progressive movement and what is considered modern-day liberalism.
The ideas Calhoun and others in his school introduced in the defense of slavery contrast sharply with those of the Founding Fathers and certainly modern free-market economics. Specifically, three of the core ideas Calhoun?s pro-slavery school embraced continue to resonate on the left. 
First, the slavery defenders challenged the Founder?s emphasis on the Lockean social contract, arguing that government ? and natural rights ? grow organically out of community.
Second, the antebellum pro-slavery school repudiated the Founders? view of slavery as a necessary but fading evil, and instead defended the system as a ?positive good,? both for slave holders and for the slaves themselves. The benevolence of the slavery system was juxtaposed against an uncaring capitalism. 
Lastly, slavery?s defenders rejected the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence and argued instead for a society based on a principle of human _inequality_, resting their controversial beliefs on new ?scientific? ideas about both human nature and the organization of government.
Each of these principles is echoed in the policy and philosophy of the modern left.
*Rights From Government, Not God*
The antebellum slavery defense mounted the first real challenge in America to the idea of the Lockean social contract, which was embraced at the Founding (only the Bible and Blackstone were referenced more than the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke in early American political writings). Calhoun and his fellow slavery advocates openly disagreed with Enlightenment social contract theory and instead saw rights as developing organically within society and government. Consequently, liberty for the Calhounites did not exist in a pre-government state of nature, to be protected from government incursion, but rather grew organically out of a communitarian society, including government. Calhoun wrote:As, then, there never was such a state as the, so called, state of nature, and never can be, it follows that men, instead of being born in it, are born in the social and political state; and of course, instead of being born free and equal, are born subject, not only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions of the country where born and under whose protection they draw their first breath.​The Calhounite conception of liberty and rights is necessary to the unhypocritical defense of slavery and ?liberty? together, which sounds so discordant to the modern ear. Rights arise out of the organic government and body of custom of the political unit, and can therefore be defined and limited by society. 
Even the Progressives themselves understood their intellectual debt to antebellum Southern philosophy at the turn of the twentieth century. Charles Merriam, who was among the leading lights of the early Progressive movement in the twentieth century, wrote about Calhoun?s conception of liberty in his _A History of American Political Theories_:Calhoun and his school? maintained that liberty is not the natural right of all men, but only the reward of the races or individuals properly qualified for its possession. On this basis, slavery was defended against the charge that it was inconsistent with human freedom, and in this sense and so applied, the theory was not accepted outside the South. The mistaken application of the idea [through the policy of slavery] had the effect of delaying recognition of the truth in what had been said until the controversy over slavery was at an end.​Further, on the conclusions of the political science of his own day, Merriam wrote that "Liberty, moreover, is not a right equally enjoyed by all... the inseparable condition between political liberty and political capacity is strongly emphasized."
Merriam, like Calhoun, rejected the Lockean ideas of the Founders and substituted a ?positive rights? view of government in which rights are secured essentially as privileges, at least for those deserving of them, through positive law. Rights derive not from God and nature, but from the government, and are inseparable from and subject to it.
The antebellum slavery defenders also diverged from the founders in the conception they held of the institution itself. Although the founders compromised on the issue of slavery, especially in order to ratify the Constitution, a militant defense of the practice as a positive social and economic system was rarely made during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Most agreed that the institution was evil, but made practical arguments about the speed and nature of the abolition process. Even the founders who were the most philosophically divided on the issues of the day were steadfast in their belief that slavery should and would end up in the dustbin of history.
Alexander Hamilton was a member of an abolitionist society in New York and considered a number of plausible methods to end the system of slavery. George Washington released his slaves upon his death and tried to set an example for future emancipation. Thomas Jefferson proposed several measures to abolish slavery in Virginia and understood the institution?s corrosive effect on free society. The founding generation, often divided on issues of the day, agreed that slavery was a curse to be dealt with, not an institution to be lauded.
But by the late 1830?s, as slave populations exploded rather than dwindled and soaring profits accompanied the once-dying institution, a new political theory was crafted to defend it. By 1837, John C. Calhoun?s ?positive good? speech had focused the intellectual class of Southern slavery defenders on the ostensible benefits of slavery _to the slave himself._
*Paternalism and ?A Chicken for Every Slave?*
It is clear through their support of entitlement programs, near-endless welfare benefits, and niggling regulations of every type, that the modern leftist elite sees themselves as a benevolent guiding force, correcting the behavior of the poor or uneducated for their own good. Thomas Friedman of _The New York Times_ even bemoaned the fact that the U.S. government could not be granted Chinese-style dictatorship powers for a single day, implying that such a government could ?authorize the right solutions.?
Compare modern liberal benevolent paternalism and support of the welfare state to the ideas of Henry Hughes, a passionate advocate of a slightly modified version of antebellum slavery that he dubbed ?Warranteeism.? The ideas behind a ?warrantee? system of slavery will sound familiar to students of the New Deal and especially the Great Society. Hughes said in _A Treatise on Sociology, the Theoretical and Practical _in 1854Laborers never want work. If they do; provision for its supply is warranted... Laborers are never out of employment? In the distribution of the warrantee economy, the distributor is the state or function of justice. Wages are warranted? Wages are variable, but these variations are never below the standard of comfortable sufficiency of necessaries. Want is eliminated. There are no poor: all have competence? Capital and labor are syntagonistic? The subsistence of all is warranted to all.​Notice the similarity to FDR?s Second Bill of Rights, recently championed by liberal intellectual Cass Sunstein:The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.​Hughes believed that slavery was a perfect system of social justice and that it would fix the inequalities of economic distribution that were present in free, capitalist societies. Hughes said that the economic and labor system must be highly regulated through the institution of slavery so that, ?injustice in the distribution shall be eliminated.?
William H. Freehling, one of the greatest antebellum America historians, called Hughes a precursor to Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Kenneth Galbraith in that they allied Big Labor and Big Government against Big Capital.
Freehling wrote in _The Road to Disunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant_, ?Just as Hughes wished Southern government to warrant a chicken for every slave, so he wanted northern government to warrant a meal for every free laborer.? 
George Fitzhugh, a Virginia planter and pro-slavery intellectual, went even farther than Hughes in his attack on free society and capitalism. Although Fitzhugh denounced the radicalism of communists and socialists, he agreed that capitalist society was ?diseased.? Fitzhugh defended Southern slavery as the economic model of the future and declared that ?slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism.? In fact, he believed nineteen out of twenty people, both white and black, should be slaves.
?A Southern farm is the beau ideal of communism,? Fitzhugh said. ?There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free laborers? Wealth is more equally distributed than at the North, where a few millionaires own most of the property of the country.?
Fitzhugh said in _Sociology for the South: Or the Failure of a Free Society_: The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged and infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessaries of life provided for them.​Fitzhugh then made the philosophical case for the principle of ?you didn?t build that,? explaining how society, which he likened to a ?hive,? actually had a right to an individual?s labor and property.Wealthy men, who are patterns of virtue in the discharge of their domestic duties, value themselves on never intermeddling in public matters. They forget that property is a mere creature of law and society, and are willing to make no return for that property to the public, which by its laws gave it to them, and which guard and protect them in its possession.​According to Fitzhugh, individuals have, ?no rights whatever, as opposed to the interests of society; and that society may make any use of him that will redound to the public good.?
The idea that society owns your labor, the underpinning of Fitzhugh?s slave system and Hughes? Warranteeism, echoes in the comments of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who said in her 2012 senate run:There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there ? good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. . . . You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea ? God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.​Under the vision of the antebellum slavery defenders, a paternalistic system ? masters caring for and managing the lives of their slaves ? would take the place of true free-market competition. Capitalism would survive only under the highly regulatory and watchful eye of government.
William Sumner Jenkins wrote in _Proslavery Thought in the Old South_, ?The system made the indolent do their share of the work along with the industrious. And it provided a diversion from the unproductive to the productive consumption. Instead of the wealthy spending their profits upon superfluities, they were taxed with the comfortable support of the laboring class.?
In other words, everyone must do their ?fair share? as President Obama would say, and instead of freely spending their own money, the rich should ?spread the wealth? to the laboring classes and ?benignly? manage their lives.
This pattern of thought continues in the mind of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who paternalistically bans items, such as large soft drinks, unhealthy food products, and guns, from those ?unworthy? of liberty. It was this fundamental lack of faith in a whole class of people to govern themselves that led the pro-slavery defenders, like Hughes, to make a rigorous defense of big government intervention and the slavery system, which they believed could protect that class from their own bad decisions and the ?heartlessness? of market competition.
Hughes wrote, ?The economic system in the United States South, is not slavery. IT IS WARRANTEEISM WITH THE ETHNICAL QUALIFICATION. It is just. It is expedient. It is progressive. The consummation of its progress is the perfection of society.?
*Inequality and the ?Soft-Bigotry of Low Expectations?*
Hughes? argument for big-government statism rested on the assertion, not only that blacks were inferior, but that many individuals, including poor whites, were permanently incapable of self-government and were better off enslaved. Government infringement on freedoms and control from above, as NYC Mayor Bloomberg recently agreed, is sometimes necessary on behalf of those who were naturally inferior.
Although the Progressives repudiated the _policy _of slavery, they remained convinced of this final truth that undergirded the pro-slavery school of thought ? the principle of human inequality and the incapability of certain types of people to self-govern. Like the later Progressives, the antebellum slavery defenders supported their position by pointing to the ?new sciences? of the day ? sociology, political science, and a bastardized form of biology. 
With this view of human inequality, the Calhoun school once again understood themselves to be challenging the Founders, who famously included the phrase ?we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal? in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson further wrote, ?The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.? Jefferson did not mean to say that all men are equal in talent or intelligence or success, but rather to highlight man?s basic equality in the sense that no man is _born_ to rule and none born into natural subservience. 
The pro-slavery school ? necessarily, given the institution they sought to defend ? repudiated the notion of created equality, and flatly denied that some were not born to serve others. George Fitzhugh directly challenged Jefferson, saying that some were indeed ?born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them, and the riding does them good.? John C. Calhoun agreed, writing against the Founders? conception of human equality, ?These great and dangerous opinions have their origin in the prevalent opinion that all men are born free and equal; - than which nothing can be more unfounded and false.?
It is important to understand that the defenders of slavery did not see human inequality as a license to abuse their slaves, but rather argued that it was good for the slave to have a master burdened with his basic care. Because they believed some people were born incapable of anything higher than slavery, slavery gave that sort of person security from the vicissitudes of free-market labor competition. In their view, slavery gave a person incapable of liberty material warrantees and placed a burden on the slaveholder to ?warrantee? a basic standard of living for those under his dominion.
This same conception of human inequality cuts through the modern left?s hollow rhetoric on ?equality.? The same ?soft bigotry of low expectations? leads the left to support affirmative action, which assumes that minority students are incapable of reaching the same standards on the merits, but not school choice, a policy which grants disadvantaged students access to educational opportunities that allow them to circumvent our failing public school system. The similarity between Hughes? view of incapable slaves and the modern left?s ?soft bigotry? can easily be seen in the recent ?resetting? of achievement standards for public school students based on race.
The principles Calhoun and his school put to the defense of slavery rested, not on ?Nature and Nature?s God,? but on the new sciences of the day, which they considered ?proof? of the inequality and incapacity of certain types of people for self-government.
Henry Hughes, for example, was a student of Auguste Comte, who is known for founding the discipline of sociology, and most famous for his introduction of the doctrine of positivism. Hughes was one of the first Americans, along with George Fitzhugh, to use the term ?sociology? in his work. Comte believed that future society would be ruled by managerial technocrats, foreshadowing the modern administrative state. Historian Steven Lyman once dubbed the school of Hughes and Fitzhugh the ?Southern Comteans? and said that they were a ?foreshadowing of President Franklin D. Roosevelt?s New Deal policies, an American design for Leninist totalitarianism, or another variant of Marxism for the master class.?
The antebellum slavery defenders used different disciplines in their discussion of government and rights than their predecessors; political philosophy and ?self-evident? truths were replaced by references to sociology and political science, much as they were in Progressive writings at the turn of the 20th century and continue to be on the left today. Rare is the modern liberal university that has departments of ?politics? or ?government? rather than of political science and sociology. ?Science,? rather than transcendent truths and inviolable rights, is accepted on the left today as the correct tool to measure the performance of government.
Obviously, modern liberals are not slave owners, and some of the most odious aspects of the antebellum slavery defenders? philosophy have been rejected across the political spectrum today. However, intellectual heritage remains important. 
These were the underlying principles of President Obama?s campaign during the 2012 election from which conservatives recoiled in horror, particularly the ?Life of Julia? message that depicted an American woman entirely dependent on government and Democratic programs. Through each stage of life the ?benign? hand of government swoops in and protects the citizen from the dangers of the free market and liberty itself, taking upon itself the burden of everything from his self-defense to his choice of environmentally-friendly light bulbs. 
The cradle-to-grave entitlement society of government interference, regulation and control is a departure from the principles of a free society. The left?s vision of ?freedom? is based on different doctrines than those that animated the Founding Fathers, doctrines more beholden to John C. Calhoun?s pro-slavery political science than Thomas Jefferson?s philosophy of liberty.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

at this point in time the republican party is showing itself to be so ridiculous i don't think they will ever win another election. republicans are foaming at the mouth over money and democrats believe humans are more important than how much wealth you can accumulate. slavery is about greed and indifference to human suffering. it is now and it always has been  no matter how pretty you try and paint it. 

"It is important to understand that the defenders of slavery did not see  human inequality as a license to abuse their slaves, but rather argued  that it was good for the slave to have a master burdened with his basic  care."

anyone that believes that shit can suck my cock. you don't sell a man's wife and children because you give a rat's ass about his basic care.


----------



## heckler7 (Aug 7, 2013)

can you sum that up in one word


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

feeding the poor isn't killing this country, catering to the 1% is.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> can you sum that up in one word


  how about two?


whitewashing slavery.


----------



## bdad (Aug 7, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> can you sum that up in one word



I thought it made an interesting comparison about the cradle to grave care, with the government taking the place of the slave owner. It refers to anyone who takes advantage of this care as a slave to the government.


----------



## ali-baba (Aug 7, 2013)

Good read, thanks!


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

bdad said:


> I thought it made an interesting comparison about the cradle to grave care, with the government taking the place of the slave owner. It refers to anyone who takes advantage of this care as a slave to the government.



define entitlement.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

in reality the rich are the entitled cocksucking leaches



Capitalism Creates Poverty: 'Free market' capitalism is just a racket


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

How the Wealthiest American make Money off & Exploit the poor PT 2 - YouTube


----------



## Swiper (Aug 7, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> in reality the rich are the entitled cocksucking leaches
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism Creates Poverty: 'Free market' capitalism is just a racket



there's no such thing as a "free market capitalism" in our country.



"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!
To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political parties. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names ? Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism."
Has Capitalism Failed? - Ron Paul - Mises Daily


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

A Portrait Of The Haunting History of Slavery In America PT 1 - YouTube

i find it kinda funny that some whites hate on blacks and say they are lazy and don't want to work. didn't we haul their asses here because white men were too lazy to do their own labor? didn't they do all the back breaking work demanded of them? slaves even built the white house and the supreme court. funnier still is that if you're a republican today and not a millionaire you're boarding a slave ship yourself without a word of protest.


----------



## bdad (Aug 7, 2013)

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits  based on established rights or by legislation.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

some people say it like it is a dirty word. usually when talking to a senior that simply expects to get back somewhere close to what he paid in to ss.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 7, 2013)

bdad said:


> Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits  based on established rights or by legislation.



So what you are saying is the wealthy have an extreme sense of entitlement.


----------



## bdad (Aug 7, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> So what you are saying is the wealthy have an extreme sense of entitlement.



Yes, how else do explain our president and his family taking lavish vacations at the expense of the taxpayers  with the economy as it is.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

bdad said:


> Yes, how else do explain our president and his family taking lavish vacations at the expense of the taxpayers  with the economy as it is.



The right is freaking out because Obama is staying in a $345 a night  room during his August Martha?s Vineyard summer vacation, but Bush spent  more on one flight to Crawford than Obama?s hotel costs.
The Blaze  titled their story, ?OBAMA PLAN $7.6 MILLION MARTHA?S VINEYARD  VACATION.? Gasp, the president is spending $7.6 million on his summer  vacation. Cue, the outrage. How dare he waste taxpayer money on such  luxury? At least, this is the emotional response that Republicans and  the right wing media are hoping for.
 What Republicans and their  media are conveniently leaving out is that President Obama isn?t  spending $7.6 million on his vacation. The president is staying at a  $7.6 million resort. 


The Washington Examiner reported,  ?Local reports indicate that the first family will likely be staying at  a $7.6 million resort home on southern edge of the island in the town  of Chilmark where homes feature water access to Chilmark Pond, tennis  courts and swimming pools.? This is apparently where Republicans stopped  reading and began foaming at the mouth. Later in the same article the  actual details of the cost of the trip are revealed, ?While the  president typically keeps to himself and carries with him only a handful  of staffers to Martha?s Vineyard, security will be tight. As in the  past, the Wesley Hotel in Oak Bluffs will house security and  communications officials. The owner told the Vineyard Gazette that the  Secret Service has booked 70 rooms and another five have been reserved  for the Transportation Security Agency. Rates at the hotel run from  $225-$345.?
 Let?s do a little quick math on Obama?s ?$7.6 million? summer vacation.
 Nightly room cost: $345 
 Estimated Number of Nights Stayed: 7
 Total Cost of Obama?s Room: $2,415
 Number of Rooms Reserved: 75
 Room Cost For Obama?s $7.6 million Vacation: $181,125
 In  previous years, President Obama has stayed at a private residence in  Martha?s Vineyard, but that option was not available to the president  this time, so he is staying at a resort. $345/night doesn?t seem  particularly extravagant for the President of the United States. They  will need lots of rooms for Secret Service and security, plus  transportation, food, and wages, but the total cost will not be $7.6  million.
Republicans argue that Bush's vacations were cheaper  because many of them were taken at his ranch in Crawford, TX, but this  is not true. President Bush spent more taxpayer money on a single flight to Crawford ($805,000) than Obama will be spending on 70 hotel rooms for a week ($181,125).


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 7, 2013)

bdad said:


> Yes, how else do explain our president and his family taking lavish vacations at the expense of the taxpayers  with the economy as it is.



Obama is a pauper compared to the wealthy I am talking about.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

President George W. Bush spent over 124 million taxpayer dollars on  trips to his ranch in Crawford, TX, and using John Boehner's logic we  demand that the GOP pay us back.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 7, 2013)

And then there was a shift when Republicans backed "rugged individualism", but not for women or Negros.  And then took it a step further by considering corporations as individuals, saying goverment shouldn't meddle in their affairs.  But still they had to keep the military industrial complex securely attached to that Gov. Teat.  They saw how successful that was at keeping those corporations up and running, so they thought long and hard, what keeps the MIC going, and what other corporations can we prop up by passing laws that kill citizens individualism?  Wars, thats what and what else can we wage war on?  Russia and the Cold War isn't going to keep the MIC going, we need something.  Aha!  Drugs, remember how much we hated those damn hippies and how individual they were while still living communally and all those drugs they loved, we can wage war on that and build up a Prison Industrial Complex.  While we're at it those poor Oil and Gas guys aren't making enough money, lets shore up their individualism with subsidies.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 7, 2013)

_eppure si muove_


----------



## troubador (Aug 7, 2013)

maniclion said:


> And then took it a step further by considering corporations as individuals, saying goverment shouldn't meddle in their affairs.  But still they had to keep the military industrial complex securely attached to that Gov. Teat.  They saw how successful that was at keeping those corporations up and running, so they thought long and hard, what keeps the MIC going, and what other corporations can we prop up by passing laws that kill citizens individualism?



Yeah the military industrial complex is a great example of hybridized socialism. After WWII the Labour Party took power in Britain. After seeing how the benefits of state involvement they nationalized a few of the industries. Coal is a good example; they employed more workers but they produced relatively less. The inefficiencies led to shortages of coal and the industry losing profitability. The military industrial complex solves this problem by producing a product that's not consumed by the public. The demand can be whatever you want it to be. The democrats talk a big game about labor but they've done nothing compared to the republicans perfect example of labor called the military industrial complex.


----------



## LAM (Aug 8, 2013)

if you compare the highly functioning economy's in the OECD you will find in place policy that is in direct contrast to conservative policy.  the US large middle class was made via progressive policy in less than a decade post the great depression. labor unions with benefits, healthcare, wages that increased with productivity and/or inflation, pensions, etc.

the best practices observed across the OECD and other country's are far more in line with progressive policy, it's not even debatable as it's known world economic history.


----------



## jay_steel (Aug 8, 2013)

LW acts like the democratic party is the saving grace to this nation it is just turned out to be socialism at its best. Defying the constitution and taking away the free power of the people and making the gov't stronger. Obama is an idiot for this all he is doing is putting more power in the presidents hands and more power to the gov't. What do you think is going to happen when a Republican takes office with some of this additional power they have. You bash push for catering to the "1%" what about all the money Obama gave to green energy comps that went bankrupt and the businesses he supports. Your blind if you support this man he is to busy covering up shit to protect Hillary and what is best for him self. He has not done a single thing to benefit this country. We are still at war and giving even more money to terrorists.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 8, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> Defying the constitution and taking away the free power of the people and making the gov't stronger



how exactly?


----------



## jay_steel (Aug 8, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> how exactly?



                        1)         *Exceeds the Scope of the Commerce Clause*  ? The purpose of Congress?s power to regulate commerce among the states  was to end interstate protectionist measures and establish a national  free trade pact.  The Constitution does not give Congress the power to  create commerce in order to regulate it.


 2)*         Threatens the Notion of Limited Government*  ? The individual mandate would be a grant of limitless legislative and  regulatory power.  This violates the doctrine of enumerated powers in  which Congress is given few and specific legislative powers.


 3)         *Imperils Religious Liberty* ? ObamaCare forces religious institutions to provide services that violate their faith.


 4)         *Rewrites Contract Law* ? The  individual mandate renders the purchase of health insurance to be  compulsory.  For centuries, it has been understood that a contract is  valid only if all parties voluntarily and mutually assent to its terms

5)         *Charges a Financial Penalty to Regulate Behavior*  ? ObamaCare imposes a financial penalty on those that fail to purchase  health insurance.  The Constitution does not grant Congress an  independent power to tax for the general welfare and may not use  taxation as a means to regulate activity, unless that regulation is  authorized by the Constitution.


6)         *Imposes an Unconstitutional Tax* ?  The Obama Administration asserts that the financial penalty is a tax.   However, this ?tax? does not satisfy the three types of taxes ? income,  excise, or direct ? listed as valid in the Constitution.   The penalty  is not assessed on income so it is not a valid income tax.  The penalty  is not assessed uniformly and is triggered by economic inactivity so it  is not a valid excise tax.  Finally, ObamaCare fails to apportion the  tax among the states by population, and therefore is not a valid direct  tax.


7)         *Erodes Federalism* ? ObamaCare?s  expansion of Medicaid is of such an enormous degree that states are  coerced into compliance or risk abandoning the poor.  ObamaCare would  deny all Medicaid funds for noncompliant states.


8)         *Infringes Upon the Reserved Powers of the States and the People*  ? The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not granted to the federal  government to the states and to the people.  Nowhere in the Constitution  is Congress granted the power to compel the purchase of a product as a  condition upon legal residence in the United States.


9)         *Neither Necessary nor Proper* ?  The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the means to execute its  enumerated powers and adds no additional powers to the legislative  branch.  The regulation of inactivity cannot be necessary and proper in  executing the powers of the Commerce Clause. 


10)       *It?s Not Just Unconstitutional* ?  ObamaCare will increase taxes and healthcare costs, destroy new jobs,  add to the national debt, burden both small and large businesses with  new regulations, and violate the founding principles of a republic  expressly founded to secure the blessings of liberty.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 8, 2013)

LAM said:


> if you compare the highly functioning economy's in the OECD you will find in place policy that is in direct contrast to conservative policy.  the US large middle class was made via progressive policy in less than a decade post the great depression. labor unions with benefits, healthcare, wages that increased with productivity and/or inflation, pensions, etc.
> 
> the best practices observed across the OECD and other country's are far more in line with progressive policy, it's not even debatable as it's known world economic history.



labor unions made up a tiny percentage of the work force back then and still do. they had no impact. it was productivity that made the middle class with the advancement of machines helping produce products at a high rate in less time.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 8, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> 1)         *Exceeds the Scope of the Commerce Clause*  ? The purpose of Congress?s power to regulate commerce among the states  was to end interstate protectionist measures and establish a national  free trade pact.  The Constitution does not give Congress the power to  create commerce in order to regulate it.
> 
> 
> 2)*         Threatens the Notion of Limited Government*  ? The individual mandate would be a grant of limitless legislative and  regulatory power.  This violates the doctrine of enumerated powers in  which Congress is given few and specific legislative powers.
> ...



scott garrett? you can't be serious? anything from anyone that doesn't want creationism taught in our schools?


----------



## maniclion (Aug 8, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> LW acts like the democratic party is the saving grace to this nation it is just turned out to be socialism at its best. Defying the constitution and taking away the free power of the people and making the gov't stronger. Obama is an idiot for this all he is doing is putting more power in the presidents hands and more power to the gov't. What do you think is going to happen when a Republican takes office with some of this additional power they have. You bash push for catering to the "1%" what about all the money Obama gave to green energy comps that went bankrupt and the businesses he supports. Your blind if you support this man he is to busy covering up shit to protect Hillary and what is best for him self. He has not done a single thing to benefit this country. We are still at war and giving even more money to terrorists.



Green energy jobs are rising, and will continue to, and the more we install the less money goes to Arab Oil to fund terrorists.  Sure a few companies went under because the Chinese were dumping product at unrealistic prices, and now many more of them are dropping like flies, while many of the American manufacturers are starting to get back up, and it all came down to innovation, building superior high quality products thanks to an infusion of gov. money on the federal and local levels.  We were at risk of losing our green energy to overseas companies, and we all know what not having energy independence does to national security(oil).  

The amount we lost in those investments will be well worth the gamble when all is said and done.   And it is chump change compared to the amount of subsidies we have given the fossil fuel guys who could have thrived very well on their own without them.


----------



## jay_steel (Aug 8, 2013)

maniclion said:


> Green energy jobs are rising, and will continue to, and the more we install the less money goes to Arab Oil to fund terrorists.  Sure a few companies went under because the Chinese were dumping product at unrealistic prices, and now many more of them are dropping like flies, while many of the American manufacturers are starting to get back up, and it all came down to innovation, building superior high quality products thanks to an infusion of gov. money on the federal and local levels.  We were at risk of losing our green energy to overseas companies, and we all know what not having energy independence does to national security(oil).
> 
> The amount we lost in those investments will be well worth the gamble when all is said and done.   And it is chump change compared to the amount of subsidies we have given the fossil fuel guys who could have thrived very well on their own without them.



the issue is he invested money in foreign green jobs not domestic. we have plenty of oil still in the US that could easily sustain us for more then enough time and continue to be independent from the arab countries. The problem is all the political parties are in bed with them and let them walk all over us.


----------



## jay_steel (Aug 8, 2013)

then we have Democrats fighting to attempt to take away gun rights and dictate which guns we can own? Then the healthcare system you really think they are going to approve a 75 year old with a hip replacement and orthopaedic surgery?


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 8, 2013)

have you seen what the oil has done to the gulf coast? the fishing families there? how about someone come dump a million barrels on your farm? then would you understand? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVnm7ZftTkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uieBWL9mOdk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWJ2jDa_DI


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 8, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> then we have Democrats fighting to attempt to take away gun rights and dictate which guns we can own? Then the healthcare system you really think they are going to approve a 75 year old with a hip replacement and orthopaedic surgery?



for the life of me i can't understand how anyone can possibly believe we would be more free or have a less intrusive govt under republican/conservative rule. 

the stupid shit people would be in prison for is endless. you sucked a dick go to jail. you buggered your wife go to jail. you fed the homeless go to jail, you gambled online go to jail, you drank on sunday go to jail...

and you're worried someone might not get a new hip at 79 as opposed to what? starving to death under mitt romney's entitlement hogwash stripping them of their social security? we won't have working poor we will have the working starving to death.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 8, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> the issue is he invested money in foreign green jobs not domestic. we have plenty of oil still in the US that could easily sustain us for more then enough time and continue to be independent from the arab countries. The problem is all the political parties are in bed with them and let them walk all over us.



What green jobs that were foreign did he invest in.  What no one sees is the benefits Buy American has had, the huge push for green energy on military bases and housing, and the 30% tax credit for solar thermal and pv, and wind... Installs double or triple every year as do the jobs.  Our construction companies were dwindling and now many of the roofers, electricians and plumbers are growing their crews every year now that they have gotten into the Solar electric and Hot Water game, roofers are also making a killing applying Cool Roof coatings to homes to decrease the internal temperature and keep cooling bills down.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 8, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> the issue is he invested money in foreign green jobs not domestic. we have plenty of oil still in the US that could easily sustain us for more then enough time and continue to be independent from the arab countries. The problem is all the political parties are in bed with them and let them walk all over us.



Yes, lets just burn through our reserves, so that when we really need it, like maybe for a war or something, it won't be there.  Also keep it for future generations to use in production of things for which we have no alternatives.


----------



## LAM (Aug 8, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> the issue is he invested money in foreign green jobs not domestic. we have plenty of oil still in the US that could easily sustain us for more then enough time and continue to be independent from the arab countries. The problem is all the political parties are in bed with them and let them walk all over us.



it has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with the petrodollar which is the foundation for US economic power.  once OPEC dumps the dollar NOBODY ELSE NEEDS IT except for our heaviest trading partners which would be Mexico, China and Canada.

once the demand for the dollar stops there will be SERIOUS structural adjustments to the US economy.  country's that we don't trade with have no use for our currency, there was a fake demand created for US dollars when the US and OPEC made a deal that they would only use dollars for oil transactions and the US would provide them with military support.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 8, 2013)

LAM said:


> it has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with the petrodollar which is the foundation for US economic power.  once OPEC dumps the dollar NOBODY ELSE NEEDS IT except for our heaviest trading partners which would be Mexico, China and Canada.
> 
> once the demand for the dollar stops there will be SERIOUS structural adjustments to the US economy.  country's that we don't trade with have no use for our currency, there was a fake demand created for US dollars when the US and OPEC made a deal that they would only use dollars for oil transactions and the US would provide them with military support.



yep, once the dollar is rejected America is finished.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 16, 2013)

Swiper said:


> labor unions made up a tiny percentage of the work force back then and still do. they had no impact. it was productivity that made the middle class with the advancement of machines helping produce products at a high rate in less time.



No impact?  How about a 40 hour work week for starters?


----------



## LAM (Aug 16, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> No impact?  How about a 40 hour work week for starters?



according to empirical data collected on EVERY OTHER ECONOMY in the world, known world global wage history and economists, they had a profound impact.

and it's all right here in the ILO Global Wage Report from 2008/2009

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_100786.pdf


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 16, 2013)

"The essence of what labor unions do - give workers a stronger voice so  that they can get a fair share of the economic growth they help  create - is and has always been important to making the economy work for  all Americans. And unions only become more important as the economy  worsens."

i don't see how anyone can disagree with that.


----------



## poppa_cracker (Aug 16, 2013)

I live on the gulf coast and the fishing here is better than ever! I caught several 30lbs snapper this year. And the beaches are beautiful


----------



## poppa_cracker (Aug 16, 2013)

It is very easy to tell the liberal agenda in the schools is definitely working...


----------



## LAM (Aug 16, 2013)

poppa_cracker said:


> It is very easy to tell the liberal agenda in the schools is definitely working...



you mean like actually using world history and empirical data to make real word decisions on policy?

vs using ideology that is not supported by empirical data or world history...gee I wonder who's wrong


----------



## dave 236 (Aug 16, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> "The essence of what labor unions do - give workers a stronger voice so  that they can get a fair share of the economic growth they help  create - is and has always been important to making the economy work for  all Americans. And unions only become more important as the economy  worsens."
> 
> i don't see how anyone can disagree with that.



They also make every single one of those workers less important as an individual. If you've ever been part of a union you cant disagree with that. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 16, 2013)

i have. chambermaids are unionized in vegas. great fucking money. 400 plus a week in the late 70s. i'm very pro union. the only people against them seem to be employers that want to treat workers like shit.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 16, 2013)

people who say unions are responsible for factories being built in other countries don't seem to have been there when this was done largely to avoiding pollution regulations.


----------



## LAM (Aug 16, 2013)

dave 236 said:


> They also make every single one of those workers less important as an individual. If you've ever been part of a union you cant disagree with that.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2



and you think the non-union worker is any less important?  they just don't get the same pay, benefits or worker protections.

labor has been thown to the dogs in the US, NOBODY represnts them when it comes to policy, everything goes to helping capital.

US workers are the LEAST protected in the OECD and the US also has the highest percentage of low paid workers because of that. all clearly stated in the ILO report above which used data collected from dozens of country's over the past 30 years.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 16, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> No impact?  How about a 40 hour work week for starters?



They gave us the weekend, and gave us back our childhoods.  You could have been working in a sweatshop on your 5th birthday instead of going to kindergarten for free(yeah the first American Trade Unions pushed for free public education)...

Workers Comp, Paid vacation, Sick Leave, holidays with pay, and on and on....

These have existed forever though, guilds, masters and apprenticeships, and on and on...

They have set a precedent that will and is taking hold in developing countries that will eventually cause a new swell in domestic manufacturing, and get us closer to a trade balance of exporting as much as we import....


----------



## LAM (Aug 16, 2013)

maniclion said:


> They gave us the weekend, and gave us back our childhoods.  You could have been working in a sweatshop on your 5th birthday instead of going to kindergarten for free(yeah the first American Trade Unions pushed for free public education)...
> 
> Workers Comp, Paid vacation, Sick Leave, holidays with pay, and on and on....
> 
> ...



and guess what the IMF tells developing country's NOT TO DO...model the policy in regards to labor after the US


----------



## Swiper (Aug 17, 2013)

maniclion said:


> They gave us the weekend, and gave us back our childhoods.  You could have been working in a sweatshop on your 5th birthday instead of going to kindergarten for free(yeah the first American Trade Unions pushed for free public education)...
> 
> Workers Comp, Paid vacation, Sick Leave, holidays with pay, and on and on....
> .




what year did the unions do all that stuff? 

how can they have such an impact (like you claim) while only representing only a small fraction of the work force? 

why did all the non unions shops go to 40 hour work week, paid vac, sick days, holidays ect....?


----------



## Swiper (Aug 17, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> No impact?  How about a 40 hour work week for starters?



you can kiss the 40 hour work week goodbye due to Obama (care).  damn, talk about destroying the labor movement.....


----------



## IronAddict (Aug 17, 2013)

These battles between workers and pigs has been ongoing since the Philly carpenters strike in the 1790's, for 10 hour days.
Way back in 1860's, these words were uttered and still ring true today, because they are hoping you forget those that came before you.

"The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is achieved."


----------



## LAM (Aug 17, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you can kiss the 40 hour work week goodbye due to Obama (care).  damn, talk about destroying the labor movement.....



except for the fact that that ended decades ago in the majority of the country for the hourly compensated wage employee and the salaried employee, it's already happened it can't "happen again".


----------



## LAM (Aug 17, 2013)

Swiper said:


> what year did the unions do all that stuff?
> 
> how can they have such an impact (like you claim) while only representing only a small fraction of the work force?
> 
> why did all the non unions shops go to 40 hour work week, paid vac, sick days, holidays ect....?



1938 Fair Labor Standard Act

the private sector doesn't do anything VOLUNTARILY to benefit labor it has to be forced to by law, world economic history clearly shows this time and time again.

a person would have had a better chance of finding bigfoot while riding a unicorn before waiting for the private sector in the US to ever "do the right thing".

the US was founded on exploitation of one group by another and that continues today with finance capital destroying the real economy.


----------



## dave 236 (Aug 17, 2013)

LAM said:


> and you think the non-union worker is any less important?  they just don't get the same pay, benefits or worker protections.
> 
> labor has been thown to the dogs in the US, NOBODY represnts them when it comes to policy, everything goes to helping capital.
> 
> US workers are the LEAST protected in the OECD and the US also has the highest percentage of low paid workers because of that. all clearly stated in the ILO report above which used data collected from dozens of country's over the past 30 years.



I have worked for 2 different unions. I have also personally been told as well as seen others be told to- and im not even kidding a bit- not work so hard or fast as it wouldn't look good on the other shift employees if mgmt knew we could do more than agreed. I did maintenance for one mill and was told to wait 2 hours once to do a 20 minute job because i wasn't a plumber and it would be that long for one to arrive from another area. I needed a plumber to watch me tighten a fitting. Not do it himself mind you but to supervise me doing it. Im not against unions just union tactics in alot of cases. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2


----------



## dave 236 (Aug 17, 2013)

They tend to bring everyone to a level of mediocrity of performance at least in our area of the country.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2


----------



## LAM (Aug 17, 2013)

dave 236 said:


> I have worked for 2 different unions. I have also personally been told as well as seen others be told to- and im not even kidding a bit- not work so hard or fast as it wouldn't look good on the other shift employees if mgmt knew we could do more than agreed.



that happens in the private sector as well, I got run out of two private firms for doing the exact same thing as I made those above me look incompetent as workers stopped going to them for guidance and started coming to me.


----------



## troubador (Aug 17, 2013)

Things like child labor have nothing to do with our need for unions now. There's always going to be some group on the front lines fighting for a cause but at some point they may not be needed. I don't know anyone in an abolitionist group. Without abolitionists have we reverted back to slavery, no.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 17, 2013)

Swiper said:


> why did all the non unions shops go to 40 hour work week, paid vac, sick days, holidays ect....?



Are you seriously that daft?  The non-union shops did that because they had to compete with the union shops for workers.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 17, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you can kiss the 40 hour work week goodbye due to Obama (care).  damn, talk about destroying the labor movement.....



Obamacare has zero to do with it.  It's a convenient excuse to pay people less by lowering their hours.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 17, 2013)

troubador said:


> Things like child labor have nothing to do with our need for unions now. There's always going to be some group on the front lines fighting for a cause but at some point they may not be needed. I don't know anyone in an abolitionist group. Without abolitionists have we reverted back to slavery, no.



We are in economic slavery.


----------



## troubador (Aug 17, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> We are in economic slavery.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 17, 2013)

not too surprised given some of the ideas being tossed around that people are talking about unions as a must have

Daily Kos: Now Republicans want to repeal child labor laws


----------



## Swiper (Aug 18, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Obamacare has zero to do with it.  It's a convenient excuse to pay people less by lowering their hours.



lol yeah ok.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 18, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Are you seriously that daft?  The non-union shops did that because they had to compete with the union shops for workers.




says whom?


----------



## Bowden (Aug 18, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> No impact?  How about a 40 hour work week for starters?



Paid vacations, paid sick leave...


----------



## LAM (Aug 18, 2013)

Swiper said:


> says whom?



says economists, historians and empirical data collected across hundreds of country's in the world it's called using comparative economics.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 18, 2013)

Swiper said:


> says whom?



Yes, you are that daft.


----------



## LAM (Aug 18, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Yes, you are that daft.



everything he knows about the world and economics is from Ron Paul videos on youtube, he doesn't read it's too hard and time consuming.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 18, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Yes, you are that daft.



show me the data.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 19, 2013)

Swiper said:


> show me the data.



Read your history.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 19, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Read your history.



you made the claim now back it.  stop making statements you can't back up with facts.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 19, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> feeding the poor isn't killing this country, catering to the 1% is.



Besides the obvious moral obligation this so clearly articulates, there is overwhelming evidence to support why this is so very correct.  Well said LW.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 19, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you made the claim now back it.  stop making statements you can't back up with facts.



I have yet to see you ever back anything up with an impartial source.  Though I do believe in some conservative ideals, the current conservative party(s) is full of the worst bunch of uncompromising ideologues history has ever seen.  When Newt Gingrich even criticized the party in its current form and leadership, you know things are royally fucked up.  It's to the point now that the representation provided by both parties of their constituents is so poor and off base with what people are actually wanting, its amazing we can even align with anyone and say we support them.  Dark days are ahead for America and don't think Ted Cruz is going to walk in and save us, lol!!!!


----------



## oufinny (Aug 19, 2013)

poppa_cracker said:


> I live on the gulf coast and the fishing here is better than ever! I caught several 30lbs snapper this year. And the beaches are beautiful



As do I.  LW don't play like you are in the oil and gas industry; you're not and have no clue how it works at all.  Just like so many here that think oil and gas magically appears at the gas station or through that natural gas line going to their house.  If you only had the slightest clue how NOT EASY it is to get it out of the ground, transport and refine it, then distribute it you would quit your bitching and thank the many that work an insane amount of hours to make it a reality.  This, almost more than anything, pisses me off to no end.  I don't know shit about the solar industry, you don't hear me telling people how it is do you?  Learn your limits or don't say anything at all, it makes you look ignorant as fuck.  I respect a lot of what you say LW but when it comes to O&G, just sit those posts out.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

Research: Gulf Shrimp Widely Contaminated With Carcinogens

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the FDA's conclusion  that there are no significant risks to Gulf populations from oil  spill?related contaminants in seafood are incorrect, and reckless when  it comes to the health of the most vulnerable populations.
 With reports now surfacing in mainstream media outlets  on the appearance of eyeless shrimp and mutant fish, this latest  finding probably only scratches the surface of a health problem in the  Gulf titanic in proportions.

Voices From the Gulf: ''Do Not Eat Our Food''| Dave Hodges - The Common Sense Show

If any group would have a motive to lie and misrepresent the safety of  the food supply in the Gulf, it would be the very people who make their  living from fishing the waters. *Yet, even these people are stating in no  uncertain terms that there are very serious dangers associated with  ingesting the Gulf's food supply*. For example, Kathy Birren,  owner of (Florida's) Hernando Beach Seafood, told a gathering of  concerned Gulf residents that the shrimp fisherman have every financial  reason to declare the seafood of the Gulf to be safe... Birrren further  proclaimed that ''fishermen do not want to lose our credibility or  deliver contaminated seafood to market and make people sick.'' Chris Bryant,  a Gulf commercial fisherman stated that ''if a commercial fisherman who  makes his living off of those products doesn't want to deliver them to  the public, the public needs to know why.''





or informed. i'm not eating anything that comes from the gulf coast.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

Let's say i owned a little small fishing pond on my farm. My neighbor Bubba Hotep comes and dumps a barrel of oil in it. Are my mutant eyeless fish safe to eat?


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

my wife went out afterwards and dumped a barrel of dawn detergent in there so I guess i can sell them to the public now.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

frack you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXPl8D0LEPI


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

anyone think oil companies honestly report all leaks and spills? yeaaaa right

SkyTruth: Unreported Leak / Discharge from Oil Platform Off Louisiana Coast - May 7, 2011

Why is this interesting? Well, it makes us wonder:  *how many other leaks and spills are simply going unreported in the Gulf?*   If 2 out of 5 Gulf Monitoring Consortium actions discovered unreported  spills, it raises the possibility that this could be a very large  problem.  Maybe the spills weren't reported simply because no personnel  from the responsible company were on site to notice a problem.  But  that's troubling because the vast majority of the 3,600 or so actively  producing oil and gas platforms and other structures in the Gulf aren't  occupied.  What you can't see, you can't report.  Which means that we  really don't have any idea how much pollution is caused by day-to-day  offshore oil and gas operations.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

oufinny said:


> As do I.  LW don't play like you are in the oil and gas industry; you're not and have no clue how it works at all.  Just like so many here that think oil and gas magically appears at the gas station or through that natural gas line going to their house.  If you only had the slightest clue how NOT EASY it is to get it out of the ground, transport and refine it, then distribute it you would quit your bitching and thank the many that work an insane amount of hours to make it a reality.  This, almost more than anything, pisses me off to no end.  I don't know shit about the solar industry, you don't hear me telling people how it is do you?  Learn your limits or don't say anything at all, it makes you look ignorant as fuck.  I respect a lot of what you say LW but when it comes to O&G, just sit those posts out.



i've posted stuff here before about oil refineries so yes i know it's labor intensive. i also know thirst for it is ruining the planet. our gluttony for it is obscene.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

The 7 worst neighborhoods near refineries - Oil is everywhere | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Oil refineries are one of society's great necessary evils. On one  hand, they provide one of the building blocks of modern life, but on the  other hand, they create all kinds of pollution.  
 Oil refineries are smelly, polluted places. Here are seven of the worst neighborhoods located next to refineries.

Low-Income Area Copes with Oil Refineries, Toxic Waste | Climate Central
oil at any cost?


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

let's all take a moment of silence and appreciate the oil industry for all it does to give up this beautiful plastic







what would we ever do without oil? pray we never need to find out.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 19, 2013)

Posting articles and knowing the industry are mutually exclusive.  No industry is perfect, we can find dirt on anyone's profession of choice.  You just are incapable of being wrong at times...


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 19, 2013)

people who are scathingly critical about oil companies often do differentiate between the companies and the workers when they say thing like the oil companies have no conscience. i don't see how anyone can look at fracking and mutated, cancerous shrimp and not think things have gone a bit mad. somewhere along the line more needs to be considered than consume consume consume and all those dollar signs.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 19, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> people who are scathingly critical about oil companies often do differentiate between the companies and the workers when they say thing like the oil companies have no conscience. i don't see how anyone can look at fracking and mutated, cancerous shrimp and not think things have gone a bit mad. somewhere along the line more needs to be considered than consume consume consume and all those dollar signs.



Here is the one thing that is often forgot amongst the criticism: if you stop producing oil, you have no healthcare industy, many building materials for the houses/apartments/condos we live in, nothing plastic AT ALL... the list goes on.  There is no simple fix and renewables can't fill in the gap nor can the power grid handle a nation of electric vehicles.  It's a major catch 22.  And remember, we do make good money but many of us work our ass off to earn it (I'm lucky in that I don't have to as much as many of my employees but they sure EARN their paycheck).


----------



## troubador (Aug 20, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> let's all take a moment of silence and appreciate the oil industry for all it does to give up this beautiful plastic
> what would we ever do without oil? pray we never need to find out.



We already know what life would be like without oil.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 20, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you made the claim now back it.  stop making statements you can't back up with facts.



Like I said, read your history.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

we can live without oil. the fact we are here to begin with proves that. i'd love to go live someplace wild in a yurt... viva las veg.... i mean mongolia.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 20, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Like I said, read your history.



I can't find it.  can you show me where you got your info.?


----------



## Bowden (Aug 20, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> we can live without oil. the fact we are here to begin with proves that. i'd love to go live someplace wild in a yurt... viva las veg.... i mean mongolia.



Think so?
Go live in the woods for a month and try and survive without using any product that is made from oil.


----------



## Bowden (Aug 20, 2013)

Many people have no clue as to how many products they use daily and depend on are oil based.
The number is extensive.

In example did you brush your teeth today with a toothbrush and  toothpaste?
If so you used two oil based products.


----------



## LAM (Aug 20, 2013)

oufinny said:


> Here is the one thing that is often forgot amongst the criticism: if you stop producing oil, you have no healthcare industy, many building materials for the houses/apartments/condos we live in, nothing plastic AT ALL... the list goes on.  There is no simple fix and renewables can't fill in the gap nor can the power grid handle a nation of electric vehicles.  It's a major catch 22.  And remember, we do make good money but many of us work our ass off to earn it (I'm lucky in that I don't have to as much as many of my employees but they sure EARN their paycheck).



and this is one of the greatest problems with how the current global economy is designed, infinite growth of GDP tied to a finite resource and the petro-dollar.  if you ever go to the websites of the World Bank, the FSB and the Club of Rome they all talk about how the global financial system is unsustainable and needs to be changed because of this, it's one big giant house of cards.

this is of course of of the major taboo subjects that US media outlets are forbidden to speak about, anything that has to do with the eventual replacement of the dollar as the world's #1 reserve currency, because it's not a matter of if but of when and with OPEC starting to sell oil in other currency's it's just a matter of time as the US simply can not afford to continue to use the military to protect the petro-dollar for much longer.


----------



## troubador (Aug 20, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Many people have no clue as to how many products they use daily and depend on are oil based.
> The number is extensive.



Try not to think so much about
The truly staggering amount of oil that it takes to make a record
All the shipping, the vinyl, the cellophane lining
The high gloss
The tape and the gear

Try not to become too consumed
With what's a criminal volume of oil that it takes to paint a portrait
The acrylic, the varnish
Aluminum tubes filled with latex
The solvents and dye

Lets just call this what it is
The gentler side of mankind's death wish
When it's my time to go
Gonna leave behind things that won't decompose


----------



## LAM (Aug 20, 2013)

troubador said:


> Try not to think so much about
> The truly staggering amount of oil that it takes to make a record
> All the shipping, the vinyl, the cellophane lining
> The high gloss
> ...



all those stupid fucking plastic clam-shells containers that products come in from retailers, plastic containers for soda, water, etc. , all that shit is derived from oil.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Think so?
> Go live in the woods for a month and try and survive without using any product that is made from oil.



what do you think would be the biggest challenge? cuz i'm not seeing there is one. be a lot easier than going in the woods and living without water.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

make a hut with trees and grass. stuff a cotton sack with milkweed to sleep on. wool blankets. cotton sheets. burn wood for fuel. eat food. hunt with a bow n arrows. make medicines from birch bark and honey. forage for apples, berries, catch fish with bamboo pole and cotton, silk, or linen line. etc etc etc.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Many people have no clue as to how many products they use daily and depend on are oil based.
> The number is extensive.
> 
> In example did you brush your teeth today with a toothbrush and  toothpaste?
> If so you used two oil based products.




bamboo toothbrush with paste made from coconut oil and baking soda.

Set of 10 Plastic-Free Wooden Toothbrushes - Adult | Life Without Plastic Boutique


----------



## Bowden (Aug 20, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> what do you think would be the biggest challenge? cuz i'm not seeing there is one. be a lot easier than going in the woods and living without water.



It's easier said than done.
Think about it.

Review this list, see how much of your stuff is on it that you could do without and get rid of all of it.


Petroleum Based Products: A Long List: Save and Conserve

[h=3]Petroleum Based Products: A Long List[/h]
First list found on Ranken-energy.com:
  ammonia
anesthetics
antifreeze
antihistamines
antiseptics
artificial limbs
artificial turf
aspirin
awnings
balloons
ballpoint pens
bandages
basketballs
bearing grease
bicycle tires
boats
cameras
candles
car battery cases
car enamel
cassettes
caulking
cd player
cd's
clothes
clothesline
cold cream
combs
cortisone
crayons
curtains
dashboards
denture adhesive
dentures
deodorant
detergents
dice
diesel
dishes
dishwasher
dresses
drinking cups
dyes
electric blankets
electrician's tape
enamel
epoxy
eyeglasses
fan belts
faucet washers
fertilizers
fishing boots
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
folding doors
food preservatives
football cleats
football helmets
footballs
footballs
gasoline
glycerin
golf bags
golf balls
guitar strings
hair coloring
hair curlers
hand lotion
heart valves
house paint
ice chests
ice cube trays
ink
insect repellent
insecticides
life jackets
linings
linoleum
lipstick
luggage
model cars
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmet
movie film
nail polish
nylon rope
oil filters
paint
paint brushes
paint rollers
panty hose
parachutes
percolators
perfumes
petroleum jelly
pillows
plastic wood
purses
putty
refrigerant
refrigerators
roller skates
roofing
rubber cement
rubbing alcohol
safety glasses
shag rugs
shampoo
shaving cream
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
skis
slacks
soap
soft contact lenses
solvents
speakers
sports car bodies
sun glasses
surf boards
sweaters
synthetic rubber
telephones
tennis rackets
tents
tires
toilet seats
tool boxes
tool racks
toothbrushes
toothpaste
transparent tape
trash bags
tv cabinets
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
water pipes
wheels
yarn
  Second list found on Gasprices-usa.com:
  air conditioners
ammonia
anti-histamines
antiseptics
artificial turf
asphalt
aspirin
balloons
bandages
boats
bottles
bras
bubble gum
butane
cameras
candles
car batteries
car bodies
carpet
cassette tapes
caulking
cds
chewing gum
combs/brushes
computers
contacts
cortisone
crayons
cream
denture adhesives
deodorant
detergents
dice
dishwashing liquid
dresses
dryers
electric blankets
electrician?s tape
fertilizers
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
footballs
glues
glycerin
golf balls
guitar strings
hair
hair coloring
hair curlers
hearing aids
heart valves
heating oil
house paint
ice chests
ink
insect repellent
insulation
jet fuel
life jackets
linoleum
lip balm
lipstick
loudspeakers
medicines
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmets
movie film
nail polish
oil filters
paddles
paint brushes
paints
parachutes
paraffin
pens
perfumes
petroleum jelly
plastic chairs
plastic cups
plastic forks
plastic wrap
plastics
plywood adhesives
refrigerators
roller-skate wheels
roofing paper
rubber bands
rubber boots
rubber cement
rubbish bags
running shoes
saccharine
seals
shirts (non-cotton)
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
solvents
spectacles
stereos
sweaters
table tennis balls
tape recorders
telephones
tennis rackets
thermos
tights
toilet seats
toners
toothpaste
transparencies
transparent tape
tv cabinets
typewriter/computer ribbons
tires
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
volleyballs
water pipes
water skis
wax
wax paper


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

can't find it in a hurry but my dad told me people used to clean their teeth with frayed twig you fray it by chewing it and ashes from your fire.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

Bowden said:


> It's easier said than done.
> Think about it.
> 
> Review this list, see how much of your stuff is on it that you could do without and get rid of all of it.
> ...



this si a very biased list. how much of this crap did cave men have and yet here we are. looks like they made it.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

Bowden said:


> It's easier said than done.
> Think about it.
> 
> Review this list, see how much of your stuff is on it that you could do without and get rid of all of it.
> ...



that list is crazy. i need oil to have hair?

i deleted all the ones i can survive without. they are a matter of convenience not survival.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

cotton, wool, linen, leather. beeswax, aloe, herbal remedies, birch bark. clay tiles, adobe... 

think outside the box.


----------



## troubador (Aug 20, 2013)

I don't know what you two are arguing about but we know the human species can survive without oil. We also know that all these people talking about how evil oil is don't actually want to give it up.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

if i had the opportunity to go live a simple life in a yurt where i could hunt n fish etc survive like the old days i'd do it. seriously. the idea appeals to me and always has. i spent years wanting to marry this guy when i was a kid The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, spent the best times of my life here 







with no electricity, running water, or oil furnace. you poop in an outhouse...


i daydream about weird shit like moving to mongolia or some tibetan monks place high on a mountain... maybe a yurt in alaska or a tarzan treehouse deep in the heart of some uncharted jungle or life on a deserted island. my favorite dreams i prob wrote about here somewhere... post apocalypse survival ones scouting for water and a safe place to hole up. i started writing a book about a woman researcher than gets dropped into alaska to study the psychological effects of being willingly isolated from all human contact for 3 years.... 


doesn't anyone have a sense of adventure? something wild lurking deep inside them anymore?


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 20, 2013)

i am disappoint at all you girly men and your need for a soft life. 

moving to land of vikings and porn.


----------



## troubador (Aug 20, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> moving to land of vikings and porn.



When does your ship set sail?


----------



## LAM (Aug 20, 2013)

troubador said:


> I don't know what you two are arguing about but we know the human species can survive without oil. We also know that all these people talking about how evil oil is don't actually want to give it up.



it's not that oil is evil it's the fact that the foundation of the global economy resides on oil and the dollar hedge-money.  the fact is having the USD tied to the majority of OPEC crude sails has brought unjust harm to other economy's that have nothing at all to do with the US economy, except for oil transactions, it's why the dollar must and will go eventually.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dol...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> I can't find it.  can you show me where you got your info.?



Read it, learn it.  

How unions help all workers | Economic Policy Institute


----------



## Swiper (Aug 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Read it, learn it.
> 
> How unions help all workers | Economic Policy Institute




 It was a law passed by congress (*Fair Labor Standards Act) *that made the 40 hour work week, not the unions.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> and this is one of the greatest problems with how the current global economy is designed, infinite growth of GDP tied to a finite resource and the petro-dollar.  if you ever go to the websites of the World Bank, the FSB and the Club of Rome they all talk about how the global financial system is unsustainable and needs to be changed because of this, it's one big giant house of cards.
> 
> this is of course of of the major taboo subjects that US media outlets are forbidden to speak about, anything that has to do with the eventual replacement of the dollar as the world's #1 reserve currency, because it's not a matter of if but of when and with OPEC starting to sell oil in other currency's it's just a matter of time as the US simply can not afford to continue to use the military to protect the petro-dollar for much longer.



I have started to do more reading on the subject; admittedly I am a layman in regards to the petrodollar though I do know that was a major reason, if not the only reason, we have had so much military involvement with the middle east.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> what do you think would be the biggest challenge? cuz i'm not seeing there is one. be a lot easier than going in the woods and living without water.





Little Wing said:


> make a hut with trees and grass. stuff a cotton sack with milkweed to sleep on. wool blankets. cotton sheets. burn wood for fuel. eat food. hunt with a bow n arrows. make medicines from birch bark and honey. forage for apples, berries, catch fish with bamboo pole and cotton, silk, or linen line. etc etc etc.





Little Wing said:


> can't find it in a hurry but my dad told me people used to clean their teeth with frayed twig you fray it by chewing it and ashes from your fire.





Little Wing said:


> cotton, wool, linen, leather. beeswax, aloe, herbal remedies, birch bark. clay tiles, adobe...
> 
> think outside the box.



Are you freaking serious?  When you go on these tantrums just to make some completely meaningless point as if you are Henry David Thoreau trying to live on Walden pond in a world with 7 BILLION people, it's just comical.  This abstract thinking isn't impressive nor is is pragmatic, its called delusional.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> It was a law passed by congress (*Fair Labor Standards Act) *that made the 40 hour work week, not the unions.



And what driving force put this law into place?  Are you so daft you can't do a simple back tracking to see the root cause for such laws lies in the battles the unions fought so YOU don't work slave hours with no benefits and paid time off, no to mention so many other benefits we currently enjoy?  This blind disregard for facts is a primary reason Americans are so susceptible to influence from the media, be it progressive or conservative in nature depending on the source.  Open your mind up to the fact you have been brainwashed to believe what others think is best for you when in reality that is so far from the truth.


----------



## LAM (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> And what driving force put this law into place?  Are you so daft you can't do a simple back tracking to see the root cause for such laws lies in the battles the unions fought so YOU don't work slave hours with no benefits and paid time off, no to mention so many other benefits we currently enjoy?  This blind disregard for facts is a primary reason Americans are so susceptible to influence from the media, be it progressive or conservative in nature depending on the source.  Open your mind up to the fact you have been brainwashed to believe what others think is best for you when in reality that is so far from the truth.



yes he is...he's been brainwashed into thinking that "government" can do only bad and that the "free market" solves all problems despite history, that which he learned from watching ron paul videos from youtube.  he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> Are you freaking serious?  When you go on these tantrums just to make some completely meaningless point as if you are Henry David Thoreau trying to live on Walden pond in a world with 7 BILLION people, it's just comical.  This abstract thinking isn't impressive nor is is pragmatic, its called delusional.



in Maine we call it camping. are you not at all aware of the trend toward homesteading and living naturally? no it won't be for everyone but some people will go all the way and it would not kill the rest to make changes. we don't need to chug oil like we do. continuing to do so is what's fucking delusional.

and yes i'm serious. some women want a mansion in beverly hill some have different ideas of what would be heavenly. how about you go fuck yourself with your ragging on me? k.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> Are you freaking serious?  When you go on these tantrums just to make some completely meaningless point as if you are Henry David Thoreau trying to live on Walden pond in a world with 7 BILLION people, it's just comical.  This abstract thinking isn't impressive nor is is pragmatic, its called delusional.



have to wonder at the personality ... or maybe a man's success rate with women? current state of marital discord? when he takes playful tongue in cheek shit as a "tantrum". if you're married your wife must be a real charmer.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> what do you think would be the biggest challenge? cuz i'm not seeing there is one. be a lot easier than going in the woods and living without water.





Little Wing said:


> make a hut with trees and grass. stuff a cotton sack with milkweed to sleep on. wool blankets. cotton sheets. burn wood for fuel. eat food. hunt with a bow n arrows. make medicines from birch bark and honey. forage for apples, berries, catch fish with bamboo pole and cotton, silk, or linen line. etc etc etc.





Little Wing said:


> can't find it in a hurry but my dad told me people used to clean their teeth with frayed twig you fray it by chewing it and ashes from your fire.





Little Wing said:


> in Maine we call it camping. are you not at all aware of the trend toward homesteading and living naturally? no it won't be for everyone but some people will go all the way and it would not kill the rest to make changes. we don't need to chug oil like we do. continuing to do so is what's fucking delusional.
> 
> and yes i'm serious. some women want a mansion in beverly hill some have different ideas of what would be heavenly. how about you go fuck yourself with your ragging on me? k.



Thanks, I'll comment as I please.  I got better things to do than rage on you and if you think criticism equates to rage, I'm the least of your worries.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> have to wonder at the personality ... or maybe a man's success rate with women? current state of marital discord? when he takes playful tongue in cheek shit as a "tantrum". if you're married your wife must be a real charmer.



Yes, the PICU attending doctor I am in a relationship with, who cares for children is actually a very good person and she would say the same things I do; actually she would rip into another woman a lot harder than I ever would that was being so unreasonable.  Good try though LW .


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> Thanks, I'll comment as I please.  I got better things to do than rage on you and if you think criticism equates to rage, I'm the least of your worries.



your inability to consider that a challenge like that might actually be invigorating has me worried. no sense of adventure at all? getting back to nature never stirred the slightest interest in you? 

and ragging = nagging not rage.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> your inability to consider that a challenge like that might actually be invigorating has me worried. no sense of adventure at all? getting back to nature never stirred the slightest interest in you?
> 
> and ragging = nagging not rage.



My interests are many, halting progress and going back in time 150 years is not one of them.  De-evolving is not a solution to energy consumption, that is backward thinking at its finest.  This is the last I will say on the matter, it's getting to be a pointless argument.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> Yes, the PICU attending doctor I am in a relationship with, who cares for children is actually a very good person and she would say the same things I do; actually she would rip into another woman a lot harder than I ever would that was being so unreasonable.  Good try though LW .



well where did you get tantrum out of a girl daydreaming about living off the land? seems an awful lot like there was a  big hair someplace uncomfortable.


----------



## LAM (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> My interests are many, halting progress and going back in time 150 years is not one of them.  De-evolving is not a solution to energy consumption, that is backward thinking at its finest.



and that is the current conundrum we are in, simply consuming is not enough to keep the US economy healthly, it relies on over-consumption which is unsustainable with so many making so little.  the debt based consumption thing from 1980-2008, well we see how that ended up.  and with minimal consumption we have high unemployment and sluggish real GDP growth and that's with out the personal savings rate even really increasing.

Personal Saving Rate (PSAVERT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

poisoning all our food, air, water, and land is a funny definition of progress. sometimes you _do_ have to go back to move forward. 

btw, you'd have to go back a lot further than just 150 years if we are talking eliminating ALL crude oil use. the seneca indians harvested it here in the 1400s.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

and speculating makes that end price so nice for the average bottom rung on the food chain family trying to heat their home... whatever we come up with next will probably have the potential to be just as corrupted by greed but maybe it won't be as dirty in other ways.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> And what driving force put this law into place?  Are you so daft you can't do a simple back tracking to see the root cause for such laws lies in the battles the unions fought so YOU don't work slave hours with no benefits and paid time off, no to mention so many other benefits we currently enjoy?  This blind disregard for facts is a primary reason Americans are so susceptible to influence from the media, be it progressive or conservative in nature depending on the source.  Open your mind up to the fact you have been brainwashed to believe what others think is best for you when in reality that is so far from the truth.



you give unions way too much credit , but that's expected from people like yourself, lam included.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> yes he is...he's been brainwashed into thinking that "government" can do only bad and that the "free market" solves all problems despite history, that which he learned from watching ron paul videos from youtube.  he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.



there you go again talking about a free market as if you know what one is.


----------



## troubador (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> My interests are many, halting progress and going back in time 150 years is not one of them.  De-evolving is not a solution to energy consumption, that is backward thinking at its finest.



Yep since the rise of the petroleum industry life expectancy has doubled. Less people are dying from hunger or cold. More people have access to clean water and food. Think of the huge medical advances that wouldn't exist without petroleum. I can't stand these idealists who think they're progressive making convenient criticisms where they'll never have to suffer the consequences of the world they wish to create.


----------



## LAM (Aug 21, 2013)

troubador said:


> Yep since the rise of the petroleum industry life expectancy has doubled. Less people are dying from hunger or cold. More people have access to clean water and food. Think of the huge medical advances that wouldn't exist without petroleum. I can't stand these idealists who think they're progressive making convenient criticisms where they'll never have to suffer the consequences of the world they wish to create.



the increase in life expectancy has nothing to do with oil consumption and everything to do with the decrease in infant mortality


----------



## troubador (Aug 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> the increase in life expectancy has nothing to do with oil consumption and everything to do with the decrease in infant mortality



Oh that's right because of the water treatment facilities, hospitals,  and infrastructure that is in no way supported by oil.  










Yep, no correlation there.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

obviously they didn't factor abortion into those charts.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 21, 2013)

The Union Myth
Thomas J. DiLorenzo

In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote that labor unions have always been the primary source of anticapitalistic propaganda. I was reminded of this recently when I saw a bumper sticker proclaiming one of the bedrock tenets of unionism:  "The Union Movement:  The People Who Brought You the Weekend."

Well, not exactly. In the US, the average work week was 61 hours in 1870, compared to 34 hours today, and this near doubling of leisure time for American workers was caused by capitalism, not unionism.

As Mises explained, "In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners? standard of living tend to rise continually."

Of course, this is only true of a capitalist economy where private property, free markets, and entrepreneurship prevail. The steady rise in living standards in (predominantly) capitalist countries is due to the benefits of private capital investment, entrepreneurship,technological advance, and a better educated workforce (no thanks to the government school monopoly, which has only served to dumb down the population). Labor unions routinely take credit for all of this while pursuing policies which impede the very institutions of capitalism that are the cause of their own prosperity.

The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market. 

Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid?thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements?more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.

Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.

In the Third World today, the alternative to "child labor" is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation. Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.

Unions also boast of having championed safety regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over the past three decades. The American workplace has indeed become safer over the past century, but this was also due to the forces of competitive capitalism, not union-backed regulation. 

An unsafe or dangerous workplace is costly to employers because they must pay a compensating difference (higher wage) to attract workers. Employers therefore have a powerful financial interest in improving workplace safety, especially in manufacturing industries where wages often comprise the majority of total costs. In addition, employers must bear the costs of lost work, retraining new employees, and government-imposed workman?s compensation whenever there is an accident on the job. Not to mention the threat of lawsuits. 

Investments in technology, from air-conditioned farm tractors to the robots used in automobile factories, have also made the American workplace safer. But unions have often opposed such technology with the Luddite argument that it "destroys jobs." 

Mises was right that unions have always been a primary source of anti-capitalistic propaganda. But since he wrote Human Action, American unions have also been at the forefront of lobbying efforts on behalf of the regulation and taxation of business?of capital?that has severely hampered the market economy, making everyone, including unionists, worse off economically. The regulation of business by the EPA, OSHA, FTC, DOE, and hundreds of other federal, state, and local government bureaucracies constitutes an effective tax on capital investment that makes such investment less profitable. Less capital investment causes a decline in the growth of labor productivity, which in turn slows down the growth of wages and living standards. 

In addition, slower productivity leads to a slower growth of output in the economy, which causes prices to be higher than they otherwise would be; and fewer new products are invented and marketed. All of these things are harmful to the economic well-being of the very people labor unions claim to "represent."  (Incredibly, there are some economists who argue that unions are good for productivity. But if that were true, corporations would be recruiting them instead of spending millions trying to avoid unionization.)

Mises also pointed out that as business becomes more heavily regulated, business decisions are based more and more on compliance with governmental edicts than on profit-making. American labor unions continue to call for more regulation of business because, in order for them to survive, they must convince workers?and society?that "the company is the enemy." That?s why, as Mises noted, union propaganda has always been anticapitalistic. Workers supposedly need to be protected from "the enemy" by labor unions. 

However, the substitution of bureaucratic compliance for profit-making decisions reduces profitability, usually with little or no benefit to anyone from the regulations being complied with. The end result is once again a reduction in the profitability of investment, and subsequently less investment takes place. Wages are stunted, thanks to self-defeating unionist propaganda. The well-paid union officials may keep their jobs and their perks by perpetuating such propaganda, but they are harming the very people who pay the dues which are used to pay their own salaries.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=511


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you give unions way too much credit , but that's expected from people like yourself, lam included.



Don't pretend to know me or anyone here, that's a bit of a god complex you should look into getting checked out.  Second, what is it you actually do Swiper?  Are you educated, were you trained on the job, serve in the military, or just your everyday grumpy blue collar blind conservative thinking he deserves more for less?  Honestly, it would be nice to get some perspective on your cynicism and complete lack of trust for the facts.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 21, 2013)

troubador said:


> Oh that's right because of the water treatment facilities, hospitals,  and infrastructure that is in no way supported by oil.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd venture to say you're both correct, its just a matter of perspective.  Surely a lower infant death rate will drive up the average life span AS will better healthcare and a healthier lifestyle in general (smoking not being seen as a good thing anymore, people using sunscreen, even as simple as better dental care).  I did learn a very overwhelming fact during my economics studies and that was you can correlate near anything either to show a strong relationship or to show none at all; while things you would think are very correlated are in fact not at all.  "Facts" can be made to suit the argument easily so my point is, things aren't always so cut and dry.


----------



## Little Wing (Aug 21, 2013)

just for something fun to read

How Ancients Used Oil


----------



## Swiper (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> Don't pretend to know me or anyone here, that's a bit of a god complex you should look into getting checked out.  Second, what is it you actually do Swiper?  Are you educated, were you trained on the job, serve in the military, or just your everyday grumpy blue collar blind conservative thinking he deserves more for less?  Honestly, it would be nice to get some perspective on your cynicism and complete lack of trust for the facts.



why no comment on the union myth post i made?


----------



## Swiper (Aug 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Read it, learn it.
> 
> How unions help all workers | Economic Policy Institute



"The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market."


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> "The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market."



Apparently you didn't read all of it.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> It was a law passed by congress (*Fair Labor Standards Act) *that made the 40 hour work week, not the unions.



A law under pressure from the unions.


----------



## troubador (Aug 21, 2013)

oufinny said:


> I'd venture to say you're both correct, its just a matter of perspective.  Surely a lower infant death rate will drive up the average life span AS will better healthcare and a healthier lifestyle in general (smoking not being seen as a good thing anymore, people using sunscreen, even as simple as better dental care).  I did learn a very overwhelming fact during my economics studies and that was you can correlate near anything either to show a strong relationship or to show none at all; while things you would think are very correlated are in fact not at all.  "Facts" can be made to suit the argument easily so my point is, things aren't always so cut and dry.



I think most people are aware correlation does not equal causation. It's really simple. The main factors in lowering infant mortality are access to clean drinking water, medical infrastructure, sanitation and immunization. That cannot exist on the large scale that it does in the U.S. without oil. Think about how much plastic is used in hospitals. The machinery used to build the hospitals runs on oil. They got there on roads made with pitch. You can't keep the infant mortality rate so low in the U.S. without using any oil and that should be obvious.


----------



## LAM (Aug 21, 2013)

troubador said:


> I think most people are aware correlation does not equal causation. It's really simple. The main factors in lowering infant mortality are access to clean drinking water, medical infrastructure, sanitation and immunization. That cannot exist on the large scale that it does in the U.S. without oil. Think about how much plastic is used in hospitals. The machinery used to build the hospitals runs on oil. They got there on roads made with pitch. You can't keep the infant mortality rate so low in the U.S. without using any oil and that should be obvious.



the US has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the OECD ranked 27 out of 31.

and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between oil use per capita and infant mortality

Oil consumption per capita by country - Thematic Map - World

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html


----------



## maniclion (Aug 21, 2013)

Bowden said:


> It's easier said than done.
> Think about it.
> 
> Review this list, see how much of your stuff is on it that you could do without and get rid of all of it.
> ...



Henry Ford wanted to make his cars shell out of plastic.....thats right plastic, but guess what kind?  He was working with a black dude on this...


It was plastics made from soy beans, it was un-dentable.   Imagine that plus running them with diesel engines using peanut oil.  We would have never gotten into these predicaments....


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

maniclion said:


> Henry Ford wanted to make his cars shell out of plastic.....thats right plastic, but guess what kind?  He was working with a black dude on this...
> 
> 
> It was plastics made from soy beans, it was un-dentable.   Imagine that plus running them with diesel engines using peanut oil.  We would have never gotten into these predicaments....



he was working with George Washington Carver, the peanut guy.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> why no comment on the union myth post i made?



Because it's bullshit and you don't see facts for what they are.  Why didn't you answer my question?  Like I said, it would give some perspective on your cynicism.  I'm not the one avoiding questions big guy, that's you.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 22, 2013)

oufinny said:


> Because it's bullshit and you don't see facts for what they are.  Why didn't you answer my question?  Like I said, it would give some perspective on your cynicism.  I'm not the one avoiding questions big guy, that's you.




You probably didn't even read it and i suspect you can't even rebut its points.

And what facts am i not acknowledging?  

 I consider myself a libertarian. That's my perspective.


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> I consider myself a libertarian. That's my perspective.



and what are the major differences between libertarianism and laze fair capitalism?  

the end result is the same, an oligarchy is formed and democracy ceases to exists.  it's why no nation on the planet dare even adopt such an ideology.


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> poisoning all our food, air, water, and land is a funny definition of progress. sometimes you _do_ have to go back to move forward.
> 
> btw, you'd have to go back a lot further than just 150 years if we are talking eliminating ALL crude oil use. the seneca indians harvested it here in the 1400s.



hey I totally agree with you but people don't understand how the population is a huge factor, it's why crops have to be genetically modified to increase yields, why chicken and cattle are injected with growth hormones, etc.  there are just too many people on the planet to feed the old fashioned way.


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> poisoning all our food, air, water, and land is a funny definition of progress. sometimes you _do_ have to go back to move forward.
> 
> btw, you'd have to go back a lot further than just 150 years if we are talking eliminating ALL crude oil use. the seneca indians harvested it here in the 1400s.



speaking of water the US has depleted almost 50% of the Ogallala Aquifer in the past 150 years buy growing crops and buy building in places where people aren't supposed to be.  it's exactly this kind of hubris that is going to undue mankind in the long run because we act like children.


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

Little Wing said:


> poisoning all our food, air, water, and land is a funny definition of progress. sometimes you _do_ have to go back to move forward.
> 
> btw, you'd have to go back a lot further than just 150 years if we are talking eliminating ALL crude oil use. the seneca indians harvested it here in the 1400s.



speaking of water the US has depleted almost 50% of the Ogallala Aquifer in the past 150 years buy growing crops and from building in places where people aren't supposed to be.  it's exactly this kind of hubris that is going to undue mankind in the long run because we act like children.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> and what are the major differences between libertarianism and laze fair capitalism?
> 
> the end result is the same, an oligarchy is formed and democracy ceases to exists.  it's why no nation on the planet dare even adopt such an ideology.



exactly, because the power goes to the people instead of the state.  of course no county tried it. why would they want to give up power?  they like controlling the peoples lives. 

libertarianism is a ideology.  laze fair capitalism is an economic ideology.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 22, 2013)

What makes you think you understand laissez-faire when you can't even be bothered to learn how to spell it?


----------



## Swiper (Aug 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> What makes you think you understand laissez-faire when you can't even be bothered to learn how to spell it?




oh look it's the spelling police.  lol

you talking to me or lam?


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> oh look it's the spelling police.  lol
> 
> you talking to me or lam?



Spelling errors happen.  When you consistently misspell the thing you claim to believe in it leaves a lot of questions about whether or not you truly believe in it or even know what it really is.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Spelling errors happen.  When you consistently misspell the thing you claim to believe in it leaves a lot of questions about whether or not you truly believe in it or even know what it really is.



tell that to lam whom you say knows nothing about it.  

when have I misspelled it?   you're wrong once again. prove it where I misspelled it wrong in the past?  you're such a dope


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> tell that to lam whom you say knows nothing about it.
> 
> when have I misspelled it?   you're wrong once again. prove it where I misspelled it wrong in the past?  you're such a dope



A better question would be when HAVEN'T you misspelled it?

Also, the search won't go back more than 200 of your posts.


----------



## Swiper (Aug 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> A better question would be when HAVEN'T you misspelled it?
> 
> Also, the search won't go back more than 200 of your posts.




lol you crack me up.

you've failed once again.  how does it feel being a complete failure in life?


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> exactly, because the power goes to the people instead of the state.  of course no county tried it. why would they want to give up power?  they like controlling the peoples lives.



ever been to any country Scandinavia? I know the answer to that and it's no because you don't leave the US.  you talk about country's you've never set foot in and know nothing about.  

get back to us when you watch another youtube video on that


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> lol you crack me up.
> 
> you've failed once again.  how does it feel being a complete failure in life?



Failed once again?  The egg is on my face in regards to your poor spelling.  How does that equate to being a complete failure in life?


----------



## Swiper (Aug 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> ever been to any country Scandinavia? I know the answer to that and it's no because you don't leave the US.  you talk about country's you've never set foot in and know nothing about.
> 
> get back to us when you watch another youtube video on that



so you first say there's no countries that have laza fare capitalism. then you're  like oh shit, I need to google that to make sure my post was right.  then you read something that says Scandinavia has a form of capitalism and you think it's laza fare.  lol. what would you do without google?  

 the USA scores higher on the economic freedom index.  

and when did I ever talk about Scandinavia?  you're like your butt buddy zaphod or what ever his name is.


----------



## Zaphod (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> so you first say there's no countries that have laza fare capitalism. then you're  like oh shit, I need to google that to make sure my post was right.  then you read something that says Scandinavia has a form of capitalism and you think it's laza fare.  lol. what would you do without google?
> 
> the USA scores higher on the economic freedom index.
> 
> and when did I ever talk about Scandinavia?  you're like your butt buddy zaphod or what ever his name is.



Do you even know what laissez-faire is?


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> so you first say there's no countries that have laza fare capitalism. then you're  like oh shit, I need to google that to make sure my post was right.  then you read something that says Scandinavia has a form of capitalism and you think it's laza fare.  lol. what would you do without google?
> 
> the USA scores higher on the economic freedom index.
> 
> and when did I ever talk about Scandinavia?  you're like your butt buddy zaphod or what ever his name is.



because your always babbling about how "government" is bad when there are plenty of perfectly functioning governments all over the world.  they just haven't been bought out by the private sector like the one in the US that is for sale to the highest bidders.

and according to Heritage (I'm using a non-liberal source for your liking) the US doesn't score that high.

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

and the US scores at the bottom of the OECD on the of the social justice scale as is seen in page 8 ranking 27 of 31 countrys.

http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

and more info from the OECD on social mobility in the US, once again not scoring very high at all.

http://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/49849281.pdf


----------



## DOMS (Aug 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> and more info from the OECD on social mobility in the US, once again not scoring very high at all.
> 
> http://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/49849281.pdf



Of all the countries in that list, the United States has the highest amount of non-whites. The bottom percentiles of any category -- illiteracy, wages, infant morality, criminal activity, education, domestic violence, savings, life expectancy, and on and on -- is littered with non-whites. But that's not a fun fact, right?


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Of all the countries in that list, the United States has the highest amount of non-whites. The bottom percentiles of any category -- illiteracy, wages, infant morality, criminal activity, education, domestic violence, savings, life expectancy, and on and on -- is littered with non-whites. But that's not a fun fact, right?



and here comes DOMS with his white power bullshit...

who controls immigration in the US? whites

who didn't integrate blacks into the US economy until the 60's? whites

who designed and passed the 1986 Immigration and Control Act?  whites

who controls the US?  whites

the policy of the most functioning country's in the OECD are the EXACT opposite of the US, now why is that?


----------



## DOMS (Aug 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> and here comes DOMS with his white power bullshit...
> 
> who controls immigration in the US? whites
> 
> ...



Who made the mistake of using black slaves? Whites.

Who made the mistake of not locking down the borders and expelling the illegals? Whites?

Who's paying for it now? Everyone in the USA.

Bullshit? Post some facts showing that I'm wrong. Show me the facts that if you only look at whites in this country that they aren't on par with other, prominently white, countries? Or you can play your usual game by throwing out excuses or ignoring reality.

You love to bitch and whine about how low the USA ranks to First World countries, but you get all ass-hurt when the root of the problem is brought to light.


----------



## LAM (Aug 22, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Who made the mistake of using black slaves? Whites.
> 
> Who made the mistake of not locking down the borders and expelling the illegals? Whites?
> 
> ...



problems create jobs dumb-ass....

where would all of the cops and people that work in the US for profit prison industry work if there were not high street and drug crime?  

retail, fast food, get a fucking clue you have no idea how economics works at any level yet insist you do...it's pretty freaking funny just how little you understand about all of it.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 23, 2013)

LAM said:


> problems create jobs dumb-ass....
> 
> where would all of the cops and people that work in the US for profit prison industry work if there were not high street and drug crime?
> 
> retail, fast food, get a fucking clue you have no idea how economics works at any level yet insist you do...it's pretty freaking funny just how little you understand about all of it.



_*That's*_ your argument on the pro-side of most minorities being inferior and blight on the Western World? Because...they create...jobs for the police...?

...

Bwahahaahahahahaha! 

It's like I'm playing chess and my opponent just swallowed his king piece.

Thanks, man. A sustained laugh is a great way to start the day.


----------

