Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact of the matter is, voluntary participation is central to capitalism.

A hungry man is not a free man.

Sigh... one of those quotable quotes by a Democratic politician who said it in the course of a presidential campaign speech to a bunch of farmers in the context of WWII. I know it sounds interesting, but ultimately it is irrational and wrong, which is par for the course for a Democratic politician.

You were a little bit persuasive until that last dig.

How ironic. Given that most people start out with leftist/liberal/Democratic views in their youth, and are persuaded by the weight of reality to conservative/Republican values as they mature, those who remain Democrats into their adulthood are by definition those who find reality unpersuasive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact of the matter is, voluntary participation is central to capitalism.

A hungry man is not a free man.

Sigh... one of those quotable quotes by a Democratic politician who said it in the course of a presidential campaign speech to a bunch of farmers in the context of WWII. I know it sounds interesting, but ultimately it is irrational and wrong, which is par for the course for a Democratic politician.

You were a little bit persuasive until that last dig.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact of the matter is, voluntary participation is central to capitalism.

A hungry man is not a free man.

Sigh... one of those quotable quotes by a Democratic politician who said it in the course of a presidential campaign speech to a bunch of farmers in the context of WWII. I know it sounds interesting, but ultimately it is irrational and wrong, which is par for the course for a Democratic politician.

Anonymous wrote:The fact of the matter is, voluntary participation is central to capitalism.

A hungry man is not a free man.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds fair. When did we last have unrestrained capitalism? Close to a hundred years ago.

I'm not sure if we ever had unrestrained capitalism. So long as have been civilized societies of men, there have been laws and regulations in place. At least some of these laws have been to regulate trade and therefore restrain capitalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitalism doesn’t care about civility, the National character, or tradition. All that matters is competition and winning at the lowest cost possible. Life is cheap when capitalism is unconstrained. If it doesn’t make money, it’s not important. Civility is a cost to capitalism therefore it doesn’t matter.

Unconstrained capitalism can result in humans becoming slaves or chattel, but under capitalism most life is considered valuable because it is "living capital" that can be utilized to further profits. Except for Funeral Homes and Democratic party voting rolls, dead people do not produce so keeping people alive is useful. Communism, on the other hand, is the system which considers life cheap and expendable, an inconvenient expense and burden to the system because each person must be supported by the system rather than individuals supporting themselves.

Our current government decides how much of the surplus of capitalism can be realistically appropriated to support those who cannot support themselves, and to distribute cost among the population such as for highways and health care. But there are elements of the Democratic party (AOC for instance) who do not want to consider that by taking away all of the profits of capitalism to lavish entitlements (for votes) upon those who refuse to support themselves because they are special and oppressed, that this will "kill the golden goose".

There is a balance, somewhere, between unrestrained capitalism and unrestrained government. So far, the U.S.A. has found a reasonable balance between the two. Trump is in the process of restoring that balance. Trump has my vote in 2020 and maybe, if we are lucky, 2024 for a 3rd term.

I don't understand why stupid and ignorant people like you insist on talking at length about a topic you have no fundamental knowledge of. Voluntary exchange is one of the central characteristics of capitalism. There is nothing voluntary about slavery. Anyone who associates unrestrained capitalism with slavery is simply misinformed and should refrain from talking about capitalism.

Although I am all for capitalism, it is unrestrained capitalism that the pp was talking about. UNRESTRAINED capitalism. Here is a result of unrestrained capitalism:

Company scrip was a credit against the accrued wages of employees. In United States mining or logging camps where everything was owned and operated by a single company, scrip provided the workers with credit when their wages had been depleted. These remote locations were cash poor. Workers had very little choice but to purchase food and other goods at a company store. In this way, the company could charge enormous markups on goods in a company store, making workers completely dependent on the company, thus enforcing their "loyalty" to the company

These people were, in all respects, slaves to a company. Sure, they could legally leave but had no means to do so because the company slave holder ensured it stayed that way.

Again, I implore the ignorant to not try and act smart about a topic they do not understand. The PP talked typed "humans becoming slaves or chattel" under unrestrained capitalism. This is literal slavery and owning/selling humans as property, and not the de-facto slavery you are trying to illustrate. The fact of the matter is, voluntary participation is central to capitalism. If you are describing a system where the participation is not voluntary, that's fine, but don't call it capitalism. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant and not trying to mislead people on purpose. But you've now been shown facts and logic, if you further perpetuate the claim that unrestrained capitalism leads to literal slavery and people as chattel, then you are simply being dishonest, which is far worse a character flaw than ignorance.

As for your de-facto slavery argument, we all acknowledge that there are competing wants and needs between counterparties in a capitalistic environment. There will be circumstances both natural and artificial that may give one side more power in the bargain than the other side. This is fundamentally different from literal slavery, however, and to equate the two is an insult to people who suffered through slavery. It did not take a violent revolution for workers to unionize, engage in collective bargaining, or to lobby the government to enact laws to combat abusive behavior. The workers were able to improve their condition and their position in the bargain with the employers precisely because their employment was a free a voluntary exchange. Just because you don't like the situation you are in and do not yet have a better alternative doesn't mean you are not free.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You democrats voted in a community agitator as president and now you want civility? Not quite.

What was he agitating for?

Martin Luther King was also a community agitator. And Rosa Parks. And Jane Addams. As is Malala Yousafzai.

And John Lewis. “Good trouble” - look it up.

Um, pretty sure the powers that be thought Jesus was a community "agitator" in his day. While I thought Jesus' compassion and concern for the poor and those in harm's way was universal when I was a child, I've come to understand that some root for Jesus to hate the poor, disabled, and disenfranchised and hope he smites them down even when they may be in their most vulnerable hour.

The lack of critical thinking and analysis of context by some PPs never ceases to amaze. Never imagined the mere image of a black president in a tan suit could trigger so many to claim incivility....

The first time I read the Gospels as an adult, I was a little startled by what a rabble rouser Jesus was. It never really came across that way in the church I went to.

PP, how did he come across in your church? I'm the PP of this poster and grew up in late '60s/'70s. While Jesus was portrayed as kind and gentle, he was also shown to endure pain ("turn the other cheek") and act with benevolence ("do unto others"). While our church was a mainstream Protestant denomination, the music was very much of the times and we had summer camp where we published a camp newspaper and tiedyed shirts, then ended the day with cookies, punch, and a talk about being better people. I rather detested attending my friend's camp where all we did was search for bible verses for hour on hour.

I'm not gonna claim to speak for Jesus as many do - all I know is the Jesus I learned about still pushes me to live on the learning edge, even if I am now married to someone who is Jewish and raising our children in a Jewish home.

Season's greetings to all!

I was raised Presbyterian in the 70s/early 80s. The music was all pretty old stuff out of the hymn books. The presentation in my church was pretty dry. People were born sinners and Jesus saved us. That we were sinners was always presented in a fairly non-judgmental way ("nobody's perfect") but still in a way that made it necessary for someone to save us. And Jesus really was a heck of a guy for stepping up on our behalf. We never really got near the idea that Jesus was an outsider, undermining the status quo of his day. (In fairness to my church, we only went to the Sunday morning services and religion basically didn't come up in my family until it was time to get up on Sunday and put on our nice clothes.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You democrats voted in a community agitator as president and now you want civility? Not quite.

What was he agitating for?

Martin Luther King was also a community agitator. And Rosa Parks. And Jane Addams. As is Malala Yousafzai.

And John Lewis. “Good trouble” - look it up.

Um, pretty sure the powers that be thought Jesus was a community "agitator" in his day. While I thought Jesus' compassion and concern for the poor and those in harm's way was universal when I was a child, I've come to understand that some root for Jesus to hate the poor, disabled, and disenfranchised and hope he smites them down even when they may be in their most vulnerable hour.

The lack of critical thinking and analysis of context by some PPs never ceases to amaze. Never imagined the mere image of a black president in a tan suit could trigger so many to claim incivility....

The first time I read the Gospels as an adult, I was a little startled by what a rabble rouser Jesus was. It never really came across that way in the church I went to.

PP, how did he come across in your church? I'm the PP of this poster and grew up in late '60s/'70s. While Jesus was portrayed as kind and gentle, he was also shown to endure pain ("turn the other cheek") and act with benevolence ("do unto others"). While our church was a mainstream Protestant denomination, the music was very much of the times and we had summer camp where we published a camp newspaper and tiedyed shirts, then ended the day with cookies, punch, and a talk about being better people. I rather detested attending my friend's camp where all we did was search for bible verses for hour on hour.

I'm not gonna claim to speak for Jesus as many do - all I know is the Jesus I learned about still pushes me to live on the learning edge, even if I am now married to someone who is Jewish and raising our children in a Jewish home.

Season's greetings to all!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You democrats voted in a community agitator as president and now you want civility? Not quite.

What was he agitating for?

Martin Luther King was also a community agitator. And Rosa Parks. And Jane Addams. As is Malala Yousafzai.

And John Lewis. “Good trouble” - look it up.

Um, pretty sure the powers that be thought Jesus was a community "agitator" in his day. While I thought Jesus' compassion and concern for the poor and those in harm's way was universal when I was a child, I've come to understand that some root for Jesus to hate the poor, disabled, and disenfranchised and hope he smites them down even when they may be in their most vulnerable hour.

The lack of critical thinking and analysis of context by some PPs never ceases to amaze. Never imagined the mere image of a black president in a tan suit could trigger so many to claim incivility....

The first time I read the Gospels as an adult, I was a little startled by what a rabble rouser Jesus was. It never really came across that way in the church I went to.

During Passover, Jesus goes into Jerusalem and behaves with a decided lack of civility:

"And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.""

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You democrats voted in a community agitator as president and now you want civility? Not quite.

What was he agitating for?

Martin Luther King was also a community agitator. And Rosa Parks. And Jane Addams. As is Malala Yousafzai.

And John Lewis. “Good trouble” - look it up.

Um, pretty sure the powers that be thought Jesus was a community "agitator" in his day. While I thought Jesus' compassion and concern for the poor and those in harm's way was universal when I was a child, I've come to understand that some root for Jesus to hate the poor, disabled, and disenfranchised and hope he smites them down even when they may be in their most vulnerable hour.

The lack of critical thinking and analysis of context by some PPs never ceases to amaze. Never imagined the mere image of a black president in a tan suit could trigger so many to claim incivility....

The first time I read the Gospels as an adult, I was a little startled by what a rabble rouser Jesus was. It never really came across that way in the church I went to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You democrats voted in a community agitator as president and now you want civility? Not quite.

What was he agitating for?

Martin Luther King was also a community agitator. And Rosa Parks. And Jane Addams. As is Malala Yousafzai.

And John Lewis. “Good trouble” - look it up.

Um, pretty sure the powers that be thought Jesus was a community "agitator" in his day. While I thought Jesus' compassion and concern for the poor and those in harm's way was universal when I was a child, I've come to understand that some root for Jesus to hate the poor, disabled, and disenfranchised and hope he smites them down even when they may be in their most vulnerable hour.

The lack of critical thinking and analysis of context by some PPs never ceases to amaze. Never imagined the mere image of a black president in a tan suit could trigger so many to claim incivility....

Or the election of an orange man in a blue suit with a taped red tie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You democrats voted in a community agitator as president and now you want civility? Not quite.

What was he agitating for?

Martin Luther King was also a community agitator. And Rosa Parks. And Jane Addams. As is Malala Yousafzai.

And John Lewis. “Good trouble” - look it up.

Um, pretty sure the powers that be thought Jesus was a community "agitator" in his day. While I thought Jesus' compassion and concern for the poor and those in harm's way was universal when I was a child, I've come to understand that some root for Jesus to hate the poor, disabled, and disenfranchised and hope he smites them down even when they may be in their most vulnerable hour.

The lack of critical thinking and analysis of context by some PPs never ceases to amaze. Never imagined the mere image of a black president in a tan suit could trigger so many to claim incivility....

Sounds fair. When did we last have unrestrained capitalism? Close to a hundred years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitalism doesn’t care about civility, the National character, or tradition. All that matters is competition and winning at the lowest cost possible. Life is cheap when capitalism is unconstrained. If it doesn’t make money, it’s not important. Civility is a cost to capitalism therefore it doesn’t matter.

Unconstrained capitalism can result in humans becoming slaves or chattel, but under capitalism most life is considered valuable because it is "living capital" that can be utilized to further profits. Except for Funeral Homes and Democratic party voting rolls, dead people do not produce so keeping people alive is useful. Communism, on the other hand, is the system which considers life cheap and expendable, an inconvenient expense and burden to the system because each person must be supported by the system rather than individuals supporting themselves.

Our current government decides how much of the surplus of capitalism can be realistically appropriated to support those who cannot support themselves, and to distribute cost among the population such as for highways and health care. But there are elements of the Democratic party (AOC for instance) who do not want to consider that by taking away all of the profits of capitalism to lavish entitlements (for votes) upon those who refuse to support themselves because they are special and oppressed, that this will "kill the golden goose".

There is a balance, somewhere, between unrestrained capitalism and unrestrained government. So far, the U.S.A. has found a reasonable balance between the two. Trump is in the process of restoring that balance. Trump has my vote in 2020 and maybe, if we are lucky, 2024 for a 3rd term.

I don't understand why stupid and ignorant people like you insist on talking at length about a topic you have no fundamental knowledge of. Voluntary exchange is one of the central characteristics of capitalism. There is nothing voluntary about slavery. Anyone who associates unrestrained capitalism with slavery is simply misinformed and should refrain from talking about capitalism.

Although I am all for capitalism, it is unrestrained capitalism that the pp was talking about. UNRESTRAINED capitalism. Here is a result of unrestrained capitalism:

Company scrip was a credit against the accrued wages of employees. In United States mining or logging camps where everything was owned and operated by a single company, scrip provided the workers with credit when their wages had been depleted. These remote locations were cash poor. Workers had very little choice but to purchase food and other goods at a company store. In this way, the company could charge enormous markups on goods in a company store, making workers completely dependent on the company, thus enforcing their "loyalty" to the company

These people were, in all respects, slaves to a company. Sure, they could legally leave but had no means to do so because the company slave holder ensured it stayed that way.

DP. Someone is reading Howard Zinn at George Mason or George Washington. Wicked smart!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitalism doesn’t care about civility, the National character, or tradition. All that matters is competition and winning at the lowest cost possible. Life is cheap when capitalism is unconstrained. If it doesn’t make money, it’s not important. Civility is a cost to capitalism therefore it doesn’t matter.

Unconstrained capitalism can result in humans becoming slaves or chattel, but under capitalism most life is considered valuable because it is "living capital" that can be utilized to further profits. Except for Funeral Homes and Democratic party voting rolls, dead people do not produce so keeping people alive is useful. Communism, on the other hand, is the system which considers life cheap and expendable, an inconvenient expense and burden to the system because each person must be supported by the system rather than individuals supporting themselves.

Our current government decides how much of the surplus of capitalism can be realistically appropriated to support those who cannot support themselves, and to distribute cost among the population such as for highways and health care. But there are elements of the Democratic party (AOC for instance) who do not want to consider that by taking away all of the profits of capitalism to lavish entitlements (for votes) upon those who refuse to support themselves because they are special and oppressed, that this will "kill the golden goose".

There is a balance, somewhere, between unrestrained capitalism and unrestrained government. So far, the U.S.A. has found a reasonable balance between the two. Trump is in the process of restoring that balance. Trump has my vote in 2020 and maybe, if we are lucky, 2024 for a 3rd term.

I don't understand why stupid and ignorant people like you insist on talking at length about a topic you have no fundamental knowledge of. Voluntary exchange is one of the central characteristics of capitalism. There is nothing voluntary about slavery. Anyone who associates unrestrained capitalism with slavery is simply misinformed and should refrain from talking about capitalism.

Although I am all for capitalism, it is unrestrained capitalism that the pp was talking about. UNRESTRAINED capitalism. Here is a result of unrestrained capitalism:

Company scrip was a credit against the accrued wages of employees. In United States mining or logging camps where everything was owned and operated by a single company, scrip provided the workers with credit when their wages had been depleted. These remote locations were cash poor. Workers had very little choice but to purchase food and other goods at a company store. In this way, the company could charge enormous markups on goods in a company store, making workers completely dependent on the company, thus enforcing their "loyalty" to the company

These people were, in all respects, slaves to a company. Sure, they could legally leave but had no means to do so because the company slave holder ensured it stayed that way.