×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

54 comments

Sometimes I wonder (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#44269443)

If the only Republican objection to Amnesty is the loss of lower-than-minimum-wage illegal workers.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44269977)

Don't read anything into it that's not there. Quid pro quo is a very traditional (and I thought Smitty was for tradition) form of exchange amongst business associates, which would include of course politicians. It solidifies an unwritten contract. I'd call them partners except that they would all kill each other at the drop of a hat. So, this inevitable symbiosis, this dance endures, choreography that was written eons ago. These things are the very essence of power, part of its process of accretion, the way rocks and dust clump together to form stars and planets.

God save the Queen...

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44270411)

and I thought Smitty was for tradition

I'll give you a "heh" on the gag, but that's like saying Danegeld was justified after the first payment. Only in a postmodern bizarro world bereft of any notion of right and wrong would you be correct.

These things are the very essence of power, part of its process of accretion, the way rocks and dust clump together to form stars and planets.

And I don't dispute this point either, but would say that the accretion has become an excretion. We now have the technology to go after the Founder's original notion of a power-distributed government. If we can just pull our Orwell out of our Huxley, we can go after it.
I reject in advance your cynical predictions that it's all a waste of time [youtube.com] .

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44270959)

...that's like saying Danegeld was justified after the first payment.

What's that? A Guantanamo Bay joke? You know.. When Castro cashed the first check?

...right and wrong...

LOL! There you go again. Tagging along with (very old) pop culture. I guess that's how you find the mess hall.

...the Founder's original notion of a power-distributed government...

"Power-distributed"... amongst old white male aristocrats, bankers, and merchants? No thanks... Hopefully that age is finally coming to a conclusion.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44273281)

amongst old white male aristocrats, bankers, and merchants?

Indeed, they could not help themselves as they deliberately froze out the aardvark community.
Seriously: they did what they could, as they could do it. The non-falsifiable proposition "They weren't perfect enough" is a beautiful Orwellian play to support the Progressive slide back into aristocracy. Bravo.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44291191)

Ah, so black people are aardvarks. That very interesting. And I'm supposed to accept that rationalization because men are slaves to culture? Eh, so much for free will then.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44291427)

I'd like it noted that the dot connection occurred in your mind. I know you live in a responsibility-free zone, but don't pin your racist stylings on me, sir.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44291487)

You can't undo what you said by attempting to reverse the charges, but, what the hell, I'll give you an 'E' for effort. I mean, not that this is the first time you've tried to pull that stunt. I don't feel the need to repeat the common term used for such things. It has become self evident.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44291623)

Hey, you can attribute anything you want to me, just be sure to mark it "fiction".
I am an honest man; I have exactly zero to hide. I'll admit fault where it exists.
If you're interested in the rationale behind my remark, it's that the Framers come under a sweet, non-falsifiable "It wasn't fair enough" remark. Sure, the 3/5ths Compromise sucked. Yes, the lack of a vote for women sucked. We can as reasonably beat up the Founders for failure to authorize an Air Force beside an Army and Navy, or jokingly chide them for freezing out 'the aardvark community'. While the ideals they pursued were as good as human motives ever get, the document had its flaws.
But, please, by all means: wallow in your illiberality. Accuse me of things that are not on my heart. It reminds me that I need to pray for you.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44291765)

...just be sure to mark it "fiction".

As long as you insist that the state impose your morals on the rest of us, I cannot.

...jokingly chide them for freezing out 'the aardvark community'.

Jokingly? So now the backpeddling begins.. Sorry, I'm not saluting that flag... The meaning is clear.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44294447)

The meaning you impart is yours. I can no more help you there than I could hypothetically impose my morals on you. I still reserve the right to pray for you, though.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44296187)

You are doing very well at finally proving that psychology is more than phony pseudo-science. You are a concrete example of what you claim is mumbo-jumbo, the storybook fish I described previously. Quite a box you keep yourself in, which by itself is fine... until you try to expand your box to enclose everyone.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44304601)

Oh, psychology is tantamount to a faith in its own right. Am I supposed to be cowed by your appeal to authority, or something?

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44304665)

Oh, psychology is tantamount to a faith in its own right.

Oh no sir. You are proof, in the flesh... No faith needed.

Am I supposed to be cowed by your appeal to authority, or something?

I... don't understand the question. Maybe you should ask a shrink

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44312581)

I don't think we have any overlap beside alphabet on the topic of "faith".

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44313721)

Yes I know what faith is

It's the utter unquestioning trust in something with no evidence to back it up. Some people believe that life has no meaning (as if it needs one) without it, and feel the need to impose theirs on other people.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44315739)

no evidence to back it up

I'll confess that all of the evidence up which I base my faith is ambiguous; at each point, you'd be free to disagree, call me "nuts", or worse.
Further, if the human mind holds the total scope of reality, then I'd kind of have to agree with you--I'm cuckoo for cocoa-puffs.
Two questions:
1. What happened in the universe before T0?, and
2. What happens after your heart beats its last?

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44316909)

1. What happened in the universe before T0?

What T0? Prove there was one. Big Bang is still an unproven theory, based on purely circumstantial evidence. It really only proves how little anybody, including you, knows.

2. What happens after your heart beats its last?

You die. What do you expect to happen? Didn't you learn anything in school? Go visit a morgue if you don't believe me. The only remaining evidence of your existence are the waves you made. But *you* are gone, POOF!

Your reality is entirely based on your perceptions. As an experiment, you can go out with a camera and a good microphone and record the things your brain has filtered out and otherwise distorted. You're looking at the universe through a peephole, and you expect me to believe your rubbish that it came out of nowhere with the wave of your deity's hand? And you say I'm funny!! But then again, there's nothing to disprove that either. And it's not really important. Those are things to think of when there's nothing else to do. It's only those who try to impose their vision who bring these things to the forefront. The rest of us are simply trying to enjoy the high. Keep your evangelizing inside your church, and leave the door open for those who are interested. When you go out banging heads, you will come across great resistance, in case you haven't noticed already, which I doubt you have since you haven't stopped making war on the 'infidels'.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44323763)

Your reality is entirely based on your perceptions. As an experiment, you can go out with a camera and a good microphone and record the things your brain has filtered out and otherwise distorted.

Do you see how you contradict yourself in the space of two sentences? If reality was some solipsistic experience limited by my senses, then how could that external gear detect anything?

You're looking at the universe through a peephole, and you expect me to believe your rubbish that it came out of nowhere with the wave of your deity's hand?

I'm an idiot for saying that reality came from somewhere? This is getting good.

And it's not really important.

Isn't it? I'm supposed to look up to you as some kind of intellectual authority, to reject my current positions, because you called them stupid. It's kind of cool how you pooh-pooh any inconvenient questions.

When you go out banging heads, you will come across great resistance, in case you haven't noticed already, which I doubt you have since you haven't stopped making war on the 'infidels'.

Great toss-off. You stay beautiful!

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44323911)

Do you see how you contradict yourself in the space of two sentences? If reality was some solipsistic experience limited by my senses, then how could that external gear detect anything?

Just play back the recording.. You'll see

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44270423)

I paid a pretty penny to Do It The Right Way at USCIS with my wife.
Rewarding X million cheaters is offensive. Will these illegals be given houses, cars, and government jobs, too? Why not? Candy for the masses, so long as they vote correctly.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about 9 months ago | (#44270717)

I've had an illegal immigrant do work on my house for me. I didn't know he was illegal when I first hired him. He speaks perfect English. He runs his own business, with business cards and shirts with the name of the business and everything.

He's married to an legal immigrant and their son is also legal.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't any people in the US that we shouldn't deport if we have the option. But for people who broke the rules once, but have since then made themselves into contributing members of American society, why shouldn't we offer amnesty? What good would be accomplished by deporting this guy? If applying the rules strictly creates bad outcomes, then the rules need to be changed.

As an aside, I'd say that the traditional strength (and also the traditional source of dysfunction) of the US is that we take in people who are undervalued in their home countries. To that end, I think we should make immigration available to most people who don't have a warrant outstanding for their arrest.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44273309)

But for people who broke the rules once, but have since then made themselves into contributing members of American society, why shouldn't we offer amnesty? What good would be accomplished by deporting this guy? If applying the rules strictly creates bad outcomes, then the rules need to be changed.

What is the historical precedent? Has this worked previously? Why has it been a failure? How do we know we're "getting it right" this time?

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about 9 months ago | (#44276725)

One time amnesty deals do nothing to address the underlying cause of illegal immigration which is that there's an underlying economic benefit to Mexican workers in seeking American income and that benefit significantly exceeds the hardships imposed by immigrating illegally. Really it's not much different than the flow of ions across a semipermeable membrane; it's going to continue until the underlying difference in potential is neutralized.

Past attempts at dealing with the issue by increasing the hardships imposed on illegal immigrants haven't been effective and now, I've presented the question to you if you feel it is morally correct to impose those hardships on a particular individual. What do you feel is best to put this specific situation right? What is important to you? Are individual human concerns subjugated to the macro-level goal of prevention of illegal immigration?

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44277341)

It's not about 'immigration' per se as much as it is about the manipulation of a human commodity, no different from oranges futures or December crude. Your description is right on. All decisions are based on receivables and payables. Nothing else enters the equation, dosen't matter if you're in the US or the USSR or Red China, or even Mexico or Guatemala. Mr. Smith suffers from this obsession over 'morals' in a place where they simply don't apply, because they are the basis of 'his' (and those of similar status) authority. And of course they see the 'demographic threat' as very real. It's the very basis of the anti-abortion movement, all neatly wrapped up in a religious package to exploit guilt. All this philosophizing is a pure distraction and is being used by the powerful to subjugate the weak, to make slavery a desirable thing, a rationalization for privilege, a behavior so strongly conditioned that they not even consciously aware they are doing it. Ah, but watch the furious denials. That's always the fun part, and the dead giveaway.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about 9 months ago | (#44278543)

A cognitive bias is really just a heuristic strategy that's being applied in circumstances where it isn't effective. The things that people believe are driven by a mixture of their assessments of the frequency of events and the priority the weight they assign to different outcomes. The brain doesn't really adequately distinguish between the assessment of frequency and the priority piece.

This is the state of things. People's perception of the facts is muddled up with what's important to them. And you can't live with other people if you dismiss what's important to them, regardless of how much you think they're wrong. Democracy is the manifest reality of what you have to do in order to cooperate with people who you think are wrong.

While there are some genuinely pathological people and some genuinely pathological ideas, they really don't play as much of a role in the world as people tend to think. The world really is as bad is it is even despite the fact that most people are making their best efforts to improve it. The state of the world reflects how tiny and futile people's best efforts are.

The only way forward is to try to find a basis for agreement. Most people aren't completely wrong and occasionally they pick up on something that's worth paying attention to even if you don't agree with them. The key is to address people's fears rather than dismissing them as something insidious that just needs to be swept away by history.

To Smitty's credit, there's not a great history of successfully ruling nations made up of two groups of people who can't talk to each other. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium#Communities_and_regions [wikipedia.org] , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia#Reasons_for_the_division [wikipedia.org] , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sovereignty_movement [wikipedia.org] . There is some validity to the theory that not pressuring immigrants to assimilate and adopt the common language undermines national unity.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44278737)

Mr. Smith suffers from this obsession over 'morals' in a place where they simply don't apply, because they are the basis of 'his' (and those of similar status) authority.
And of course they see the 'demographic threat' as very real. It's the very basis of the anti-abortion movement, all neatly wrapped up in a religious package to exploit guilt. All this philosophizing is a pure distraction and is being used by the powerful to subjugate the weak, to make slavery a desirable thing, a rationalization for privilege, a behavior so strongly conditioned that they not even consciously aware they are doing it.
Ah, but watch the furious denials. That's always the fun part, and the dead giveaway.

How about I
(a) Admire your ability to twist a series of issues, and
(b) Laugh at you?
Bwahahahahahaha

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44278873)

Those are textbook reactionary and symptomatic responses that only indicate you are unable to work outside your cultural narrative.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

NonSequor (230139) | about 9 months ago | (#44285639)

No one is capable of working outside their cultural narratives. Glib analysis of other people's cultural narratives is part of the culture you associate with. You're attempting to express his subjective reality in a manner that relates to your own subjective reality. That does not mean that you're working outside that subjective reality. Awareness of other people's limitations does not free you from your own. You have no basis for asserting superiority.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44288171)

In that case objectivity is impossible.

Anyway I'm not asserting superiority, nor being glib except as a response in kind. I'm only trying to prevent the imposition of one's cultural narrative of those who do (which is why they create their 'superior' deities in the first place) from imposing it on others. We demand equal footing. And that has to be done by tearing down the source of their assertion of 'superiority'. I consider ridicule a better alternative than heavy weapons to that end (my god will kick their god's ass). And even better still would be the ability to completely neutralize their weapons.

And going back to your other post, that can be no agreement as long as one side holds an advantage. All that must be eliminated before there can be any discussion. What's the point when one side remains at the mercy of the other? In fact, that's the only thing the weaker side can do, beg for mercy. If one side can't lift itself to the level of the other, it must bring the other down so there can be a real agreement. Acquiescence may be a good survival trait, but it only advances our animal nature. It only teaches that might makes right, which in nature is true. If we want to remain as animals, great, but we will just become Borg, assimilating everything in our path, and then religion and culture really won't matter and will 'evolve' completely out of the picture. But we still won't be only closer to being human. In fact it would indeed be a spiritual devolution.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44291473)

In that case objectivity is impossible.

Sure, a ship can't sail an exact course. Yet, amazingly, great circle routes still kinda work. Not to say that you were arguing a solipsism here.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44291679)

Yes, well, your map still represents a flat earth. And your concept of solipsism mimics your claims that equal marriage rights equates to bestiality. Meaning they are bs.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44294467)

your claims that equal marriage rights equates to bestiality

(a) I never claimed such, and
(b) If you want a claim, here it is: I claim no right to re-define marriage beyond its traditional bound.

Kinda hefty and sweeping, I know, but that is the claim I make, and to which I'll attest, and lovingly pray for you amidst your poo-flinging.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44296021)

a) Yes you have claimed such. I'll dig the posts up at a future date.

b) ...beyond its traditional bound.

:-) Thank you for confirming my point exactly... Again you are attempting to impose your cultural rules on everybody else. Again you seek conformity, not liberty. Again you are attempting to protect and extend privilege over equality.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44304619)

I tell you that I'm not playing your game, and you insist I'm going for checkmate? And you're not demanding conformity? Not buying your attempts at a mind-frack here.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44309015)

That's right. You're playing their game.. as the *trained seal* for your pajama media and the other rags, barking their script on command.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44312527)

Nah, they're minions.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44313341)

You along with them. Spreading their bs...

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44278723)

Really it's not much different than the flow of ions across a semipermeable membrane; it's going to continue until the underlying difference in potential is neutralized.

Past attempts at dealing with the issue by increasing the hardships imposed on illegal immigrants haven't been effective and now, I've presented the question to you if you feel it is morally correct to impose those hardships on a particular individual. What do you feel is best to put this specific situation right? What is important to you? Are individual human concerns subjugated to the macro-level goal of prevention of illegal immigration?

So you expect me to move from a macro view (and I agree with your membrane point) to a subjective view "if you feel it is morally correct to impose those hardships on a particular individual".
Well, fine. When you say "morally correct", I translate that to mean "conformant with divine will", as opposed to "ethically correct", which I would view as "what would survive legal review".
Morally correct? Dude, you've implied I have some kind of divine knowledge of whether, on some cosmic scale, a specific case meets some judgement criteria. You're asking me to BE the USCIS. I have no (nor do I seek) specific information about a case, when people arrived, what were their motives, whether they are the paragon of civic virtue with just minor navigational challenges, or what have you.
I suppose I'm to feel chastened, shamed, in my unwillingness to play along with a generalized proposition that doesn't relate to a specific case. But I don't.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44272647)

"candy" for everybody that props up the system... This is how the game is played.. What's your point?

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44273353)

Candy abuse has blown up our pancreas, and we're sinking into a diabetic collapse.
I don't know. . .maybe we should re-think this?

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#44271713)

If the only Republican objection to Amnesty is the loss of lower-than-minimum-wage illegal workers.

Hogwash. The Republicans already have plenty of ways to pay workers less than minimum wage. Minimum wage only matters in jobs that American high school kids work, everything else either demands a better wage or is worked around with various accounting tricks to pass a lower wage.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44273395)

Also, if you read Sowell, http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373771854&sr=1-1&keywords=basic+economics [amazon.com] you find out that, while tickling the voter ear to good effect, all of these attempts to goose the market this way and that are counterproductive.
We either (a) never learn, or (b) learned some higher-level lesson, I suppose.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#44283969)

all of these attempts to goose the market this way and that are counterproductive.

However we should have learned recently that leaving the market to its own devices in the expectation that we can all come to prosper in the infinite wisdom and beauty of an unregulated system also doesn't work as it invariably encourages corruption and risk-taking that harm those who had no say in the gambles.

Perhaps there is a solution somewhere in between, where some things could be allowed to run their own course with no intervention, and other critical elements are allowed to proceed only under the control of certain well defined rules. Of course those who are currently in power wouldn't hear for such a compromise.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44291367)

However we should have learned recently that leaving the market to its own devices in the expectation that we can all come to prosper in the infinite wisdom and beauty of an unregulated system also doesn't work as it invariably encourages corruption and risk-taking that harm those who had no say in the gambles.

I'm just not sure that this 'unregulated system' has existed. And in exactly what way has Sarbanes-Oxley helped anybody?
I commend to all a study in Control Theory, where keeping everything in the left half-plane is the stable way to play.
What happened 100 years ago, with the Wilson Administration, was moves that destabilized our system, and put too much power in DC.
"Zimbabwe" Ben Bernanke, or his little button-man successor, is going to keep pumping in money by pretending the Fed can buy stocks.
Fanny & Freddie are going to continue to pump money into real estate, 10th Amendment be drawn, quartered, and burned.
And some jokers are going to keep going on about "moar regulation", as though there was was some magic power in legislation to put the toothpaste back in the barn.

As a remedy, how about we re-distribute power, not wealth? Let the States have their own banks, do their own mortgages & college loans. The can live in wisdom or die in foolishness.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 9 months ago | (#44292625)

I'm just not sure that this 'unregulated system' has existed.

Leading up to the housing bubble and also the wall street collapse (failing of Lehman Bros, et al) we saw increasingly fewer regulations on whatever the financial institutions wanted to do. This lead to the financial houses destroying damn near everything because they faced no consequences for their actions.

Granted, their attitudes of immortality likely came at least in part from their knowing that they had their hands around the throats of everyone in DC and hence would almost certainly not be allowed to fail completely - or at least not before they could deploy their own golden parachutes.

As a remedy, how about we re-distribute power, not wealth?

First of all, the only wealth redistribution that DC is doing that accounts for any meaningful amount of federal expenditures is that which goes up - taking money from the middle class and giving it away to the people of the top echelons in income. That said, if you have a plan for "re-distribution of power", I'm interested in hearing it. If you can offer up something better than Ron Paul / Ayn Rand type hyper concentration of power in the hands of those with the most capital, I'd certainly be interested in seeing someone take a go at it.

Let the States have their own banks, do their own mortgages & college loans.

Can you point to something that prevents banks from setting mortgage and college loan rates to whatever they want? Because I have known plenty of people who have applied for one or the other who would love to know of such a function. Just because the government makes loan money available at certain rates does not mean that every financial house in the country needs to do business at that same price point. You could open Smitty's First National Bank next week and do both of those instruments at 20% (or even higher if you want) and the government will not prevent you from doing so. Granted, you might not get many customers with that offer, but you are welcomed to try.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44294441)

we saw increasingly fewer regulations on whatever the financial institutions wanted to do.

Lack of legislation, lack of enforcement, or lack of any consequence for their perfidy? The banks are as a willful teenager that has has plenty of good rules to go by, but are incentivized by the kickback schemes and the revolving Federal Reserve/Treasury/Wall Street door to keep right on chugging. Still not following, exactly, how "moar legislation" does much.

the only wealth redistribution that DC is doing that accounts for any meaningful amount of federal expenditures is that which goes up - taking money from the middle class and giving it away to the people of the top echelons in income.

And all of the vote-buying schemes, like the GOP farm legislation at the top of this post, or Pigford [americanthinker.com] , or the higher education bubble [amazon.com] or the so-called "Obama phone [dailycaller.com] " aren't the little ways that the Ruling Class locks in power?

Can you point to something that prevents banks from setting mortgage and college loan rates to whatever they want?

Sure [nytimes.com] :

Congressional allies of the student-loan industry attacked the overhaul as an overreaching government takeover. The legislation substitutes an expanded direct-lending program by the government for the bank-based program, directing $36 billion over 10 years to Pell grants, for students from low-income families.
“The Democratic majority decided, well look, while we’re at it, let’s have another Washington takeover,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and a former federal education secretary. “Let’s take over the federal student loan program.”
Even as the Democrats’ decision to attach the student-loan overhaul to the health care package virtually ensured its passage, banks fought fiercely up to the last minute, prompting some lawmakers, like Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, where Nelnet has its headquarters, to cast their vote against the overall bill.
Although private banks will no longer be allowed to make student loans with federal money, many will continue to earn income by servicing those loans.

That link goes back a couple of years, but I don't think that the choke chain has loosened.

You could open Smitty's First National Bank next week and do both of those instruments at 20% (or even higher if you want) and the government will not prevent you from doing so.

You know, it may be the case that you are correct. I have not, in fact, researched it. But my gut says that you may wildly underestimate the brutal mountain range of red tape and over-regulation that awaits you, if you wander out of your place and have the temerity to be caught trying to behave as a capitalist without saying your vows to Progressive Cthulhu.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44302073)

Wealth is power, and vice versa. It determines who gets it and who doesn't. And invariably, great wealth can only be acquired through corrupt power of the state to protect the wealthy. If we decentralize power, wealth will naturally follow.

Re:Sometimes I wonder (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 9 months ago | (#44304631)

I'll grant that wealth and power have significant overlap for materialists, but I'd have to be in a box, like you, to think them fungible.

great wealth can only be acquired through corrupt power of the state to protect the wealthy

So, you hate private property? You think it impossible for hard work to be a source of wealth, and for the state to manage peace throughout the land in a reasonably non-corrupt way? Is THAT what you're saying?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...