About Our Current Heat Wave

[Chobham]

The bolded are not likely to be working class. The real political left is for socialism and the working class, not for corporate liberals and Democrats with loads of $$$$$.

OK, you've been on this 'Socialism is the answer' kick for a while now so I'm going to respond.

General overview, Socialist nations are environmental disasters. This is a well known fact. Only wealthy nations can afford to clean up their shit. Strike one.

You mention small scale corporate socialism in one of the your previous posts. I have seen it work, not often, but there are some working models out there. More often than not they fail and they fail for reasons I'll get into in the next paragraph.

They fail because in a real sense of the word they are anarchist in nature. As long as the overwhelming majority of the workers on on the same page you can make it work, but workers are humans with differing goals and motivations. And it is that human factor that leads to the final collapse. It's also one of the reasons that so few partnerships make it for very long. If it's that hard to get just two humans to agree most of time, how is that going to work for an entire corporation? Strike two.

Capitalization. Where is the seed money going to come from for these various ventures, the government? Just as venture capitalists demand a return on the risk money they're putting up so will the government. The big difference here is that governments are loath to take risks. One of the reasons you see little innovation coming out of Socialist nations. Strike three.

Lastly I agree with your comments re. 'rich democrats.' Essentially they're nothing more than virtue signaling hypocrites. They're attempting to buy indulgences from a sympathetic government and the masses. "Go attack that guy, I'm on your side." Bullshit. What you need to understand is "The Pereto Principle", also known as the law of 80/20 distribution. This holds true for any society that has evolved beyond the hunter/gatherer stage. I also agree that we, as far as financial distribution is concerned, are out of balance. But if you really want to make a difference focus on the capital management companies like Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street. They need to be broken up.

Top Three Funds.

 

[RandyRebecca]

OK, you've been on this 'Socialism is the answer' kick for a while now so I'm going to respond.

General overview, Socialist nations are environmental disasters. This is a well known fact. Only wealthy nations can afford to clean up their shit. Strike one.

What socialist nations? The big polluters are big business capitalists.

You mention small scale corporate socialism in one of the your previous posts.

When did I say any such thing? I said that we need democratic workers' control and planning of the economy, rather than it all being subject to the profit motives of a tiny number of billionaires. The problem with Stalinist societies is that the state bureaucracy too wished to enrich itself at the expense of the workers that they supposedly represented.

Lastly I agree with your comments re. 'rich democrats.' Essentially they're nothing more than virtue signaling hypocrites. They're attempting to buy indulgences from a sympathetic government and the masses. "Go attack that guy, I'm on your side." Bullshit. What you need to understand is "The Pereto Principle", also known as the law of 80/20 distribution. This holds true for any society that has evolved beyond the hunter/gatherer stage. I also agree that we, as far as financial distribution is concerned, are out of balance. But if you really want to make a difference focus on the capital management companies like Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street. They need to be broken up.

Top Three Funds.

They need to be nationalized and controlled by workers and socialists, not broken up. The law of the jungle that demands corporate profit is what must be ended. Breaking up big corporations doesn't end that law of the jungle.

 

[Chobham]

What socialist nations? The big polluters are big business capitalists.


When did I say any such thing? I said that we need democratic workers' control and planning of the economy, rather than it all being subject to the profit motives of a tiny number of billionaires. The problem with Stalinist societies is that the state bureaucracy too wished to enrich itself at the expense of the workers that they supposedly represented.


They need to be nationalized and controlled by workers and socialists, not broken up. The law of the jungle that demands corporate profit is what must be ended. Breaking up big corporations doesn't end that law of the jungle.

There ya go Randy.

Simple question and there is no wrong answer. Do you believe in God?

 

[RandyRebecca]

There ya go Randy.

Simple question and there is no wrong answer. Do you believe in God?

No. I'm an atheist.

 

[Chobham]

No. I'm an atheist.

Very well, and in that regard I will assume that you are an adherent of Darwin's theory regarding evolution. Man is a product of the natural world.

Evolution is a change over time phenomena and as such must be measured over time. Man, homo sapien, as far as we know, has only been around for some 400,000 k. years (maybe), and over that time we only have some 5 k years of recorded history. In the broad span of biological history we, man, have only been around for less than a blink of an eye.

I see no evidence that we, man, have somehow shed our atavistic biological underpinnings. To be sure we've achieved some incredible advances in science/engineering, but in the end we're still animals of the jungle. It is unreasonable to believe on the one hand that we are anything other than the animals we evolved from and then on the other to assert that we are somehow seperate from those very same animals. That is an irreconcielable conflict.

What you, dear Randy, are proposing is that we eliminate the predators among us. All well and good until you detail EXACTLY how that is to occur. In virtually every instance where the predators have been eliminated in the natural world the prey have spiraled into disease and starvation. The results in the human domain haven't been any different. As a matter of fact in the human domain the prey have promoted the government into being the top predator

I'd rather live in the jungle.

 

[RandyRebecca]

Very well, and in that regard I will assume that you are an adherent of Darwin's theory regarding evolution. Man is a product of the natural world.

Of course I believe in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Evolution is a change over time phenomena and as such must be measured over time. Man, homo sapien, as far as we know, has only been around for some 400,000 k. years (maybe), and over that time we only have some 5 k years of recorded history. In the broad span of biological history we, man, have only been around for less than a blink of an eye.

I see no evidence that we, man, have somehow shed our atavistic biological underpinnings. To be sure we've achieved some incredible advances in science/engineering, but in the end we're still animals of the jungle. It is unreasonable to believe on the one hand that we are anything other than the animals we evolved from and then on the other to assert that we are somehow seperate from those very same animals. That is an irreconcielable conflict.

What you, dear Randy, are proposing is that we eliminate the predators among us. All well and good until you detail EXACTLY how that is to occur. In virtually every instance where the predators have been eliminated in the natural world the prey have spiraled into disease and starvation. The results in the human domain haven't been any different. As a matter of fact in the human domain the prey have promoted the government into being the top predator

I'd rather live in the jungle.

You're putting words in my mouth. Also, "survival of the fittest" comes from Herbert Spencer, and not from Charles Darwin. Spencer came up with it after reading Darwin, and the term "social Darwinism" seems to come from it.

 

[Chernosoth]

Capitalism is a minor detail. The industrial revolution could have happened anywhere with coal. The philosophy, religion, and economy of that region would have adapted to new fossil fuel wealth. The result would be the same: all the nations of the world digging up whatever they have to sell, or have them stolen by other conquering nations.

 

[RandyRebecca]

Capitalism is a minor detail. The industrial revolution could have happened anywhere with coal. The philosophy, religion, and economy of that region would have adapted to new fossil fuel wealth. The result would be the same: all the nations of the world digging up whatever they have to sell, or have them stolen by other conquering nations.

A minor detail? Capitalism means that the search for more and more corporate profit comes before all else, which includes exploiting human labor and the resources of the planet, and damn the consequences. It will make the planet more and more uninhabitable and threaten nuclear annihilation, just so the big capitalists get more profit.

Socialism doesn't work like that. Socialism is about workers' control and planning resources on the basis of need.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Travel is becoming more expensive with rising energy prices and stagnating wages, for less reward as more of the world becomes corporatized. And highly polluting jet travel is a factor in climate change, but leftists who take frequent vacations around the world don't like to admit that part.

That's a recent thing though. I mean have never been more a hundred miles from where they were born.

 

[phrodeau]

I see no evidence that we, man, have somehow shed our atavistic biological underpinnings. To be sure we've achieved some incredible advances in science/engineering, but in the end we're still animals of the jungle.

Humans have thrived because of developments like compassion, empathy, community and supporting those who are not the fittest.

 

[Chobham]

Of course I believe in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.


You're putting words in my mouth. Also, "survival of the fittest" comes from Herbert Spencer, and not from Charles Darwin. Spencer came up with it after reading Darwin, and the term "social Darwinism" seems to come from it.

Haven't put anything in your mouth Randy and I attributed no quote to Darwin.

Laws are fences that keep society civil (when they're fair and enforced). Help prevent the predators among us from running amok, looting establishments, forming lynch mobs, etc. Too many fences and society gets hemmed in, fails to interact smoothly.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Good fences make good neighbors.

Erect enough bad fencing and you end up with a Gulag...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Gulags are cold.


I think it's the guys with the sky blue caps what keeps 'em the gulags, however. You know, the kind that Putin has one of on his closet shelf as a memento.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

How're you ever going to keep them in the Gulag when they've seen St. Petersburg.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Easily enough, apparently.


That and machine gun towers.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

It is a long walk to anywhere from the frozen tundra, and that's not a Packers joke.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Good fences make good neighbors.

Erect enough bad fencing and you end up with a Gulag...

Yeah but all the people who make that statement are the first to be the aggressors and adding too much fencing.

 

[DeluxAuto]

This "heatwave" is setting record temps and killing octogenarians like the OP.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Did you guys see what happened in Juno?

 

[Rightguide]

OK, you've been on this 'Socialism is the answer' kick for a while now so I'm going to respond.

General overview, Socialist nations are environmental disasters. This is a well known fact. Only wealthy nations can afford to clean up their shit. Strike one.

You mention small scale corporate socialism in one of the your previous posts. I have seen it work, not often, but there are some working models out there. More often than not they fail and they fail for reasons I'll get into in the next paragraph.

They fail because in a real sense of the word they are anarchist in nature. As long as the overwhelming majority of the workers on on the same page you can make it work, but workers are humans with differing goals and motivations. And it is that human factor that leads to the final collapse. It's also one of the reasons that so few partnerships make it for very long. If it's that hard to get just two humans to agree most of time, how is that going to work for an entire corporation? Strike two.

Capitalization. Where is the seed money going to come from for these various ventures, the government? Just as venture capitalists demand a return on the risk money they're putting up so will the government. The big difference here is that governments are loath to take risks. One of the reasons you see little innovation coming out of Socialist nations. Strike three.

Lastly I agree with your comments re. 'rich democrats.' Essentially they're nothing more than virtue signaling hypocrites. They're attempting to buy indulgences from a sympathetic government and the masses. "Go attack that guy, I'm on your side." Bullshit. What you need to understand is "The Pereto Principle", also known as the law of 80/20 distribution. This holds true for any society that has evolved beyond the hunter/gatherer stage. I also agree that we, as far as financial distribution is concerned, are out of balance. But if you really want to make a difference focus on the capital management companies like Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street. They need to be broken up.

Top Three Funds.

I might add that Socialist nations are eventual disasters at almost every level. The major fault in the Socialist mind regarding proposed solutions to economic problems are always resolved in one direction as Milton Freidman once simplified as follows:

"When the question arises at what level of government something should be done, the 20th century liberal is likely to resolve any doubt in favor of the more centralized level—the state instead of the city, the federal government instead of the state, a world organization instead of a federal government. The 19th century liberal is likely to resolve any doubt in the other direction and to emphasize a decentralization of power."

As we see the economic freedom instituted by our founders and experienced by the American people at the time, that eventually drew millions of entrepreneurial people to our shores and allowed them to flourish and to eventually create the greatest economic force on Earth in the 20th Century, has incrementally been degraded by 20th Century liberals and today's leftists into the emerging state-controlled economic disaster we see today flirting daily with globalist government that will surely return us to our economic infancy.

 

[Bray123]

Good fences make good neighbors.

Erect enough bad fencing and you end up with a Gulag...

Good fences are there to keep bad neighbors away, not the good ones (or to imprison people you don't want to visit the neighbors).

Communal areas have no fences, and provided people can talk nicely to each other everything is fine.

 

[ll74]

I might add that Socialist nations are eventual disasters at almost every level. The major fault in the Socialist mind regarding proposed solutions to economic problems are always resolved in one direction as Milton Freidman once simplified as follows:

"When the question arises at what level of government something should be done, the 20th century liberal is likely to resolve any doubt in favor of the more centralized level—the state instead of the city, the federal government instead of the state, a world organization instead of a federal government. The 19th century liberal is likely to resolve any doubt in the other direction and to emphasize a decentralization of power."

As we see the economic freedom instituted by our founders and experienced by the American people at the time, that eventually drew millions of entrepreneurial people to our shores and allowed them to flourish and to eventually create the greatest economic force on Earth in the 20th Century, has incrementally been degraded by 20th Century liberals and today's leftists into the emerging state-controlled economic disaster we see today flirting daily with globalist government that will surely return us to our economic infancy.

Liberals support government involvement in society.

 

[Rightguide]

Did you guys see what happened in Juno?

Do you mean Juneau? Did you see what's happening in Beijing?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Do you mean Juneau? Did you see what's happening in Beijing?

Yes, yes, I don't think I've ever seen it written. No, but I assume its on fire like CA is right now. Its Texas next most likely.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, yes, I don't think I've ever seen it written. No, but I assume its on fire like CA is right now. Its Texas next most likely.

I don't know what you're talking about but there is flooding in Juneau and flooding in Beijing. In fact, in attempting to protect Beijing the CCP decided to flood smaller cities downstream and created a cataclysmic disaster:

https://tfipost.com/2020/08/china-f...raises-the-supreme-sacrifice-of-the-villages/