Andrew Carnegie and Sam Walton (Walmart)

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
A current series on the History Channel, “Things that changed America” or something like that, did an episode concerning Andrew Carnegie. As I watched the program and realized this is another left wing liberal progressive attempt to revise history, I thought it time to go on the attack.

It is amazing what a simple ‘factual’ biography can do to clarify what one thinks about history.

I included Sam Walton, the founder of the largest retail business in the world, ‘Walmart’, as another example of the continuing left wing, socialist attack on American business and the free enterprise system in general.

The link between the two is organized labor, Labor Unions, outgrowths of the ancient ‘Guild System’ in Europe that attempted to control production to create scarcity and thus keep labor costs high. The free enterprise system functions in opposition to the labor or guild system by exercising the right of free choice in both labor and management and looking to the consumer to determine success or failure.

It is a small thing I do here, for a small audience, but, as I know the world, it turns on the vision and dreams of one man, one mind, perhaps it can be reached here, who knows?



http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/bbios/biograph/walton1.htm


Sam Walton (1918-1992)

“…Sam Walton was born on March 29, 1918 to Thomas Gibson and Nancy Lee Walton near Kingfisher, Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, they owned and lived on a farm until 1923. The Walton's then decided that the farm was not profitable enough to raise a family on. So, Sam and Jame's (Sam's younger brother born in 1921) dad decided he would go back to being a Farm Loan Appraiser. Once this job started the Walton family moved out of Oklahoma and moved from town to town in Missouri. This would traumatize most children but for the Walton boys though it was no big deal. This could be seen when Sam was in 8th grade at Shelbina he became the youngest boy in the state's history to become an Eagle Scout and this was only a start of his many of accomplishments….

“…Wal-Mart first opened in 1962 and became the world's number one retailer. Wal-Mart's success has also given many people today an opportunity for a bigger job market. More than 600,000 Americans work at Wal-Mart. The reason for its popular success it still follows Sam Walton's values: by hometown identity, each person is welcomed personally by People Greeters, each store honors a graduating high school senior with a college scholarship, bake sales to benefit a local charity, associates determine where charitable funds are donated, and the prices are low and customers do not have to wait for a sale to see savings. This is only to name a few of the things that Wal-Mart does for the community. Wal-Mart goes according to what Sam Walton believed, "Each Wal-Mart store should reflect the values of its customers and support the vision they hold for their community" ( The Wal-Mart Story). With this saying always in mind the Wal-Mart community outreach programs are steered by local associates who grew up in the area and understand its needs…”


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande01.html

Andrew Carnegie

“One of the captains of industry of 19th century America, Andrew Carnegie helped build the formidable American steel industry, a process that turned a poor young man into one of the richest entrepreneurs of his age. Later in his life, Carnegie sold his steel business and systematically gave his collected fortune away to cultural, educational and scientific institutions for "the improvement of mankind."

”Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, the medieval capitol of Scotland, in 1835. The town was a center of the linen industry, and Andrew's father was a weaver, a profession the young Carnegie was expected to follow. But the industrial revolution that would later make Carnegie the richest man in the world, destroyed the weavers' craft. When the steam-powered looms came to Dunfermline in 1847 hundreds of hand loom weavers became expendable. Andrew's mother went to work to support the family, opening a small grocery shop and mending shoes.

“…Andrew's mother, fearing for the survival of her family, pushed the family to leave the poverty of Scotland for the possibilities in America. She borrowed 20 pounds she needed to pay the fare for the Atlantic passage and in 1848 the Carnegies joined two of Margaret's sisters in Pittsburgh, then a sooty city that was the iron-manufacturing center of the country.

William Carnegie secured work in a cotton factory and his son Andrew took work in the same building as a bobbin boy for $1.20 a week. Later, Carnegie worked as a messenger boy in the city's telegraph office. He did each job to the best of his ability and seized every opportunity to take on new responsibilities. For example, he memorized Pittsburgh's street lay-out as well as the important names and addresses of those he delivered to….”

“…Carnegie was unusual among the industrial captains of his day because he preached for the rights of laborers to unionize and to protect their jobs. However, Carnegie's actions did not always match his rhetoric. Carnegie's steel workers were often pushed to long hours and low wages. In the Homestead Strike of 1892, Carnegie threw his support behind plant manager Henry Frick, who locked out workers and hired Pinkerton thugs to intimidate strikers. Many were killed in the conflict, and it was an episode that would forever hurt Carnegie's reputation and haunt the man.

Still, Carnegie's steel juggernaut was unstoppable, and by 1900 Carnegie Steel produced more of the metal than all of Great Britain. That was also the year that financier J. P. Morgan mounted a major challenge to Carnegie's steel empire. While Carnegie believed he could beat Morgan in a battle lasting five, 10 or 15 years, the fight did not appeal to the 64-year old man eager to spend more time with his wife Louise, whom he had married in 1886, and their daughter, Margaret….”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

There was a time in American History, during the Industrial Revolution, where men of vision and courage forged a new world, a modern world, to replace the sickness that had and has destroyed Europe. Those men were giants in Industry, in Steel, in Oil, in Railroads and later in Electricity and Automobiles, and even later in Space and Technology, such as the much maligned Bill Gates and Microsoft Corporation.

The left wing liberal progressive socialists continue to this day to demean and denigrate the history of progess and industry through innovation and vision.

Perhaps the next time you hear a left wing broadcaster or read a left wing newspaper about how terrible America and Capitalism are, you might consider the source.

Amicus…
 
Carnige was an unusal man all around. One o fmy favorite captins of indusrty. His tactics with labor were not significantly different than his contemporaries.

Walton's vision for his stores has been somewhat perverted by his succesors. His polcies were based on frugality and a strong work ethic. I've no problem with him or his bussiness acumen.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Carnige was an unusal man all around. One o fmy favorite captins of indusrty. His tactics with labor were not significantly different than his contemporaries.

Walton's vision for his stores has been somewhat perverted by his succesors. His polcies were based on frugality and a strong work ethic. I've no problem with him or his bussiness acumen.

!~~~~~~~~~

Colleen, we go round and round on this 'merry-go-round' of freedom versus slavery.

I sense you think there is an a mediation between the two.

I postulate there is no mediation; that a drop of poison in a glass of water is fatal.

I try not, believe it or not, to factor in the female imperative to compromise in a confrontational situation, but it seems always, to overrule my desire.

"Give me Liberty" (Freedom} "Or give me death!"; does not equate in your world view...and in that we differ.

Were it not so, there would be no 'Reservations...'

amicus....
 
amicus said:
!~~~~~~~~~

Colleen, we go round and round on this 'merry-go-round' of freedom versus slavery.

I sense you think there is an a mediation between the two.

I postulate there is no mediation; that a drop of poison in a glass of water is fatal.

I try not, believe it or not, to factor in the female imperative to compromise in a confrontational situation, but it seems always, to overrule my desire.

"Give me Liberty" (Freedom} "Or give me death!"; does not equate in your world view...and in that we differ.

Were it not so, there would be no 'Reservations...'

amicus....


You believe and live in a world of absolutes. I don't. You see black and white. I see only shades of gray. Something to you is either good or bad, to me, they can be partially either or both. You are a commited idealist. I'm the ultimate pragmatist, with a cynical and skeptical overlay.

I'm no fan of organized labor. And I would be disingenuous if I tried to defend organized labor. I've nothing against the companies who bust their unions, be it with thugs in Carnige's era or lawyers in ours. That said, I recognize the abuses that occured under a lazie-faire system and I have no problem with government stepping in and imposing prudent limitations on an employer.

The key word there is prudent. It's prudent to keep 8 and nine year old kids out of the work force. It's prudent to set a maxium number of hours a week you can demand a worker work, without compensating him if you demand more. It's prudent to require the employer to insure his employees against lost time on the job injuries. It's prudent to demand an employer offer pension and medical care options. Prudent, but not superbly economical for the employer. Yet not disasterously un economical either. The key to regluation, to me, is always that it be prudent. Not all of it is, but that's what happens when government gets too big.

In the case of Walton, his approach was pretty much acceptable to me on all levels. His successors, however, have taken a fine set of principals and carried them to an extreme. Moving into a location, undercutting all the mom & Pops, then jacking your prices once they fold, to me smaks of unethical bussines practice. Just because you are big enough to sell at a loss until they fold, does not mean you should do so.

A lot of people here decry the wages Walmart pays. I come from mississippi and back home, they pay a good wage and offer good bennies. So I don't share that particular complaint.
 
Couple of errors here. Number 1: Colleen is not trying to compromise so much as keep a grasp of the limitations of every system. Capitalism is the ideal system, but even in capitalism, as Jean-Francois Revel once noted, there can be "small doses" of socialism. Reasonable or practical exceptions, I call them. That's not feminine compromise. It's just applying practical reality to abstract and generally rational theory.

2nd error: there is no evidence that labor unions have their roots in the old "guilds". They function in radically different ways. Guilds regulated shops and businesses, governed towns, and were essentially a political force in the Middle Ages. They were not just for labor vs. management. They represented a mix of government, business, AND labor. There were craft and MERCHANT guilds. The REAL descendents of the guilds, who don't have nearly the power of their predecessors, are the Masonic lodges. Labor unions were founded by industrial workers to organize and find a private sector solution to the problems that they faced. It was not about socialism. If they had been given more rights at the outset, much progress could have been achieved in the private sector BY the private sector. Marx never anticipated the rise of unions, but Marxists later used the oppression of unions by trusts in countries like Germany to infiltrate them. Samuel Gompers, for instance, was no Marxist.
 
Your key mistake MiAmico is that you are all for the forces of competition to apply without let or hindrance in the name of business but at the same time deny those self same 'inaleinable'? rights to those that would sell their labour.

You want your cake and have different rules for the rest.
 
competition

good point gauche. ami is of the 1900s when unions could be--and were-- prosecuted for conspiracy.

it might also be pointed out that the Big Capitalists celebrated here, at some point cease struggling with competitors, and dedicate their effort to eliminating competitors; buying them out or running them out of business to secure monopoly position.

this is done by linking with and influencing (corrupting, one might say) government. and for that reason they bear the government no malice, as does mr. ami from his fantasyland. all their later achievements presuppose government support.
 
Last edited:
[I said:
Colleen Thomas]You believe and live in a world of absolutes. I don't. You see black and white. I see only shades of gray. Something to you is either good or bad, to me, they can be partially either or both. You are a commited idealist. I'm the ultimate pragmatist, with a cynical and skeptical overlay.

I'm no fan of organized labor. And I would be disingenuous if I tried to defend organized labor. I've nothing against the companies who bust their unions, be it with thugs in Carnige's era or lawyers in ours. That said, I recognize the abuses that occured under a lazie-faire system and I have no problem with government stepping in and imposing prudent limitations on an employer.

The key word there is prudent. It's prudent to keep 8 and nine year old kids out of the work force. It's prudent to set a maxium number of hours a week you can demand a worker work, without compensating him if you demand more. It's prudent to require the employer to insure his employees against lost time on the job injuries. It's prudent to demand an employer offer pension and medical care options. Prudent, but not superbly economical for the employer. Yet not disasterously un economical either. The key to regluation, to me, is always that it be prudent. Not all of it is, but that's what happens when government gets too big.

In the case of Walton, his approach was pretty much acceptable to me on all levels. His successors, however, have taken a fine set of principals and carried them to an extreme. Moving into a location, undercutting all the mom & Pops, then jacking your prices once they fold, to me smaks of unethical bussines practice. Just because you are big enough to sell at a loss until they fold, does not mean you should do so.

A lot of people here decry the wages Walmart pays. I come from mississippi and back home, they pay a good wage and offer good bennies. So I don't share that particular complaint.
[/I]

~~~~~~~~~

My apologies for not revisiting this thread as I should have. Was taking a few days to help with an MBA mid term exam about business practices in corporate America and got side-tracked.

"...You believe and live in a world of absolutes. I don't. You see black and white. I see only shades of gray. Something to you is either good or bad, to me, they can be partially either or both. You are a commited idealist. I'm the ultimate pragmatist, with a cynical and skeptical overlay..."

I understand and accept that. I would like to say that I 'respect' your position, just to ameliorate you and others, but I cannot and be honest with myself.

I have had to fight, daily and in every encounter, the temptation to compromise, to see only shades of grey, to become a cynic and a skeptic of all things. I will most likely die fighting the same temptation.

I am glad there have been women along the way who comfort me and smile and cook and clean and nurture and sit on my lap when day is done and sigh.

I cherish them. But I would never, ever want to be one.

To return to your comments: Much has been made of 'child labor', sweat shops, unsafe working places, employer unconcern for the fate of the workers.

Most of this was created by the 'yellow journalists', the apologists for socialism and pastoral Europe as the industrial age changed everything.

The history of man is a history of trial and error. We have no guarantee of success and every chance of failure.

If any single one of you on the Lit forum would invest your life savings in a new enterprise and risk your comfortable existence to bring a new venture into existence, then perhaps you might understand the nature of venture capitalism and the courage of the entrepeneur.

Even the creation of a small mom & pop grocery is a huge undertaking for those who invest their life savings and mortgage their future to keep it going.

The first thing of importance is the guarantee of a free society in which one can own land and incorporate a business venture.

Most of the men, the Sam Waltons, the Andrew Carnegie's, most of the so called, 'robber barons' began as poor immigrants and worked their way to prosperity.

I do not apologize nor feel the least bit guilty about the errors of a free market system, not at all. We learn only by doing.

What puzzles me, Colleen, about you and others, is why you would place your trust in hired or elected politicians to make those critical business and social decisions for you?

I advocate a precise and enforceable system of laws protecting individual rights and property so that neither government nor business nor labor can violate rights without suffering the weight of the law.

And yes, I know, politicians and judges and corporations and labor union bosses can all be corrupted and bribed. That is more human nature than it is a failure of the concept of freedom.

And the free market place, capitalism, is just that, economic freedom.

It is all a very tidy concept, maybe I should write a book....(grins) oh, I already did.


amicus...
 
Severus Max...."...Couple of errors here. Number 1: Colleen is not trying to compromise so much as keep a grasp of the limitations of every system. Capitalism is the ideal system, but even in capitalism, as Jean-Francois Revel once noted, there can be "small doses" of socialism. Reasonable or practical exceptions, I call them. That's not feminine compromise. It's just applying practical reality to abstract and generally rational theory. .."

~~~~~~~

SeverusMax....as a rookie talk show host, I was fired from several stations until one station manage finally said, "Shit oh Dear! He's got something!"

Small example I know, but consider also Thomas Edison, a hard nosed, hard assed inventor who insisted on having it his own way. And a hundred other names you would recall.

You insist that it is practical to dilute capitalism with small doses of socialism, sighs, the 'practical, grey men of antiquity', have held back science and truth, sentencing mankind to un-needed decades of poverty while the social planners caught up.

And Severus, I think you may not have had exposure to a full history of the 'Freemasons' in early American history, nor a full knowledge of the history of Guilds in Europe.

Guilds were a poor man's effort to attain the status of a fading aristocracy by creating a secret, closed society that controlled the new emerging middle class.

There has always been an 'artisan' class, set aside and specialized in their art and skills, a cut above your average rock. But they usually had a 'patron' in old Europe, a Church high mucky muck or a blue blood high mucky muck, who provided a guaranteed sinecure for them.

The emergence of the merchant class challenged the superiority of the Guilds and they fought back by withholding skills and performance.

It is a fascinating history, especially if one views it as a progress from control to freedom.

amicus...
 
amicus said:
!~~~~~~~~~

Colleen, we go round and round on this 'merry-go-round' of freedom versus slavery.

I sense you think there is an a mediation between the two.

I postulate there is no mediation; that a drop of poison in a glass of water is fatal.

I try not, believe it or not, to factor in the female imperative to compromise in a confrontational situation, but it seems always, to overrule my desire.

"Give me Liberty" (Freedom} "Or give me death!"; does not equate in your world view...and in that we differ.

Were it not so, there would be no 'Reservations...'

amicus....

Amicus... if you really believed in "Give me Liberty or Give me death!'... you'd be dead.

So since you're still breathing... obviously you've come to a comprimise with the world around you.

Start the Revolution, my white brother!!!

I will be cheering from the sidelines... and I promise to boo when the feds shoot you down.

BOOO!!! BOOO!!! BOOO!!!

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
[I said:
gauchecritic]Your key mistake MiAmico is that you are all for the forces of competition to apply without let or hindrance in the name of business but at the same time deny those self same 'inaleinable'? rights to those that would sell their labour.

You want your cake and have different rules for the rest.
[/I]

~~~~~~~~`

Well, Gauche, you mixed some terms here, to make your point, no doubt.

Let us replace your choice of word, 'competition' with freedom, which is really what competition is.

There is a surplus of untrained manual labor forces around the world. Business and Industry have always sought labor forces that could adapt to new ways and new ideas.

Neither a business man, with a venture to hire, nor a laborer, with services to offer have an advantage in a free society. Each to free to hire or contract as they see fit on an individual basis. No one forces you to take a job.

A man does not invest his life savings and risk impoverishing his family to 'give' employment to those who need it. He offers jobs on a competitive basis to those who can make his business function and return his investment and provide him and his family with a living.

Having been in business, I can tell you from personal experience, it is not an easy course of life, I would never choose it again.

Dealing with incompetent workers, those who steal, do not show up, do shoddy work, even sabotage a plant, is a daily occurence.

While you may have your life savings invested in plant and inventory, they offer nothing in excess of a days labor.

I will not presume to know what your 'ideal' system of economics might be, I suppose some 'command' system where big brother dictates all, but it would seem to me that enough of those systems have failed to at least give you some lingering doubts as to their efficacy.

amicus...
 
[I said:
Pure]good point gauche. ami is of the 1900s when unions could be--and were-- prosecuted for conspiracy.

it might also be pointed out that the Big Capitalists celebrated here, at some point cease struggling with competitors, and dedicate their effort to eliminating competitors; buying them out or running them out of business to secure monopoly position.

this is done by linking with and influencing (corrupting, one might say) government. and for that reason they bear the government no malice, as does mr. ami from his fantasyland. all their later achievements presuppose government support.
[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~

To round out my catching up on this thread, there is always Pure to consider.

Corruption is possible anywhere, as you well know and can most likely google examples in labor, government and business.

I think I might present a brief history on the fledgling oil industry, Standard Oil, and the Pennsylvania and Texas oil fields of a century ago, that retired horse power and human labor and made possible for machinery to take the burden from man's shoulders as my next foray into my defense of freedom and free enterprise.

To repeat myself, Pure, you are ever ready to criticize freedom and capitalism, just once you might glorify the successes of slavery and Communism. I am sure we would all like to hear about it.


amicus...
 
[I said:
elsol]Amicus... if you really believed in "Give me Liberty or Give me death!'... you'd be dead.

So since you're still breathing... obviously you've come to a comprimise with the world around you.

Start the Revolution, my white brother!!!

I will be cheering from the sidelines... and I promise to boo when the feds shoot you down.

BOOO!!! BOOO!!! BOOO!!!

Sincerely,
ElSol
[/I]
~~~~~~~~~~

Well, Elsol, if you don't know the origin of that saying or the one with the Rattlesnake, "Don't Tread on Me!", then I am sure you can google it.

While I am sure, (I think) that we need the Colleen's of this world to see the greys and to compromise in order to get things done, I also think we need those obstinate bastards who shout, 'my way or the highway', and mean it.

You might be surprised at some of the run ins with government that I have accumulated over the years.

During my long stint on talk radio, I ended every program with, "Up the Revolution!" and I meant it. Even started a Newsletter, entitled, "Resistance!" that I published for a few years.

I am not fond of government at all and never have been. Never filed an income tax return in my life, refused to show a national ID card, (social security card) for employment and when I was threatened with being fired, I produced a phoney one.

My first published work was one advocating an armed revolution to overthrow the government of the US.

So, my internet friend, you really don't know much about me at all.

amicus...
 
If amicus actually knew me, he wouldn't accuse me of not knowing my history. But, of course, he doesn't. I have been a history buff since I was a sickly ten year old stuck at home with nothing to do but read. I have read so much history it would make his head spin. But enough boasting. Especially since it wouldn't do any good here.

And Revel was right. If "socialism" means putting the individual aside for a moment for the mutual benefit of many individuals, then "small doses" are sometimes necessary. Just not large ones.

Obstinate bastards are fine. But even those need enough common sense to apply their ideals to reality, and then stick to those principles that they do maintain. Or, to quote Jefferson Davis, President of the CSA, we do not want our nation to have the epitaph, "Died of a Theory".
 
11 million mexicans show phoney id... or don't show any and just break the law of the land.

So color me impressed by your act of civil disobedience.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
amicus said:
[/I]

~~~~~~~~~

My apologies for not revisiting this thread as I should have. Was taking a few days to help with an MBA mid term exam about business practices in corporate America and got side-tracked.

"...You believe and live in a world of absolutes. I don't. You see black and white. I see only shades of gray. Something to you is either good or bad, to me, they can be partially either or both. You are a commited idealist. I'm the ultimate pragmatist, with a cynical and skeptical overlay..."

I understand and accept that. I would like to say that I 'respect' your position, just to ameliorate you and others, but I cannot and be honest with myself.

I have had to fight, daily and in every encounter, the temptation to compromise, to see only shades of grey, to become a cynic and a skeptic of all things. I will most likely die fighting the same temptation.

I am glad there have been women along the way who comfort me and smile and cook and clean and nurture and sit on my lap when day is done and sigh.

I cherish them. But I would never, ever want to be one.

To return to your comments: Much has been made of 'child labor', sweat shops, unsafe working places, employer unconcern for the fate of the workers.

Most of this was created by the 'yellow journalists', the apologists for socialism and pastoral Europe as the industrial age changed everything.

The history of man is a history of trial and error. We have no guarantee of success and every chance of failure.

If any single one of you on the Lit forum would invest your life savings in a new enterprise and risk your comfortable existence to bring a new venture into existence, then perhaps you might understand the nature of venture capitalism and the courage of the entrepeneur.

Even the creation of a small mom & pop grocery is a huge undertaking for those who invest their life savings and mortgage their future to keep it going.

The first thing of importance is the guarantee of a free society in which one can own land and incorporate a business venture.

Most of the men, the Sam Waltons, the Andrew Carnegie's, most of the so called, 'robber barons' began as poor immigrants and worked their way to prosperity.

I do not apologize nor feel the least bit guilty about the errors of a free market system, not at all. We learn only by doing.

What puzzles me, Colleen, about you and others, is why you would place your trust in hired or elected politicians to make those critical business and social decisions for you?

I advocate a precise and enforceable system of laws protecting individual rights and property so that neither government nor business nor labor can violate rights without suffering the weight of the law.

And yes, I know, politicians and judges and corporations and labor union bosses can all be corrupted and bribed. That is more human nature than it is a failure of the concept of freedom.

And the free market place, capitalism, is just that, economic freedom.

It is all a very tidy concept, maybe I should write a book....(grins) oh, I already did.


amicus...


I study history. Your complete disreguard for it puzzles me.

You cannot explain away the abuses of lazie faire capitalism as a left wing plot, any more than you can explain away the use of nuclear weapons as one. The abuses did occur, just as the bomb was dropped. YOu seem to feel you can dispute the facts of history in the same way you can dispute the interpretation and that's not the case.

Why do I trust elected oficals to regulate bussiness? Because I don't have any choice really. Only the government has the power, scope and legitimacy to do so. I'm not wild about the job they do o fit, but I'll take it over letting indusrty regulate itself. I have a river so full of PBC's I can't have more than once fish a month out of it that is a testament to how well industry regulates itself.

As to not respecting my position, I wouldn't expect you to. It woul dbe counter to your world view to allow any accomdation to anyone. Especially to a woman. If it makes you feel any better, yours is so rediculously laughable to me that I often amuse freinds with it. I can respect a wide range of opinion, but not one so clearly denied by the evidence of my senses. Your world view is, only slightly less comical than that of those poor nimrods who offed themselves in purple sneakers expecting for the mother ship to come get them.

I live in a world of reason and rational thought. While these two cannot explain a great many things, especially in the spehere of human action, they do me prety well overall. Your positions are neither reasonable nor rational. The are illogical in the extreme, no more easy to swallow than any hard core, unyeilding fundamentalist religion.

For all that, you're only 3/10th the crudmudgeon you pretend to be. So I take you at face value, with a trukload of salt. And baring a really bad day or a really touchy issue, I try not to let you ruffle my feathers.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
As to not respecting my position, I wouldn't expect you to ... If it makes you feel any better, yours is so rediculously laughable to me that I often amuse freinds with it.

Lord, how I love that line. :D I think it very fine and shall in fact attempt to amuse my friends with it.

I have long since given over wrangling with Amicus for precisely the reason you note - that when one presents facts, one is met not with facts, but repetition of fuzzy, ungrounded claims rooted only in "what I would like to believe" rather than empirical reality. There is a difference between having a defensible point and simply being tediously determined to repeat one's point of view without it. In this case, as you note, the chief thing that proponents of absolute laissez-faire capitalism tend to sidestep is the fact that it has already been attempted and it didn't work. In fact, it failed so badly that the admittedly ramshackle and hastily cobbled-together attempts to regulate it have been deemed preferable by most of the world. And, as you note, one only needs to read a bit of history to recognize this.

Shanglan
 
Colleen Thomas, Black Shanglan....

For all your verbosity, the fear that you might truly be totally wrong still seeps through, as it does with many on this forum and elsewhere, to lessen your anguish.

While the course of human freedom and individual liberty has surely had its ups and downs, that selfsame course has always trended upwards to more freedom and more liberty.

And while I am loathe to think I can really ever communicate with you, it is not a 'faith' or a 'belief' that I offer as evidence of the human spirit, rather an experience of life.

I know and have learned the nature of man. Natural, normal, day to day men and women that I have worked alongside all my life. I know who they are, I know who I am.

Since I have read many posts by each here, some more than others, I know and have detected some basic humanity in almost everyone here. I think sometimes you don't realize that you possess it and certainly not that you expose it.

You seem to have created an intellectual facade of cynicism and skepticism as a protective device that rarely fails to disguise the humanity you possess.

Funny I should resort to a biblical phrase, 'forgive them for they know not what they do...', but it seems appropriate here as you constantly slash and burn what good things humans have done.

It is not capitalism or communism and socialism, nor abortion, nor any of the issues that only symbolize a deeper division that troubles you; it is purpose and meaning in the deepest sense.

It is representative of symptoms I have noted for many, many years, a deep despair of humanity in general. A doubting beyong the individual and the personal, a fear of the unknown, a loss of faith in all things.

You are troubled, my friends, and I know not how to soothe your troubled minds.

I thought an easy introductory course to a rational moral concept might show the way, no way Jose', you fight it every inch of the way.

I thought an 'in ur face' confrontational stature, would get your attention, it does, but then what?

I stated, long ago, that part of my reason for engaging here was to collect information for a book, it is still that and more, as a work of fiction also has me perplexed. Another, fictional society is also going through a transitional stage and must replace old customs with new. You have convinced me that the transition will not be an easy one and for that I am grateful.

Your old Gods, faiths, symbols, beliefs no longer suffice to give comfort for a troubled mind, and it is not my journey in life to provide you with the new.

I guess I can only point out how your old ones are failing and suggest the possible urgency of finding new ones.

Hmmmm....I can leave that or delete it...?

Although I have made no friends here, there are 'acquaintances' I cherish, to one degree or another. Perhaps to note that some of the oldest have not changed over time, dismays me, dunno.

amicus...
 
amicus said:
Colleen Thomas, Black Shanglan....

For all your verbosity, the fear that you might truly be totally wrong still seeps through, as it does with many on this forum and elsewhere, to lessen your anguish.

My dear Amicus, don't trouble yourself in the least on my behalf. I do not lay abed at night in anguish, fearful of the terrible spectres you have raised in my mind. I would hate for you to be going about with that on your conscience, so please allow me to reassure you that nothing you have ever said has struck me as remotely likely to affect me in the slightest.

Shanglan
 
amicus said:
Colleen Thomas, Black Shanglan....

For all your verbosity, the fear that you might truly be totally wrong still seeps through, as it does with many on this forum and elsewhere, to lessen your anguish.

While the course of human freedom and individual liberty has surely had its ups and downs, that selfsame course has always trended upwards to more freedom and more liberty.

And while I am loathe to think I can really ever communicate with you, it is not a 'faith' or a 'belief' that I offer as evidence of the human spirit, rather an experience of life.

I know and have learned the nature of man. Natural, normal, day to day men and women that I have worked alongside all my life. I know who they are, I know who I am.

Since I have read many posts by each here, some more than others, I know and have detected some basic humanity in almost everyone here. I think sometimes you don't realize that you possess it and certainly not that you expose it.

You seem to have created an intellectual facade of cynicism and skepticism as a protective device that rarely fails to disguise the humanity you possess.

Funny I should resort to a biblical phrase, 'forgive them for they know not what they do...', but it seems appropriate here as you constantly slash and burn what good things humans have done.

It is not capitalism or communism and socialism, nor abortion, nor any of the issues that only symbolize a deeper division that troubles you; it is purpose and meaning in the deepest sense.

It is representative of symptoms I have noted for many, many years, a deep despair of humanity in general. A doubting beyong the individual and the personal, a fear of the unknown, a loss of faith in all things.

You are troubled, my friends, and I know not how to soothe your troubled minds.

I thought an easy introductory course to a rational moral concept might show the way, no way Jose', you fight it every inch of the way.

I thought an 'in ur face' confrontational stature, would get your attention, it does, but then what?

I stated, long ago, that part of my reason for engaging here was to collect information for a book, it is still that and more, as a work of fiction also has me perplexed. Another, fictional society is also going through a transitional stage and must replace old customs with new. You have convinced me that the transition will not be an easy one and for that I am grateful.

Your old Gods, faiths, symbols, beliefs no longer suffice to give comfort for a troubled mind, and it is not my journey in life to provide you with the new.

I guess I can only point out how your old ones are failing and suggest the possible urgency of finding new ones.

Hmmmm....I can leave that or delete it...?

Although I have made no friends here, there are 'acquaintances' I cherish, to one degree or another. Perhaps to note that some of the oldest have not changed over time, dismays me, dunno.

amicus...


I think, you just summedit up perfectly. i fear I might be wrong, or at least entertain the idea, and thus I continue to question and to grow.

You know you are right, as Jerry Falwell or Oral Roberts or Good old Pat do. You have no need to question, you nkow and so you don't grow. You are doomed to walk along the same well troden course, mired in your own delusions of adequacy, while the world moves around you.

I question everything, you have no questions.

I think you are in a safe comfortable place, that requires neither intellectual effort or indeed any effort. Save that of repeating your mantra like a priest at vespers.

I want to know, so I question everything, and if no satisfactory answer is forthcoming, I question it more closely.

Thus when we argue, I can provide a good deal of support to my positions, while usually admitting I cannot provide proof positive. You can provide, a reinteration of your point, over, and over and over and over again. As if repetition is all that is required, not unlike the liturgies of Medivevil church.

So in the end, I admit there is room for religion in my life, but I can argue in a rational, objective manner. You deny religion, yet for all the world, you sound like the Grand priest of the order of Amicus. Believe because I say so, not because I can support it.

Yet if I choose not to belive, you're really at a loss. Al you can do then is scorn me, or belittleme, or tell me what I think.

Make sure you let me know whit a hymn when you are ready to pass the plate. till then I'll do as i so often did at sermons when I was young.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
Just a short reply, Colleen.

The reason we search for answers...is to find them.

When they begin to teach us Mathematics in school, they do so knowing we have a long way to go before we comprehend quantum physics. But we proceed along that journey, learning as we go, accumulating knowledge adding to our store.

You would have it that life is a continual journey with no destination. I suppose that is indicative of secular humanism, to which there are no absolute answers to anything at any time.

Your journey, by definition, is a downward spiral into confusion and insanity, which is what I tried to say earlier.

My journey, in distinct opposition to yours, is an ever widening voyage into the future with a firm base in absolute reality; there is no room for God or the Spirit world.

There is a downside, to inject a personal note here; one has a choice, early on, to devote ones entire energy to seek expertise in a focused field of endeavor, or to reject the narrow focus and seek an universal comprehension.

I chose the Universal approach and I find myself, such as on this forum, usually unable to relate to the narrowly focused view. It is sometimes a detraction, but not always.

amicus...
 
Problem with economics is that it has axioms which can be severely decimated by the simplest axiom of all: freedom of action. Freedom of action pretty much damns all economic systems from any ideals.
 
[I said:
Xelebes]Problem with economics is that it has axioms which can be severely decimated by the simplest axiom of all: freedom of action. Freedom of action pretty much damns all economic systems from any ideals.
[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~``

Well, perhaps...

But when you consider that the universal axiom among all men at all times is self interest, 'looking out for number one' and you accept that as a given, then mutual cooperation inevitably follows as it has in the development of the 'free enterprise' system as the one that best reflects mutual self interest.

Capitalism is such a lovely system...( and engenders individual freedom too!"

amicus...
 
amicus said:
[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~``

Well, perhaps...

But when you consider that the universal axiom among all men at all times is self interest, 'looking out for number one' and you accept that as a given, then mutual cooperation inevitably follows as it has in the development of the 'free enterprise' system as the one that best reflects mutual self interest.

Capitalism is such a lovely system...( and engenders individual freedom too!"

amicus...


Looking out for one's self-interest can also mean raping little girls.
 
[QUOTE=Xelebes]Looking out for one's self-interest can also mean raping little girls.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~

No, actually it cannot.

Exercising anarchical self interest will get your ass killed if you violate another man's rights.

Thus we amend the concept to 'rational self interest', which precludes theft and raping little girls.

But then, you already knew that.

amicus...
 
Back
Top