What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[unregistered]

 

[RightField]

My version of the political spectrum is much more practical, in that the far right wing represents no government, or Anarchy. The extreme left wing represents total government, or Communism. One can plainly see, under the logic of my view, how the various aspects of totalitarianism are all grouped at various positions on the left, as different aspects of limited government are seen arrayed along the right side of the spectrum.

In this view it's much easier to classify government control in it's proper relationship to other forms of government. Leftist hate my view because it illuminates their true proximity to the totalitarian forms that have darkened the history of mankind for so many centuries, and explodes the near universal myth that Nazism is a product of the political right.

It's a sensible approach that is simple and clear to understand.

 

[patrick1]

My version of the political spectrum is much more practical, in that the far right wing represents no government, or Anarchy. The extreme left wing represents total government, or Communism. One can plainly see, under the logic of my view, how the various aspects of totalitarianism are all grouped at various positions on the left, as different aspects of limited government are seen arrayed along the right side of the spectrum.

In this view it's much easier to classify government control in it's proper relationship to other forms of government. Leftist hate my view because it illuminates their true proximity to the totalitarian forms that have darkened the history of mankind for so many centuries, and explodes the near universal myth that Nazism is a product of the political right.

Well, because I stand outside your classifications, it's hard for me to understand. Your view certainly seems to lack historical illumination, and at heart I'm a historian.

<< the far right wing represents no government, or Anarchy.>>

There have been many times in the past century and a bit when anarchy has represented the far left - for instance, in 1917 in Russia, just before they were vanquished by the Marxists.

It's also quite a puzzling line in that the far right wing is usually associated, in popular dicussion, with fascism, militarism, and other forms of violent government intervention in everyday life.

<< One can plainly see, under the logic of my view, how the various aspects of totalitarianism are all grouped at various positions on the left...>>

Well I can plainly see the logic of your view - but only if you don't see that a person like me could even exist. I am not grouped with any kind of totalitarianism. I am against the State, and I am a leftie. I believe in liberty and mutualism.

<< My version of the political spectrum is much more practical>>

Well, these things are in the eyes of the beholder.

<<Leftist hate my view because it illuminates their true proximity to the totalitarian forms that have darkened the history of mankind for so many centuries>>

I don't hate anybody's views, I try to respect them, listen to them, respond to them. I am a leftist, anti-totalitarian. There's a bloke on my town with swastikas tattooed on his arms, whom I am ceaselessly friendly to: I believe in dialogue with him, and with you, and with people of all persuasions, peacefully and without meanness.

Patrick

 

[mercury14]

Well, because I stand outside your classifications, it's hard for me to understand. Your view certainly seems to lack historical illumination, and at heart I'm a historian.

<< the far right wing represents no government, or Anarchy.>>

There have been many times in the past century and a bit when anarchy has represented the far left - for instance, in 1917 in Russia, just before they were vanquished by the Marxists.

It's also quite a puzzling line in that the far right wing is usually associated, in popular dicussion, with fascism, militarism, and other forms of violent government intervention in everyday life.

<< One can plainly see, under the logic of my view, how the various aspects of totalitarianism are all grouped at various positions on the left...>>

Well I can plainly see the logic of your view - but only if you don't see that a person like me could even exist. I am not grouped with any kind of totalitarianism. I am against the State, and I am a leftie. I believe in liberty and mutualism.

<< My version of the political spectrum is much more practical>>

Well, these things are in the eyes of the beholder.

<<Leftist hate my view because it illuminates their true proximity to the totalitarian forms that have darkened the history of mankind for so many centuries>>

I don't hate anybody's views, I try to respect them, listen to them, respond to them. I am a leftist, anti-totalitarian. There's a bloke on my town with swastikas tattooed on his arms, whom I am ceaselessly friendly to: I believe in dialogue with him, and with you, and with people of all persuasions, peacefully and without meanness.

Patrick

These characters have always considered libertarians as being on their side. Left libertarianism really bakes their noodle.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

I'm keeping the economy moving, I just ordered four more Wilson mags.

 

[patrick1]

I'm always game to agree to disagree once all other avenues have been explored.

But I would like to point out that Benito Mussolini edited Avanti for a very short and specific period of time. The local Socialists (whom I am in no way endorsing in other respects) expelled him when they realized what he was up to. Of course, this was a brilliant way of stopping him from ever coming to power, as things turned out, but there you go.

So the fact that he once edited the magazine demonstrates what? I'm sorry, I just don't follow. All sorts of people have been in all sorts of organisations for all sorts of reasons, and therefore...?

I maintain that largely what we call right-wing views are associated with fascism, with government control, sometimes with violence, of people, often associated with racism. I maintain that anarchism is largely associated with what we call left-wing views of popular lliberation, however wildly misguided.

Are you saying I'm historically wrong? If so, evidence would be good.

Patrick

Try and understand that I do not equate a form of government with individual acts of lawlessness, or short periods of lawlessness, anarchy being the absence of all structured order.

In addition Patrick, in regard to Fascism, and as a historian at heart, you might recall that Mussolini, the founder of modern Fascism, edited Avanti Magazine, the leading Italian Socialist periodical of the time.

I guess at this point we simply agree, respectfully of course, to disagree.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I'm maintaining that a Libertarian never arrives at a leftist point of view.

All you're doing though is making up your own arbitrary definition of what a libertarian is.

 

[unregistered]

 

[patrick1]

I'm maintaining that a Libertarian never arrives at a leftist point of view.

But I am saying - I personally am a living breathing example of a a leftist libertarian.

I believe in liberty and the mutual and I am against the State except when absolutely convinced otherwise, usually by some argument that ten years down the line turns out to have been a bewitching falsehood .

Patrick

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But I am saying - I personally am a living breathing example of a a leftist libertarian.

I believe in liberty and the mutual and I am against the State except when absolutely convinced otherwise, usually by some argument that ten years down the line turns out to have been a bewitching falsehood .

Patrick

liberty and the mutual?

against the state except when absolutely convinced otherwise?

You're the classic example of the middle way, not a Libertarian.

I know, I come from there beginning as a Liberal right up to the, "I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. Pure sophistry...

Anarchists are neither Left or Right; they are idiots. They do stupid shit like form a Federation...

 

[patrick1]

liberty and the mutual?

against the state except when absolutely convinced otherwise?

You're the classic example of the middle way, not a Libertarian.

I know, I come from there beginning as a Liberal right up to the, "I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. Pure sophistry...

Anarchists are neither Left or Right; they are idiots. They do stupid shit like form a Federation...

Thanks for your courtesy charm and respect. Obviously you've got my vote.

Patrick

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

For six fucking years how sick did we get of hearing "Haliburton and no bid-contracts?"

Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal

A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist.
By David Willman, Los Angeles Times
November 13, 2011

Reporting from Washington— Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.

Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.

When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a "sole-source" procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation's biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-smallpox-20111113,0,4293298.story







Don't blame us... again... :groan: ...

IT WAS A BUSH POLICY!

Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga's drug "a waste of time and a waste of money."

The Obama administration official who has overseen the buying of Siga's drug says she is trying to strengthen the nation's preparedness. Dr. Nicole Lurie, a presidential appointee who heads biodefense planning at Health and Human Services, cited a 2004 finding by the Bush administration that there was a "material threat" smallpox could be used as a biological weapon.

Making good use of the PayGo policy!

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Better than a dayglo policy.



I should paint designs on my teepee.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Anarchist, like any good comanchero, has designs on the insides of your teepee...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

The real anarchist doesn't, but the one who is looking to impose his brand of belief on others begins to covet my stuff . . . and the squaw.



Good thing they leave tracks so they are easy to follow.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As I stated before, the real anarchist is an antisocial loon.



The only thing loonier is thinking there can be a Left-wing of the Libertarian Polity...

That, at best, would be Mises calling Hayek a Socialist and Rothbard calling Mises a Socialist.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Yet I am reasonably social and have serious anarchistic leanings. Tip was right, politics are local, and should be. But that requires being able to keep one's hands on what one has and out of the pockets of others, and relying on some basic principles, like a work ethic, which seems to be sorely lacking in some parts of society as a whole.



Of course, when you find it necessary and right to teach self-esteem as a class in the gummint schools, well . . . .

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Nowhere has a Democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs with which most people are familiar, where there is awareness of one's neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take real part public affair because they concern the world he knows.
FA Hayek
The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 15 p. 234

Where I live, we don't have as much as a zoning ordinance...

Bushwhackers got one thing right!

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Yeah, and we have too many such silly things here, which is why Wat is considering how best to begin to subvert the system.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Rage at the Machine?



Let's do the time warp again?

Come on in here boy and have a cigar, you're gonna go far?

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I am mastering Uncle Joe-speak so my minions will know what to do while the press has been deluded/manipulated.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh, yeah, we have merc's reply in another thread already to this outrage:

How come you didn't include this:

"In early December, officials completed a required "justification for other than full and open competition," which said an antiviral against smallpox was needed within five years and Siga was the only company able to meet that timetable."


Without explaining why he excluded this:

But the federal contract required that the winning bidder be a small business, with no more than 500 employees. Chimerix Inc., a North Carolina company that had competed for the contract, protested, saying Siga was too big.

Officials at the Small Business Administration investigated and quickly agreed, finding that Siga's affiliation with MacAndrews & Forbes disqualified it.

The Obama administration could have awarded the contract to Chimerix as the only eligible small-business applicant. Or it could have reopened the competition to companies of any size.

Instead, the administration moved to block all companies — except Siga — from bidding on a second offering of the contract.

In early December, officials completed a required "justification for other than full and open competition," which said an antiviral against smallpox was needed within five years and Siga was the only company able to meet that timetable.

The rationale was questioned by some in HHS, including contracting officer Brian K. Goodger, who in an internal email called it "a stretch."

 

[Wat_Tyler]

But what about largepox?



Buncha size-icists!!!!