patrick.net

indigenous says

Why not answer the fucking question?

Any fucking dictionary answers your stupid question. How about you just admit that bringing up those comments about the Nobel prize nomination and Time magazine was utterly moronic? After all, that was the point I was addressing.

We have been since Reagan declared war on Drug users.

bob2356 says

So no the term national socialist in context of the times had nothing at all to do with socialism.

Indy is right here. The NSDAP was the quintessential melt of socialism and patriotism. There is a debate in Germany about how socialist/leftist and how fascist it was, but nobody would deny that socialism was a huge part of the NSDAP and Hitler.

Speaking of the law, how do I get this drill sergeant's job???

lostand confused says

Speaking of the law, how do I get this drill sergeant's job???

"So many beauties, so little time" How long can you keep it up? Maybe Rin can help.

anonymous says

. Perhaps they fancy a theocracy instead of a police state but only with the "correct" religion of course.

Since he is the one who asked the question, what are the 5 freedoms included in the 1st ammendment I doubt it. anonymous says

Somehow I have to question the real motive behind the piece

Of course everyone "acts, but I posted articles that are pointing to the same thing. Hell they started an entire country for fewer attacks on liberty, and came up with a constitution to spell them out.

anonymous says

every time I see the word "foundation", "institute" or similar eloquent descriptor attached to words like Heritage, Freedom, etc. the alarm bells go off - real loud.

I know what you mean I get the same feeling when I hear: equality, affirmative action, acorn, affordable healthcare, income inequality, we are from the government we are here to help you, and endless other nanny statements designed to take away your liberty.

anonymous says

Tossing in the question about "what are the 5 freedoms of the 1st amendment ?" was a diversion to get me to refocus on something else (didn't fall for it). Those 5 freedoms were never mentioned in the piece and therefore the question remains a distraction.

He did mention them in the podcast, to demonstrate how ignorant we are to the constitution. In fact he said he asked the question to a room full of lawyers and not one of them answered. No it was not a misdirection it was part of the point, on how atrophied our constant vigilance has become.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/6/8/568232f22d5c7a90/woods_04_24_2015_2.mp3?c_id=8852243&expiration=1430007510&hwt=3ee70a7e30842ac78c52911fb64afdc3

Strategist says

Speaking of the law, how do I get this drill sergeant's job???

I will take the other side on this one...

bob2356 says

As usual you have no clue about history. So many good books have been written on the subject.

As usual you get out a ladder and climb over the elephant in the room and pickup some scrap in order to make me wrong.

The fact is that the main determining factor between fascism and socialism is who controls the means of production.

Here is part of an article by George Reisman pointing out what Mises said about this:

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

indigenous says

What is the definition of Fascism?

Whatever it was, von Mises thought it was better than Social Democracy, Unions, Pensions, Social Security, etc.

thunderlips11 says

Whatever it was, von Mises thought it was better than Social Democracy, Unions, Pensions, Social Security, etc.

No he didn't, and you accuse me of taking things out of context.

Here is the text it was taken from, in which Mises pointed out the positive and the negative about fascism:

So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

BTW the definition that applies is simply a strong nationalism that predisposes the country to a police state, spying and getting the civilians to turn each other in and price control.

indigenous says

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success.

Read that line very carefully. Mises is much more afraid of (some) democratic control over the means of production.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success.

Read that line very carefully. Mises is much more afraid of (some) democratic control over the means of production.

Of course that would be socialism. Look at how it has worked out in this country, public utilities, cash for clunkers, GM, student loans, everyone should own a house, health insurance for everyone (with a 6k deductible), the defense industry, etc etc.

You bet be afraid be very afraid.

indigenous says

Look at how it has worked out in this country, public utilities, cash for clunkers, GM, student loans, everyone should own a house, health insurance for everyone (with a 6k deductible), the defense industry, etc etc.

Social Security, Clean Water, the Space Program, the Industrialization of Britain and the USA, widespread home ownership, ludicrous amounts of paved highway, near-universal literacy, etc. etc.

The end game of Maximizing Utility means everybody is poor except one person or group - unless you have redistribution of wealth, of course.

thunderlips11 says

Social Security

Which will be toast within 15yr, not to mention that a person would have ended up with much more money if he would have invested the money privately.

thunderlips11 says

Clean Water

Like in Calif with 80% of it being subsidized, not to mention that we have a drought.

thunderlips11 says

the Space Program

So What

thunderlips11 says

the Industrialization of Britain and the USA

Which has nothing to do with government.

thunderlips11 says

ludicrous amounts of paved highway

Which would have been much much much cheaper if privatized as there would have been no Davis Bacon or public unions involved.

thunderlips11 says

widespread home ownership

Which has nothing to do with government and was only made worse by government.

thunderlips11 says

near-universal literacy

And would have been higher if not for the public indoctrination system. Not to mention Calif for instance has the some of the highest paid teachers in the country with almost the worst test scores in the country.

thunderlips11 says

The end game of Maximizing Utility means everybody is poor except one person or group - unless you have redistribution of wealth, of course.

And even the poorest are better off than the richest of many countries. Not to mention that the worse case of inequality is when the Fed has meddled the most as in NOW and in the 20s.

No your arguments are complete bullshit.

mell says

bob2356 says

So no the term national socialist in context of the times had nothing at all to do with socialism.

Indy is right here. The NSDAP was the quintessential melt of socialism and patriotism. There is a debate in Germany about how socialist/leftist and how fascist it was, but nobody would deny that socialism was a huge part of the NSDAP and Hitler.

indigenous says

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Mises calls every government system on the planet short of anarchy socialist.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

And how did mises "show" that? What private owners for christ sakes. These were corporations. Does mises have the vaguest clue what a corporation is or what stockholders are? Many of these corporations were US. http://www.globalresearch.ca/profits-ber-alles-american-corporations-and-hitler/4607 They made huge profits under the Nazi's. The first thing the nazi's did was to kill or put in jail all the union leaders along with all the socialists and communist then disband all unions. Who do you think the concentration camps were full of before they started arresting the jews?

So in mises and indigenous's strange world if a government orders from a corporation then it's a socialist system because the government controls what is ordered even if the corporation is selling to private customers also. You guys are too weird for words.

The nazi's (up until the shooting started then they ordered industry around to SOME degree, just like america did) placed orders with business. Business filled the orders. Many of the biggest corporations in germany were subsidiaries of US corporations. Show where the nazi's dictated dividends (what the fuck is other income in a corporaton?) for Ford, GM, IBM, or Texaco. The german subsidiaries of US corporations (as well as german corporations) made huge profits all through the war. After pearl harbour president Roosevelt himself discreetly issued an edict allowing American corporations to do business with enemy countries — or with neutral countries that were friendly with enemies — by means of a special authorization even though it was clearly trading with the enemy and illegal. Hmmm. Many corporations, including US corporations, were able to use slave labor provided by the nazis. Some of these profits were secretly repatriated to the US after the war. The US government paid these corporations compensation for bombing damage to their factories.

This is socialism? How?

anonymous says

I listened to most of the podcast

That makes you better than 99% of the denizens here.

anonymous says

There is no doubt in my mind this particular question was chosen with great care as well, knowing beyond a reasonable doubt the average person regardless of profession (lawyers in this case) is not going to be able to rattle off the answer and the chances of it ever happening are too few and far between to worry about.

If you say so, I got 4 out of the 5.

anonymous says

It gets more ingenious though when he proceeds to challenge anyone in attendance to answer him in a public forum with the warning that he is going to call them on it, if they attempt to do so.

Meh, this sounds a little paranoid, especially for a group of generally flamboyant types

anonymous says

One other thing he does very subtly and shrewdly to add credence to the next part is too quickly mention the laws enacted immediately after 9-11 but does not spend any time on who was responsible for this and quickly moves on.

I don't think he is any fan of Bush either.

anonymous says

My bottom line – dig deeper with this guy, what are the true motives or purpose? It might also be worthwhile just to mention that these are views of Libertarian Party supporters.

I'm correlating 2 of a few articles, including the one on Zero Hedge, and news items that indicate that we are indeed becoming a police state.

bob2356 says

And how did mises "show" that?

How about empirically where Germany was turned into a war machine right down to producing Aryan babies.

bob2356 says

They made huge profits under the Nazi's.

So the apparatchiks don't have cronys? They go hand in glove. bob2356 says

The first thing the nazi's did was to kill or put in jail all the union leaders along with all the socialists and communist then disband all unions.

Yea and Stalin was a big fan of unions?

bob2356 says

bob2356 says

You guys are too weird for words.

Ad Hominem
.

bob2356 says

This is socialism? How?

Price controls on all the business, which of course the bigger business can ignore because the fines just become a part of doing business but the smaller business not so much. It pushes small business towards the black market. But once the government creates fear that impinges it changes the behavior of business.

It creates a culture that turns one citizen against another so you can police the people through spying. Since the system is unworkable from the get go, so the leaders have to expose some cabal in order to keep up the charade with plenty of fear inducing executions.

indigenous says

How about empirically

indigenous says

It creates a culture

You forgot meme and mutts as part of your standard answer when you have no rational quantifiable evidence. So document where dividends were controlled on corporations under the nazi's. I'll be waiting, but the sun will probably go supernova first.

indigenous says

ob2356 says

They made huge profits under the Nazi's.

So the apparatchiks don't have cronys? They go hand in glove.

They go hand in glove? There are no profits under socialism. That's the very definition of socialism. Unless of course you are one of those special people that believes that everything other than anarchy is socialism.

bob2356 says

They go hand in glove? There are no profits under socialism. That's the very definition of socialism. Unless of course you are one of those special people that believes that everything other than anarchy is socialism.

Talking about a non-existent utopia or dystopia accomplishes nothing. Every system has profits and in a socialist/communist system 99% of the profits are enjoyed by the ruling government and the people close to them running the biggest "corporations". That's why it is essentially not much different from fascism (i.e. "red-painted fascists"). During the rise of the NSDAP and Hitler, proletarian organisations almost instantly switched from flashing the sowjet star symbol to flashing the swastika, the same people walking in the streets commiserating and protesting the death of (jewish) Kurt Eisner (murdered by a radical "right-winger", Hitler joined this marched as well). Quite a lot of still present "socialist" laws were signed or enhanced during the Nazi regime or strengthened. It's fascinating and scary how the left has created that imagery of left=good vs right=bad while - without any doubt - the most radical and deadly regimes ever existed on this planet all rooted in left-wing socialism/communism, the "red-painted" equivalent of traditional fascism.

bob2356 says

You forgot meme and mutts as part of your standard answer when you have no rational quantifiable evidence. So document where dividends were controlled on corporations under the nazi's. I'll be waiting, but the sun will probably go supernova first.

Are you implying that corporations in key industries were not nationalized by Hitler?

bob2356 says

They go hand in glove? There are no profits under socialism. That's the very definition of socialism. Unless of course you are one of those special people that believes that everything other than anarchy is socialism.

So that would imply that the apparatchiks don't enjoy a better standard of living? But they do just like public union members pursuing their personal interests under the protection/guise of public servant.

And yup I am one of those "special people" who prefer insight to regurgitating history without conceptional understanding.

indigenous says

And yup I am one of those "special people" who prefer insight to regurgitating history without conceptional understanding.

Thanks for the laugh.

Bigsby says

Thanks for the laugh.

Back at ya

anonymous says

The author does has valid points

But this is far from the only story...

I suppose the other extreme is Gary, but he has more validity than people give him credit for.

The main point is that the status quo meme that everything is fine that this is business as usual is dead wrong.

Are we becoming a police state?

NO. We've been a police state for quite some time. Now people are filming it and posting it on youtube.

elliemae says

Are we becoming a police state?

NO. We've been a police state for quite some time. Now people are filming it and posting it on youtube.

You don't have a police state. You just have a very heavy-handed police force that's been given too much ex-military equipment.

Bigsby says

You don't have a police state. You just have a very heavy-handed police force that's been given too much ex-military equipment.

Does anyone else see what is wrong with this picture?

indigenous says

Bigsby says

You don't have a police state. You just have a very heavy-handed police force that's been given too much ex-military equipment.

Does anyone else see what is wrong with this picture?

That you have a heavy-handed police force with too much ex-military equipment? Do I win a prize? It still doesn't make your country a police state. It just shows that internet forums are places for hyperbole.

Bigsby says

Do I win a prize?

Getting close, yes.

Oh, CiC, you're so funny. Your ever original posts always make me laugh.

A friend of mine who is married to a cop said that the difference between how she looks at people and he looks at people is this: She starts them at a "10" and they have to earn her distrust. He starts them at a "1" and they have to earn his trust.

Cameras are wonderful things, but many officers don't like them....
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/california-marshal-smashed-phone/index.html

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Oh, CiC, you're so funny.

It wasn't a joke....

Duh, you don't say, though you calling someone else a troll is so laughably hypocritical it is actually funny.

elliemae says

He starts them at a "1" and they have to earn his trust.

Police work attracts this element of society. Once someone was telling me that they got into police work in order to help people but quickly realized that cops are assholes and got out of it. Not to say all of them are but certainly a higher percentage. This characteristic gets further imprinted on them after years of dealing with bullshit.

Call it Crazy says

Plus, you've started all of 2 threads for discussion in 3-1/2 years...

Since you've started the same 2 threads 800 times each in that same period, I'm gonna say Bigsby is a better contributor.

Being declared the dumbest member of this forum - as opposed to your previous position as the 2nd-dumbest fucktard - must have left a mark on what's left of your ego. You are noticeably crankier than before.

HydroCabron says

Being declared the dumbest member of this forum - as opposed to your previous position as the 2nd-dumbest fucktard - must have left a mark on what's left of your ego. You are noticeably crankier than before.

Said the mutt, pinche cabron

indigenous says

Which has nothing to do with government.

Everything to do with Government. UK for 300 years prior to the 19th Century carried out a policy of destroying wool and linen manufacturing on the continent, paying Burgundian Burghers to move to England, refusing to export Fuller's Earth and Wool, including raw wool as reparations in peace treaties, and buying up surplus wool from around Europe.

The US had high tariffs on manufacturing, otherwise, we'd be like Mexico, that did not.

indigenous says

And would have been higher if not for the public indoctrination system. Not to mention Calif for instance has the some of the highest paid teachers in the country with almost the worst test scores in the country.

There is so much "duh" here I can't even be arsed. The illiteracy rate in late 19th Century Britain before Government Schooling was about 30%. It was over 80% in Scotland, where schools were supported by law. It's also how the Scots came to dominate British Intellectual, Business, and Literary Life.

thunderlips11 says

The US had high tariffs on manufacturing, otherwise, we'd be like Mexico, that did not.

And you would say this was the main reason for the industrial revolution???

thunderlips11 says

The illiteracy rate in late 19th Century Britain before Government Schooling was about 30%. It was over 80% in Scotland, where schools were supported by law. It's also how the Scots came to dominate British Intellectual, Business, and Literary Life.

My understanding is that the literacy rate in the US in the late 19th century was very high, maybe even higher than todays standards, which is a very low bar.

indigenous says

My understanding is that the literacy rate in the US in the late 19th century was very high, maybe even higher than todays standards, which is a very low bar.

Many states had public education.

thunderlips11 says

Many states had public education.

They have that now, would you say the literacy rate is better now?