Bernie

[csekavec]

Heard on the radio today that Sanders wants to dismantle the 1%.  This seems to imply that his campaign position is that wealth is the standard of immorality. But clearly it may well be that the 1% got/retained their wealth by intellect and productivity.  Or maybe they are all government cronies and favor peddlers. Or maybe it is a mix. 

 

The only rational way to tell would be to make it impossible to get or protect money immorally. Then those who earned their wealth would still be rich, and the violent cunning idiots would quickly lose theirs. 

 

 

He isn't saying that. 

 

 

Any attempt to usurp from the cronies will only hurt people like me instead. 

[Mister Mister]

if you dismantle the 1%, doesn't the 2% become the next 1%?  After his policies fail, are they next?  Will this just continue, until, as the old saying about socialism goes, we are all equally poor?

[Torero]

I'd say the narrative about "wanting to curtail the 1%" is just a -quite obvious- mask to raise taxes for the more hard working higher middle class.

 

The lefties who are shouting "Yes, we want!" are essentially agreeing to the increase of the use of force against the ones they really envy; their bosses, successful friends and people who saved and could afford to give their offspring a nice heritance.

 

I see it analogous as painting the "horrible drug baron" picture, saying "we need more War on Drugs", where the guy on the block making a nice buck, without shooting or robbing people yet doing business, is the actual victim of the policies in place.

 

Looking at the Bernie Sponsors, they are almost all "unions"; organizations that only exist with the back-up of the State. And if the State with their multi-trillion dollar budget {evil takers}, weaponry {violence monopolists}, "law"makers {ruling class creating exceptions for themselves} and propaganda {we tell you what we want you to believe} is not "the 1%", then I don't know...

[Thomasio]

I'd say the narrative about "wanting to curtail the 1%" is just a -quite obvious- mask to raise taxes for the more hard working higher middle class.

 

That's precisely what the 1% wants you to believe and that's why the media, owned by this 1% suggests just that.

Under authoritarian government as we have had for a loooooong time now, as long as there is a tax to be paid, the "trick" of the rich is to convince the middle class they would be so close to the top that tax breaks for the rich would effect them, therefore a tax on the top earners would mean the middle class to pay more taxes.

That's how the top earners get the middle class to vote for politics that cuts taxes for the rich, even though THAT is what in the end raises the taxes for the middle class, simply because the poor don't have anything they could pay taxes from and after the rich get their taxes lowered, the only ones remaining who could pay a tax is the middle class, therefore within the current authoritarian system the ones paying the highest taxes is the upper end of the middle class.

 

Obviously, if we would abolish taxes all together, the middle class would experience the biggest relief, because they are the ones currently carrying the biggest burden, but as long as we do not have a free society, as long as a government is in place that does charge taxes, the choice is, either the middle class pays, or the rich pay, or both pay.

Cutting taxes for one side without cutting spendings automatically increases taxes for the other side or increases national debt, or both.

That's precisely what has happened during the last decades, tax breaks for the rich and the corporations without cuts in spendings led to higher taxes on the middle class and exploding national debt.

There just isn't an option for all to pay less as long as government and their spending isn't at least partially abolished.

 

You might argue, lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, which I don't doubt, but as long as spendings aren't cut, the ones paying for those spendings are precisely those who get the newly created jobs PLUS the upper middle class paying even more to compensate the cuts for the rich.

 

It's best described in this video

where you can clearly see just how far away, literally unreachable "rich" is for the upper middle class within an authoritarian system.

[Ganjimon]

i found this to be hilarious take on Bernie

 

[Torero]

That's precisely what the 1% wants you to believe and that's why the media, owned by this 1% suggests just that.

 

Under authoritarian government as we have had for a loooooong time now, as long as there is a tax to be paid, the "trick" of the rich is to convince the middle class they would be so close to the top that tax breaks for the rich would effect them, therefore a tax on the top earners would mean the middle class to pay more taxes.

That's how the top earners get the middle class to vote for politics that cuts taxes for the rich, even though THAT is what in the end raises the taxes for the middle class, simply because the poor don't have anything they could pay taxes from and after the rich get their taxes lowered, the only ones remaining who could pay a tax is the middle class, therefore within the current authoritarian system the ones paying the highest taxes is the upper end of the middle class.

 

I think you are right in your analysis that "the 1% wants naive voters to believe" things.

 

But it's the other way around, like I explained in my post.

 

And I don't understand that you of all people did not see that?! You very rightly call the super-duper-amazingly-wealthy-rich "unreachable".

 

That's the whole point; they are not affected by higher (or lower) taxes! They have their bank accounts on the Cayman Islands, their companies registered on Aruba or Singapore and their investments well covered. Even the lower part of that 1% (who may not have direct political influence to exempt them from taxation) has enough financial advisors and tax cutters in service to be sure not to be harmed by those political games. Those are for the masses; you and me.

 

So the trick is: frame that you "tax the super-duper unreachable rich", so the left-hearted voters think "yes!" and what happens is that the higher middle class gets taxed even more. The class that works hard (engineers, doctors, businessmen and -women) but is not so fortunate to evade the taxes. That's the class that gets hit by this Bernie Santa trick.

 

I saw you left Germany and moved to Italy and I don't know the taxes there, but in Germany they are very high already (and with Merkels declaration of war on her own people that will only increase) and in Holland a well-paid but not "rich" person pays 59% taxes. Fifty-nine percent, can you imagine? It's absolutely ridiculous, even if someone is a statist and doesn't understand that taxation is not less theft than robbery.

 

Obviously, if we would abolish taxes all together, the middle class would experience the biggest relief, because they are the ones currently carrying the biggest burden, but as long as we do not have a free society, as long as a government is in place that does charge taxes, the choice is, either the middle class pays, or the rich pay, or both pay.

Cutting taxes for one side without cutting spendings automatically increases taxes for the other side or increases national debt, or both.

 

Thomasio, you are 1 generation older than me, so your utopian naivity surprises me even more! "We would abolish taxes"? We cannot do anything; we are the sheep, the livestock. The only thing we can do is think about our own futures and that of our children. Hence the FDR approach which I embrace as the only viable way for a future better world. Not as a "movement" as Stefan explained rationally in the podcast I linked in the "non-aggression principle" topic, but as a peaceful philosophy. A way forward. Wisdom.

 

That's precisely what has happened during the last decades, tax breaks for the rich and the corporations without cuts in spendings led to higher taxes on the middle class and exploding national debt.

There just isn't an option for all to pay less as long as government and their spending isn't at least partially abolished.

 

What has happened is an increase of crony-capitalism; the corporations and unreachable riches got more power to create exceptions for themselves. The lobbyist business boomed, not in the least place because of that horrendous European Union you are living in...

 

The higher middle class (the class with the higher IQs and also EQs) got screwed. In NW Europe (I couldn't speak for the US) they are the ones falling between the ship and the dock (as the Dutch saying goes); they do not "profit" from state subsidies like the lower middle class and the "poor" (poor in Germany and Holland is not poor at all; it is chained in the statist carrousel of poverty traps, but it has nothing to do with what "the poor" in this 7+ billion people world have to live with...), yet have to pay everyday more to the state. The returns are minor; the countries are already well-arranged with roads, public works, affordable health care etc. etc. There is simply no reason to tax so much, even if you believe that without taxation all the roads would have holes, the garbage is not retrieved and the children not well fed.

 

And that's the whole thing; even if you can take 10% extra of those "62 unreachably rich", that is far less money than if you can tax 620,000 Germans or Dutch with 2% extra. And those darn politicians know their game very well; they disguise those percentages and make it look like "it's not so bad after all"....

 

You might argue, lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, which I don't doubt, but as long as spendings aren't cut, the ones paying for those spendings are precisely those who get the newly created jobs PLUS the upper middle class paying even more to compensate the cuts for the rich.

 

Again, you speak like the guy in charge. The one with the Aladdin lamp. "Creating jobs" is typical statist speech. I've read enough of you to conclude you are not a statist. The more surprised I am how you can use such language.

 

The point is not "creating jobs", the point is "stealing less" and thus giving more freedom of spending to the people with usually the highest IQs in society.

 

Bluntly but honestly put: "rather spend 1000 dollars on FDR than giving it away to a ferocious government that plays wargames with that money". Wouldn't you agree?

 

It's best described in this video

where you can clearly see just how far away, literally unreachable "rich" is for the upper middle class within an authoritarian system.

 

When my data package is filled again I will watch it, promised.

[Torero]

Ok, Thomasio, I've watched the video.

 

Nicely illustrated, but my question remains: what do you want to do about it? That 1% (owning 40% of the total 54 trillion dollar 'wealth' of the US) is -like you said- unreachable.

 

They strive because of the crapitalist system we live in; they are able to close deals with the State in their favour.

 

What is it you want to do concretely?

[Thomasio]

What is it you want to do concretely?

 

I don't think repeating that would help either of us any.

You seem to have the impression of me being a communist and no matter how often I express that libertarian left is as far away from communism as libertarian right is from authoritarian right, you keep ignoring that and keep contesting my postings by claiming that my communist ideas (even though you call them socialist, what your're contesting is communism) wouldn't work.

 

How would you like it, if I would keep calling you a supporter of big government on the authoritarian right?

 

If you want to see what I want to do, read through my previous postings.

While you're at it, try to find ANYTHING I wrote that sounds like communism and if you cannot find anything, check your reply right underneath my posting, accusing me of being a communist (even though you call it socialist).

Then come back to me and explain to me, why you contest the opposite of what I'm saying and why you're not simply agreeing with me, which is identical to contesting the opposite of what I'm saying, only sounds less negative.

 

If you then still want some clue of what I want, THIS

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35370234

seems to me like a pretty good first step in the right direction.

Take government AND the super rich out of production at the same time.

If the owner doesn't want the company anymore, give workers the first right to purchase the enterprise.

Let workers have the full fruit of their labor.

[Torero]

I don't think repeating that would help either of us any.

You seem to have the impression of me being a communist and no matter how often I express that libertarian left is as far away from communism as libertarian right is from authoritarian right, you keep ignoring that and keep contesting my postings by claiming that my communist ideas (even though you call them socialist, what your're contesting is communism) wouldn't work.

 

How would you like it, if I would keep calling you a supporter of big government on the authoritarian right?

 

If you want to see what I want to do, read through my previous postings.

While you're at it, try to find ANYTHING I wrote that sounds like communism and if you cannot find anything, check your reply right underneath my posting, accusing me of being a communist (even though you call it socialist).

Then come back to me and explain to me, why you contest the opposite of what I'm saying and why you're not simply agreeing with me, which is identical to contesting the opposite of what I'm saying, only sounds less negative.

 

Please show me where "I've called you a socialist"??

 

I have said:

- you speak utopian language

- you use statist speech

- you speak like the guy in charge (with the Aladdin lamp)

 

Yet at the same time I said:

- you are libertarian and not a statist (see two posts back)

 

In my last post I asked a simple question and you don't want to answer yet refer to previous posts. I didn't find any answers there apart from "let's convince the polticians (i.e. statists) by using petitions (because that "worked" with nuclear power in Germany) to push them to take decisions".

 

If that is all you propose, then I am afraid that is in vain and I've outlined my arguments for that in the thread you started about the economic "collapse". It's like asking the mafia boss to please relieve the burden on your protection money. If you have other concrete proposals, please point not only me but also the other ones you have been discussing with in the last 225 posts to those concrete proposals, wouldn't that be fair to ask?

 

Moreover, I do not understand what you mean with "left libertarian". How do you define that for yourself?

 

 

If you then still want some clue of what I want, THIS

http://www.bbc.com/n...litics-35370234

seems to me like a pretty good first step in the right direction.

Take government AND the super rich out of production at the same time.

If the owner doesn't want the company anymore, give workers the first right to purchase the enterprise.

Let workers have the full fruit of their labor.

 

Let's be clear:

 

- this is a Labour politician

-> Labour = left-wing, social-democrat, statist, right?

-> Politician (i.e. a professional liar) "promising" that "with the next Labour government, this will be implemented", so making a promise to his voter population to attract them to vote for him/his party, right?

 

A - how can you as a non-socialist, non-statist stand behind such a proposal?

B - what stops companies now from sharing their company with their employees?

C - why should that be forced upon a company (and the workers, who may not even be interested in owning the company they work for)?

D - how is this going to "solve" the 1% problem you see in society?

E - "let the workers have the full fruit of their labor" = again quite lefty statist speech  (and I cannot call you a socialist, but if you read some socialist literature you may find these exact words)

F - in my humble opinion a libertarian is about "not taking rights away", while you speak about "giving rights". What is this left libertarianism you advocate, I still wonder?

 

Quote from the BBC article:

 

We'd look to break up these monopolies, introducing real competition and choice.

 

Read carefully:

 

- we would look... - so it's some hypothetical thing...

- break these monopolies - that were first created by your own statist, "social"-"democrats"?

- introduce real competition - what is "introducing" competition? And what is "real competition"?

- introducing choice - again; it's the opposite of libertarian thinking; "not taking choice away"

 

Another quote:

 

He said the policy would be developed "over the next few years", adding: "In an uncertain world where a laissez faire market approach continues to fail, co-operation is an idea whose time has come again.

 

- if I recall well; you were the one stating the "whole system" would "collapse" in the next 2 (!) years, right? So we do not have those "next few years" (after election that is) for that, according to your own alarmism...

- "a laissez faire market approach" (which isn't there in the first place) "continues to fail" - really? You are quoting this socialist sociopath as "something that would be a solution"??

 

Sorry man, I may not be allowed to call you a socialist, but why do you bring up socialists as partners in crime for your "solutions" or as you called it "a pretty good first step in the right direction"?

[Thomasio]

 

- this is a Labour politician

-> Labour = left-wing, social-democrat, statist, right?

-> Politician (i.e. a professional liar) "promising" that "with the next Labour government, this will be implemented", so making a promise to his voter population to attract them to vote for him/his party, right?

 

I don't even have to go to any other posting, RIGHT HERE you're doing it AGAIN.

 

I point out a pretty good idea, you point out that the source this idea comes from is a political party, therefore cannot be trusted, therefore the idea isn't going to work and anyone supporting it must be a communist (which again you mistake for socialist).

In fact this idea is VERY old, it is the core idea of socialism, it only was forgotten when in Russia the communists took over and declared a state organized capitalism to be socialism.

Ever since that ALL attempts towards socialism copied communism, nobody ever tried the original idea of socialism.

That's why socialism has a bad reputation now, while communism is the actual problem.

 

In fact, the labor party is a center right wing authoritarian party, therefore as far away from my personal point of view as it could be, only beaten by the extreme right wing authoritarians, which would be UKIP and Conservatives.

Another fact is, YOU are one of those who want to do a SLOW transition from authoritarian government to a free society, therefore YOU support the current authoritarian government, meaning YOU trust them to keep going until the slow transition to a free society is done.

 

I on the other hand am one who does NOT believe the authoritarian government has much time left, before the exponential increasing debt will cause a complete collapse of the system, therefore I am more into a faster transition, which does require active self defense against the stealing done by authoritarian governments.

Still I am aware, we cannot do revolution like they do in North Africa or so, we have to begin within our existing system, pick any idea that would lead into the right direction, in this case worker owned manufacturing, support it and push for it by voting for the party.

If they then don't fulfil the promise (which I fully expect) at the very least all other political parties will understand, what the voters want, namely worker owned manufacturing.

Sooner or later, where it becomes the sooner, the stronger the support is, we will get to a movement that the political parties cannot drop in an empty promise anymore, sooner or later there will be a politician that actually does implement a law supporting worker owned manufacturing.

Then we're one step done and can go for the next.

 

Turning everything anyone says down, only because you expect he won't do it, while nobody else even says anything in this direction will never get you anywhere and accusing me of supporting the labor party is the precise opposite of what you should be doing if you were anywhere near libertarian.

[Torero]

I don't even have to go to any other posting, RIGHT HERE you're doing it AGAIN.

 

I fear you didn't read well then. I only hinted towards socialist at the end of the post. And in none of my earlier posts I've called you a socialist, less a communist. What I have called you I've summarized in my last reply.

 

And if I would come with a plan presented by an islamist, I cannot object to anyone calling me "supporting islamist ideas", could I?

 

 

 

I point out a pretty good idea, you point out that the source this idea comes from is a political party, therefore cannot be trusted,

 

Not the whole story;

 

- it's presented by a politician looking for votes (Labour is the opposition party at the moment)

- it's presented by a statist

- Labour is in the spectrum considered left-wing, no matter how you call it. Tories are right-wing conservatives but EU-minded, UKIP is a quite interesting force (anti-EU = always good) and also quite conservative. The only extreme right wing party in the British parliament is the BNP

 

If you call yourself:

- non-socialist

- libertarian

 

do you mind if I'm surprised you present some social-democrat statist with a plan that you consider "good" and in the "right" direction?

 

therefore the idea isn't going to work and anyone supporting it must be a communist (which again you mistake for socialist).

In fact this idea is VERY old, it is the core idea of socialism, it only was forgotten when in Russia the communists took over and declared a state organized capitalism to be socialism.

Ever since that ALL attempts towards socialism copied communism, nobody ever tried the original idea of socialism.

That's why socialism has a bad reputation now, while communism is the actual problem.

 

Marxism, communism, socialism, national-socialism, social-democracy are all branches of the same poisonous tree. They may differ in the details but their roots are the same: "the forced distribution of wealth".

 

In fact, the labor party is a center right wing authoritarian party, therefore as far away from my personal point of view as it could be, only beaten by the extreme right wing authoritarians, which would be UKIP and Conservatives.

 

"In fact" not. In your opinion maybe.

 

Another fact is, YOU are one of those who want to do a SLOW transition from authoritarian government to a free society, therefore YOU support the current authoritarian government, meaning YOU trust them to keep going until the slow transition to a free society is done.

 

Wow, I am capitalized even now. I have clearly explained here that I do not have something "to want". I am livestock, I have no Aladdin lamp, no magical wand, no power over the world, no control over "transitions", no reason for utopian dreams, nothing.

 

The only people I am able to influence are my social surroundings and on the anarchism topic my offspring; peaceful parenting and keeping them away from the socialist hell-hole of public education. That's all. And that exactly matches with the FDR approach; why I like it so much.

 

Where it becomes peculiar is when you think that you do have something to "want" for "the world". That somehow you have power and influence over which "system" we will live in. Either because you have a magical wand, an Aladdin lamp or you have some direct contacts with the highest powers behind the scenes, otherwise it's just as impossible for you as it is for me. RoseCodex in his admirably eloquent quiet style has pointed that out earlier as well.

 

I on the other hand am one who does NOT believe the authoritarian government has much time left, before the exponential increasing debt will cause a complete collapse of the system, therefore I am more into a faster transition, which does require active self defense against the stealing done by authoritarian governments.

 

Yes, you want a "faster transition" but on the question "how" you come up with a politician, with voting, with 4+-year parlementary cycles. That is going to work?

 

Still I am aware, we cannot do revolution like they do in North Africa or so, we have to begin within our existing system, pick any idea that would lead into the right direction, in this case worker owned manufacturing, support it and push for it by voting for the party.

 

Voting has never led to a transition, let alone a "fast" one like you want to happen. On what basis with all your life experience do you think it will be different now, just when the crapitalists have more power and wealth (your own video) than ever??

 

There were no revolutions in the Middle East or North-Africa; the same clan of crooks are ruling the masses. Maybe a different puppet, but the theatre of the absurd is still the same...

 

If they then don't fulfil the promise (which I fully expect) at the very least all other political parties will understand, what the voters want, namely worker owned manufacturing.

 

Oh yes?? All (?) other parties will understand? Like that worked so well with the opposition against the European Constitution, back in 2005? When we Dutchies finally stood up against the establishment and by 67% voted "NO!"? Then we got the Lisbon Treaty and Mr. Hermann Burns von Rompuy bis Verhoffstadt as European president? Wow, that worked great! All other parties listened to the livestock.

 

Sooner or later, where it becomes the sooner, the stronger the support is, we will get to a movement that the political parties cannot drop in an empty promise anymore, sooner or later there will be a politician that actually does implement a law supporting worker owned manufacturing.

 

Anarchosyndicalism, as that is what you seem to advocate, is possible in a free society. See this excellent video where Stefan describes the whole thing in detail.

 

Then we're one step done and can go for the next.

 

I don't know but this doesn't sound like "a fast transition, come on guys, there's no time!" to me...

 

Turning everything anyone says down, only because you expect he won't do it, while nobody else even says anything in this direction will never get you anywhere and accusing me of supporting the labor party is the precise opposite of what you should be doing if you were anywhere near libertarian.

 

I haven't "accused" you of "supporting the Labour party". I have expressed my surprise as it conflicts with "libertarian" and according to your own "fact" that it is a right-wing party even with your self-proclaimed "left-libertarianism".

 

It was you who presented this fellow as someone with "a good idea in the right direction", so if you do not want me to link you to this party, then I suggest don't present the guy in the first place?

[Thomasio]

 

C - why should that be forced upon a company (and the workers, who may not even be interested in owning the company they work for)?

 

It's almost funny how you are able to turn the most obvious clearest possible wording into its opposite.

 

Which part of "If the owner doesn't want the company anymore" and  "give workers the first right to purchase the enterprise" contains ANY kind of force?

Doesn't the owner not wanting the company anymore already include that he has volunteerly decided to sell it?

Doesn't the first right include the option to pass?

[Torero]

It's almost funny how you are able to turn the most obvious clearest possible wording into its opposite.

 

Which part of "If the owner doesn't want the company anymore" and  "give workers the first right to purchase the enterprise" contains ANY kind of force?

Doesn't the owner not wanting the company anymore already include that he has volunteerly decided to sell it?

Doesn't the first right include the option to pass?

 

As far as I know there's no law in place preventing the owner of a company to divide it amongst his workers/interested parties.

 

Like if tomorrow (I hope not) Stefan and Mike (and Stoyan) would decide to divide FDR amongst all their listeners, that's possible.

 

What is the problem is the force. Why should an entity (in this case this Labour leprechaun) be forcing company owners to split the company among its employees and not simply sell it to other interested parties or leave it to their children?

[Thomasio]

Man you're so wrong, I can't even begin to describe it.

You're getting back over and over to points I have explained several times already, always claiming I had not.

You keep adding points, asking for things I have explained long ago, yet you still claim I haven't.

 

Take this for example:

 

 

 

... a politician, with voting, with 4+-year parlementary cycles ...

 

Remember my posting about atomic power in Germany?

How public opinion in Germany was able to turn politics upside down within a week?

No change in government needed, a simple pre election survey is sufficient, no matter what party has the government, as soon as they discover they have lost the majority of voters they change their policies.

 

Of course in the end there will be no government anymore, but for the time being, for the first initial steps in the right direction, we can use our voting power to turn the government and their opposition against each other.

Once we did some initial steps, once the people have understood who has the power in a democracy, the rest of the transition into a free society will come almost by itself.

 

Suppose Labor would win the next elections with the promise to make manufacturing worker owned and then they wouldn't deliver on the promise.

What would Cameron do right after the news is out that Labor didn't deliver?

Cameron would understand how he can get the voters back, he would campaign himself for worker owned manufacturing and THAT would then make Labor deliver on their promise.

 

For the rest, read my earlier postings, it's all there, most of it multiple times and if you insist you can't find it, I suggest new glasses.

 

Why is Hillary Clinton suddenly against war?

Maybe because election polls have shown her, with her pro war attitude she was losing to Bernie Sanders?

Does that make either of them a good president? Probably not, but it gets us out of the war.

Did it require electing Sanders and wait 4 years? Nope, a simple election poll was sufficient.

[Torero]

Why is Hillary Clinton suddenly against war?

Maybe because election polls have shown her, with her pro war attitude she was losing to Bernie Sanders?

Does that make either of them a good president? Probably not, but it gets us out of the war.

Did it require electing Sanders and wait 4 years? Nope, a simple election poll was sufficient.

 

I really couldn't tell if you were trolling or really so naive to believe Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton on her blue eyes...

 

"It gets us out of the war", is that the same promise as "Change!" that Obomba gave 8 years ago?

[LibertarianSocialist]

Hahaha. Bernie Sanders getting rid of the 1%, what a joke!

I wonder how all the other attempts at 'democratic socialism' turned out? Oh wait, they all reverted to state capitalism, indistinguishable to the cronyism we have now. Yeah, lets try that again -but this time its different.

 

*Side note to Thomasio. Why do you insist on calling bolshevism 'communist'. Call is state socialism or something, but please not the name of a theoretical stateless & classless society.