History of Freedom

[Captdon]

It's not historical in the way of learning of events or relationships to modern times; as in the Holocaust and human prejudices for political gain through time, or the before and after effects of world war of civil war, or religious history and how it effects modern perceptions etc etc etc. It's a propaganda piece by a man whose mission is to change the rules by which he and his compatriots use their money: removing barriers.. blocked progress... monopoly of commerce... preeminence of thought; falsely claiming that the printing of the English translation of the Bible ushered in the reformation: Martin Luther was way head of that and actually assisted in that printing. Such translations were very old by then.

The types of barriers that Koch is talking about were exactly the types of barriers that were present in the North during the days of the Antebellum south. You apparently see Anarchy as a "freedom" for society, hence my mention of the House of Lords and government by "estates". Society deserves protections from such "barriers" as oligarchy and feudalism and "history", especially our own is replete with examples overcoming such obstacles to maintain chances for those who don't own "estates" or control industries.

Just saying you are wrong would suffice. The gibberish was boring.

I did love the part where you mention the barriers of the North during the days of Antebellum South. There were 11 million people in the Antebellum South. 40,000 ran everything and the others were born poor, lived poor and died poor. the exception were the slaves. They had the barrier of color and that couldn't be overcome no matter what.

The rest was a bore. It's kindergarten thinking.

[Chris]

I've been very coherent and succinct in every one of my posts. You just don't possess the capacity to deal with any of it, so that's the end of our discussions on the board; you're just trolling.

Thanks for all the fish.

[jet57]

Just saying you are wrong would suffice. The gibberish was boring.

I did love the part where you mention the barriers of the North during the days of Antebellum South. There were 11 million people in the Antebellum South. 40,000 ran everything and the others were born poor, lived poor and died poor. the exception were the slaves. They had the barrier of color and that couldn't be overcome no matter what.

The rest was a bore. It's kindergarten thinking.

So it's all above your pay grade too eh?

40,00 out of 11 million ran everything; my point exactly. And where do you think Charles Koch, his brother and their cohorts are headed with "breaking down barriers"?

[Chris]

So it's all above your pay grade too eh?

40,00 out of 11 million ran everything; my point exactly. And where do you think Charles Koch, his brother and their cohorts are headed with "breaking down barriers"?

Again, off topic attacking Koch, and that with zilch to base it on.

Seems few understand your ramblings.

[Captdon]

So it's all above your pay grade too eh?

40,00 out of 11 million ran everything; my point exactly. And where do you think Charles Koch, his brother and their cohorts are headed with "breaking down barriers"?

4 million of them were slaves. There was nothing that could have been done is my point.No, we aren't headed for slavery. I didn't say anything about the rest but this amused me.

[jet57]

4 million of them were slaves. There was nothing that could have been done is my point.No, we aren't headed for slavery. I didn't say anything about the rest but this amused me.

So when did I mention slavery? When did I mention that we were headed for slavery? Was the average person living on a Landed estate in Europe a slave or just under the legal authority of a very small highly controlled system emanating from the caput?

Was each state in the antebellum south controlled by landed men? You've admitted that a small number of people relative to the whole ran everything in the south, which again is exactly my point and if the Kochs and their brethren are successful at deregulating the US and removing all barriers to "economic liberty" as they call it, we'll right back to that sort of control under a monopolized system wherein everything you spend goes right into their pockets; the rent or mortgage you pay goes right into their pockets, the legislation under which you live is based on what they want in their pockets; a new House of Lords owns you. History repeats itself.

[Chris]

@Captdon, you have to realize in a liberal's reverse worldview, regulation and adding barriers to liberty result in freedom and deregulation and removing barriers result in slavery.

[Chris]

Imagining a Virtuous Capitalism, a review of Kenneth J. Barnes's Redeeming Capitalism offers a great contrast of these two views:

Economic freedom is important because it affects nearly every aspect of an individual’s life. Living in a society with high levels of economic freedom leads to higher incomes, less poverty, less unemployment, longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality, higher literacy, cleaner environments, and a host of other benefits. More economic freedom equals improved well-being and a better quality of life. Economic freedom, then, is one measure of what the Bible calls “flourishing.”

Yet, today, free-market economics has come under fire. Social activist Michael Moore’s critique of capitalism is embraced by many:

Capitalism is an organized system to guarantee that greed becomes the primary force of our economic system and allows the few at the top to get very wealthy and has the rest of us riding around thinking we can be that way, too—if we just work hard enough, sell enough Tupperware and Amway products, we can get a pink Cadillac.

[Captdon]

So when did I mention slavery? When did I mention that we were headed for slavery? Was the average person living on a Landed estate in Europe a slave or just under the legal authority of a very small highly controlled system emanating from the caput?

Was each state in the antebellum south controlled by landed men? You've admitted that a small number of people relative to the whole ran everything in the south, which again is exactly my point and if the Kochs and their brethren are successful at deregulating the US and removing all barriers to "economic liberty" as they call it, we'll right back to that sort of control under a monopolized system wherein everything you spend goes right into their pockets; the rent or mortgage you pay goes right into their pockets, the legislation under which you live is based on what they want in their pockets; a new House of Lords owns you. History repeats itself.

Everything I spend has to go into someone's pocket. I didn't work for free and I didn't need to get anything for free.The rich control because they have the money. Where do you think capital comes from?

How does not regulating everything hurt me? I could never have has the freedom to take advantage of good economies if I had to follow all of the regulations that are in place today. Why did I have to keep track of the little bit of sulfuric acid I used? The company that sold it to me had that record. See what I mean? I had to do something that tool my time and neither solved nor added to any problem- if there was one. What was the purpose to you?

I'm not comfortable going any further since I don't study this kind of thing and don't know if I'm talking about what you two are talking about. I was just amused by the antebellum thing.

[jet57]

Everything I spend has to go into someone's pocket. I didn't work for free and I didn't need to get anything for free.The rich control because they have the money. Where do you think capital comes from?

How does not regulating everything hurt me? I could never have has the freedom to take advantage of good economies if I had to follow all of the regulations that are in place today. Why did I have to keep track of the little bit of sulfuric acid I used? The company that sold it to me had that record. See what I mean? I had to do something that tool my time and neither solved nor added to any problem- if there was one. What was the purpose to you?

I'm not comfortable going any further since I don't study this kind of thing and don't know if I'm talking about what you two are talking about. I was just amused by the antebellum thing.

The money you spend goes into a wide variety of pockets, the point is a rising oligarchy that we have ala the Koch brothers will eventually control even the things you vote on and every dime you spend will go into an ever decreasing number of pockets; that's how the mob works btw. Regulating things keeps the bar fair and more can participate, without such regulations you see an ever increasing monopoly of owners for goods and services just like the antebellum south: my family was in the south prior to revolution and on both sides of the civil war, so through a study of their participation since then the story gets very deep and quite clear and that is what I'm relating to you here; and the rich should not have all the money nor all the control, that's the entire point. It was a problem then that needed overcoming and it's a problem today that needs overcoming.

Btw, the sulfuric acid that you bought should be kept a record of, just like contractors who buy dynamite. If you don't like that, then don't buy dangerous stuff.

Back to the south and the Kochs; there's no need for you to feel uncomfortable in discussing the issue and it's historic relevance; and what did you find amusing about my commentary on the south?