Capitalism and the Tragedy of the Commons

[gslack]

westfall, you claim to be a geologist, yet you're silent on destructive mountaintop mining and the dumping rock and debris in waterways. You claim you are an environmentalist, yet you refuse to read a speech given by an environmentalist to an esteemed environmental group and you are unaware of the League of Conservation Voters.

Here is a true axiom that applies to all leaders and forms of government:
'While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.'
Robert Altmeyer

I know your parochial indoctrination makes this fact beyond your comprehension.

And you exhibit the typical right wing malady of being 'word bound'

Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither).

Socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

I am well aquainted with Kennedy's speech..just as I am well aware of all of the other things you site.....ever been to the Peabody mine in northern AZ? I didn't think so...I have on four different occasions through the years and helped them craft a system to restore the open-cast damage they have done. What have you done?

You talk big but have done absolutely nothing to rectify the situation....you're just as bad as old fraud and konrad and spidey toober, you guys factual posture (I love that term) but DO NOTHING! You twerps try and denigrate what I say and old fraud goes so far as to say that everything I say is a lie...OK buster proove it.

Everything you people post is propaganda. I have had enough propaganda forced on me to last a lifetime. I don't need, or want, or desire any more of yours or old frauds BS. If you wish to discuss the science involved and use legitimate sources I am happy to talk to you.

But if all you are going to do is fall back on the same old ad hom attacks and circular arguments then I can happily say piss off, you're as useless as old fraud. Like I told him, if you have good information that is not tainted or manufactured out of whole cloth I am happy to read it. If you can't produce that then you have no business talking with the adults here.

Well good for YOU... But YOU talking about YOU is simply a diversion, while you continue to ignore the REAL issues. I don't need to be a geologist to understand the dangers of dumping rock and debris in waterways, or the dangers of heavy metals in our bodies and our children's bodies. Do YOU westfall?

You make all these claims and boasts about YOU, but if you are a thinking man and a father, then you need to add a HUGE dose of human capital into your thinking. Poison is not propaganda, it is measurable.

Good stewardship of our environment is not socialism or communism. It is sound economic policy. It is not something that can be protected solely by the invisible hand of the market. It requires government regulation and consumer protection measures.

It should be a bedrock tenet of conservatism.

But....But.... But, you know everything.... You were a psychology major and all that.....

So according to your posts here and your claims against others, you would need to be a geologist to understand that.. According to you we are all too dumb and uneducated to know anything....

 

[westwall]

westfall, you claim to be a geologist, yet you're silent on destructive mountaintop mining and the dumping rock and debris in waterways. You claim you are an environmentalist, yet you refuse to read a speech given by an environmentalist to an esteemed environmental group and you are unaware of the League of Conservation Voters.

Here is a true axiom that applies to all leaders and forms of government:
'While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.'
Robert Altmeyer

I know your parochial indoctrination makes this fact beyond your comprehension.

And you exhibit the typical right wing malady of being 'word bound'

Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither).

Socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

I am well aquainted with Kennedy's speech..just as I am well aware of all of the other things you site.....ever been to the Peabody mine in northern AZ? I didn't think so...I have on four different occasions through the years and helped them craft a system to restore the open-cast damage they have done. What have you done?

You talk big but have done absolutely nothing to rectify the situation....you're just as bad as old fraud and konrad and spidey toober, you guys factual posture (I love that term) but DO NOTHING! You twerps try and denigrate what I say and old fraud goes so far as to say that everything I say is a lie...OK buster proove it.

Everything you people post is propaganda. I have had enough propaganda forced on me to last a lifetime. I don't need, or want, or desire any more of yours or old frauds BS. If you wish to discuss the science involved and use legitimate sources I am happy to talk to you.

But if all you are going to do is fall back on the same old ad hom attacks and circular arguments then I can happily say piss off, you're as useless as old fraud. Like I told him, if you have good information that is not tainted or manufactured out of whole cloth I am happy to read it. If you can't produce that then you have no business talking with the adults here.

Well good for YOU... But YOU talking about YOU is simply a diversion, while you continue to ignore the REAL issues. I don't need to be a geologist to understand the dangers of dumping rock and debris in waterways, or the dangers of heavy metals in our bodies and our children's bodies. Do YOU westfall?

You make all these claims and boasts about YOU, but if you are a thinking man and a father, then you need to add a HUGE dose of human capital into your thinking. Poison is not propaganda, it is measurable.

Good stewardship of our environment is not socialism or communism. It is sound economic policy. It is not something that can be protected solely by the invisible hand of the market. It requires government regulation and consumer protection measures.

It should be a bedrock tenet of conservatism.

You make me laugh. You know virtually nothing of which you speak and you have the temerity to lecture me about it. That's hylarious! I don't boast, I am merely telling you that unlike yourself who thinks about things I DO THINGS ABOUT IT.

You use the term Human Capital but clearly don't know what it means. Try looking at something other than wiki (which will rot your brain) when you make comments about that which you do not know.

The one thing you said that had any value was the paragraph about good stewardship of the environment. Even there however, you make a basic error and assume that only the government can regulate or protect the population. We have ample evidence of just how poorly the government does that particular job now don't we. Especially at the federal level.

If you want to do things properly you have to follow the old environmental theme, "think globally, act locally". That is the one thing that works well. Everywhere that the citizenry is involved at the local level the companies behave. It's when the feds take over that all the shenanigans begins. Bureaucrats are easilly bought...unless they live in the community and the next door neighbor knows what the bureaucrat is doing...which is very easy to do at the local level.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am well aquainted with Kennedy's speech..just as I am well aware of all of the other things you site.....ever been to the Peabody mine in northern AZ? I didn't think so...I have on four different occasions through the years and helped them craft a system to restore the open-cast damage they have done. What have you done?

You talk big but have done absolutely nothing to rectify the situation....you're just as bad as old fraud and konrad and spidey toober, you guys factual posture (I love that term) but DO NOTHING! You twerps try and denigrate what I say and old fraud goes so far as to say that everything I say is a lie...OK buster proove it.

Everything you people post is propaganda. I have had enough propaganda forced on me to last a lifetime. I don't need, or want, or desire any more of yours or old frauds BS. If you wish to discuss the science involved and use legitimate sources I am happy to talk to you.

But if all you are going to do is fall back on the same old ad hom attacks and circular arguments then I can happily say piss off, you're as useless as old fraud. Like I told him, if you have good information that is not tainted or manufactured out of whole cloth I am happy to read it. If you can't produce that then you have no business talking with the adults here.

Well good for YOU... But YOU talking about YOU is simply a diversion, while you continue to ignore the REAL issues. I don't need to be a geologist to understand the dangers of dumping rock and debris in waterways, or the dangers of heavy metals in our bodies and our children's bodies. Do YOU westfall?

You make all these claims and boasts about YOU, but if you are a thinking man and a father, then you need to add a HUGE dose of human capital into your thinking. Poison is not propaganda, it is measurable.

Good stewardship of our environment is not socialism or communism. It is sound economic policy. It is not something that can be protected solely by the invisible hand of the market. It requires government regulation and consumer protection measures.

It should be a bedrock tenet of conservatism.

You make me laugh. You know virtually nothing of which you speak and you have the temerity to lecture me about it. That's hylarious! I don't boast, I am merely telling you that unlike yourself who thinks about things I DO THINGS ABOUT IT.

You use the term Human Capital but clearly don't know what it means. Try looking at something other than wiki (which will rot your brain) when you make comments about that which you do not know.

The one thing you said that had any value was the paragraph about good stewardship of the environment. Even there however, you make a basic error and assume that only the government can regulate or protect the population. We have ample evidence of just how poorly the government does that particular job now don't we. Especially at the federal level.

If you want to do things properly you have to follow the old environmental theme, "think globally, act locally". That is the one thing that works well. Everywhere that the citizenry is involved at the local level the companies behave. It's when the feds take over that all the shenanigans begins. Bureaucrats are easilly bought...unless they live in the community and the next door neighbor knows what the bureaucrat is doing...which is very easy to do at the local level.

Oh, I see... YOU are the expert, and I know nothing. OK, fine. Then lecture me:

Lecture me on whether dumping rock and debris in waterways dangerous, and if it can pollute and contaminate water supplies? Lecture me on whether heavy metals like mercury and lead effect human health and child cognitive development? Lecture me on how local community involvement in New York will make snack food companies in Georgia behave and not produce and distribute peanut butter filling with salmonella?

The reality is we LIVE in a global marketplace, think logically.

 

[gslack]

Well good for YOU... But YOU talking about YOU is simply a diversion, while you continue to ignore the REAL issues. I don't need to be a geologist to understand the dangers of dumping rock and debris in waterways, or the dangers of heavy metals in our bodies and our children's bodies. Do YOU westfall?

You make all these claims and boasts about YOU, but if you are a thinking man and a father, then you need to add a HUGE dose of human capital into your thinking. Poison is not propaganda, it is measurable.

Good stewardship of our environment is not socialism or communism. It is sound economic policy. It is not something that can be protected solely by the invisible hand of the market. It requires government regulation and consumer protection measures.

It should be a bedrock tenet of conservatism.

You make me laugh. You know virtually nothing of which you speak and you have the temerity to lecture me about it. That's hylarious! I don't boast, I am merely telling you that unlike yourself who thinks about things I DO THINGS ABOUT IT.

You use the term Human Capital but clearly don't know what it means. Try looking at something other than wiki (which will rot your brain) when you make comments about that which you do not know.

The one thing you said that had any value was the paragraph about good stewardship of the environment. Even there however, you make a basic error and assume that only the government can regulate or protect the population. We have ample evidence of just how poorly the government does that particular job now don't we. Especially at the federal level.

If you want to do things properly you have to follow the old environmental theme, "think globally, act locally". That is the one thing that works well. Everywhere that the citizenry is involved at the local level the companies behave. It's when the feds take over that all the shenanigans begins. Bureaucrats are easilly bought...unless they live in the community and the next door neighbor knows what the bureaucrat is doing...which is very easy to do at the local level.

Oh, I see... YOU are the expert, and I know nothing. OK, fine. Then lecture me:

Lecture me on whether dumping rock and debris in waterways dangerous, and if it can pollute and contaminate water supplies? Lecture me on whether heavy metals like mercury and lead effect human health and child cognitive development? Lecture me on how local community involvement in New York will make snack food companies in Georgia behave and not produce and distribute peanut butter filling with salmonella?

The reality is we LIVE in a global marketplace, think logically.

All of that can be summed up with the phrase "boo hoo hoo".....

 

[westwall]

Well good for YOU... But YOU talking about YOU is simply a diversion, while you continue to ignore the REAL issues. I don't need to be a geologist to understand the dangers of dumping rock and debris in waterways, or the dangers of heavy metals in our bodies and our children's bodies. Do YOU westfall?

You make all these claims and boasts about YOU, but if you are a thinking man and a father, then you need to add a HUGE dose of human capital into your thinking. Poison is not propaganda, it is measurable.

Good stewardship of our environment is not socialism or communism. It is sound economic policy. It is not something that can be protected solely by the invisible hand of the market. It requires government regulation and consumer protection measures.

It should be a bedrock tenet of conservatism.

You make me laugh. You know virtually nothing of which you speak and you have the temerity to lecture me about it. That's hylarious! I don't boast, I am merely telling you that unlike yourself who thinks about things I DO THINGS ABOUT IT.

You use the term Human Capital but clearly don't know what it means. Try looking at something other than wiki (which will rot your brain) when you make comments about that which you do not know.

The one thing you said that had any value was the paragraph about good stewardship of the environment. Even there however, you make a basic error and assume that only the government can regulate or protect the population. We have ample evidence of just how poorly the government does that particular job now don't we. Especially at the federal level.

If you want to do things properly you have to follow the old environmental theme, "think globally, act locally". That is the one thing that works well. Everywhere that the citizenry is involved at the local level the companies behave. It's when the feds take over that all the shenanigans begins. Bureaucrats are easilly bought...unless they live in the community and the next door neighbor knows what the bureaucrat is doing...which is very easy to do at the local level.

Oh, I see... YOU are the expert, and I know nothing. OK, fine. Then lecture me:

Lecture me on whether dumping rock and debris in waterways dangerous, and if it can pollute and contaminate water supplies? Lecture me on whether heavy metals like mercury and lead effect human health and child cognitive development? Lecture me on how local community involvement in New York will make snack food companies in Georgia behave and not produce and distribute peanut butter filling with salmonella?

The reality is we LIVE in a global marketplace, think logically.

Remember when I warned you about your circular arguments? That is what this is. Where have I said that the issues you raised were not important? But I am the expert here if you havn't figured it out...and I am paid to be the expert which in the marketplace is what matters. So yes I am lecturing you because you do not know but think you do. That is a problem.

 

[Bfgrn]

You make me laugh. You know virtually nothing of which you speak and you have the temerity to lecture me about it. That's hylarious! I don't boast, I am merely telling you that unlike yourself who thinks about things I DO THINGS ABOUT IT.

You use the term Human Capital but clearly don't know what it means. Try looking at something other than wiki (which will rot your brain) when you make comments about that which you do not know.

The one thing you said that had any value was the paragraph about good stewardship of the environment. Even there however, you make a basic error and assume that only the government can regulate or protect the population. We have ample evidence of just how poorly the government does that particular job now don't we. Especially at the federal level.

If you want to do things properly you have to follow the old environmental theme, "think globally, act locally". That is the one thing that works well. Everywhere that the citizenry is involved at the local level the companies behave. It's when the feds take over that all the shenanigans begins. Bureaucrats are easilly bought...unless they live in the community and the next door neighbor knows what the bureaucrat is doing...which is very easy to do at the local level.

Oh, I see... YOU are the expert, and I know nothing. OK, fine. Then lecture me:

Lecture me on whether dumping rock and debris in waterways dangerous, and if it can pollute and contaminate water supplies? Lecture me on whether heavy metals like mercury and lead effect human health and child cognitive development? Lecture me on how local community involvement in New York will make snack food companies in Georgia behave and not produce and distribute peanut butter filling with salmonella?

The reality is we LIVE in a global marketplace, think logically.

Remember when I warned you about your circular arguments? That is what this is. Where have I said that the issues you raised were not important? But I am the expert here if you havn't figured it out...and I am paid to be the expert which in the marketplace is what matters. So yes I am lecturing you because you do not know but think you do. That is a problem.

I understand...you ignore the dangers, because the people that pay you do not want to participate in a free market, so you help them externalize their costs.

That makes you an expert scum bag...

 

[westwall]

Oh, I see... YOU are the expert, and I know nothing. OK, fine. Then lecture me:

Lecture me on whether dumping rock and debris in waterways dangerous, and if it can pollute and contaminate water supplies? Lecture me on whether heavy metals like mercury and lead effect human health and child cognitive development? Lecture me on how local community involvement in New York will make snack food companies in Georgia behave and not produce and distribute peanut butter filling with salmonella?

The reality is we LIVE in a global marketplace, think logically.

Remember when I warned you about your circular arguments? That is what this is. Where have I said that the issues you raised were not important? But I am the expert here if you havn't figured it out...and I am paid to be the expert which in the marketplace is what matters. So yes I am lecturing you because you do not know but think you do. That is a problem.

I understand...you ignore the dangers, because the people that pay you do not want to participate in a free market, so you help them externalize their costs.

That makes you an expert scum bag...

Yet again you demonstrate your woeful lack of education. The people who hire me want to clean up their messes so that they can go to sleep at night not worrying about whether the hole they left in the ground will harm someone. You see poor deluded one, not all executives are heartless monsters out to screw the little people. Some of them have a concience.

I also clean up the problems that others have left behind on my own dime from time to time so please explain to me how I ignore the dangers? Your style of argumentation is so poor that I am beginning to doubt a college education at all.

You my poor ignorant person are an insult to the environmental movement.

 

[Bfgrn]

Remember when I warned you about your circular arguments? That is what this is. Where have I said that the issues you raised were not important? But I am the expert here if you havn't figured it out...and I am paid to be the expert which in the marketplace is what matters. So yes I am lecturing you because you do not know but think you do. That is a problem.

I understand...you ignore the dangers, because the people that pay you do not want to participate in a free market, so you help them externalize their costs.

That makes you an expert scum bag...

Yet again you demonstrate your woeful lack of education. The people who hire me want to clean up their messes so that they can go to sleep at night not worrying about whether the hole they left in the ground will harm someone. You see poor deluded one, not all executives are heartless monsters out to screw the little people. Some of them have a concience.

I also clean up the problems that others have left behind on my own dime from time to time so please explain to me how I ignore the dangers? Your style of argumentation is so poor that I am beginning to doubt a college education at all.

You my poor ignorant person are an insult to the environmental movement.

And with your every argument, you are revealing a style...the question is; are you that condescending, egocentric and self-indulgent or are you just so insecure that you need to create a facade?

I don't talk about what I do for a living, because A) it is my business B) it should be irrelevant to what I think and say. This is a forum, not a workplace. But you want to turn it into a resume instead of a discussion.

So here is a little of mine. I was a psychology/sociology major in college, but I was forced to drop out because of family health issues. But luckily, I eventually found the ultimate field application for my chosen field, the people business. I spent over 20 years selling heavy equipment; John Deere and then Caterpillar.

I worked for corporations and I called on corporations, thousands of them. Some were the worst polluters and some were good environmental stewards. I know a LOT about them, I know a LOT about the people who own them, run them, manage them, direct their workforce and do the work for them.

I can tell you that corporations are wonderful in some ways and woefully destructive in others. And it all has to do with people, human psychology and the human condition. A corporation exists for profit. And because profit is always the top of the food chain, every decision, promotion, demotion and firing is measured against that objective...profit. But unfortunately, profit is often garnered by employing negative solutions...shortcuts, circumventing safeguards and in the worst cases, criminal activity.

I am always amazed at people on the right who vehemently defend corporations and then turn around and preach about individual responsibility, moral responsibility and berate collectivism. A corporation abates personal and moral responsibility and promotes collectivism. Descent men and women, fathers and mothers can morally justify making decisions that are woefully destructive to humans and other life form, all because of they are feeding the food chain...profit. And the irony is, their actions carry reward instead of repudiation. They are often promoted, admired by the collective and rewarded monetarily.

But the ultimate irony; the right boasts and grandstands that they represent the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. But they refuse to learn or accept what our founding fathers practiced in governing our nation. When you tell them how our founding fathers viewed and treated corporations, you might as well be speaking Chinese.

The word "corporation" is nowhere in Constitution. Our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT, not a private entity. Corporations like the British East India Company were tools of the king's oppression.

They did subscribe to the idea of local control. The 10th Amendment left control of corporations to the states.

BUT, they also placed very strict government regulations on corporations:

*Corporations could not own stock in other corporations
*Corporations were prohibited from any part of the political process
*Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done by the corporation
*Corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good
Ref.

Thomas Jefferson's vision of America was an agrarian society. His beliefs were founded in his aversion to industrialization as much they were fueled by his beliefs in the virtue of an agrarian society that offered economic self-sufficiency and personal independence.

"The United States... will be more virtuous, more free and more happy employed in agriculture than as carriers or manufacturers. It is a truth, and a precious one for them, if they could be persuaded of it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Warville, 1786. ME 5:402

While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

Thomas Jefferson on manufacturing and commerce

 

[editec]

Socialism is sooooo much better

Russia - Environmental Problems

And this is just one study...there are hundreds more that all show just how bad socialism was for the environments of the Warsaw Pact nations. You guys are amazing... At least in a capatalist society the corporations can be compelled to do the right thing, try that in a country where they imprison or shoot you for speaking out. Fools.

Your response is a very good example of the Black/White thinking that is plaguing this nations politics, Westwall.

The solution to tragedies of the commons is NOT Socialism.

It's creating regulations that work with capitalism to prevent tragedies of the commons.

When, as but one example, the lobstermen of Maine work in conjunction with the State Government of Maine to insure that the stocks of lobsters isn't destroyed by over-fishing that is NOT socialism.

That is an example of the market working in conjunction with the government to regulate ITSELF.

 

[westwall]

Socialism is sooooo much better

Russia - Environmental Problems

And this is just one study...there are hundreds more that all show just how bad socialism was for the environments of the Warsaw Pact nations. You guys are amazing... At least in a capatalist society the corporations can be compelled to do the right thing, try that in a country where they imprison or shoot you for speaking out. Fools.

Your response is a very good example of the Black/White thinking that is plaguing this nations politics, Westwall.

The solution to tragedies of the commons is NOT Socialism.

It's creating regulations that work with capitalism to prevent tragedies of the commons.

When, as but one example, the lobstermen of Maine work in conjunction with the State Government of Maine to insure that the stocks of lobsters isn't destroyed by over-fishing that is NOT socialism.

That is an example of the market working in conjunction with the government to regulate ITSELF.

I heartilly agree and it was also demonstrated recently in Oregon and Northern California when the native indians, farmers and government got together to figure out which dams to pull down that would benefit everyone. It is doable and please note it reinforces my contention to think globally and act locally....both of the projects were controlled at the local level, not from far away Washington.

The problem is most "environmentalists" want the controls to all originate from DC and as we have seen repeatedly over the decades, the politicians and bureaucrats in DC either don't care what happens outside the beltway or are incapable of dealing with the issues. Either way the eventual result is usually the worst possible.

 

[westwall]

I understand...you ignore the dangers, because the people that pay you do not want to participate in a free market, so you help them externalize their costs.

That makes you an expert scum bag...

Yet again you demonstrate your woeful lack of education. The people who hire me want to clean up their messes so that they can go to sleep at night not worrying about whether the hole they left in the ground will harm someone. You see poor deluded one, not all executives are heartless monsters out to screw the little people. Some of them have a concience.

I also clean up the problems that others have left behind on my own dime from time to time so please explain to me how I ignore the dangers? Your style of argumentation is so poor that I am beginning to doubt a college education at all.

You my poor ignorant person are an insult to the environmental movement.

And with your every argument, you are revealing a style...the question is; are you that condescending, egocentric and self-indulgent or are you just so insecure that you need to create a facade?

I don't talk about what I do for a living, because A) it is my business B) it should be irrelevant to what I think and say. This is a forum, not a workplace. But you want to turn it into a resume instead of a discussion.

So here is a little of mine. I was a psychology/sociology major in college, but I was forced to drop out because of family health issues. But luckily, I eventually found the ultimate field application for my chosen field, the people business. I spent over 20 years selling heavy equipment; John Deere and then Caterpillar.

I worked for corporations and I called on corporations, thousands of them. Some were the worst polluters and some were good environmental stewards. I know a LOT about them, I know a LOT about the people who own them, run them, manage them, direct their workforce and do the work for them.

I can tell you that corporations are wonderful in some ways and woefully destructive in others. And it all has to do with people, human psychology and the human condition. A corporation exists for profit. And because profit is always the top of the food chain, every decision, promotion, demotion and firing is measured against that objective...profit. But unfortunately, profit is often garnered by employing negative solutions...shortcuts, circumventing safeguards and in the worst cases, criminal activity.

I am always amazed at people on the right who vehemently defend corporations and then turn around and preach about individual responsibility, moral responsibility and berate collectivism. A corporation abates personal and moral responsibility and promotes collectivism. Descent men and women, fathers and mothers can morally justify making decisions that are woefully destructive to humans and other life form, all because of they are feeding the food chain...profit. And the irony is, their actions carry reward instead of repudiation. They are often promoted, admired by the collective and rewarded monetarily.

But the ultimate irony; the right boasts and grandstands that they represent the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. But they refuse to learn or accept what our founding fathers practiced in governing our nation. When you tell them how our founding fathers viewed and treated corporations, you might as well be speaking Chinese.

The word "corporation" is nowhere in Constitution. Our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT, not a private entity. Corporations like the British East India Company were tools of the king's oppression.

They did subscribe to the idea of local control. The 10th Amendment left control of corporations to the states.

BUT, they also placed very strict government regulations on corporations:

*Corporations could not own stock in other corporations
*Corporations were prohibited from any part of the political process
*Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done by the corporation
*Corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good
Ref.

Thomas Jefferson's vision of America was an agrarian society. His beliefs were founded in his aversion to industrialization as much they were fueled by his beliefs in the virtue of an agrarian society that offered economic self-sufficiency and personal independence.

"The United States... will be more virtuous, more free and more happy employed in agriculture than as carriers or manufacturers. It is a truth, and a precious one for them, if they could be persuaded of it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Warville, 1786. ME 5:402

While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

Thomas Jefferson on manufacturing and commerce

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with as you could discern if you chose to look through a few of my posts. You left out of your choices for the way I converse everything having to do with the opposition...mainly you in this thread. So I will add those choices for you, C) respondent chooses to ignore evidence that counters his claim so instead attacks the people speaking against him thus eliciting corresponding conversational style....I think that's enough don't you?

The things you posted after your self serving attack on me are actually fairly cogent and proper...why don't you allways talk like that? You would get a hell of a lot further down the road and people wouldn't think you a fool.

 

[HUGGY]

Yet again you demonstrate your woeful lack of education. The people who hire me want to clean up their messes so that they can go to sleep at night not worrying about whether the hole they left in the ground will harm someone. You see poor deluded one, not all executives are heartless monsters out to screw the little people. Some of them have a concience.

I also clean up the problems that others have left behind on my own dime from time to time so please explain to me how I ignore the dangers? Your style of argumentation is so poor that I am beginning to doubt a college education at all.

You my poor ignorant person are an insult to the environmental movement.

And with your every argument, you are revealing a style...the question is; are you that condescending, egocentric and self-indulgent or are you just so insecure that you need to create a facade?

I don't talk about what I do for a living, because A) it is my business B) it should be irrelevant to what I think and say. This is a forum, not a workplace. But you want to turn it into a resume instead of a discussion.

So here is a little of mine. I was a psychology/sociology major in college, but I was forced to drop out because of family health issues. But luckily, I eventually found the ultimate field application for my chosen field, the people business. I spent over 20 years selling heavy equipment; John Deere and then Caterpillar.

I worked for corporations and I called on corporations, thousands of them. Some were the worst polluters and some were good environmental stewards. I know a LOT about them, I know a LOT about the people who own them, run them, manage them, direct their workforce and do the work for them.

I can tell you that corporations are wonderful in some ways and woefully destructive in others. And it all has to do with people, human psychology and the human condition. A corporation exists for profit. And because profit is always the top of the food chain, every decision, promotion, demotion and firing is measured against that objective...profit. But unfortunately, profit is often garnered by employing negative solutions...shortcuts, circumventing safeguards and in the worst cases, criminal activity.

I am always amazed at people on the right who vehemently defend corporations and then turn around and preach about individual responsibility, moral responsibility and berate collectivism. A corporation abates personal and moral responsibility and promotes collectivism. Descent men and women, fathers and mothers can morally justify making decisions that are woefully destructive to humans and other life form, all because of they are feeding the food chain...profit. And the irony is, their actions carry reward instead of repudiation. They are often promoted, admired by the collective and rewarded monetarily.

But the ultimate irony; the right boasts and grandstands that they represent the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. But they refuse to learn or accept what our founding fathers practiced in governing our nation. When you tell them how our founding fathers viewed and treated corporations, you might as well be speaking Chinese.

The word "corporation" is nowhere in Constitution. Our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT, not a private entity. Corporations like the British East India Company were tools of the king's oppression.

They did subscribe to the idea of local control. The 10th Amendment left control of corporations to the states.

BUT, they also placed very strict government regulations on corporations:

*Corporations could not own stock in other corporations
*Corporations were prohibited from any part of the political process
*Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done by the corporation
*Corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good
Ref.

Thomas Jefferson's vision of America was an agrarian society. His beliefs were founded in his aversion to industrialization as much they were fueled by his beliefs in the virtue of an agrarian society that offered economic self-sufficiency and personal independence.

"The United States... will be more virtuous, more free and more happy employed in agriculture than as carriers or manufacturers. It is a truth, and a precious one for them, if they could be persuaded of it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Warville, 1786. ME 5:402

While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

Thomas Jefferson on manufacturing and commerce

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with as you could discern if you chose to look through a few of my posts. You left out of your choices for the way I converse everything having to do with the opposition...mainly you in this thread. So I will add those choices for you, C) respondent chooses to ignore evidence that counters his claim so instead attacks the people speaking against him thus eliciting corresponding conversational style....I think that's enough don't you?

The things you posted after your self serving attack on me are actually fairly cogent and proper...why don't you allways talk like that? You would get a hell of a lot further down the road and people wouldn't think you a fool.

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with

So you aren't JUST a windbag...you are a two faced windbag!

At least you bring your own little pedistal around with you.

GooSlurper must be your muse... you are so alike and so full of yourselves.

 

[geauxtohell]

I worked for corporations and I called on corporations, thousands of them. Some were the worst polluters and some were good environmental stewards. I know a LOT about them, I know a LOT about the people who own them, run them, manage them, direct their workforce and do the work for them.

I can tell you that corporations are wonderful in some ways and woefully destructive in others. And it all has to do with people, human psychology and the human condition. A corporation exists for profit. And because profit is always the top of the food chain, every decision, promotion, demotion and firing is measured against that objective...profit. But unfortunately, profit is often garnered by employing negative solutions...shortcuts, circumventing safeguards and in the worst cases, criminal activity.

I am always amazed at people on the right who vehemently defend corporations and then turn around and preach about individual responsibility, moral responsibility and berate collectivism. A corporation abates personal and moral responsibility and promotes collectivism. Descent men and women, fathers and mothers can morally justify making decisions that are woefully destructive to humans and other life form, all because of they are feeding the food chain...profit. And the irony is, their actions carry reward instead of repudiation. They are often promoted, admired by the collective and rewarded monetarily.

But the ultimate irony; the right boasts and grandstands that they represent the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. But they refuse to learn or accept what our founding fathers practiced in governing our nation. When you tell them how our founding fathers viewed and treated corporations, you might as well be speaking Chinese.

The word "corporation" is nowhere in Constitution. Our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT, not a private entity. Corporations like the British East India Company were tools of the king's oppression.

Wow. Good post.

 

[gslack]

And with your every argument, you are revealing a style...the question is; are you that condescending, egocentric and self-indulgent or are you just so insecure that you need to create a facade?

I don't talk about what I do for a living, because A) it is my business B) it should be irrelevant to what I think and say. This is a forum, not a workplace. But you want to turn it into a resume instead of a discussion.

So here is a little of mine. I was a psychology/sociology major in college, but I was forced to drop out because of family health issues. But luckily, I eventually found the ultimate field application for my chosen field, the people business. I spent over 20 years selling heavy equipment; John Deere and then Caterpillar.

I worked for corporations and I called on corporations, thousands of them. Some were the worst polluters and some were good environmental stewards. I know a LOT about them, I know a LOT about the people who own them, run them, manage them, direct their workforce and do the work for them.

I can tell you that corporations are wonderful in some ways and woefully destructive in others. And it all has to do with people, human psychology and the human condition. A corporation exists for profit. And because profit is always the top of the food chain, every decision, promotion, demotion and firing is measured against that objective...profit. But unfortunately, profit is often garnered by employing negative solutions...shortcuts, circumventing safeguards and in the worst cases, criminal activity.

I am always amazed at people on the right who vehemently defend corporations and then turn around and preach about individual responsibility, moral responsibility and berate collectivism. A corporation abates personal and moral responsibility and promotes collectivism. Descent men and women, fathers and mothers can morally justify making decisions that are woefully destructive to humans and other life form, all because of they are feeding the food chain...profit. And the irony is, their actions carry reward instead of repudiation. They are often promoted, admired by the collective and rewarded monetarily.

But the ultimate irony; the right boasts and grandstands that they represent the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. But they refuse to learn or accept what our founding fathers practiced in governing our nation. When you tell them how our founding fathers viewed and treated corporations, you might as well be speaking Chinese.

The word "corporation" is nowhere in Constitution. Our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT, not a private entity. Corporations like the British East India Company were tools of the king's oppression.

They did subscribe to the idea of local control. The 10th Amendment left control of corporations to the states.

BUT, they also placed very strict government regulations on corporations:

*Corporations could not own stock in other corporations
*Corporations were prohibited from any part of the political process
*Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done by the corporation
*Corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good
Ref.

Thomas Jefferson's vision of America was an agrarian society. His beliefs were founded in his aversion to industrialization as much they were fueled by his beliefs in the virtue of an agrarian society that offered economic self-sufficiency and personal independence.

"The United States... will be more virtuous, more free and more happy employed in agriculture than as carriers or manufacturers. It is a truth, and a precious one for them, if they could be persuaded of it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Warville, 1786. ME 5:402

While we have land to labour then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

Thomas Jefferson on manufacturing and commerce

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with as you could discern if you chose to look through a few of my posts. You left out of your choices for the way I converse everything having to do with the opposition...mainly you in this thread. So I will add those choices for you, C) respondent chooses to ignore evidence that counters his claim so instead attacks the people speaking against him thus eliciting corresponding conversational style....I think that's enough don't you?

The things you posted after your self serving attack on me are actually fairly cogent and proper...why don't you allways talk like that? You would get a hell of a lot further down the road and people wouldn't think you a fool.

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with

So you aren't JUST a windbag...you are a two faced windbag!

At least you bring your own little pedistal around with you.

GooSlurper must be your muse... you are so alike and so full of yourselves.

LOL.....HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!


Sorry....LOL....

Sorry just cant help but laugh when ever HUGGY calls someone else full of themselves....

LOL, HUGGY how many pages have spent talking and posting to yourself in your manlove thread now?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

 

[gslack]

I worked for corporations and I called on corporations, thousands of them. Some were the worst polluters and some were good environmental stewards. I know a LOT about them, I know a LOT about the people who own them, run them, manage them, direct their workforce and do the work for them.

I can tell you that corporations are wonderful in some ways and woefully destructive in others. And it all has to do with people, human psychology and the human condition. A corporation exists for profit. And because profit is always the top of the food chain, every decision, promotion, demotion and firing is measured against that objective...profit. But unfortunately, profit is often garnered by employing negative solutions...shortcuts, circumventing safeguards and in the worst cases, criminal activity.

I am always amazed at people on the right who vehemently defend corporations and then turn around and preach about individual responsibility, moral responsibility and berate collectivism. A corporation abates personal and moral responsibility and promotes collectivism. Descent men and women, fathers and mothers can morally justify making decisions that are woefully destructive to humans and other life form, all because of they are feeding the food chain...profit. And the irony is, their actions carry reward instead of repudiation. They are often promoted, admired by the collective and rewarded monetarily.

But the ultimate irony; the right boasts and grandstands that they represent the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers. But they refuse to learn or accept what our founding fathers practiced in governing our nation. When you tell them how our founding fathers viewed and treated corporations, you might as well be speaking Chinese.

The word "corporation" is nowhere in Constitution. Our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT, not a private entity. Corporations like the British East India Company were tools of the king's oppression.

Wow. Good post.

LOL, don't you mean to say "yeah you tell em little bro".....

 

[HUGGY]

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with as you could discern if you chose to look through a few of my posts. You left out of your choices for the way I converse everything having to do with the opposition...mainly you in this thread. So I will add those choices for you, C) respondent chooses to ignore evidence that counters his claim so instead attacks the people speaking against him thus eliciting corresponding conversational style....I think that's enough don't you?

The things you posted after your self serving attack on me are actually fairly cogent and proper...why don't you allways talk like that? You would get a hell of a lot further down the road and people wouldn't think you a fool.

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with

So you aren't JUST a windbag...you are a two faced windbag!

At least you bring your own little pedistal around with you.

GooSlurper must be your muse... you are so alike and so full of yourselves.

LOL.....HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!


Sorry....LOL....

Sorry just cant help but laugh when ever HUGGY calls someone else full of themselves....

LOL, HUGGY how many pages have spent talking and posting to yourself in your manlove thread now?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

True enough GooSlurper.. I crack myself up! But there are 52,000 views I had nothing to do with... Somebody's watching!

 

[gslack]

I change my style of discourse depending on whom I'm speaking with

So you aren't JUST a windbag...you are a two faced windbag!

At least you bring your own little pedistal around with you.

GooSlurper must be your muse... you are so alike and so full of yourselves.

LOL.....HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!


Sorry....LOL....

Sorry just cant help but laugh when ever HUGGY calls someone else full of themselves....

LOL, HUGGY how many pages have spent talking and posting to yourself in your manlove thread now?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

True enough GooSlurper.. I crack myself up! But there are 52,000 views I had nothing to do with... Somebody's watching!

LOL denial.... Not a river in Egypt....

So how many pages did you spend posting post after post to yourself? Come on buddy don't make me go and look for myself...HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[HUGGY]

LOL.....HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!


Sorry....LOL....

Sorry just cant help but laugh when ever HUGGY calls someone else full of themselves....

LOL, HUGGY how many pages have spent talking and posting to yourself in your manlove thread now?

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

True enough GooSlurper.. I crack myself up! But there are 52,000 views I had nothing to do with... Somebody's watching!

LOL denial.... Not a river in Egypt....

So how many pages did you spend posting post after post to yourself? Come on buddy don't make me go and look for myself...HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go ahead and look. I've posted around one third of the posts. Someone looked it up recently and I was the most posted at around 970. The thread was around 3400 at the time.

"The List" is just nonsense as I have admitted all along. It is just a spoof competition with the Stupid MormAn thread which if you are in an investigative mood is held up with more meaningless replies by its author than mine. They had a year head start on me. The point is to be on the Home Page as to garner attention from all the visitors to USMB. That is where most of the views come from for both my thread and the fore mentioned Stupid MormAn thread.

 

[gslack]

True enough GooSlurper.. I crack myself up! But there are 52,000 views I had nothing to do with... Somebody's watching!

LOL denial.... Not a river in Egypt....

So how many pages did you spend posting post after post to yourself? Come on buddy don't make me go and look for myself...HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go ahead and look. I've posted around one third of the posts. Someone looked it up recently and I was the most posted at around 970. The thread was around 3400 at the time.

"The List" is just nonsense as I have admitted all along. It is just a spoof competition with the Stupid MormAn thread which if you are in an investigative mood is held up with more meaningless replies by its author than mine. They had a year head start on me. The point is to be on the Home Page as to garner attention from all the visitors to USMB. That is where most of the views come from for both my thread and the fore mentioned Stupid MormAn thread.

oh sure just a joke.... Thats why you make sure we all know about it.... uh huh.... And all the homo-cage and gay porn talk is just a big funny joke too huh..... yeah....

THere is a joke here and its not your thread.... its you...

 

[HUGGY]

LOL denial.... Not a river in Egypt....

So how many pages did you spend posting post after post to yourself? Come on buddy don't make me go and look for myself...HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go ahead and look. I've posted around one third of the posts. Someone looked it up recently and I was the most posted at around 970. The thread was around 3400 at the time.

"The List" is just nonsense as I have admitted all along. It is just a spoof competition with the Stupid MormAn thread which if you are in an investigative mood is held up with more meaningless replies by its author than mine. They had a year head start on me. The point is to be on the Home Page as to garner attention from all the visitors to USMB. That is where most of the views come from for both my thread and the fore mentioned Stupid MormAn thread.

oh sure just a joke.... Thats why you make sure we all know about it.... uh huh.... And all the homo-cage and gay porn talk is just a big funny joke too huh..... yeah....

THere is a joke here and its not your thread.... its you...

The joke gets around. Maybe half of "The List" is nominations of other members that would like to see their favorite dumb ass punished as only I can do. Most of my PM's are requests for that purpose.

Just because it doesn't engrandise your little pimple self does not mean it isn't happening.

The HOMO CAGE and the more recent CRAZY CAGE and the LIPTICK LOUNGE/CAGE are reflections of the tone of the board. As you have noticed it fluctuates all over the place.

Of course it is all juvenile and base. I try not to take myself as seriously as some on an annonymous message board where I am one of the few that posts his real name and photo..and where I can be found. I'd post my phone number but I know you would abuse it.