Capitalism and Free Markets will always fail.
Human nature is the Achilles heel of Capitalism and Free markets. The desire for profits turns into greed. The greed defeats any possibility of self regulating. Putting in controls and regulations is the only way to control the greed but in doing so changes the meaning of free markets.
Reagonomics was a failure. Money never trickled down. Instead it found its ways back into the pockets of those that controlled the wealth. The whole premise of Capitalism and free markets has been the down fall of dynasties empires and governments throughout History. The regulating of the systems get displaced by greed and corruption due to the insatiable need for more wealth. The wealthy get wealthier and more powerful and increasingly depend more on the poor to produce their wealth for them. Eventually this can not be sustained and it collapses, an uprising or revolt, or takeover happens. The poor can no longer afford to buy the products, the products eventually cease to be produced and the companies close and the wealth disintegrates and everyone loses except for those that stole the wealth thru unregulated corrupt practices. We have seen it happen with Enron, Oil and Gas prices, the dot com bubble, the housing bubble and now with Maddoff, AIG and the Banking Bailouts. History is repeating itself due to the unregulated greed and corruption of Free Markets and Capitalism.
Unfortunately our government has been unable to or unwilling to regulate anything and instead has cave to the needs of the wealthy or special interests and over the past eight years under the Bush Administration this has even become more profound where rules and regulations were reduced to protect big business at expense of the consumer. The republican control has allowed itself to be guided or controlled by corporate needs and demands of moral or religious groups. They protect the needs of a fortunate minority but do not answer to the needs of all. Unlike Spock in Star Trek The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of one or a few. I have found it always amazing that those that commit terror attacks, commit assassinations, bomb abortion clinics always tend to be republican and republicans also tend to be more corrupt and more falsely religious yet expect others to follow their religious views not their examples.
This is evident through History be it the Spanish Inquisition the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany and the USA today. Greed and narrow moral or religious views and domination were the controlling factors.
For Capitalism and Free Market to truly survive and thrive A liberal or Democratic set of regulations need to be in place that keeps corruption, greed and domination in check. The Wealthy need the workers for them to remain wealthy. So keeping the workers out of poverty and able to increase their wealth only benefits all classes rich and poor. Without it all collapses.
The recent bonus and bailout fiasco with AIG only goes to exemplify how deep rooted this is and how greed makes those oblivious to the reality of what is going on. The need to protect their personal wealth for out weighs their needs our responsibilities to protect or save the economy. I keep hearing I have mine screw all of you. Retention Bonuses are collected and kept yet they leave. High Salaries and packages are always said to retain the qualified yet they can't retain them. At the same time employees are not paid adequate living wages and are told they are replaceable so they are not dignified a salary that induces retaining them.
It is also Free Markets and Capitalism that I fear will be the biggest obstacle to finding cures for Cancer or other Medical advances. Cancer research and treatment is a billion dollar industry that would collapse if a cure were to be found. Pharma would be the only benefactors and probably gouge for the cure. Health Care costs in general are out of control due to greed and profit needs not the health of the patient.
Mar 29, 2009
Mar 27, 2009
My take on the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment should have been worded better or left out entirely.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Some background on the 2nd amendment can be found here.
So with that up front. We no longer have militias.
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
· A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
· A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized
In 1760 Militias were the backbone as the government was forming. There was no real military role. The Militia was our military. The government did not supply arms but depended on the militia to provide their own weapons.
Since we no longer have the need for civilian Militias to fight our wars and defend our communities and country and the civilians are no longer the supplier of arms to the military the whole premise and need of the militia part of the 2nd Amendment falls apart
When the militia half falls apart so does the second half of the amendment. If we no longer have the need for armed civilian militias then also we no longer have the need to keep and bear arms.
So here we are some 200 years later. And this war on rights continues.
The legal uses for guns and rifles by civilians have all become recreational, Hunting and Target shooting. I do not deny anyone the right to own and use a gun but this right to own and the regulations to own them should be strict. They are not toys; their design is for one thing and one thing only. They are designed and made to kill efficiently.
They are capable of hitting a Mountain goat on the side of a mountain from a ½ a mile just as easy as someone in a park from a building top. I see no reason to produce and sell Assault versions for any other use than military and restricting these types of assault style weapons does not reduce the quality of firearms available to own.
So yes. Let people own and use firearms.
Should gun owners be allowed to conceal and carry weapons? NO I am more fearful of that person so scared that they feel they need to carry a gun to protect themselves, family, and possessions than I am of any criminal carrying a weapon illegally.. There is a fine line between going crazy in Columbine or losing it because you feel threatened and have a gun. Since I used Columbine as an example. Think of the mess had everyone been allowed to carry guns. I would rather live with a risk of the occasional illegal gun than the dangers of the legal guns everywhere. Are you going to be noble and shoot that bank robber or convenience store robber or miss and hit some innocent bystander? Don’t tell me you don’t plan on being able to shoot it. Why else would you want to be able to have the firearm in your possession at all times? Come On these are not the days of Gunslingers and shoot outs at the OK Corral.
So Why the need to keep them in their vehicles while you go shopping, Bring your kids to soccer games or leave your car in a lot all day while working. It only serves one of two purposes you feel a need to use it any time. or you want to look cool having rifles locked on the rack in the back window. The only advantage I see in being able to store your firearms in your car is to make it easier to get them stolen and into the hands of illegal use. Or are you all planning on creating your own militia to overthrow the government.
Give me a break and get over your Macho mentality that you need to own and shoot assualt weapons and that you are the chosen vigilante protectors we all need.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Some background on the 2nd amendment can be found here.
So with that up front. We no longer have militias.
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[2]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
· A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
· A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized
In 1760 Militias were the backbone as the government was forming. There was no real military role. The Militia was our military. The government did not supply arms but depended on the militia to provide their own weapons.
Since we no longer have the need for civilian Militias to fight our wars and defend our communities and country and the civilians are no longer the supplier of arms to the military the whole premise and need of the militia part of the 2nd Amendment falls apart
When the militia half falls apart so does the second half of the amendment. If we no longer have the need for armed civilian militias then also we no longer have the need to keep and bear arms.
So here we are some 200 years later. And this war on rights continues.
The legal uses for guns and rifles by civilians have all become recreational, Hunting and Target shooting. I do not deny anyone the right to own and use a gun but this right to own and the regulations to own them should be strict. They are not toys; their design is for one thing and one thing only. They are designed and made to kill efficiently.
They are capable of hitting a Mountain goat on the side of a mountain from a ½ a mile just as easy as someone in a park from a building top. I see no reason to produce and sell Assault versions for any other use than military and restricting these types of assault style weapons does not reduce the quality of firearms available to own.
So yes. Let people own and use firearms.
Should gun owners be allowed to conceal and carry weapons? NO I am more fearful of that person so scared that they feel they need to carry a gun to protect themselves, family, and possessions than I am of any criminal carrying a weapon illegally.. There is a fine line between going crazy in Columbine or losing it because you feel threatened and have a gun. Since I used Columbine as an example. Think of the mess had everyone been allowed to carry guns. I would rather live with a risk of the occasional illegal gun than the dangers of the legal guns everywhere. Are you going to be noble and shoot that bank robber or convenience store robber or miss and hit some innocent bystander? Don’t tell me you don’t plan on being able to shoot it. Why else would you want to be able to have the firearm in your possession at all times? Come On these are not the days of Gunslingers and shoot outs at the OK Corral.
So Why the need to keep them in their vehicles while you go shopping, Bring your kids to soccer games or leave your car in a lot all day while working. It only serves one of two purposes you feel a need to use it any time. or you want to look cool having rifles locked on the rack in the back window. The only advantage I see in being able to store your firearms in your car is to make it easier to get them stolen and into the hands of illegal use. Or are you all planning on creating your own militia to overthrow the government.
Give me a break and get over your Macho mentality that you need to own and shoot assualt weapons and that you are the chosen vigilante protectors we all need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)