Land of Opportunism

[Ree]

OK...a few of the comments are coming dangerously close to personal attacks, and the intelligence of the members has certainly been called into question.

This is a debate site, but there is still a site rule of mutual respect and civility, even if we do not agree with the points being made.

Please tone it down.

I have to agree that all of those links in the OP were very confusing to the point.
I'm sure FArchivist felt they were necessary to illustrate the point, however, or they wouldn't have been added to the post.

It's a bit insulting to the OP to imply it was done out of any sense of condescension.

It's possible that the OP was heading off any calls for proof to back up the argument, rather than attempting to insinuate that people are not intelligent enough to understand and add to the discussion without an overkill of definitions.

So, I took the liberty of doing an edit and removed most of the links from the OP to try and make it less confusing. I hope that removing all the superfluous links to definitions will now actually illustrate the point that the OP was trying to make so that an actual discussion of the issue can now take place, rather than a discussion surrounding the construction and format of the post:

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes."
-- Republican Congressman Peter Sessions

There has arisen a movement to disassemble the United States government one piece at a time. It appears to be a throwback to Confederate secessionism that focused on states’ rights and an attempt to decentralize the federal government. There are references to state sovereignty even though states are no more sovereign than Canadian territories or Afghan tribal regions. They lack the power to wage war with foreign or domestic governments, sign treaties with foreign powers or issue their own currency.

They call themselvesTea Party activists, libertarians and objectivists. This is done under the premise that the country has progressed in a manner not intended by the Founding Fathers. This is apparently done through some spiritual clairvoyance that allows them to have intimate knowledge of these Founding Fathers’ intentions. Those who advocate this philosophy play upon their own amateur interpretation of the Constitution much like religious zealots play on their own interpretation of the Bible. Their vision of America is fairly sociopathic with little regard for governance or social accountability. Although they oppose government intervention and spending, many attend rallies while being supported by unemployment insurance, social security and socialized Medicare insurance. Their direction is free market and laissez-faire driven.

Although the free market’s claim is that this is an honest pursuit of the American Dream, it has no regard for or protection of the American economy. Exploitation of support systems has gone from a scorned subculture to a way of life. Although the welfare system was overhauled and reduced during the Clinton administration, the free market has been allowed to run roughshod over the American economy. American ingenuity has been has been reduced to an empty catchphrase. Predatory marketing practices have not only become commonplace in America, it has become widely accepted by free market proponents. We have become a culture that only sells and does not excel.

Finance no longer has any allegiance to any borders or nation, even the world economy. American small businesses are suffering from this phenomenon just as much as individual Americans. It’s time to remember whose predatory methods put us into this worldwide recession. It is also time to remember that free market advocates resisted bailouts and government interventions expecting free market solutions to resolve the crisis. These so called solutions didn’t improve the situation since mid 2007 when the recession started.

Anyone who holds allegiance to the ideal that business America is a victim of government is looking in the wrong direction. The GDP was not returning before the government passed its financial regulation program. While everyone is looking to the government to solve our economic problems, we need to look to American industry to lift us out of this mess. The whole worldwide recession is a free market failure that can only be solved by returning to solid free market principles and not by rolling our government back to 1776. The current system has become parasitic upon our nation. America has created a business culture of tax dodging, political influence peddling and legal gamesmanship.

The reason that politicians are blamed so heavily is because they come under public scrutiny that businesses would not be able to withstand. It is now the responsibility of our nation to extract maximum benefit from the businesses that drain our country’s resources and equity. We need to mold business to fit America and not America to fit business.

The American economy is bloated and paper heavy. American corporations are sitting on piles of cash and not investing in America or making an effort towards excellence in their industries. The only industries where we excel are financial paper and war machines.

We need to demand more accountability, allegiance and transparency from them. Considering consumer money drives business, businesses should be as accountable to consumers as the government is to its taxpayers. Private industry has a mission to safeguard credit in this country. American companies are commercial entities that are owned properties, just like cars and homes. This ownership carries the duty to hold the public at large harmless. That is the purpose of regulation. It isn’t the role of government to correct and compensate for free market abuses. Although the task of the nation is to maintain some safeguards for our economy, it must do so without the power to control it. As a result, the free market has been assigned to create, direct and maintain the economy. Why hasn’t the private sector been held culpable for excessive gas and health costs? That is the private sector’s job, not the government’s.

The Constitution was created to protect the people of this country, not the financial interests of a select few. Hence the phrase "We the People". Nonetheless, the Constitution is not an all inclusive document that dictates every situation. It wasn’t intended to be adjudicated by Monday morning arm chair quarterbacks in the legislature. That is what the Judicial branch is for.

We need to quit acting like companies are granting us privilege because they exist. They exist to serve their own purposes and not even in the interest of the free market system overall. They hire to serve their own interests as well and not out of any sense or pretense of benevolence. There is nothing noble about their mission. As broken as the U.S. government may seem, the U.S. free market is worse.

[FArchivist]

So, I took the liberty of doing an edit and removed most of the links from the OP to try and make it less confusing. I hope that removing all the superfluous links to definitions will now actually illustrate the point that the OP was trying to make so that an actual discussion of the issue can now take place, rather than a discussion surrounding the construction and format of the post:

...
This does not help the post at all.
No thanks. I'll just delete the post and move on.

[Panacea]

...
This does not help the post at all.
No thanks. I'll just delete the post and move on.

Goodness gracious, do you not hear yourself?

[Duelist925]

...
This does not help the post at all.
No thanks. I'll just delete the post and move on.

In short, it does indeed help. As I said before, the post as a whole was well written, the only thing wrong was the structure. The post flows much better now, and is easier to read--and as I said before, simply making the links into footnotes, ala how wikipedia does things, would allow you to keep the same info, the same links, and improve the flow and structure measurably.

Teal Dear: Its easier to read when your not having to stop every other sentence to follow a link, and is much easier on the eyes to read as well.

[FArchivist]

Goodness gracious, do you not hear yourself?

It lacks all contextual knowledge and therefore cannot be discussed with any level of real understanding. Context is vital. Without proper context, it is impossible to match the understanding of what was written. It's really that simple.

In short, it does indeed help.

As context has been lost, the actual meaning of the post has been lost. Footnotes may be completely ignored, in favor of incorrect personal definitions. Language must be explicitly defined in order to convey proper meaning. So no, it doesn't help, as now 60 million different interpretations of "libertarian" may be used and so on, which doesn't help actual discussion.

[Andara Bledin]

It's a bit insulting to the OP to imply it was done out of any sense of condescension.

The responses to everybody who has questioned what the OP was about has been for the poster to insult those asking the questions. How is that not being condescending?

"You either can understand it or don't. If you don't, then there's not much need for you to comment. "

"No, if you don't understand the totality, none of it should be important to you. Don't worry about it. It doesn't concern you. "

"If you don't get what I'm saying, then there is no need to concern yourself with it. Just view it as gibberish and get on with your life. You and I are not here to explain ourselves; you either get it or you don't. Posted elsewhere, the meaning has been crystal-clear to others. If it's not clear to you, I can't help you."

Now, strangely enough, despite at least half a dozen different people expressing similar sentiment and stating similar things, every single derisive response was made to only a single poster.

Knowing the OP, I would be very surprised if that weren't deliberate.

Also, how disingenuous is it to post to a debate site and then refuse to clarify your point when asked?

Now as for the actual OP, the Free Market is an excellent concept. However, much like Communism, it only works until you add people. A true Free Market requires perfect knowledge, and perfect knowledge will never be had. History is replete with examples of people and companies acting outside of their own best interests to satisfy an immediate desire.

Cconsumers, in aggregate, are greedy, shallow, and impatient. A company that takes the proper long view will be beaten to market by one that sacrifices tomorrow's profits for the sake of making a sale today.

So, as broken as the Free Market is in the US, it's a pipe dream to believe that it could ever be perfect. By the time humanity rises to the level where it would work, it will likely also be obsolete.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

So, I took the liberty of doing an edit and removed most of the links from the OP to try and make it less confusing. I hope that removing all the superfluous links to definitions will now actually illustrate the point that the OP was trying to make so that an actual discussion of the issue can now take place, rather than a discussion surrounding the construction and format of the post:

Okay, thanks. Working off this, I've spent some time trying to figure it out. Is what you're saying that the government is too big, and is messed up, but the free market system is messed up worst, and is given all this unnecessary glory?

I think I agree with you (if that's what you said, and I spent half an hour trying to figure that out) then yes. It is ridiculous the way that corporations are treated as not only equal to, but better than, real people. I think that the idea of a free market is good, but we are not really GIVEN a free market. People are building monopolies that we can't object to. Either de-facto monopolies (if you can only afford one comic book distributor, are you going to go with Diamond, who carries the big four, or are you going to go with someone else?) or small-scale monopolies (for example, if Verizon is the only company with cables under a building, the only way you can get internet is to get it from Verizon). We don't have a real free market, and any attempt to create a freer market is seen as going against the 'ideals of the free market' as if they were some sort of holy precept.

Is that what you're saying?

[Rapscallion]

Since, it appears I cannot delete the thread entirely, then the post is deleted completely.

Ree's rendition of the post, since it does not contain the links to provide contextual understanding, is not suitable for discussion and so will not be discussed.

Just curious here. Is the blog you took it wholesale from yours or someone else's? If it wasn't yours, it's for the best that you removed it as it would have been a copyright infringement.

Rapscallion

[FArchivist]

Also, how disingenuous is it to post to a debate site and then refuse to clarify your point when asked?

It isn't. Education is not a responsibility of anyone.

If you post something, and I do not understand it, that is MY fault and it is incumbent upon ME to educated MYSELF. I have no right to ask you for a clarification. It is not your job to educate me.

Is what you're saying that the government is too big, and is messed up, but the free market system is messed up worst, and is given all this unnecessary glory?

[snip]

Is that what you're saying?

No.

Just curious here. Is the blog you took it wholesale from yours or someone else's? If it wasn't yours, it's for the best that you removed it as it would have been a copyright infringement.

Considering it was a post of mine to a political forum elsewhere, no, there is no copyright infringement. If you happen to see it somewhere and don't think I posted it, please let me know. As I use approximately 10 different handles across the internet at this time, it can be inobvious to other.

[Hyena Dandy]

If you post something, and I do not understand it, that is MY fault and it is incumbent upon ME to educated MYSELF.

Yes, it really is. If you are trying to communicate, it is your job to ensure that the other person understands what you are saying. That is the whole POINT of communication. I am fully educated about the issues you are talking about. I am not educated on WHAT YOU SAID. And the only person who can tell me what YOU are trying to say is YOU. If I didn't understand what the free market was, or Libertarianism, or whatever, then it would be my job to figure that out on my own. As it is, there is only one person who can tell me what you are thinking, and that is you.

Its my job to be educated. But the best person to educate me on "What is FArchivist trying to say" is FArchivist.

[Ree]

Ummmm...you did see that I left your original post intact, links and all, right?
You understand that it was only in my quote of your post that I removed the links, right?

People were so focused on the format that I removed the links so they could focus on the actual points of your post, and then go back and follow the links for clarification if it was necessary.

I'm sorry if you didn't find that helpful.

[Panacea]

As context has been lost, the actual meaning of the post has been lost. Footnotes may be completely ignored, in favor of incorrect personal definitions. Language must be explicitly defined in order to convey proper meaning. So no, it doesn't help, as now 60 million different interpretations of "libertarian" may be used and so on, which doesn't help actual discussion.

OK, you do not hear yourself. Thanks for clarifying.

FArchivist, my friend, you are coming off as a sulking child by deleting your original post. Is that really how you want people to see you?

Folks, am I on or off base?

[Boozy]

It seems that Ree's efforts to placate both sides and get things back on topic have failed.

For that reason, and pending resolution of copyright concerns, this thread is closed.

[Ree]

*EDIT - Apologies. I didn't realize Boozy was closing the thread. We were posting at the same time. ~ Ree

The responses to everybody who has questioned what the OP was about has been for the poster to insult those asking the questions. How is that not being condescending?

Well, yes, the responses from the OP to the questions of the other members certainly did come off as condescending.

My point was that there was also an implication that the links were added to the post as a means of condescension.
That is what I was addressing in my comments.

I find it very sad that my attempt to bring the thread back to the original point of the thread and take the focus off of the format was instead, derailed back to a discussion of the format due to the post made by the OP in response to my actions.
This does appear to be a "just can't win for losing" situation.

If I didn't know any better, it would look like an attempt by someone with no actual argument to debate the topic, aside from a few choice blog links, to stir up some smoke to hide that fact.

Debating, as far as I know, is not just posting a topic and adding a bunch of links, and then, when asked to clarify one's stand, refusing to do that, and instead claiming that it is not the job of the person who has introduced the debate topic to provide the necessary flesh for the bones, and then tossing in some comments insulting the intelligence of fellow board members.