About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 3:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obama would do well to read this..
Good article!

Post 1

Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Obama would do well to read this..."

Obama has already bemoaned the fact that some people have made a "virtue out of selfishness..." He'd just spit on this, too; it doesn't fit the plan.





Post 2

Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 11:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Joe, Jules.

I know you might have only meant it tongue-in-cheek, and possibly wouldn't even personally believe it would help at all -- if Obama actually did read this.

Think about the Keystone Pipeline. Why would Obama hold up that process? The best explanation is that it is in order to get bribes (or votes). If anyone is doing anything productive, and you -- with government force -- can interfere with that process, then you can blackmail folks in your own short-sighted, narrow-minded, existential "self-interest."

On that view, the whole world is Obama's oyster.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/21, 11:02am)


Post 3

Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 9:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I did indeed mean it tongue and cheek my view of obama ranks up there with hitler...cut from the same cloth and only differing in degree.
So yes I agree with joe as well.
Obama is the worst president this country has ever had...brings to mind the president parable"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll".

Grrrr on the keystone pipeline bullshit. I am from alberta were the pipeline is to originate.
So we are now having to build a pipeline to the coast and will ship oil to asian markets. Is Obama then going to accuse us of acting in a manner that is jeopardizing our canadian/american relations because we are selling oil to the chinese?
Ironically if he had done what shoulllllldddddd have been done and fast tracked the pipeline it would have done more to increase his popularity than detract from it. That is a lot of jobs he just threw away for americans. Over 20000 well paying jobs as well as all the other economic spin offs, but I'm preaching to the choir here.
(Edited by Jules Troy on 1/21, 9:39pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, January 22, 2012 - 10:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jules,

Is Obama then going to accuse us of acting in a manner that is jeopardizing our canadian/american relations because we are selling oil to the chinese?
Heh. I once had a "friend" called Duane. He cheated me out of a hundred bucks so I ended the friendship. Then he turned around and tried to shame me with this question:

"So you are going to throw away a friendship over a measly hundred dollars?"

I can't imagine the mindset. Imagine a friend who asks how much he can hurt you before you call off the friendship. And then, after getting your answer, proceeds to hurt you right up to the point -- but not over it -- where you said you'd still be his friend. What kind of a friend is that??

Ironically if he had done what shoulllllldddddd have been done and fast tracked the pipeline it would have done more to increase his popularity than detract from it.
But his concern is power, not popularity (not doing what it is that people want). If he can find a way to coddle power-brokers while throwing the entire country under the bus (like he has been doing) -- then he'll do it.

Ed


Post 5

Sunday, January 22, 2012 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For every right that that jerk tramples over people should be screaming 9th ammendment just to clog the courts to hell and bring more awareness to what he and his cronies are up to.

Post 6

Monday, January 23, 2012 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Indeed.

Post 7

Monday, January 23, 2012 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
free market environmentalism sounds like a contradiction in terms

Post 8

Monday, January 23, 2012 - 7:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is at least currently.
If indeed envoronmental issues are important to people. Then by all means allow environmentally centered companies enter the free markets. If they offer a valid product or service allow them to market it. If these armchair environmentalists truly care about the environment instead of lobbying the government to enact laws that force everyone to comply to regulations that more often than not have no basis but are founded on fear. Let these people put their money..yes their own money not government money into creating scientifically sound value based products and services.

Concerned about all the uncapped oilwells from standard oil days seeping hazardous waste into our gulf ocean waters that are destroying 25 square miles of delta habitat on the coastlines? I'm sure there would be a market to clean that up.

Concerned about habitat conservation as well as having nice places to camp or go hiking? Private nature preserves can be run far more efficiently and be better maintained than any public reserve as it would be in the park owners best interests to be more knowledgeable about what is needed to make his preserve thrive both environmentally as well as financially.

Don't like the whole big oil scene?
Perhaps its time to develop and market the engine of the world. Whether that be through cold fusion or some other technology (tesla was way ahead of his time).

Environmentalists are going about it all wrong in todays current method of attacking other companies and lobbying government. The only viable option for environmental change is through free unrestricted research and development of sound scientific means in an unrestricted capitalist society. Great minds do not flourish under the point of a gun. Great minds are needed if anything is to be done.

Post 9

Monday, January 23, 2012 - 10:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It reminds me of a phrase used by Bush and his Machiavello-NeoCon-Straussian "advisers": democratic capitalism.

Just take a few moments to ruminate on that phrase -- in order to get an idea of what that must mean.

Ed


Post 10

Monday, January 23, 2012 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lol Ed...kind of like arsenic laced food?

Post 11

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, Jules. You could call it "foison" -- a deliberate intermingling of food and poison.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 6:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
its another way of arguing for a welfare state. I read it in Imam Rauf's book as well. Its like mixing wine with sewage

Post 13

Thursday, April 20 - 3:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This came up as a random past article. On that note: Former FEMA administrator Craig Fugate made a "free market case" for building codes that recognize climate change. ("Q&A with FEMA's Fugate: Captalism, Socialism, and Disaster Mitigation" from the Insurance Journal online here.)

 

Federal disaster policy is built on a perverse incentive: Local governments have the greatest ability to reduce damage from storms but face little pressure to do so, because FEMA will pick up the tab.

 

The problem is, we’re subsidizing risk that allows that. Capital will not go to areas that don’t have protections. Things like the National Flood Insurance Program, things like disaster declarations — we’re subsidizing risk below the point where behavior will change. And then we can’t understand why it won’t change.

 

The builders and developers and all the people running around saying they’re capitalists and they’re Republicans and they’re conservatives, and it’s all about individual freedoms and making money and growing the tax base, and all the bullshit they throw at people, convincing them this is an economic boon activity. It’s nothing but socialism and social welfare for developers when you subsidize risk below which the public gets a benefit from. They’ve got to be called out.

Property rights and all of that are such a powerful argument in many parts of the country, I don’t want to get into the argument about telling people where they can and can’t build. What I want to talk about is, Why are we subsidizing that risk?

 

If you think that climate change is not real, then you do not need special public funding underneath your choice to build here or there.  We see this too often where a river overflows its banks, floods a neighborhood, and people go right back in and rebuild in the same place because "the government" (local, state, and federal agencies, i.e., taxpayers) paid for the loss.

 

Finally, the former head of FEMA found the right words.  Whether he meant them or not is a different question. But he said the right thing: subsidizing development is socialism.

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/20, 3:37am)



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.