Bloomberg Debate: Tim Cavanaugh Applauds Inequality

What kind of sick animal would say rising inequality is good for the workers? 

Tim Cavanaugh would, in this Bloomberg/Businessweek pro/con with John Schmitt of the Center for Economic & Policy Research. 

Resolved: "Occupy Wall Street protesters are wise to focus on unequal income distribution — such as the outsize gains reaped by financial-industry companies. Pro or con?" 

Bloomberg includes a default video interview with the topic: somebody goes to her first Occupation. 

Phrases from the comments: 

"If the 1% wants to hold onto their large share of all the commodities, land, and entertainment resources," 

"I can hear the construction of the gallows in every conversation at work. Left or right. Be aware," 

"to dismantle an entire supportive class (middle class) by downsizing, offshoring, financial manipulation, and obscene lobbying to pull out the safety checks" 

"is not in the cards for centuries." 

Nut of Cavanaugh's argument for the Con side: 

Creating general equality of opportunity is among the greatest U.S. achievements. But creating equality of outcomes has caused misery everywhere it has been tried.

Read the whole thing, and decide which part of the One Hundred Percenters you're on. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    ""I can hear the construction of the gallows in every conversation at work. Left or right. Be aware," "

    Bring it on, bitches. Death to Communists.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I'm not joking when I say it. Time to get that shit over with.

  • Britt||

    The only thing funnier then an Internet tough guy is the lefty on the Internet trying to act like a Shining Path or Red Army Faction goon.

    If there ever was any kind of Weimar style street fighting in the US, the left would get annihilated so fast their heads would spin. Skinny vegans led by their colonial studies professors versus farm boys and rednecks led by their daddies and grandaddies who fought in actual wars? It'd be over in a weekend or so.

  • Typical||

    Doesn't greater equality in outcomes lead to greater equality in opportunities?

    People are born with all different unequal talents and skills through no action of their own. The genetic lottery is probably the greatest inequality.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The genetic lottery is probably the greatest inequality.

    I guess we really should have been listening to Margaret Sanger all along.

  • ##||

    In my experience, striving for equality of outcomes in order to accomodate those with lesser talents and skills usually means aiming for the lowest common denominator. We might get greater equality of opportunities but at the cost of stifling invention and innovation.

  • kinnath||

    Equal opportunity is not a guarentee of equal outcome.

    Equal rights are not a guarentee of equal opportunity.

  • ||

    Interesting thought.

    Could I ask you to elaborate on the second part?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Torontonian,

    Could I ask you to elaborate on the second part?


    It means having the same rights does not make people equally talented.

  • kinnath||

    Equal rights do not and can not overcome the random aspects of birth and life. Opportunities come and go with the breeze. No two people can ever experience the same opportunities to succeed or fail in their various endeavors.

  • ||

    So is your argument that equal rights are sufficient or insufficient?

  • kinnath||

    I'm saying equal rights are all you get. It is foolish to think that society can do anything to achieve equal opportunity, let alone equal outcomes.

  • ||

    I think the clarity of your adage was a victim of its pithiness. You'll probably want to tinker with that one a bit.

  • Apatheist||

    So that would mean that any attempt by government to manage it would be pissing in the wind therefore worthless?

  • kinnath||

    Yes.

  • Apatheist||

    Cool, it was cryptic enough that I thought for a second you were suggesting some kind of Harrison Bergeron system is need, kind of like Tony below.

    I have to say I agree with you in principle but it really depends on how you define equality of opportunity but it kinda shows how that term can easily be turned around used to justify just what were arguing about.

  • kinnath||

    Way too many people believe that equal opportunity means equal probability of suceeding which is only half a step away from equal outcomes.

    In other words, unequal outcomes prove unequal opportunity.

    In my opinion, equal opportunity means that anyone that chooses to do so can show up to compete for the prize. That does not in the slightest way mean that everyone that shows up has a equal chance of winning the prize.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Apatheist,

    Cool, it was cryptic enough that I thought for a second you were suggesting some kind of Harrison Bergeron system is need, kind of like Tony below.


    Tony's inherently creepy notion of social politics stem not so much from a lofty and romantic ideal but from something much worse: fatalism. Just read how he justifies the power of government as "inevitable", so it must be as benevolent as possible. Kind of like recommending to the sexual slave to enjoy it while it lasts.

  • Tony||

    Well, I'm no romantic, but if you can show me a single example of a modern society without state power that isn't a nightmarish hellhole, I'll be a convert.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Well, I'm no romantic, but if you can show me a single example of a modern society without state power that isn't a nightmarish hellhole, I'll be a convert.

    If libertarians were anarchists, your splooge-post might actually be relevant.

  • ##||

    Why do you always seem to think that it's an all or nothing proposition? With the possible exception of White Whatever, no one here is saying that we need no goverment at all. The issue is how much we need. I can show you plenty of modern societies with governments run amok that are nightmarish hellholes and we'd prefer this not become one of them.

  • Old Mexican||

    Creating general equality of opportunity is among the greatest U.S. achievements. But creating equality of outcomes has caused misery everywhere it has been tried.


    That's not true: It has lead to the greatest hair trimming style ever.

  • Tony||

    Haven't read the whole thing yet but it's not looking promising considering Cavanaugh's quote is the lame "equality of outcomes" straw man you guys trot out to defend every cent and shred of power the wealthy elite have.

  • Old Mexican||

    It's not a strawman, strawbrain.

  • Tony||

    It's not a strawman to say that people who object to the current wealth distribution want total egalitarianism and equality of outcomes?

  • Sovereign Citizen||

    How can you achieve equality of outcomes without violating my common law rights?

  • Tony||

    I don't know and don't care, nobody is asking for equality of outcomes. That is the strawman to which I referred, the one that apparently justifies the sniveling apologetics libertarians make for the plutocracy.

  • sevo||

    "I don't know and don't care, nobody is asking for equality of outcomes."
    That's a lie, shithead.

  • Tony||

    It's clear that you need to believe this to justify your pathetic plutocracy apologetics, but it's just not so.

  • sevo||

    "It's clear that you need to believe this to justify your pathetic plutocracy apologetics, but it's just not so."
    You're a liar, shithead.

  • Restoras||

    Well said, sevo.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Straw for Brain,

    That is the strawman to which I referred, the one that apparently justifies the sniveling apologetics libertarians make for the plutocracy.


    ANYTHING Libertarians argue justifies the plutocracy in your psychotic mind, sockpuppet.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I don't know and don't care, nobody is asking for equality of outcomes.

    Then what, exactly, are you "asking for"?

  • Tony||

    A government that works in the interest of the people as a whole, rich and poor, and a market that rewards what you guys claim it's supposed to reward.

    Nobody can look at the current distribution of wealth and income and conclude it's the product of a free and fair market, or that it's anything but a sign of something seriously wrong.

  • Apatheist||

    Thats because it's not a free and fair market. You won't see libertarians claiming were living in a free market system.

  • Tony||

    Unless they're talking about the means by which every single cent of wealth arrived in the pockets of corporations and the richest slice of the population.

  • sevo||

    "Unless they're talking about the means by which every single cent of wealth arrived in the pockets of corporations and the richest slice of the population."
    That isn't even a coherent sentence, shithead.

  • sevo||

    "Nobody can look at the current distribution of wealth and income and conclude it's the product of a free and fair market, or that it's anything but a sign of something seriously wrong."
    Yes, and the problem is the distortion of the market by the government, shithead.

  • Mr Whipple||

    A government that works in the interest of the people as a whole,

    There is not, and never can be, such a thing. Different pepole have different needs and desires. Everything the government does helps some people and hurts others. The question becomes, why should the government help or hurt anybody? Once you realize that, you'll be much better off.

    Nobody can look at the current distribution of wealth and income and conclude it's the product of a free and fair market,

    Who here claims that?

  • Tony||

    Different pepole have different needs and desires. Everything the government does helps some people and hurts others.

    That's why democracy was invented.

    The question becomes, why should the government help or hurt anybody?

    Okay, so no property protection and no limited liability?

  • Mr Whipple||

    That's why democracy was invented.

    Democracy is merely a means for the majority to force its will on the minority, and that's in a Liberal Democracy. We currently have a Totalitarian Democracy.

    Okay, so no property protection and no limited liability?

    Do you know what limited liability is? I have a feeling you do not.

    http://www.libertarianstandard.....-taxation/

  • Mr Whipple||

    Limited Liability

    The big objection to corporations is usually limited liability for shareholders. Now first let me mention that many non-attorney critics of this notion seem confused about what it means (and many attorneys also misapprehend it). They think the doctrine insulates a tortfeasor from liability even if he was negligent, so long as he is a shareholder. Or that the doctrine exempts managers and officers of the corporation from liability for torts of others. They are wrong. The doctrine merely says that shareholders are not jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the company that they have a share in. If a company that A owns shares in is sued and driven to bankruptcy, A loses the value of his shares but is not personally liable for the lawsuit against the company. (N.b.: to the extent some state incorporation statutes also limit the liability of managers for torts of the corporation, and not just that of passive shareholders, this is another matter and is more objectionable. However, the primary purpose of limited liability laws is to protect the shareholders from general liability; and in any case, officers and directors are routinely protected from any personal liability by the use of D&O insurance.)

    Second, we have to distinguish here between contractual debts, and debts arising from torts (or even intentional crimes). As for the former, this is easy to dispatch: someone loaning money to, extending credit to, or engaging in a contract with a corporation is implicitly agreeing to pursue only the assets of the corporation itself in case of a claim, not the personal assets of shareholders (unless it insists on some shareholders personally guaranteeing a loan or contract, as if often the case for smaller companies).

    So what about torts? The typical example is a truck driver for a company who negligently harms an innocent third party. The third party has no contract with the firm, unlike in the case of contractual debts noted above. The opponent of corporations maintains that the victim should be able to sue not only the employee-tortfeasor, and the corporation itself (to go after its assets and deep pockets, including its insurance policies), but shareholders themselves. After all, they are the “owners,” and should be liable too. Right? And thus, state limited liability provisions are short-circuiting the liability that shareholders would normally have. This lowers the cost faced by corporations; it makes shareholders less responsible in their decisions about who they elect for the firm’s board of directors; it lets the firm externalize costs onto the market.

    The problem with this theory is the assumption that in a private law society, “shareholders” should be vicariously liable for the negligence of others. There is, in fact, no libertarian justification for this view, as libertarian theorists such as Robert Hessen, Murray Rothbard, and Roger Pilon have argued.2 In this situation, some employee of a firm has committed some tort—a negligent act (such as a FedEx truck driver negligently crashing into some victim). Here the victim has a right to sue the negligent employee-tortfeasor. The question is: Who else’s assets can the victim go after? Can he sue the managers, or the directors, or go after corporate assets, or sue shareholders?

    We have to recognize that the prima facie answer—the default condition—is no: each person is responsible only for his own torts, not for those of others. To hold someone else liable requires some kind of “vicarious liability” theory. To do this, you need a theory of causation and responsibility, which Pat Tinsley and I have tried to sketch out in Causation and Aggression. Yes, you can be jointly responsible with the actions of others if you engage with them in cooperative action to cause the illicit result: for example co-conspirators in crime, a gang of bank-robbers, and so on.

    But holding employers—or shareholders—vicariously liable for actions of their employees relies on the offensive, paternalistic, feudalistic concept of respondeat superior—a master is responsible for his slaves’ or servants’ transgressions. As Hessen notes, this is just a vestige of the medieval mentality. Why would a shareholder be liable for actions of some employee? There are two aspects to being a shareholder that could conceivably give rise to vicarious liability for another’s direction actions. First, the shareholder may have contributed capital (money) to the firm. On the other hand, he may not have: he may have bought the share from a previous shareholder. This latter possibility is routinely overlooked by those who blame the shareholder for contributing money to a company that has an employee who commits a negligent act during the course of his employment. They assume that giving money to the corporation is akin to “aiding and abetting” it, so that the shareholder is responsible for all its debts that it incurs as a result of actions it engages in with the “aid” of the money contributed by the shareholder.

    But contributing capital to a firm is nothing more than aiding it, which co-employees, customers, creditors, vendors, and suppliers also do. If you broaden causal responsibility so much that you would implicate a shareholder just because he gave financial aid to a firm (though as I noted, not all shareholders give money to a firm), then employees, customers, creditors, suppliers are also all liable, which is obviously absurd.

    Second, the shareholder may have a vote in electing directors. But then again, he may not; not all shares are voting shares. Further, the shareholder might not exercise his right to vote; and if he does, he might vote against the directors who win; and even if his choice wins, his vote is almost never decisive; and, in any case, rarely is it the case that the director campaigns on a platform of directing managers to permit employees to engage in torts and negligence. These latter qualifications are rarely noted by corporate opponents who blame shareholders for corporate actions simply because they have a right to vote. But possessing a right to vote for directors does not obviously imply vicarious liability for torts committed by employees hired by officers appointed by those directors. In fact, the right to control property does not automatically imply responsibility. If I own a knife and it is stolen by a thief, I am not guilty of murder if the thief kills someone using the knife, even though I still own it. Ownership implies the right to control. It does not imply liability. Liability flows from actions, whether those actions employ means owned by the actor or not. In other words, whether one owns a means employed in an act of aggression is irrelevant. Likewise, having an ownership (control) right does not automatically imply responsibility.3 (A related point is that shareholders are not even “owners” of corporate assets in the same way that I own a knife. The state legally classifies shareholders as owners, but we have to be wary of relying on state classifications.4 The shareholder can influence board composition by vote, and has a right to receive dividends if paid, and some pro rata right to receive part of the assets of the corporation upon liquidation, but a Google shareholder doesn’t have the right to use the Google headquarters or corporate jet.)

    What this means is that if you attribute vicarious responsibility to the shareholder merely because he has a vote—that is, he has “some influence” on who the directors are—then everyone who “influences” the firm is also potentially liable for torts of its employees—again, as in the case of holding people liable for aiding and abetting a firm, this can include creditors, who can influence company policy or board composition, employees and their unions, important suppliers, and the like. Again, this is obviously absurd.

    The kneejerk and simplistic rules that would implicate shareholders for torts of employees based simply on the fact of ownership, voting, and contributing capital, would also render hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people jointly and severally liable for the negligence of Pepsi truck drivers. This is obviously not a result compatible with libertarian theory.

    So it seems that a shareholder who is truly passive and does not manage the affairs of the firm, nor make management decisions or direct the actions of employees, should not be not liable for torts committed by such employees. Why should he be? Hessen, Rothbard, and Pilon are right.

    It is important to recognize this because opponents of state incorporation claim that the state’s grant of limited liability to shareholders is a huge privilege granted to them that would disappear if the state were to get out of the business of granting corporate charters. In fact, here the state and the left-libertarians share the same presupposition: that absent state incorporation privileges, shareholders would be vicariously liable, via respondeat superior, for torts of employees of companies the shareholder owns stock in. The state uses this false claim to justify regulating the company; the left uses this false claim to exaggerate how much benefit existing state-chartered corporations must be receiving, and to predict that a state-free world would look vastly different, and that our current “capitalist” order is dominated by the state and not really free at all.

    Likewise, as already mentioned, another fallacious view shared by the state and the left-libertarian opponents of incorporation is the idea that a corporation cannot exist unless the state grants it the privilege of “legal personality,” i.e. makes it a separate legal entity. The state makes this claim to hold itself out as the firm’s benefactor, and claims the right to place conditions on this grant—various regulations, etc. And if it’s a separate legal person or entity, why, gosh!, it owes income taxes! It’s a person, after all, isn’t it? And the left-libertarians join in this refrain by claiming that state incorporation grants the legal entity privilege to corporations, and they could not exist without it. Some privilege, that subjects you to regulation and income taxation! So: we can see that the state’s fallacious claim that it is granting a privilege of legal personhood to the corporation is used to justify double taxation: first, the corporation, as a “legal entity,” is subject to corporate income tax; then the shareholders are subject to capital gains or income tax when they receive dividends. Effectively, the shareholders are double-taxed. Some privilege.

    But this view is confused too. As Hessen has explained (see previous references), a company having a “corporation”-like structure could arise on a free market using private contract alone. It could sue in “its own name” (as a convenience); it could have perpetual life; contractual debtors could go only against the corporate assets and not those of shareholders, since they agreed to it; and victims of torts of employees of the free-market “corporation” could sue the employee-tortfeasor but not the shareholders, since they are not causally responsible for his torts any more than the customers are.


    - Stephan Kinsella

    Reference:

    http://books.google.com/books?.....q&f;=false

  • Bobster0||

    That was a good read. Thanks Mr. Whipple. I won't squeeze the Charmin anymore I promise.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    That's why democracy was invented.

    I think any sense of history shows that democracy was invented to be a check on the power of absolute rulers.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "Nobody can look at the current distribution of wealth and income and conclude it's the product of a free and fair market, or that it's anything but a sign of something seriously wrong."

    Whose ideology supported bailouts- classical liberals, or Tony? Bitch.

  • Tony||

    "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."

    The bailouts were the best thing to happen to capitalism. Without them the people would be demanding a lot more government intervention.

  • sevo||

    "The bailouts were the best thing to happen to capitalism. Without them the people would be demanding a lot more government intervention."
    That's called a protection racket, shithead.

  • cynical||

    Doubtful. The government could have intervened in such a way that many institutions failed, while still shielding smaller investors and savers from the impact -- it would stabilized the market, cost less, punished some idiocy, and even had a redistributionist net impact. They opted for cronyism and bailouts not out of good intentions, but out of corrupt ones.

  • Tony||

    You'll get no argument from me that our government is largely under the control of corrupt people doing the bidding of the wealthy elite. I just don't take from that the lesson that, therefore government per se is bad and should be shrunk or destroyed.

  • sevo||

    "You'll get no argument from me that our government is largely under the control of corrupt people doing the bidding of the wealthy elite."
    And you're not about to do anything about it, shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Talk about sniveling...

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I don't know and don't care

    Tony's philosophy in a nutshell.

  • ||

    As long as a given distribution of wealth was arrived at fairly (on voluntary market terms without theft, force or fraud), then I have no problem with it, regardless of how even or uneven that distribution might be.

    BTW... The government taking money from one subset of the population to give it to others doesn't meet the bar of "voluntary market terms".

  • Tony||

    It's curious how every cent in the pockets of the wealthy arrived via fair and free market terms, yet the poor are being lavished by our totally distorted mixed economy.

  • sevo||

    "It's curious how every cent in the pockets of the wealthy arrived via fair and free market terms,"
    You're a sleazy liar, shithead.

  • ||

    I never said that was the case.

    There are plenty of wealthy people who got that way unfairly, or on non-market terms.

    In most cases, I would argue this was due to government intervention in the market.

    Remove government interventions (e.g. bailouts, corporate welfare, trade restrictions, etc.), and there'd be a lot less unfairly earned wealth.

  • Tony||

    Sure, but considering the amount of wealth gained by "government intervention in the market," or what have you, and the number of years it's been going on, how do you propose to rectify it? Raising taxes on the rich?

  • sevo||

    "Sure, but considering the amount of wealth gained by "government intervention in the market," or what have you, and the number of years it's been going on, how do you propose to rectify it?"
    Take that power away from the government, shithead.
    How stupid are you?

  • ||

    Raising taxes on the rich makes the unjustified assumption that EVERYONE with wealth acquired it unfairly.

  • Tony||

    As long as we're not making the unjustified assumption that every poor person on the dole is lazy.

  • cynical||

    Can we still assume that skilled middle class people on the dole are lazy?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "how do you propose to rectify it?"

    Sunk costs.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    yet the poor are being lavished by our totally distorted mixed economy.

    55% of federal spending on social welfare programs (and rising).

  • Tony||

    The social welfare system was not meant to function in an economy with 9% unemployment and decades of wage stagnation. When all the wealth goes to the top, it's no wonder the social welfare system is being squeezed.

    What 9% unemployment and desperation for workers is good for is providing a buyer's market for labor.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: straw for brain,

    It's not a strawman to say that people who object to the current wealth distribution want total egalitarianism and equality of outcomes?


    No, it is not a strawman to say that people who say they want equality of outcomes and income want equality of outcomes and income.

  • Tony||

    So who said that?

  • sevo||

    "So who said that?"
    You're a weasle and a liar, shithead.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Straw for Brains,

    So who said that?


    LBJ:
    http://www.hpol.org/lbj/civil-rights/

    The socialists:
    http://peacefreedomprosperity......nequality/

  • Tony||

    Ah now we're getting to some meat. Here's the deal: until the day that African Americans collectively have the same social metrics as whites collectively (instead of double all the bad metrics), then we must presume they don't have equality of opportunity. Unless, of course, you want to posit a racist explanation for the differing outcomes.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    Alright, I'll take the hit for this:

    http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Cur.....828&sr=8-1

  • Britt||

    Fuck that. The whites are behind the Asians. Clearly we need government efforts to bring white people up to the standards Asians enjoy. Asians are smarter, richer, and longer lived. Clearly there is a long legacy of racism that must be rectified now.

    Where are my reparations?

  • sevo||

    "until the day that African Americans collectively have the same social metrics as whites collectively (instead of double all the bad metrics), then we must presume they don't have equality of opportunity."
    You're a liar, shithead.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    I've got to ask, Tony. What would you do if you lived in a world where skin colour really was correlated with intelligence? Would you go on assuming that it wasn't in the face of scientific evidence?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    And, also, why is it that intelligence being correlated with skin colour is racist, but individuals having differing levels of intelligence because of genetics isn't?

  • Tony||

    The more interesting question is what you would do. See, I don't believe in throwing Down's Syndrome babies in dumpsters, I believe in society providing for their needs. So if there were a race of humans born with an inherent deficiency, it's all the more of an argument for social intervention.

  • sevo||

    "the lame "equality of outcomes" straw man"
    That's a lie, shithead.

  • Sudden||

    To an extent, I'll agree with you. I don't think you're a marxist and want absolute equality of outcomes across the board. I think you fancy yourself an "equality of opportunity" type. And I'll even state that I agree with you that there isn't an equality of opportunities out there, and that the restriction there is not necessarily unequal abilities (although in some cases it is, I can't throw a football as well as Tom Brady for example). But it's an accident of birth, dumb luck, and well, y'know what? Sometimes life deals you a shitty hand and you play it the best way you can.

    What matters to me is equal protection of the law, that the law treat a rich person and poor person the same, that laws not be applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

    The funny thing is all these people railing about the greed of the 1% are motivated by the same thing: greed. Wanting more than you have is fucking greed, and there ain't nothing wrong with it as long as you make it legitimately through mutual cooperation AFAIC.

  • Tony||

    I agree that opportunities will never be equal, but the whole point of civilization is to mitigate the risks of nature, not content ourselves with them. You cannot do that and then claim that the free market system is the best possible system because of how it rewards hard work and ingenuity. If it instead rewards luck to a large degree, then what are we celebrating exactly?

    Personally I don't give a crap about greed, as if we could change the way capitalism works by appealing to people's ethics. Profit-making enterprises are supposed to make profit and care about nothing else. I just don't want them to be the only entities in society with power.

  • sevo||

    "I just don't want them to be the only entities in society with power."
    They have no power, shithead.

  • Mr Whipple||

    but the whole point of civilization is to mitigate the risks of nature

    I thought the whole point of civilization was bitches and blow, bitchez.

  • Charlie Sheen||

    Winning!!!

  • SW_Ohio||

    "Profit-making enterprises are supposed to make profit and care about nothing else. I just don't want them to be the only entities in society with power."

    Who's making a strawman now?

  • Tony||

    Can I withhold my response until after you're done decimating unions and removing all barriers between money and politics?

  • sevo||

    "Can I withhold my response until after you're done decimating unions and removing all barriers between money and politics?"
    Can you post in any honest manner, shithead?

  • Tony||

    Anyone got a flyswatter?

  • sevo||

    "Anyone got a flyswatter?"
    Flies collect around shit, shithead.

  • SW_Ohio||

    "Can I withhold my response.."

    Yes, please do.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Profit-making enterprises are supposed to make profit and care about nothing else.

    And exactly how, in a totally free market system, would an enterprise accomplish that?

  • Sudden||

    Well, the fundamental reason is that I believe a free market system provides ALL people with opportunities, it's just that some people, through an accident of birth, have greater opportunities whether it be due to inborn talent, being raised well with a loving family, or simply having been born into a reservoir of money that they could live off the interest on rather comfortably for several lifetimes.

    I'm a man of fairly modest means myself, and if I get some revolutionary idea to satisfy an unmet demand in the marketplace, and simultaneously, a trust-fund kid gets the same idea, he has a greater opportunity to capitalize on it simply due to having the seed money. I'll have to work my ass off, twice as hard, be twice as convincing as him, in order to get my idea off the ground before he does and compete. I recognize that, and to be honest, it does piss me off a bit. But that's life. Beyond that, I don't define myself in terms of what I make, in either a production sense or a financial sense. I know that within a mostly free economy, I'll be able to market some skill set that will get me by, so long as I make prudent financial decisions in terms of not overspending on a house/car/consumer junk and build up my own rainy day savings. I'll endulge the occassional luxury purchase (for me its usually food as I have an appetite for good food and craft beer), but for the most part, I try to live a relatively spartan lifestyle. And that is my response to market cues, and to be honest, a lot of the causes that I think you'd be supportive of (like scaling back overconsumption and its environmental impact, fostering an educated/sophisticate citizenry, etc) would be more easily met by simply letting the mechanics of markets work and not sheltering people from market forces and consequences of their actions and behaviors. Quite simply, in a truly libertarian society virtues like self-improvement, asceticism, temperence, and good judgement would be rewarded and reinforced.

  • Tony||

    There will always be a tension between allowing for the inequities of nature and mitigating them with collective action, and I don't claim to know where the perfect sweet spot is. But surely you don't believe that all such inequities should just be left in place. That's just social darwinism. And it removes completely the justification for blaming poor people for their lot. If the child of poor parents doesn't even have the opportunity to get an education, then we're just talking continued generational dominance of the wealthy class and continued generational subjugation of the poor. It's no way to order a civilized society, and it's not fair by any definition. There's a lot of appreciation for the American founding around here, but if it was about nothing else it was about downplaying the power of generational privilege.

    I just think there's plenty of evidence that an unfettered market doesn't produce optimal results all the time, even if it does some of the time. People in market competition produce some zero-sum situations, and it's not clear that market capitalism has any inherent mechanism to motivate things like conservation. Human foresight does, but that only goes so far when we're motivated by quarterly returns.

  • sevo||

    "I just think there's plenty of evidence that an unfettered market doesn't produce optimal results all the time,"
    No one claims otherwise, shithead.

  • Sudden||

    I think you overestimate the income-potential of a traditional education and underestimate the innate talents and abilities people have to make money. The irony is that, in a much more laissez-faire society of the Industrial Revolution, the titans of industry mostly rose from the immigrant lower classes, without benefit of the social safety net.

  • Tony||

    It's clear that a hugely important indicator for later success is level of education attained.

    I'm not sure what your industrial revolution claim is supposed to entail. Surely there were many potential titans who just had bad luck, and the ones who succeeded surely had good luck. If we want to increase the likelihood that future titans of industry will emerge it seems we should provide a safety net and equal access to education.

  • sevo||

    "It's clear that a hugely important indicator for later success is level of education attained."
    Yeah, shithead. Did you get a job flipping burgers like you deserve?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Straw For Brains,

    There will always be a tension between allowing for the inequities of nature and mitigating them with collective action, and I don't claim to know where the perfect sweet spot is.


    There isn't one, you twit. You cannot make people equal through any collective effort anymore you can make every blade of grass the exact same size.

    I just think there's plenty of evidence that an unfettered market doesn't produce optimal results all the time[.]


    You presume to know what the optimal result should be? Are you a god, perhaps, or do you just fancy yourself one? There's a nice padded room for a person like you.

  • cynical||

    "I agree that opportunities will never be equal, but the whole point of civilization is to mitigate the risks of nature, not content ourselves with them."

    It would be a disaster to fail to separate human choice from nature. Civilization must punish behavior that undermines civilization, even if that behavior is a result of "nature". Rather, when bad behavior can be deterred, it must punish for deterrence and rehabilitation. When it cannot, it must punish to prevent bad behavior. In both cases, such punishment should be geared toward raising morale in the civilization by reminding participants of the fairness of the process.

    Most of these OWS assholes are part of the problem, because they share the bailout mentality, just on a small scale. They fucked up (due in part to social pressure to do the wrong thing and collateral damage from other people's mistakes -- but you could say the same for the banks). They want the government to make everyone who didn't fuck up cover the cost of their fuckup. And why not? The banks fucked up in a huge way. They don't want anything on that scale. Thing is, it's only small on each individual case. Add all their little fuckups together, and you have a social problem that probably rivals that of the banks.

  • Tony||

    The only relevant thing to think about is what to do about it. Even if a bunch of individual poor choices contributed to a large social problem, that problem is there. I do however find it highly suspect that there can be such a thing as an epidemic of bad financial planning or laziness. If there is too much individual debt then it means that the loans were too easily given out.

  • Britt||

    Well, yeah. Government gave out 19.2 million subprime loans, the private sector gave out 7 million.

    But it's the private sector that needs to be fucked over, according to you.

  • sevo||

    "I do however find it highly suspect that there can be such a thing as an epidemic of bad financial planning or laziness"
    That's because you're an ignoramus, shithead.

  • cynical||

    "The only relevant thing to think about is what to do about it. Even if a bunch of individual poor choices contributed to a large social problem, that problem is there."

    The problem is a combination of collective public stupidity (whether that arises from too many voters being stupid, or the process for assessing public will leading to stupid outcomes is debatable) and official corruption. These guys can't fix it, because they assume the problem with crony capitalism is the capitalism. The word "nomenklatura" doesn't exist in their dictionary.

    The loans (students loans, in this case) were too easily given out because the government at first guaranteed that it would pay them, and then changed that to guaranteeing that students would pay them. Combine that with people's cargo cult attitude toward education and credentialism, and you have a ton of people indoctrinated for 12 years to believe that their only path to success and self-worth is by going thousands of dollars into debt to buy what is, for all intents and purposes, a minor title. That's why I've said before that for all their revolutionary lower-class talk, a lot of these guys are really just bourgeoisie who tried to buy their way into venal office and got shafted by a king.

    The temptation will be to waive the guarantees for loans, but that's unfair too. The loaners and the loanees were both suckers. It would be better to modify the terms of existing loans under the control of the government such that, while they remain non-dischargeable in the long term, interest and required payments go on sort of a progressive tax schedule -- if you're dirt poor, it gets suspended without interest. If you're doing ok, medium interest and minimum payments. If you do well, you pay it back at full interest on the original schedule.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Haven't read the whole thing yet but

    you're going to make a dumbass comment anyway because it's impossible for you to sit still and read four (4) paragraphs without flying your retard flag.

  • Tony||

    Discovered it was short when I clicked. Yep, he does in fact employ the ridiculous strawman quoted here.

  • sevo||

    "he does in fact employ the ridiculous strawman quoted here."
    So he doesn't quote you exactly, shithead?

  • ||

    Too busy drawing up the plans for the gallows you plan to construct for anybody who has anything you don't have, Tony?

  • LarryA||

    Creating general equality of opportunity is among the greatest U.S. achievements. But creating equality of outcomes has caused misery everywhere it has been tried.

    “But...but...but this time we’ll be in charge. Just because we can’t organize picking up our own trash doesn’t mean...”

  • ||

    The occupation people have it right. We don't have equality of opportunity because the government favors large corporations in many ways, making it more difficult for new businesses to compete with them.

  • Apatheist||

    Yep, and their solution is giving the government more power. Hence the mockery.

  • Tony||

    You are the one who should be mocked for assuming this formulation makes the slightest bit of sense. Unless you happen to be a despot yourself, there will always be a government-like entity with power over you. Our government was formed with checks and balances on that inherent power--not filled with magical self-sustaining power vacuums. "Small government" is a myth at best. Where has there ever been a small government? What does it even mean? And why do you assume that the absence of government means the presence of liberty? Without government what's to stop some nongovernmental entity from asserting itself over you?

  • sevo||

    "Unless you happen to be a despot yourself, there will always be a government-like entity with power over you."
    Only as a result of shitheads like you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sevo,

    Don't bother. He hasn't listened, ever. Not since I've been here, since 2006.

  • Tony||

    You rarely say anything of substance, and if you do it's hidden within a bunch of name-calling.

  • sevo||

    "You rarely say anything of substance,"
    You never do, shithead.

  • Restoras||

    Sevo the Eviscerator, on a roll.

  • sevo||

    Shithead sort of pisses me off. Sleazy, weaselly liars often do, and shithead has never posted anything that didn't come from a sleazy, weaselly liar.

  • sevo||

    "Don't bother. He hasn't listened, ever. Not since I've been here, since 2006."

    OM, I'm quite sure the mental ability to read or listen isn't among shithead's skills. Regardless, shithead will continue to to be beat upon every chance I get.
    S/he is the despicable archetype of the 'concerned, progressive liberal' who has caused the impoverishment and/or deaths of millions of people around the globe.
    Shithead will get called on shithead's bullshit at every chance.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So... government has been just as big as it was when it was first invented?

    Shit, wait... I'm arguing with someone who takes the "bigger is always better" approach when it comes to government.

    Never mind.

  • Tony||

    Its jurisdiction has grown. But governments have always had the power to mobilize resources to lay waste to other societies, so I don't know what you want. Seems like you want a fairy tale where power itself can be done away with if you just remove the institutions whose purpose is to channel power.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Seems like you want a fairy tale where power itself can be done away with if you just remove the institutions whose purpose is to channel power.

    As opposed to your fairy tale that massively-scaled, highly-complex bureaucracies will function perfectly if the right people are put in charge?

  • sevo||

    "Seems like you want a fairy tale"
    Seems like you purposely 'mis-read' every comment, shithead.

  • ##||

    From The Wall Street Journal:

    The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If I were an anarchist, Tony, you'd have a point.

    But, as we've all come to know, you and your ilk think if government got even one percent smaller, we'd have anarchy.

  • Tony||

    So if you want to maintain the state's ability to bomb other countries, then isn't big vs. small kind of beside the point?

    You want government to attend to your needs and wants and nobody else's. Yeah, I get it.

  • ##||

    It isn't beside the point at all. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. Cutting that in half wouldn't seriously change our ability to bomb other countries. What it would change is our ability to spread "democracy" through military might and that would be a good thing.

    No, you don't get it at all and make no attempt to do so. You just do what you always do, say something ridiculous and declare your moral superiority. Then you get all exasperated when nobody agrees with you. I want the government to provide certain basic needs for everybody and butt out everything else. Why is that so hard to understand?

  • ||

    Look, these issues always get derailed and obfuscated. We live in a system that has been contrived and constructed in such a way as to protect the interests of the ruling class as it's first priority. It is lame to pretend otherwise. This is most obvious in cases of economic sector and the military industrial sector, but in collusion with the governing class. These people look out for and protect each other's interests. It crosses the boundaries between Ivy League academia, Wall Street and DC. It is just dishonest to pretend that there is not this subculture of which regular America is not a part and which is not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. What Tony doesn't get is that his "progessive" heroes are a part of that same subculture.

    None of that speaks to the issue of whether or not government should be in a position to extract wealth from some and direct it to others. I don't believe it should. But, we live in a system where those with access to and influence over the levers of power are able to direct that power to divert wealth to themselves. That is the problem. The massive movement of wealth toward the already wealthy in the recent few years is not the natural outcome of an actually free market economy. It is the result of crony capitalism. It is hardly non-libertarian to recognize the truth of these things.

    I will say again, I am utterly convince that in a true free market/libertarian society the staggering disparity of wealth that exists in the country would be drastically reduced, the middle class would be massively expanded and the those at the very bottom would be anomalies and there would be more than enough resources to help them. I don't have any issue with some people being billionaires and me living paycheck to paycheck and with some people being cleverer or luckier than me. What I have a problem is with there being an entire subclass of people who are "to big to fail" who have a built in safety net of government connections and wealthy friends to completely protect them from their own folly.

  • Sudden||

    I agree mostly. That said, I'm not entirely sure if the staggering disparity in wealth would be lessened in a libertarian society, but I do think the impact of it would be lessened, since people overall would be doing better and keeping more of their own money. The animosity towards the wealthy right now has less to do with their wealth and far more to do with the struggles of the people below.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sudden,

    The animosity towards the wealthy right now has less to do with their wealth and far more to do with the struggles of the people below.


    I don't think so. In ancient times, people pretty much believed they were destined by providence to stay poor or be rich. Most of the problems today stem from politics and not from any particular struggle - the poor live much better and richer today than most kings of old and live much longer, with access to cheap food, clothes, housing, water and transportation.

    There's a great essay by Walter Williams where he exposes how politicians divide people to gather power for themselves.

    http://lewrockwell.com/william.....ms103.html

  • Tony||

    Why do the poor have it so great? Couldn't possibly be because of those social programs you are against, which exist in every single society for which your claim could be truthful. There are a lot of people in abject misery in this world too. But curiously they aren't in societies with strong social democracies.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    But curiously they aren't in societies with strong social democracies.

    Which also happen to be culturally homogenous and smaller in population.

  • sevo||

    "But curiously they aren't in societies with strong social democracies."
    Cite, shithead?

  • sevo||

    "None of that speaks to the issue of whether or not government should be in a position to extract wealth from some and direct it to others."

    Disagreed.
    It is specifically this power which re-enforces the protection and favoritism you mention.

  • romulus augustus||

    Yes, but when in human history has it not been such? For the most part, only libertarians "get it" and you see what kind of support Libertarians get from the voting public, and what laughter results from statements such as "I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

  • ||

    I don't care if "the staggering disparity of wealth that exists in the country would be drastically reduced" or not. I just want to be left alone. That mean I support leaving Bill Gates alone too, as long as he isn't robbing me. Given that, he can eat off solid gold flatware in his solid gold house that he tears down and builds anew every day, for all I care.

  • Tony||

    How are you not being left alone? What do you object to exactly? Always been curious about this. Do roads piss you off? The fact that you can go to jail for committing a crime?

    Or do you actually want most of what government provides but think it should be at no cost to you?

  • Foolz||

    ROADZ!!!!111@@!eleventy!!!

  • Tony||

    Ah yes, the tried-and-true libertarian tactic of mocking its most problematic issues away.

  • sevo||

    "Ah yes, the tried-and-true libertarian tactic of mocking its most problematic issues away."
    Evading the issue, shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Is there a point, Tony, where government could be so big, even *you* would object?

    I suspect it's like "can God make a burrito so big, He can't finish eating it?", in that it would have to be essentially an infinite-sized government/burrito.

  • Tony||

    I don't buy the big vs. small distinction. Small government is an empty slogan that means "I want government to serve my needs, but not the needs of people who are different from me."

  • Britt||

    If taking 30% of what I earn is leaving me alone, I'd hate to see what the government would do if it started bothering me.

  • sevo||

    "How are you not being left alone?"
    Taxes, regulations, TSA, etc, shithead.

  • ##||

    Which crime do you mean, murder or selling raw milk to my neighbor? Unfortunately, one can't be left completely alone but there should be limits. You and I just disagree drastically on where they should be.

  • Occupier||

    1 in 4 US kids today live in poverty today. That is violently immoral when you are the richest nation in the world

  • sevo||

    "1 in 4 US kids today live in poverty today."
    That's a lie.

    "That is violently immoral when you are the richest nation in the world"
    And you are ignorant enough to turn a lie into 'morality'.

  • Occupier||

  • sevo||

    If you move the goalposts far enough, you can claim half of the people 'live in poverty' asshole.
    Only those dumb enough to buy it make the claim.

  • Occupier||

    How do you define poverty, asshole?

  • sevo||

    "How do you define poverty, asshole?"
    Asshole, I didn't *try* to define it, asshole. You made the claim, asshole, you back it up, asshole.
    Or you could simply admit your a brain-dead lefty and STFU

  • Occupier||

    So there's no poverty in your Republican fairy tale?

  • sevo||

    So you can't read? So you make stupid-shit claims and can't back them up?
    So you're one more brain-dead ignoramus who should put a sock in it?
    Go away; you're both stupid and boring.

  • Occupier||

    You disagreed with the given definition of poverty. Feel free to provide a counter definition. I'm WAITING, assmuncher.

  • sevo||

    "You disagreed with the given definition of poverty."
    Yes, I did, asshole; see below. Even your fave paper says you're full of shit.
    What's more is that claiming some people live in poverty (now) is a moral issue that must be 'addressed' simply makes it clear you slept through that class in logic, asshole.

  • Occupier||

    Changing the subject.
    Answer the questions, asshat.
    How would you define poverty?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    YOU define it, pig-fucker.

  • Occupier||

    families with income less than $21,756 a year

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So... if a family makes $21,756.01...

  • Occupier||

    So give or take 50 bucks you pedantic asshat. Do you agree or disagree with that delineation? if you disagree, then provide what you would consider a workable definition of poverty. Show your work and cite all sources in MLA format.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off, prick. You gave a set dollar amount, then you say "give or take fifty bucks".

    Disingenuous pig-fucker.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, and "pedantic" is the wrong word, as it does not fit me at all.

    See, thirty years ago, I was just like you - worse, in fact, as I wanted to go to college and learn Russian so I could emigrate to the Soviet Union. However, I grew up, and gave up such foolishness.

    You, on the other hand...

  • Occupier||

    Here's an easy one, since complex word problems evade you.

    Is there a poverty line as you see it? YES/NO

  • Mr. FIFY||

    This, coming from the Team that defines "wealthy" at $200K income, without regard to where one lives.

  • Occupier||

    Can't even answer a simple Yes/No question. You're pathetic. I will waste no more time with this special ed student.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Coward.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Ah... the caring, compassionate liberal stoops to calling his opponent "retarded", thus breaching the liberal doctrine of not engaging in hateful, demeaning speech.

    I chose not to answer your pointless question after you gave an arbitrary dollar amount, then went the "give or take" route.

    You really should give up, pig-fucker, but not for the reasons you give yourself.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll *stay* gone.

  • sevo||

    Oh, and just since I love beating on stupid shits:
    "The report said the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line last year, 15.1 percent," (that would be ~ 1/7, even given the goalpost move)
    And, stupid shit, it comes from the lefty source:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09.....wanted=all

  • Occupier||

    You throw out a citation because it may disagree with your preconceived notions? Maybe your confirmation bias needs an enema, assmuncher.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You're throwing out quotations from people who, were they alive today, would find you a distasteful pig-fucker, Occupier.

  • Anacreon||

    OK, Occupier, I'll answer you without namecalling. "Poverty" is just a moving-target definition based on an income number. It does not take into account what other wealth people might have, or their living situation.
    The typical person in the USA "living in poverty" has a computer, car, nice TV, air conditioning, on and on...
    If you have ever traveled in third world countries like I have then you know what real poverty is. Living with a large family in a hut with a dirt floor is poverty. To people living like that, the USA "impoverished" would be the richest people they had ever met.
    Isn't it amazing how, by these definitions, just about every college student in the USA lives in poverty? And so are new grads working at the corner cafe, sharing a hip apartment with three other guys, having what they will remember as the best times of their lives?
    Once we start defining poverty as something besides "below a standard deviation from the mean" and truly base it on living standards, then we will see accurate numbers that we can work towards alleviating.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "violently immoral"

    Impossibility.

  • Occupier||

    Show your work.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Those two words don't belong together.

  • Occupier||

    C-

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "sublimely extroverted"

    There... two more words that, strung together, mean absolutely shit.

  • Occupier||

    C-

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Show your grading process.

  • Occupier||

    make sure you don't wake your mother when you laugh at your own witty rejoinders

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'll show you where her grave is, pig-fucker, and you can try to wake her yourself.

    I'll even provide the shovel.

    C'mon, candyass, you can't pass up this deal! I'll even give you fifty bucks for gas. Springfield, MO area, about twenty miles west-southwest.

    Bring it, pig-fucker.

  • Occupier||

    You have yet to provide proof that I have fucked a pig.
    Unless your mother was a pig?
    PWNED

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Witty rejoinder?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I see you're too fucking cowardly to take me up on my offer.

  • Occupier||

    Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Patrick Henry

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Separation of church and state, Occupier.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What, no witty rejoinder? Or are you really in favor of melding church and state?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Here you go, Occupier:

    http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-.....id=1989442

    Bring your punk ass down here, and I'll show you my mom's grave.

    I'm fucking serious, candyass. Throw down or go the fuck away and post on DemocraticUnderground where you belong.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Where you at, candyass? C'mon... bring it. Bring it the fuck on.

  • WONDERFUL||

    STUPID GUIDE TO OCCUPY WALL ST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ata_player

  • Occupier||

    Lies!

  • Guest||

    A comedy sketch from the headlines: Imagining how it all went down:

    Van Jones: Okay, ideas anybody.

    Professor #1: I think I could get some of my hippie students and their friends to protest Wall St.

    Professor #2 Great idea, I'm going to text some of my students from my iPhone and tell them they should be protesting evil corporations whose products are made in China and sell stock on Wall St.

    Van Jones: Excellent!

    Andy Stern: I can get some of my people there.

    Trumpka: Me too.

    JournoList: Hold back boys we wouldn't want it to look like astroturf.

    Debbie Dolberman: Once the MSM sets the narrative about how spontaneous and grassroots the OWS crowd has sprung up we could get Nancy and Barrack to comment on it.

    Nancy: Okay.

    Tumpka: That’s the cue for us to come in Andy.

    Van Jones: Excellent. A very productive meeting on this one. We wouldn't want another CBS incident. Has anyone admonished CBS and that reporter yet?

    Nancy: My husband and I need a distraction

    Al Sharpton: When will we tell them it should be about redistributing the money?

    Bill Keller: I'll start setting the narrative that the Tea Party is finished.

    Charlie Rose: I'll coincide with that and and call OWS a growing phenomenon.

    JournoList: Once all that's rolling we'll keep pounding the talking points.

    Harry: I'll prevent the Senate from voting on the Barrack's jobs Bill while all this is going on. I'll need help blaming Republicans since the bi-partisan support is against us.

    JournoList: No problem and no different than business as usual.

    Al Sharpton: Money...when will we tell them it should be about redistributing the money?

    David Axelrod: Al follow my cue and then organize. Barrack will say "Republicans Don't Want A Place Where People "No Matter What They Look Like" Can Succeed”

    Nancy: I will stir up their passions with stuff like they’re voting to let women die on the floor.

    JournoList: Great idea Nancy. That one helps get out the feminist vote every time. Women like "shiny things".

    Whoopi: I can tell women George Bush er....Republicans want to steal their uteruses.

    Sean Penn: Garofalo and the rest of us will set the meme the Tea Party is the "Get The N-Word Out Of The White House Party".

    Bill Maher: Excellent Sean! Most excellent! I will call Cain and republicans racist and poke fun at them.

    Al Sharpton: I will add to the meme: "We Will Get The Jobs Bill Done In The Street".

    David Axelrod: Excellent guys. The WH messaging will be OWS "Will Be An Issue In This Campaign".

    Valerie Jarret: We need to crush the idea MLK would have supported Cain. Barrack will tell the people at the ceremony that MLK Jr. Would Have Supported Occupy Wall Street.

    Lawrence O’Donnell: I will imply a brilliant man like Cain should have been drafted, or perhaps volunteered to be considered a patriot - rather than work for the Navy in a private capacity on rocket science where the Navy wanted him solving problems on an important project. I can also push the meme that he’s an Uncle Tom for thinking for himself and unlike 90%+ of African Americans. I will do this from atop my white horse. Perhaps MSNBC should hire Al to provide me cover.

    Al Sharpton: That’s what I do, I know how to crack the whip on those who dare leave the Democrat plantation. How much are they going to pay me?

    Van Jones Shut up Al! One last thing. Can you JournoList within the press corpse please keep ignoring the Fast and Furious scandal.

    WH Press Corpse Indeed!

    JournoList We concur, and don’t worry Nancy. Tell your husband too.

    David Axelrod: Once all this is rolling Barack will hop on the bus and hit the road with the standard organizing talking points like “GOP Wants "Dirtier Air, Dirtier Water, Less People With Health Insurance”.

    Martin Bashir David, I’ll follow your lead with “Cain Doesn't Want To Be "Associated With African-Americans.”

    Comrade Brzezinski I‘d suggest a Bolshevik type appraoch like “Make Rich Known Publicly To Pressure Them To Give Back”

    Eugene Robinson: I call my meme "Defend Wall Street" and go with the theme is not likely to be a winning campaign slogan in 2012. For Republicans, this is an obvious problem.

    Van Jones: Very productive people. I mean that..

    Bernie Sanders: We Need To Address The Issue Of The Rich Getting Richer

    Lawrence O'Donnell: I'd like to add Republicans still don't have a jobs plan, they’ve never had a jobs plan because Republicans are lying liars that lie even when lying about lying that’s the kind of liars the lying liars are.

    Rachel Maddow: I’ll push this one “Republicans vote against employing more teachers and first responders” and since we believe the American people are too stupid to figure out the locals already pay taxes to cover those type of things in their cities.

    Van Jones Very good Rachel.

    Al Franken: And also remember we are good enough, smart enough and gosh darn it, people like us. We are wonderful people.....just ask us.

    Rachel Maddow: I’ll also go with Republicans think poor people are scam artists.

    David Axelrod: Excellent Barack will use the standard Alinsky playbook on his bus tour which we can film for campaign ads. Barack will also tell the people not to believe their lying eyes and that all the choices he made were the right ones. I’ll try and keep a straight face and plant a seed that the election is going to be a close one.

    Debbie Dolberman: I will project all our demagoguery onto republicans.

    Michael Moore: Will Barrack be using the styrofoam columns again? I will make a documentary of all this with a similar name as my Fifth one but call it "Bowling for Columnlike" instead.

  • Guest||

    Jerry Seinfeld style:

    Ever notice that on cable television we went from frick to frack when it comes to fuck?

    Why?

    Frick was a much better word to use for fuck than frack because frick rhymes with dick or prick of which both are used for fucking.

    And don't get me started on those American Autumn Wall St. protesters.

    I don't think there's any common sense left in the world so goodbye. I'm on my way to go protest fracking shale because its fricking the environment.

  • Guest||

    Professor do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Professor: Sure, I'll play along.

    Did you support Obamacare?

    Professor: Yes.

    Then you do not accept freewill and you are a potential tyrant.

    Professor: You just flunked this course pal.


    Hey climate scientist, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Climate scientist: I don't believe a Creator exist let alone that one allows freewill.

    AGW Skeptic: Einstein was right: Science without the [Creator] is blind and religion without the [Creator] is lame.

    Climate scientist: Silence skeptic! We must sacrifice your rights and do what's best for society as we see fit. Don’t you know science is a democracy fool!

    AGW Skeptic: Ben Franklin was right.

    CRU emails: Burn the Skeptic’s book!!


    Hey Hillary, Nancy, Harry, Obama, progressive intellectuals and Dems, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Choir: We must sacrifice the rights of the individual and do what’s best for society.

    Who decides what’s best? Certainly not society -see Obamacare.

    Choir: From one, many -see Obamacare.

    Al Gore: e pluribus unum - from one, many. The science is settled! Everybody knows science is a democracy - the skeptics are trying to turn science upside down - leading to backwards conclusions.

    Saul Alinsky: Pick a target, freeze it, smear it, ridicule it.

    Professor: The founders were racist capitalist pig slave holders.

    Common Sense: I see a pattern: Professor with all due respect the Founding Fathers knew they couldn’t fight the Civil War before the American Revolution or shortly thereafter and remain United States. They were wise enough to put mechanisms in place though.

    Hey JournoList, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    JournoList: We must sacrifice the profession and do what is best for society.

    Hey Islamic radicals. Do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Radical Islam ______________

  • Guest||

    Hey Bill O'Really, Dr. K., FOX News, do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    FOX Choir Why do they even have all these debates? Don't the people know Romney is inevitable....it's inevitable that Romney is inevitable...Romney is the only inevitable candidate....Romney...Romney.....Romney....

  • Nike Dunk High Women||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement