Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Yiffox

Rule of Law Rant

by
kinda a rant because I keep coming across this phrase again and again and again.

Basically, it means you abide by your agreements.  Seems fairly simple right?
I firmly believe in this.  My word is my bond.

My last 2 sets of roomates, one of which I wuvs, HUGS
cooncub
cooncub
and the most recent ones., didnt believe in it.  They both believed that authorities could suspend law to enact some greater good, be it tazing people (a potentially fatal act) or Lincoln putting supreme court justices in jail because they said what he was doing was illegal. (and Lincoln was the most evil president in history imo)

So yeah, im crazy...i believe a contract is a contract.  Be it government (the constitution) or person to person.  You abide by your word.

In the government's case, this is largely toward the greater good, or at least thats how they sell it.  Its usually because some small group of people are profiting from it.  This is utilitarianism, the atheist morality, as opposed to say christian morality that every person is worthwhile (settling right there the difference between morality being religious)

For example...spock (utilitarian) goes the good of the many outweights the good of the few or the one.  While kirk, as has actually been shown in fan movies, without the one, the whole galaxy may descend into really crappy things...either by doomsday machines or psionic overlord.  Yeah theres movies of that beetches.

The problem with the greater good is it doesnt happen.  Nazis, communists, socialists...their utopias didnt occur despite the hundreds of millions they killed to make it happen

so um lesson learned?  nah were still going down that road today...

my most recent mention of the rule of law, is how international banks are thwarting it to make profits to inflate our currency which will lead to an inevitable collapse ( to whit 25% of world trade is now outside fiat currencies, because they know its going to collapse, bye bye dollahs)

terrorists kill less people than car accidents, we must cut back on our freedoms and let the government spy on us....really?

But its for the greater good, your thots?
Viewed: 83 times
Added: 5 years, 1 month ago
 
ZincChloride
5 years, 1 month ago
"international banks are thwarting it to make profits..." and "Its usually because some small group of people are profiting from it."
I have to point this out... you're falling into the modern liberalist mentallity of blaming the tool. That "small group of people" is not specifically the bankers and rich corporations but those pesky politicians. Liberals don't blame the very people who cause are problems via laws and regulations and using corporations and banks to fuel their agendas. And as for spoks phylosophy, the greater good mentallity is a personal choice matter. As for government, their decisions should be based on the principles of individual freedom and liberty. How is it that for the sake of security and welfare our government has practically enslaved it's subjects.. I mean citizens. As for the socialist/communist out their, I really think it's a mental difficiency issue that should be addressed. And when it comes down to it they base their beliefs in a way as though they are outside the "bubble" and everyone is a perfect person. It really is delusional.
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
um....no...the tool is wrong.  Conservatives and liberals are both pawns.  Its big government vs small government  period.  Big government espouses this great man needs to disobey the law to get things done...

Let's take Lincoln's case.  The south seceded by VOTE.  Our response?  send in troops to get our tax money.  <--cause of civil war. First shots fired, Carolina firing in ships bringing in more troops to FT sumter after they told them to get off our sovereign territory.   That was an act of war from the North.  So yeah they started it contrary to the northern view of history.  How bad was this?  Virginia and other states which voted to remain with union, changed their vote at this blatant violation of state soveriegnty to side with the confederacy.  Now Texas, Virginia, NY and RH had legal right to succeed........Lincolm in disregard of law, as the monarch of England before him, said we do not acknowledge the law only my power
ZincChloride
5 years, 1 month ago
I wad mainly talking about the so called evil one percenters vs. the politicians. But I still agree with what you just said.
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
I dont blame the "1%"  that's silly cultural warfare to divide people.  The 1% today wont be the same 1% in 10 years.  30% will loose their fortunes and a new 30% will replace them.  We hardly have hereditary wealth in this country except in rare cases.  Most children of wealth will squander their money.  Socialism are politicians giving public wealth to their friends, that's far worse
Blackraven2
5 years, 1 month ago
One should abide his word, or a contract one has agreed on. Its a matter of honor, and creditability. As my grandmother once said, if you lie once, you wont be believed even if you speak the truth. If you betray once, you will never be trusted no matter your true intentions.

So I would stand by my own words.

But whats with laws, especially with laws that you find injust, made by people that you did not elect (but apparently some other idiots did) in a system that you do no longer agree with (because it in itself is injust and ensures only that a few privileged stay in power over many underprivilged - while hiding behind laws based on a constitution that claims the exact opposite - freedom and equal rights for everyone - and of course mass indoctrination and propaganda to stay supported by a unprivileged but stupid majority)

The problem is, its in humans nature to want to rise above others. To want more, to want a better position in society, to stand above others, to be someone. Even if you "enforce" equality, and give everyone the same money, job, living place and clothing, the first thing they would do is try to make themselves different from each other, to be admired and envied by the others. Some would start creating art, to decorate their home, themselves, or their street, sell it, or even give it away for free, if that allowed them to become famous. Others would seek less honorable methods, resort to stealing, bullying and force to take whats others to add to theirs. Again others would manipulate others to act on their behalf and increase their power, while others again would seek out who they deem strong and join 'the winner team'. Within a year or two you would again have a society like now, with 10% owning 90% of the wealth, with celebrities, and unnamed masses, with shining figures, and criminal lowlifes. A few years later the ones in power have cemented their strength, and the same routes that lead them to power are blocked for anyone but their friends and children.

Even people who act utilitarian, what do they really do, they donate their wealth one huge checks and give them to charity organizations while press and TV is filming to show all the world how great and beneficial they are. A shining example for everyone. Or they go into the slum and hand out bread and medicine, but in turn bask in the godlike admiration and adoration of the poor and helpless they are helping. A power the church has been using very effectively to preach their doctrine.
If you want a dog to be your friend, give him a bone. This isn't utilitarian, this gives you power over the creature. People don't act utilitarian for utilitarianism' sake but because they are admired to do so. So effectively they act selfish!

Don't get me wrong, this type of selfishness can very well have utilitarian effects. It can indeed benefit everyone. The same way two selfish merchants buy at each other, both charging very profitable prices and in the end both end up richer than they were before. It might seem a paradox at first glance, but it isn't. A society of selfish pricks CAN evolve and grow - as long as resources are available.

The problem we have on this planet right now is that its getting crowded, and the resource availability is limited. We have reached the end of growth with a system that depends on everlasting growth to be beneficial.

If one looks to history there is a reoccurring cycle though, between prosperous ages of growth and development, that - once they reach their limit - turn to ages of destruction and war.

For the human selfishness in times of need turns on one another, and of theres not enough shelter and food for two to live, one must fall!
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
hm a lot of rambling it seems there.  

1. capitalism is the greatest source of wealth, the best division of resources, etc.  My opinion.
  SO 2 merchants or customers trading...no one trades down.  Hence both people end off better off in a trade, except by deception.
2. socalism, someone decides prices and output with inefficient allocations by nature.  hence shortages, people waiting in lines.
3. the cycles are often by external influences like central banks
Blackraven2
5 years, 1 month ago
"
1. capitalism is the greatest source of wealth, the best division of resources, etc.  My opinion.
  SO 2 merchants or customers trading...no one trades down.  Hence both people end off better off in a trade, except by deception.


I would agree. However there is one natural flaw in capitalism that needs to be avoided. The system works optimal on a free market with many participants and sufficient availability of goods.

It fails under the following conditions:

1. One of the participants (or a small group) manages to acquire the vast majority of resources and forms a monopoly, dictating prices. (This is an inherent risk, as the rules of the market create monopolies, I will elaborate on that below)

2. The normal rules governing demand and availability fail because a vitally important resource (water, food, ...) availability grows beneath a minimum threshold - as such the increased pricing accompanying further shrinking availability will not decrease demand, causing a price explosion that can disrupt the market as a whole.

"
2. socalism, someone decides prices and output with inefficient allocations by nature.  hence shortages, people waiting in lines.


Socialism is missing any self-regulating feedback control that for example an (intact) capitalistic market provides. As such the system is by design inferior. This is especially true to historic implementations of socialism, as they did not have any means to accurately calculate demand and control availability of goods, such creating both shortages - and on the same side useless surplus supply of goods no one needed.

In theory, modern computer systems might be able to do the necessary calculations correctly, however I would still prefer a self-regulating system over central control.

"
3. the cycles are often by external influences like central banks


Bullshit, central banks are not external influences they are part of the system. Power over the monetary system ensures power over the entire economy - and as such society. The problem is if you misuse this power too much, the money looses its worth and you power simply evaporates. People then use other means of currency - like cigarettes or pumpkin seeds. This used to happen much more often when the central power was still with the government (both kings and elected) even in classic times they did that by minting coins with inferior gold content, diluting the currency. The same happens now. But its never the cause for the downfall, only a symptom. If the king has enough gold he doesn't need to weaken it. It's only when the king runs outa money that he choses those methods to delay the decay a little bit in hope he can prevent it until better times - to then hit him just all the harder.  Central Banks, or money in general may act as an amplifying factor that reinforces the amplitude of the cycle taking place, but its by no means the original cause for rise and downfall. (A failing currency in an otherwise intact economy would simply make people switch to an alternate currency)

In fact a failing currency has its merits. If you owe someone a lot of money, its quite nice if this money suddenly isn't worth anything anymore. On the other side if you lent your worth to someone else (or a bank) you would not like it to loose its worth. As such a currency failure makes some poor people less poor and some rich people less rich.

Blackraven2
5 years, 1 month ago
The biggest problem with capitalism is at the same time its greatest strength. It leads to optimization which is also the biggest motor for progress. If someone can produce something with less resources or cheaper, or better, he can sell it better than the competition, as such sell more and become richer. Such capitalism forces everyone to optimize, which can be a good thing (except if the optimization makes you loose your job) The problem is, that many optimizations are a matter of scale. Huge farms can produce more efficiently than small ones, huge global corporations can produce more efficiently than small backdoor garages. As such optimization leads to centralisation and the market has a tendency to optimize itself until only a few quasi-monopolists are left.

When this point is reached, however the market transforms from a free market to a market governed by a few oligopolists or monopolists, at which point the normal rules of demand and availability no longer apply, as the remaining competitors can dictate both availability and prices. This process can be seen very nicely in the telecommunication market, and the battles fought between Apple, Google and Microsoft over who reigns supreme in the Smartphone world. This multi-front battle, fought in patent courts, corporate espionage,  as well as hostile takeovers - has not much to do with "capitalism" or free market anymore, more with feudal war lords battling each other with the weapons of global corporate warfare.

The media world, governed by BMGTimeWarnerSonyDisneyUniversal has reached that point a decade ago, the big oil corporations reached it in the 1980's and Monsanto is the supreme dictator of the agriculture "market". These are all examples for how unregulated capitalism eventually fails as a result of its own inherent laws and properties. A free market optimizes itself to death if no additional restrictions prevent this outcome.

Mind you the way of regulating politicians came up so far are mostly bullshit, and I don't have a solution either. If you have an idea, feel free to elaborate :)

Capitalism is a system that works very well in society because its a system that encourages everyones inherent selfish behaviour. Optimize your own gain is something that very few will argue with, as it seems to allow everyone to get everything with no downsides, no sacrifices.

Then again, maybe somewhere on the way we did sacrifice something - another human trait that existed alongside the inherent selfishness, which is empathy. But empathy has no place in a society ruled by the rules of capitalism. Or has it?
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
>> capitalism.  I would disagree on both those cases.  Monopolies can not form unless the government creates them.  Perfect example would be East India Company, one of the first big monopolies that the king created and they did have high prices...natural reaction of the market?  Others want a share of the profits and smuggle goods into the country.  This was however illegal, but they sold at lower prices and grew rich doing so.  First big monopolies in this country which fueled all the other robber barons by the wealth they created were the railroads.

Price gouging due to a scare resource.  Say the price of water goes very high due to scarcity.  Natural reaction of a free market is of course for people to go to the next location to get some cheaper AND bring a lot back to sell at higher price and make a profit.  When enough people start doing this, scarcity problem is solved.

>> socialism, agreed, but you're missing an even more important part...there is no means of allocating supply of production also.  Price will determine how many cars are produced, what type, what land they are created on, etc.  This would be impossible for a computer to do as without prices, there is no means to judge how production should be allocated.

>>  original business cycles had largely to do with fiat currencies.  People would buy goods with it, particularly foreign ones, foreign merchants come to cash in fiat currency for gold that they can use, banks may not have the gold on hand...currency becomes devalued, economy goes into a slump, as people cant buy as much.  That's about how it started in 1800's.  When we were on hard currency like late 1800's we had no crash.  They actually thought we had because prices deflated, while the economy was booming for like 20 years.

You can see this happening now too with our huge trade deficits
Blackraven2
5 years, 1 month ago
The east India is a different kind of monopoly. You can create a monopoly artificially by law. An example for this would be the artificial restrictions placed on digital content by means of DRM sanctioned by for example the DMCA. The market reacts with the sprouting of (illegal) filesharing platforms. These artificial monopolies are however not inherent to capitalism but indeed 'king made' - a monopoly of a different kind is railroad, electric, telephone and other infrastructure companies. They can dominate the market, because customers have no choice. Any big player can easily outplay a smaller regional supplier by invading his territory, underbidding his prices until the company is ready for a takeover, then rise prises high wherever there is no competition. Competing - due to the cost of creating infrastructure which is very high compared to maintaining it - is so expensive, that the monopolist can throw anyone out of the market.

This problem is imminent not only in infrastructure, but also in natural resources, ores, oil, gas, exotic substances, basically anything with a limited supply where any new competitor cannot possibly produce cheaper simply due to the unavailability of resources.
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
Except that's not how it works in practice.  As soon as they raised prices, they would have competitors.  As well as alternatives.  You can make electricity in a local creek easily or by solar now.  As prices rise, alternatives become cheaper.  We see in Detroit and Brazil mass stealing of power as well.  ALL monopolies are enforced by law/the king.  Railroad, electric and utility monopolies are all derived by government mandate, not because the market created them, but because government chose them and forbade anyone else from entering the market.    We can see this being reversed somewhat in the electric monopoly by small users being allowed to sell power back to the grid.

You dont seem to understand that less efficient producers do not need to produce more cheaply, just to produce enough to make a profit.  There will always be producers at higher and lower cost of production, that's what makes up the supply curve.  As price goes down, less people will be encouraged to supply, as price goes up more people will be encouraged to supply.
Blackraven2
5 years, 1 month ago
yes, but thats the point, for that to work you need to allow 3rd parties to sell power back to the grid.
The grid however is owned by the same power corporation that has the monopoly, and the prices they pay for power are a joke.
In Germany they tried to "fix" this with market regulation, forcing the power companies to pay a fixed price to small scale producers, but this causes its own problems (and at that point you don't have a free market anymore either).

I don't get what you mean by "don't have to produce more cheaply" - if you have two competitors producing the same - or a comparable product and one is able to sell at a price (due to optimizations) the other cannot make a profit at, the more expensive producer will obviously sell less. At this point however he would have to rise the prices to still be able to make a profit since production includes fixed costs, selling even less. This is a vicious cycle, that eventually ends to bankruptcy if the producer in disadvantage is not able to reduce costs by some further optimization. However the opposite is true, the winning competitor can produce more, since he can sell more (taking over the loser's market share) this allows him to produce at bigger scale and as such with higher efficiency, allowing him to temporarily reduce prices even further. At some point the efficiency of scale outweighs almost all other possible optimizations, which means unless a competitor can come up with a significant innovation, the "scale race winner" will end up as a single monopolist.
Zarpaulus
5 years, 1 month ago
There's government-sponsored monopolies, and then there's effective monopolies where the producer personally prevents competition by producing in such quantities that no one else can come close or claiming the sole source of resources or in some cases sabotage.
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
See above re supply curve.  If a monopoly is achieved they have to keep prices low to sustain that monopoly,  natural monopolies, though fleeting, are good as they make lower prices.

Look at the only near monopoly in our lifetimes, Microsoft.  It had competitors everywhere, and there's still alternatives.  It also has colossal failures aka Zune vs Ipod.  Natural monopolies do not exist for long period.  Go a bit further...the giant of IBM vs Microsoft started in someone's garage.
Jimmy
5 years, 1 month ago
I always thought that every person should have all rights and freedoms, so long as those rights and freedoms do not infringe on another person.

The problem is, how do you define a person's rights and freedoms?  You have the freedom of the government not to spy on you.  But what about those who use that freedom to commit an illegal act?  Shouldn't the government have the right to watch (spy) for those wanting to commit an illegal act? And what about the personal data collected by the government and businesses.   Do you have a right to privacy and those agencies should protect that privacy?  Or should others have the right to government data because it was tax-payer's dollars used to collect that data?

I think the problem is that everyone wants and demands pure freedom, to do anything they want but also to deny others of freedom.  The self-centered view of the world.  We (in the United States at least) seem to be very self-centered and have little regard to others or society as a whole.  This might explain why some are fearing their own government.
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
love the icon....the limit to freedom is imposing on others freedoms quite simply.  If you harm others they can have you put in jail or sue you for remedy.

In the US, the government can not spy on you unless it has proof you are committing a crime, in which case it gets a warrant to search.  That's the constitution at its simplest, the government should leave you alone.
Jimmy
5 years, 1 month ago
I love the icon too.  Wish the lion was more active then just walking along.

I agree, the government should leave us alone and only get involved when there is a dispute between people. Only solution is for governing be at the lowest level....   Like that will happen.  Once a government gets a power, they are not willing to give it up peacefully.
ZincChloride
5 years, 1 month ago
Just curious... what's your definition of "infringe"?
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
in what context?
ZincChloride
5 years, 1 month ago
I mostly consider infringe in the context or the "The right to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed."
Jimmy
5 years, 1 month ago
I see infringe as when your freedom comes at the cost of another person's freedom.  An example... a rancher has the right to build a dam on his land but when he builds that dam, the water does not rise and cover his neighbor's land or the water is not diverted from other ranchers.
ZincChloride
5 years, 1 month ago
My definition is "to tatter around the edges." To infringe is to chip away at ones freedom or right. To pass laws that infringe on a right or freedom that slowely limits and regulates ones rights or freedom.
Jimmy
5 years, 1 month ago
But not only laws, it also applies to individuals who "chip" away at others to take their rights.  A bully does this by threatening someone else.  People use the law to take from others.  Example is a drug company getting the government to approve a drug by lobby or bribes to get a dangerous or useless drug on the market.  Another example is Walmart getting the local government to condemn a property so they can build their store at that location.  Trump tried to do this with a golf resort in Scotland but the people fought back.  
So it's not always the government that is taking the freedoms away, it usually someone or some outside agency that is using the government to their own benefit at the cost of someone else.
ZincChloride
5 years, 1 month ago
and yet liberals here in America never blame the politicians for 1. allowing it to happen, 2. creating the environment and legality for it to happen, 3. for creating laws so that corporations have to bribe them to not pass them etc.... If it wasn't for the democratic party and the rhino republicans people would actually be free and those private interest you speak of would be in jail. Just remember that if I were to legally attack you in such a way, not only am I guilty but so is the judicial system and every politician, judge, and lawyer associated with the crime no matter if it's legal or not.
Khzhak
5 years, 1 month ago
read the journal, TL;DR the comments.  you say yer gonna do somethin' ya do it.  ya don't, and said ya did, yer a jerk.  or a liar.  or lazier than ya thought you'd be.  or...what's three for both?  whatever, all three.

I just got up, vaped a few puffs of my ecig, now Im-a go get breakfast and watch the double-N, Naked News.  Have a pleasant whatever time of day yer readin' this.
Zarpaulus
5 years, 1 month ago
About contracts, does that include contracts of Tolstoyian length filled with incomprehensible legalese?  Such as those used by the banks you mentioned?
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
Well that's largely a failure of our court system in allowing frivolous lawsuits in which there is no incentive for people not to put forth.  So contracts have to cover every possibility, much the same way that they have to label cups, HOT COFFEE MAY BURN, for the idiots, but because of a lawsuit.

Yet if enough people refused to sign such contracts, then they would become short rather quickly.
Zarpaulus
5 years, 1 month ago
Did you even look at the photos from the "McDonald's coffee" case?
lambcannon
5 years, 1 month ago
no, let's put the current court "justices" in jail... squeeze blood out of scalia's ugly wop balls while i masturbate to furrie porn... make john roberts bake cookies while i fuck him in the ass with ayn rand paperbacks from a dirty thriftstore... fuck what happened 160 years ago, there's much more available evil now... beat that other hideous eyetie "justice" while screaming the lord's prayer backwards... that's my idea of doing what you say you're going to do... rip out old white trash teabaggers (like the ones who live in my town) eyeballs and fuck the bloody sockets while high on meth... that's KEEPIN IT REAL.... "infringe" on their dirty non-existent rights while i howl at the moon I SAY DO IT NOW
ZincChloride
5 years, 1 month ago
wow, you must be the lovely neighborhood athiest yes? Let me guess you voted for obama during his first race and now hate the "teabaggers" for actually doing what he promised other than destroying the health care system and gay rights? You take sides with the very people who are destroying our country and controlling those "evil" corporations and inflating the dollar while bankrupting the nation. Like the occupt animals who hate everything they symbolize. How can you preach anti-capitalism, global warming, and human rights while letting the newest iphone or trendy technology and name brand clothing dictate what you interest are all the while living in a giant megopolis of concrete, petroleum products, and carbon emitting factories? While voting for the same politics and phylosophies that have committed genocide, world wars, and despotism for billions of people around the globe? If only you had the ability to consider that you may be wrong. You would find that everything you hate is starring right back at you in the mirror.
Yiffox
5 years, 1 month ago
eh I despise the current supreme court.  Mostly for them making police powers stronger, like they can search us on the street and we have to identify ourselves if the states pass laws (papers please?)  These are obvious violations of constitutional rights that the supreme bobbleheads are allowing.

Who cares what happened 160 yrs ago?  those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it.  Do you care about the government spying on people?  invading you home with a self written warrant?  Police allowed to set up stakeouts in your home?  The tax man invading your home and putting you in jail and seizing property without due process?  The government saying you must buy our products and pay taxes if you dont.  Yeah all that stuff happened 240 years ago, which is why those people, having overthrown the british doing it, wrote specific protections the government was doing.  And now theyre doing all those things again.

In fact the only thing they havent done is overthrow a state senate and impose a governor over it  (but there's a plan to do just that in a vague "national emergency"  -- in fact overthrown all elected offices and impose 10 governors on the nation, yay
lambcannon
5 years, 1 month ago
or just roll around in sophomoric sophistry, writing bigass paragraphs like its gonna make a difference to anybody else... we can do that too
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.