Page 2 of 46 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 680
  1. #16
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Really?? I was CEO of a software company once ... I must've missed that memo ... because when MY company went down the tubes in 2001/2002 everyone got paid out except me ... I didn't get paid for my last 2 months of work, I got no extra salary in lieu of notice, no severance pay, my annual leave wasn't paid out, superannuation not paid, nada, nothing, not a solitary cracker ... more than $50,000 of entitlements and superannuation were lost.
    I was talking about CEOs of corporations with significant economic impact. I dont know your circumstances but I doubt that fits. Check out what happned to the Enron CEO or the Fannie Mae CEO.

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    I was talking about CEOs of corporations with significant economic impact. I dont know your circumstances but I doubt that fits. Check out what happned to the Enron CEO or the Fannie Mae CEO.
    But even big companies start out small, so Sowell's point applies. Spiny is one example of that, unfortunately. Indeed, most new businesses fail, so entrepreneurs don't need any additional risk from lefties railing at them and demanding punitive taxes, like the Obamashiach proposes.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #18
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    Not quotes by Sowell, but quotes he appreciates. I thought it was worth a read.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  4. #19
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Not quotes by Sowell, but quotes he appreciates. I thought it was worth a read.
    Thanx Boris, definitely good reading there.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #20
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668
    “Intellectuals”
    by Thomas Sowell
    11 Nov 08

    Among the many wonders to be expected from an Obama administration, if Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is to be believed, is ending "the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life."

    ...

    Adlai Stevenson was certainly regarded as an intellectual by intellectuals in the 1950s. But, half a century later, facts paint a very different picture.

    Historian Michael Beschloss, among others, has noted that Stevenson "could go quite happily for months or years without picking up a book." But Stevenson had the airs of an intellectual — the form, rather than the substance.

    What is more telling, form was enough to impress the intellectuals ...

    Similarly, no one ever thought of President Calvin Coolidge as an intellectual. Yet Coolidge also read the classics in the White House. He read both Latin and Greek, and read Dante in the original Italian, since he spoke several languages. It was said that the taciturn Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.

    ...

    New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the intelligentsia what they wanted to hear — that claims of starvation in the Ukraine were false.

    ...

    In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament.

    ...

    How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable — or even expert — within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.

    But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #21
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Thomas Sowell:

    "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

    Thomas Sowell's call for military intervention to supress political, media and intellectual opinion that he disagrees with.

    You can't get much more hard-line totalitarianism than that.
    Last edited by TheJoker; 26-11-2008 at 09:55 AM.

  7. #22
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Thomas Sowell:

    "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

    Thomas Sowell's call for military intervention to supress political, media and intellectual opinion that he disagrees with.

    You can't get much more hard-line totalitarianism than that.
    Nope, he was talking saving the country from the increasing totalitarianism of unelected and unaccountable government agents, who rip kids away from innocent parents on the flimsiest charges, tell parents how to raise their kids, order farmers not to drain swamps wetlands, throw home-owners off their property because big business interests persuade politicians that more tax would come from their businesses if they can take over the property at firesale prices ...
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #23
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Nope, he was talking saving the country from the increasing totalitarianism ...
    By military force Which ardently more totalitarian in nature.

    So because Sowell (and a few other right-wingers) dont like the actions of democratically elected governments (NB all government officials operate within the framework of legislation which is defined by the elected government), they should forego the democratic process and use military force to get their way.

    I cant believe you would come to the defence of such a statement.

    Anyway the fact that Sowell has called for a military coup against the government, media and intellectuals as a means of making a country conform to his ideals shows the nature of the man; a right-wing fundamentalist who will stop at nothing (military force acceptable to remove those with opposing ideals) to push forward his agenda.

    Reminds of something Mao, Castro or Stalin might say.
    Last edited by TheJoker; 26-11-2008 at 12:07 PM.

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    By military force Which ardently more totalitarian in nature.
    It was by military force that America was founded, in revolt against unjust taxes and multiplication of "officers" to oppress the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    So because Sowell (and a few other right-wingers) dont like the actions of democratically elected governments
    The whole point was the multiplication of rulers who were NOT democratically elected, such as teachers unions, activist judges, judges, union bosses, environmental zealots, "child protection" Gestapo, oppressive taxation agents ...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    (NB all government officials operate within the framework of legislation which is defined by the elected government),
    Sowell provides copious documentation in his book Knowledge and Decisions how the bureaucratic agencies and judges circumvent the elected government even if it wants to change them. Yes Minister is a satire on the same thing in the UK.

    Sowell despaired of the "politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia" doing their job to expose and oppose tyranny, so mused about a day when the only answer to an increasingly tyrannical government was a military coup.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    they should forego the democratic process and use military force to get their way.
    It's notable that neither Sowell nor any other right winger have made the huge fuss after Obamov's election that lefties made about GWB's, including threatening to leave the country. Or more recently, the homonazis who can't accept the result of the referendum using violence and intimidation.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Anyway the fact that Sowell has called for a military coup against the government, media and intellectuals as a means of making a country conform to his ideals
    No, he said "the day may yet come". Are you saying that a military coup against a tyrannical government and government agencies is never justified? Might have been nice if the generals of Hitler and Stalin had overthrown them. And note, the American revolution was a military coup but it resulted in a Republic; nothing Sowell said can be construed as advicating a permanent military dictatorship.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    shows the nature of the man; a right-wing fundamentalist who will stop at nothing (military force acceptable to remove those with opposing ideals) to push forward his agenda.
    Moron. Typical lefty. But I repeat myself.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 26-11-2008 at 01:45 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #25
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It was by military force that America was founded, in revolt against unjust taxes and multiplication of "officers" to oppress the people.
    it wasn't a democratically elected government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The whole point was the multiplication of rulers who were NOT democratically elected, such as teachers unions, activist judges, judges, union bosses, environmental zealots, "child protection" Gestapo, oppressive taxation agents
    As pointed they operate under the legislative framework


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Sowell provides copious documentation in his book Knowledge and Decisions how the bureaucratic agencies and judges circumvent the elected government even if it wants to change them.
    An issue for the government not the military

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Sowell despaired of the "politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia" doing their job to expose and oppose tyranny, so mused about a day when the only answer to an increasingly tyrannical government was a military coup.
    Only if a government refuses to hold fair elections, otherwise elections are always a better answer than military force.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It's notable that neither Sowell nor any other right winger have made the huge fuss after Obamov's election...
    Yet using childish names such as Obamov and the like


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    he said "the day may yet come". Are you saying that a military coup against a tyrannical government and government agencies is never justified?.
    Only if a government refuses to hold fair democratic elections and it is obvious that the majority of population supports such a military coup. Nothing of thesort is remotely forseeable is the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Moron. Typical lefty. But I repeat myself.
    Yes you do repeat yourself, using childish name calling tactics over and over due to a lack of a sophisticated argument. That's ok I understand.

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    it wasn't a democratically elected government.
    It's notable that many of the grievances against King George III apply even more to the IRS and the bureaucratic agencies that both write and enforce law, and pay no penalty for being wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    As pointed they operate under the legislative framework
    No, as Sowell documented, they write much of the legislative framework, which violates the separation of powers.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Only if a government refuses to hold fair elections, otherwise elections are always a better answer than military force.
    Which no one doubts.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Yet using childish names such as Obamov and the like
    Stop whinging. Now that is childish.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Only if a government refuses to hold fair democratic elections and it is obvious that the majority of population supports such a military coup. Nothing of thesort is remotely forseeable is the US.
    Not at present. But as Sowell said, the media and intelligentsia are not likely to oppose tyranny, as long as it's leftist tyranny.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 26-11-2008 at 02:19 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #27
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    No, as Sowell documented, they write much of the legislative framework, which violates the separation of powers.
    And who are you proposing writes the legislation? People with no experience in administering it? The point is that parliment has the final oversight and the ability to quash or amend any legislation put forward via government departments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not at present. But as Sowell said, the media and intelligentsia are not likely to oppose tyranny, as long as it's leftist tyranny.
    This was exactly Fidel Castro's reasoning for his military action (except replace leftist with rightist).

    Well considering the extreme measures leftist tyranical governments have had to implement to control the media and intelligentsia, such as the Hundred Flowers campaign etc. I'd be extermely surpirsed if Sowell was at all right. And in light of the history of such regimes such comments might even be considered humourous.

    Either way the support or opposition of media or intelligentsiaof a government regime has very little to do with enacting a military coup. The only thing IMO that would justify a military coup is majority public support for such action and the lack of an alternative democratic process.

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    And who are you proposing writes the legislation? People with no experience in administering it?
    It was a fundamental part of America's founding that the legislative, judicial and executive powers should be separated. Judges who legislate from the bench, and bureaucratic agencies who both write and enforce laws, violated this separation of powers.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    The point is that parliment has the final oversight and the ability to quash or amend any legislation put forward via government departments.
    But as Sir Humphrey shows, bureaucrats are good at keeping the elected representatives in the dark. Reagan pointed out that the nearest thing to eternal life in this world is a government program.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    This was exactly Fidel Castro's reasoning for his military action (except replace leftist with rightist).
    Not at all. Washington had elections and relinquished power; Castro still hasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Well considering the extreme measures leftist tyranical governments have had to implement to control the media and intelligentsia, such as the Hundred Flowers campaign etc. I'd be extermely surpirsed if Sowell was at all right. And in light of the history of such regimes such comments might even be considered humourous.
    Obamov and the Dems want to implement the "fairness doctrine" that would control what was said on talk radio, and in practice see a big reduction in conservative talk show hosts (because liberal talk radio has been a flop).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Either way the support or opposition of media or intelligentsiaof a government regime has very little to do with enacting a military coup. The only thing IMO that would justify a military coup is majority public support for such action and the lack of an alternative democratic process.
    Sowell was wondering if it would get to that stage: tyrannical government agents, and no opposition from those who should be opposing.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #29
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the chilly depths of Dis.
    Posts
    210
    I'd like to take this back to the original quotation...

    "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

    I am first interested in Sowell's "target" groups. Politicians and (presumably state-employed) educators, OK. A libertarian (if he is one) has every reason to be suspicious of such groups. What I find alarming about the statement is that his implication is that any coup would deal with the (privately owned) media and with the intelligentsia, who are private citizens.

    In short, the government and educators are institutions that may well be regarded as implicitly corrupt or inefficient but the media and intelligentsia appear to be groups that simply disagree with Sowell's ideology.

    Suppressing dissent = a bad thing, as I'm sure Jono would agree.

    I am also highly suspicious about the notion that any military coup could save a modern democracy. Thus far coups have had a fairly poor track record when it comes to delivering a free, democratic society back to the people.

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,668

    Pinochet justifiably overthrew Marxist despot Allende

    Quote Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
    I am first interested in Sowell's "target" groups. Politicians and (presumably state-employed) educators, OK. A libertarian (if he is one) has every reason to be suspicious of such groups.
    Yes, he is one in philosophy, although he doesn't support many libertarian fetishes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
    What I find alarming about the statement is that his implication is that any coup would deal with the (privately owned) media and with the intelligentsia, who are private citizens.
    More likely, Sowell despairs of the media and intelligentsia exposing the corruption of leftist intrusive government, so there are no longer any checks and balances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
    In short, the government and educators are institutions that may well be regarded as implicitly corrupt or inefficient but the media and intelligentsia appear to be groups that simply disagree with Sowell's ideology.
    Not about throwing out the media and intelligentsia, but whether they would oppose growth of a dictatorship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
    Suppressing dissent = a bad thing, as I'm sure Jono would agree.
    It is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mephistopheles
    I am also highly suspicious about the notion that any military coup could save a modern democracy. Thus far coups have had a fairly poor track record when it comes to delivering a free, democratic society back to the people.
    True. Which is why Sowell and I don't advocate it at the present time. It might have been justifiable for the American revolution, yet it seems that King George was far less greedy for taxes than the IRS, and far less intrusive on everyday life than the plethora of bureaucratic agencies.

    Another possible justifiable military coup, despite its later abuses, was that of Pinochet. That Allende fool, a racist and antisemite and eugenicist, won just over a third of the vote then acted as though constitutional requirements were expendable if they stood in the way of his Marxist dream. Daniel Mandel explains in Moral Chaos:

    Pinochet is credited with destroying Chilean democracy. The charge is strictly untrue. That was done, in all important respects, by the man he ousted, Salvador Allende, who narrowly won the presidency with 36% of a three way vote and the confirmation of a fair-minded Congress, aware that he had run unsuccessfully on three previous occasions. In winning parliamentary acquiescence, Allende’s committed himself to a Statute of Guarantees of individual liberties, a mere tactical ploy (as he told the French communist writer Regis Debray) which he never intended to honour.

    Allende never sought by referendum or parliamentary means to pursue his goals; he knew he lacked support. This did not end the matter; it started it by a process of by-passing parliament and the courts.

    Another article “Patriot Enchained” by William F. Jasper, explains what a ruthless despot Allende became:

    Dr. Susan Huck, who visited Chile a year after the overthrow of Allende, wrote in the November 1974 American Opinion (a predecessor of The New American) that “by September of 1973, over 5,800 farms had been expropriated, giving the Marxists control of sixty percent of all irrigated land in the country and thirty percent of the unirrigated arable land. By replacing farmers with Marxist ignoramuses, only nineteen percent of the arable land under government control was even planted.”

    Time after time, rural property owners, like their urban counterparts, attempted to fight these illegal actions in the courts. And, time after time, Chile’s judicial officers, recognizing the illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral nature of the expropriations, ruled in favor of those whose property had been taken. That did not matter to Allende and his worldwide supporters, who prattled incessantly about their pretended reverence for the “rule of law.” Angelo Codevilla, professor of international relations at Boston University, told The New American that “Pinochet’s critics, and the American media in general, have studiously ignored the hard fact that the Allende regime illegally ignored, violated, and refused to enforce more than 7,000 court rulings. His was a totally lawless government.”

    ...

    Allende’s transparent lust for power was well recognized in Chile by the time of the 1973 coup. On August 23, 1973 the Chamber of Deputies, the equivalent of our House of Representatives, adopted a resolution charging: “It is a fact that the present Government of the Republic [the Allende administration], from its inception, has been bent on conquering total power, with the evident purpose of submitting all individuals to the strictest economic and political control by the State, thus achieving the establishment of a totalitarian system, absolutely contrary to the representative democratic system prescribed by the Constitution.”

    Earlier that month, on August 8th, the General Council of Chile’s Bar Association issued a declaration charging that Allende’s egregious violations of the Constitution threatened “collapse of the rule of law,” and asserting that the “obvious fracturing of our legal structure can no longer be tolerated.” Still earlier, on May 26, 1973, Chile’s Supreme Court issued a unanimous resolution denouncing the Allende regime’s “disruption of the legality of the nation” by its failure to uphold judicial decisions.

    The total ruthlessness of the Allende drive for power was not fully realized until after he was overthrown. Then numerous documents were discovered revealing the bloodbath he and his foreign controllers had planned for Chile.

    Unfortunately, Pinochet certainly committed vile atrocities, but compare:

    About 200 people died in the shooting on September 13 and a little more than 1000 in the first three months of virtual civil war.

    But not the civil war the Communists were perfectly prepared to accept as their price for power: 500,000 to one million. Indeed, in all 17 years of military rule, the total of dead and missing - according to the only serious study - was 2279. The Chilean Revolution thus was, by far, the least bloody of any significant Latin American revolution of the 20thcentury, though you would never guess that from reading or watching news reports.

    The Chilean revolution was different from other Latin American revolutions in another respect: it left the country far better off than the one it found.

    Pinochet eventually allowed free elections, something that the Left's darling Castro still hasn't after half a century.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ursogr8's suspension from the Coffee Lounge
    By Spiny Norman in forum Help and Feedback
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 11-01-2008, 11:03 PM
  2. meta-debate from clocks thread
    By Mischa in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 22-01-2007, 07:54 PM
  3. ACCF Gems
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 06:16 PM
  4. Rules of thread splitting- basic rights
    By firegoat7 in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 23-02-2005, 08:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •