The USA will be "forced" to buy steel if it doesn't make it's own.

The USA will be "forced" to buy steel if it doesn't make it's own.

Rick
Rick

January 14th, 2004, 3:01 am #1

In a previous thread, Jerry Searcy used a narrow definition of the word "force" to say that the USA would NOT be "forced" to buy steel if it didn't make any itself. This narrow definition assumes that force implies SOMEONE exerting force. Jerry waves off the very real "force" that would be involved due to circumstance and neccessity as providers of "force" that the USA would face in having to import steel from abroad if it didn't make its own. The reader can thus see, right here in this forum, one of the many weaknesses and absurdities of the conspiracy cult of libertarians and their wacko nutcase "head for the hills" leader Harry Browne. By ignoring the force of circumstance, Jerry tries to convince us that "force", by definition, is something that only people exert. Of course, he's so wrong as to be ridiculously and absurdly wrong as anyone who has been forced by CIRCUMSTANCE do have to do anything in life at any time would easily be able to attest to. Cryonicists ought to consider rejecting libertarianism by considering the wider implications of that wacky way of thinking and tighten their grip on reality a little bit.


Last edited by recreation on January 14th, 2004, 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

January 15th, 2004, 3:48 am #2

I think Jerry is part of a conspiracy that would effectively force the USA to become dependent on foreign steel with all that that implies. I'm in favor of trade barriers to protect US steel manufacturers and USA ability to produce steel. I'm also in favor of teaching our young people how to make steel and how to run steel production facilities. Jerry doesn't care about that. I guess Jerry doesn't have any kids. If he does, he doesn't mind if they flip hamburgers or produce steel.
Quote
Share

j.t. searcy
j.t. searcy

January 18th, 2004, 5:27 am #3

In a previous thread, Jerry Searcy used a narrow definition of the word "force" to say that the USA would NOT be "forced" to buy steel if it didn't make any itself. This narrow definition assumes that force implies SOMEONE exerting force. Jerry waves off the very real "force" that would be involved due to circumstance and neccessity as providers of "force" that the USA would face in having to import steel from abroad if it didn't make its own. The reader can thus see, right here in this forum, one of the many weaknesses and absurdities of the conspiracy cult of libertarians and their wacko nutcase "head for the hills" leader Harry Browne. By ignoring the force of circumstance, Jerry tries to convince us that "force", by definition, is something that only people exert. Of course, he's so wrong as to be ridiculously and absurdly wrong as anyone who has been forced by CIRCUMSTANCE do have to do anything in life at any time would easily be able to attest to. Cryonicists ought to consider rejecting libertarianism by considering the wider implications of that wacky way of thinking and tighten their grip on reality a little bit.

"...the many weaknesses and absurdities of the conspiracy cult of libertarians and their wacko nutcase...leader Harry Browne". Rick, my sides are hurting. Please quit! You really should be on Jay Leno! He would never allow that because after meeting you he would fear for his job!

As I said earlier, I know nothing about your ghru Lyndon LaRouche. Everyone I have met and I mean EVERYONE (except you) who seems to know anything at all about him, feels about him as you feel about Harry Brown!

"Cryonicist ought to consider rejecting libertarianism by considering the wider implications of that wacky way of thinking and tighten their grip on reality...".

A year or so ago I solicited the opinion of the L.N.C. regarding cryonics. Their reply: "Your body belongs to you. The state has no right to autopsy without your expressed permission, even if there is suspicion of foul play. However, it is your duty to let your wishes be known."

That is of course a current fantasy. The reality Rick
wants us to get a "tight grip on" was demonstrated several years ago by Alcor's experience with California's non-libertarian government. It was recently re-demonstrated by the Michigan non-libertarian government against C.I. and Florida's non-libertarian government against SA!

Rick...get a grip!
J.T.
Quote
Share

j.t. searcy
j.t. searcy

January 18th, 2004, 5:51 am #4

I think Jerry is part of a conspiracy that would effectively force the USA to become dependent on foreign steel with all that that implies. I'm in favor of trade barriers to protect US steel manufacturers and USA ability to produce steel. I'm also in favor of teaching our young people how to make steel and how to run steel production facilities. Jerry doesn't care about that. I guess Jerry doesn't have any kids. If he does, he doesn't mind if they flip hamburgers or produce steel.
You're right Rick, I am part of a vast libertarian conspiracy to force the USA into poverty and misery. Why not create trade barriers to all imported goods and services. We could make sure that everything an american consumes was produced within our borders.

That is why I earlier recommended you (and others) read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics". After reading that I would like to see you or anyone else spout support for trade barriers while holding a straight face!

Teach "our" young people how to make steel and run such facilities? Who is "our"? I don't have any children (that I know of). I assume responsibility for NO ONE ELSE'S children. Period! Is there anything else besides steel production you wish "our" children were skilled in. How about buggy-whip manufacturing.

You obviously know NOTHING of the cause for businesses moving out of country. If you had your way, there would only be one or two places we could buy any given item from. Lack of competition (Basic Economics) is a sure fire way to get shoddy products that cost more.

If I had kids, when they grew up I wouldn't care what they did for a living as long as it was honest!

Your last sentence was: "If he does, he doesn't mind if they flip hamburgers or produce steel." The way you worded that gives me the impression you think negatively of hamburger flipping and steel production. That's strange considering that the large body of your post gave me the impression you thought highly of steel producers.

A political axiom: R & D's are bad, Libertarianism is good!
J.T.
Quote
Share

shipdit
shipdit

January 18th, 2004, 7:19 pm #5

In a previous thread, Jerry Searcy used a narrow definition of the word "force" to say that the USA would NOT be "forced" to buy steel if it didn't make any itself. This narrow definition assumes that force implies SOMEONE exerting force. Jerry waves off the very real "force" that would be involved due to circumstance and neccessity as providers of "force" that the USA would face in having to import steel from abroad if it didn't make its own. The reader can thus see, right here in this forum, one of the many weaknesses and absurdities of the conspiracy cult of libertarians and their wacko nutcase "head for the hills" leader Harry Browne. By ignoring the force of circumstance, Jerry tries to convince us that "force", by definition, is something that only people exert. Of course, he's so wrong as to be ridiculously and absurdly wrong as anyone who has been forced by CIRCUMSTANCE do have to do anything in life at any time would easily be able to attest to. Cryonicists ought to consider rejecting libertarianism by considering the wider implications of that wacky way of thinking and tighten their grip on reality a little bit.

......I am unable to affiliate myself with any political group because I tend to run economically conservative and socially liberal. You are aware of the conflicts that result from trying to reconcile those viewpoints, I am sure.

So hypothetically:

I run a manufacturing concern that uses steel in the production of the goods that are my products. The people that own shares in my company wish to earn profits in the competitive environment that we operate in. Do I buy my raw steel from a source where the workers producing it make $50,000 a year, or do I buy it from a source where the workers are making $2,400 per year?

What do you think my shareholders would want?

Are our profit margins on our product increased by buying the cheaper steel?

Can we realize that in the grand inevitability of globalization, that we are contributing to the betterment of some of the poorest people in the world by buying their cheaper steel?

Can we face the reality that the days of politicians using BORROWED money to purchase the votes of and subsidize the grossly inflated lifestyles of Americans are numbered?

What is "fair", in the grand scheme of things, is that COMPETITION will eventually result in EVERYBODY in the world getting their "fair share" of the available resources.

SD
Quote
Share

shipdit
shipdit

January 18th, 2004, 9:09 pm #6

In a previous thread, Jerry Searcy used a narrow definition of the word "force" to say that the USA would NOT be "forced" to buy steel if it didn't make any itself. This narrow definition assumes that force implies SOMEONE exerting force. Jerry waves off the very real "force" that would be involved due to circumstance and neccessity as providers of "force" that the USA would face in having to import steel from abroad if it didn't make its own. The reader can thus see, right here in this forum, one of the many weaknesses and absurdities of the conspiracy cult of libertarians and their wacko nutcase "head for the hills" leader Harry Browne. By ignoring the force of circumstance, Jerry tries to convince us that "force", by definition, is something that only people exert. Of course, he's so wrong as to be ridiculously and absurdly wrong as anyone who has been forced by CIRCUMSTANCE do have to do anything in life at any time would easily be able to attest to. Cryonicists ought to consider rejecting libertarianism by considering the wider implications of that wacky way of thinking and tighten their grip on reality a little bit.

You have taken offense on many of your assorted forums to contributor's characterizations of LaRouche as "a convicted felon", "politically irrelevant egomaniac", etc. You most frequently deride them for focusing on "ad hominem attacks" rather than attempting to appreciate his platform.

LaRouche is apparently irrelevant enough to where I am unable to easily locate election returns for 1996 and 2000, but I thought that the returns shown below might help us assess who the "wacko nutcase" might be, if that may be measured by voter acceptance:

1992 Presidential election results, national totals:

Democratic Party
Governor William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton
44,908,233 votes for 42.98%

Republican Party
George Herbert Walker Bush
39,102,282 votes for 37.37%

Independent
businessman H. Ross Perot
19,721,433 votes for 18.88%

Libertarian Party
André Marrou
291,627 votes for 0.27%

U.S. Taxpayers Party
Howard Phillips
143,434 votes for 0.15%

Populist Party
Jim "Bo" Gritz
107,014 votes for 0.09%

New Alliance Party
Lenora Fulani
73,714 votes for 0.06%

Natural Law Party
Dr. John S. Hagelin
39.179 votes for 0.03%

Peace & Freedom Party
Ron Daniels
27,961 votes for 0.02%

independent candidate
Lyndon LaRouche
28,333 votes for 0.02%

Socialist Workers Party
James MacWarren
23,096 votes for 0.02%

I could keep going down the list, but I think you get the idea. What do the above vote totals reflect about who is and is not politically relevant, if not who is and is not a "wacko nutcase"?

Incidentally, in 1996, Harry Browne got 485,798 votes for 0.5%. I was unable to find a vote total for LaRouche. Perhaps people keeping records feel the same way about him as this judge does:

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/1996/judge_urinates.html

Regards,

SD
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 19th, 2004, 11:50 am #7

You're right Rick, I am part of a vast libertarian conspiracy to force the USA into poverty and misery. Why not create trade barriers to all imported goods and services. We could make sure that everything an american consumes was produced within our borders.

That is why I earlier recommended you (and others) read Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics". After reading that I would like to see you or anyone else spout support for trade barriers while holding a straight face!

Teach "our" young people how to make steel and run such facilities? Who is "our"? I don't have any children (that I know of). I assume responsibility for NO ONE ELSE'S children. Period! Is there anything else besides steel production you wish "our" children were skilled in. How about buggy-whip manufacturing.

You obviously know NOTHING of the cause for businesses moving out of country. If you had your way, there would only be one or two places we could buy any given item from. Lack of competition (Basic Economics) is a sure fire way to get shoddy products that cost more.

If I had kids, when they grew up I wouldn't care what they did for a living as long as it was honest!

Your last sentence was: "If he does, he doesn't mind if they flip hamburgers or produce steel." The way you worded that gives me the impression you think negatively of hamburger flipping and steel production. That's strange considering that the large body of your post gave me the impression you thought highly of steel producers.

A political axiom: R & D's are bad, Libertarianism is good!
J.T.
To create growth and progress, the Classical Humanist has a high regard for nationalism and protectionism. Only with protectionism can an anti-entropic economy be created. Only with nationalism can a monetary currency be created and sustained that is tied to the physical economy.

International trade takes place among nations within the context of a community of nation-states, each retaining sovereignty and thus each retaining some protection for what is essential to their own economies.

Jerry is indeed part of a libertarian conspiracy designed to destroy the United States. The fact that he ridicules the notion doesn't make it untrue. He is what we call a "dupe". To expose Jerry for what he's become-- or to expose the entire libertarian conspiracy for what it is-- takes some amount of doing. It's not easy. We'll have to go at it bit by bit, and only then, maybe it will dawn on some cryonicists what's been happening to the US and the world. Talking points are important to choose for what they demonstrate about the situation.

The example of steel v.s. hamburgers for example is a case in point. The health and wealth of a nation-state-- any nation-state especially a big one like the USA-- depends on the actual physical components of the economy. The technology involved in creating steel is critical to maintain within the geographical surface land area of a nation-state like the US so that it is not dependent on foreign sources for such a strategic item. The welfare of the people in a particular geographical region is critically dependent upon that geographical region being regarded as a nation-state with some ability to protect it's productive capacities-- and to create the opportunities for its young people to develop the skills to maintain those productive capacities. This goes to the core of what it means to be human. The invention of the republican nation-state and the subsequent progress in civilization over the past 600 years are intimately linked.

Jerry Searcy's disregard for young people should be regarded by cryonicists who wish to be recovered from stasis, someday, with suspicion and a critical eye. If all of us don't regard young people in each new generation-- the young people in our own geographically contiguous area bound by political lines that offer the protective barriers that encourage anti-entropic developments within, then I don't know who's going to recover us. Does Jerry?
Quote
Like
Share